To be honest I can only see religion as a means to an end. In comparison to to good religon does, i can think of much much more evil.
Example: every war in history
but of course gives people hope, reason to do things they do.
some people argue that without religion we wouldnt have our morales and such.
allthough i feel i believe in good and bad: good people treat other people well, but the bad take advantage of the nice natured.
it is such a hard topic, and my conclusion comes from god being very active in the begining, making the universe(which i wont go into) comanding assinations, love, actually showing himself to people. but these days he has either died, got bored of us and started a new game... or decided that really the bet way for us to live is on our own. i think if god really loved and had the ability to do so he would help us, he would end the evil, help polutionn, his creatures have suffered and caused so much suffering yet he lets it all go.
I, as an atheist obviously believe we are here by fluke, we evolved from nothing, from the big bang, and there i feel is the key floor in MY arguement, wtf is the big bang? evolution we more or les have coverd, and this provides a much more convincing argument that god wipped us up in just under a week.
i dont so much disagree with religion as an idea. but more the results of it, you have extremists, you have wars, if every religion, followed its way in the good way, i believe life would be perfect, people, being kind and honest to each other, but religions fight, people kill in the name of religion, people lie, cheat and horrible things in the name of religion.
but that would sort out humans, then we wou djust have to worry about pollution, but if the whole world came to gethor, as one we could over come anything, but instead we squabble and kll, and hord out money.
we live in corrupt times and unfortunatley religion is one of the most corrupt in my eyes.
i have been coming into this forum alot and bitching loads but i felt it was time to explain my feeling toward stuff. there is more, but i am at work and dont have long enough t type everything out
It's unfortunate that in today's world you are only exposed to extreme religion. Through every car bombing there's those of us who practice faith in peace and love... And although religion certainly has created it's wars, it would be naive to deny that, I wouldn't say that all wars are over religion.
They are only over religion if you make it as such, if you look at it like that. Just like the "Civil War" we know in the United States started with nothing to do with civil rights, and, in fact, many southern states refuse to call it a civil war and call it, instead, "War Between the States."
And that's one war that wasn't rooted back to religion - so your example of every war in history falls through here.
My belief in God is based on a simple observation:
Nature is too perfect for it to have happened by accident. Although I identify with Christianity, I am not saying that it's the Christian God - I just know there is a God out there. This didn't happen by accident.
And that's my logic behind my belief. It's not for "peace of mind" (although it gives me it), it's not to make me feel good, it's not because I'm afraid of Hell or death, it's simply just as I stated.
To each his own.
Man has always had a need to believe in "god" or a higher power,because it gives meaning to their existence,their reason for being,so man created religion. i agree with soulfire ,most religious ppl are good ppl,and it is a shame through mass media that the only religion we see are the extreme varities.
Science won the argument over religion many years ago so im suprised there are still so many disputes between competeing religions. hopefully one day in the future man will be able to exist without god or religion,maybe then we can all get along.
| Quote: |
| Science won the argument over religion many years ago so im suprised there are still so many disputes between competeing religions. hopefully one day in the future man will be able to exist without god or religion,maybe then we can all get along. |
Science hasn't won anything.
In fact, science and religion go hand in hand. Without one, the other fails. Here's the idea: Science is continually trying to disprove religion, and religion is continually trying to prove itself through science.
Without religion, science has lost much of it's purpose, and without science, there is nothing to back up religion.
That's very simply put.Religion is different than relationship. There are so many religions in this world, that one would chance to think that it is ok to believe in something, as long as you believe. This thinking isn't quite right. Very few "religions" would accept this kind of viewpoint.
I appreciate the writer that expressed that creation is too perfect, there must be a creator.
It is true. But, who is the creator? Can he not be identified? Hasn't there been communication between the creator and the created?
I think that yes, there has been. And relationship is what is requested, not the making of what we call religion. Religion has spoiled so much here. Man -made religion, even if based on Christianity or other high-profile religion, can be quite dangerous.
Man gets involved, somehow distorts the message, and we end up killing each other.
I will write more later, and will express what I believe, and in Whom I put my faith.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Quote: | | Science won the argument over religion many years ago so im suprised there are still so many disputes between competeing religions. hopefully one day in the future man will be able to exist without god or religion,maybe then we can all get along. |
Science hasn't won anything.
In fact, science and religion go hand in hand. Without one, the other fails. Here's the idea: Science is continually trying to disprove religion, and religion is continually trying to prove itself through science.
Without religion, science has lost much of it's purpose, and without science, there is nothing to back up religion.
That's very simply put. |
Science won the day darwin gave to the world "the origin of species" life is an accident,it can happen anywhere anytime,all religions are based on man being created by god in his own image,but man is himself a chance life form, who was allowed to evolve through chance,and natural selection.
Religion may try to prove itself through science but according to the bible the earth is only 6000 years old,because adam was created on the 6th day , in earths first week,so where were the dinosaurs that science tells us walked the earth 65 millionm years ago,that doesnt add up, science 1 - 0 religion."Religion" is neither "good" nor "evil", it is simply the name of a category of ways of looking at the universe, and guidelines to live your life by.
Judging "religion" by any specific religion is wrong - you can't say religion is evil because christianity is evil, or religion is good because shinto is good, or whatever - that's a logical fallacy known as hasty generalization. But even if you were to gather up the sum total of every religion on earth and show that they are all evil, that doesn't make religion itself evil. So, of course, trying to show that religion is good by looking at the Augustine of Hippos, or trying to show that it's bad by looking at the Pat Robertsons or Osama ibn Ladens, is a waste of time.
If you want to prove religion is wrong, then you have to analyze the definition of religion, not just cherry pick examples.
| Soulfire wrote: |
In fact, science and religion go hand in hand. Without one, the other fails. Here's the idea: Science is continually trying to disprove religion, and religion is continually trying to prove itself through science.
Without religion, science has lost much of it's purpose, and without science, there is nothing to back up religion.
That's very simply put. |
And very simply wrong.
Science has absolutely no interest in religion. None. It does not exist for the purpose of proving or disproving any ideology. The sole purpose for the existence of science is to try to find out how the universe works, nothing more, nothing less. It needs no purpose from religion - that is purpose enough. If it were true that science needed religion for purpose, why is the scientific community overwhelmingly atheist (and to a much lesser extent, agnostic - and yes, i do have statistics)?
The only time science and religion come into conflict is when one or the other intrudes on the other's territory. Religion has no place in science, and science has no place in religion. True, whenever a true believer in one or the other can use the other to back up their beliefs, they do so - such as when a christian uses science to back up their beliefs, or a physicist uses their religion to back up their reason for believing one theory over another. But in both cases, whenever there is a conflict, the other belief goes - the christian will simply ignore science that does not agree with their particular religious outlook, and the physicist will simply ignore the parts of their religion that do not agree with the science at hand.
Religion and science are not different sides of the same coin. They aren't even in the same category of thought. Relating religion to science is about as useful as relating giraffes to toaster ovens. Science is science and religion is religion. Hrm, that's interesting, I was under the opinion that opinions couldn't be wrong. My bad.
Although your thoughts do make sense. If religion and science don't belong together, why are we debating it? Why are people fighting overer it? Why is it an issue to teach creationism in schools? I mean, it's just different thought? Right?
If religion truely is just "different thought" then why is it so troubling to so many people? Religion, like science, seeks to explain how the universe works. Albeit in different ways, but it's the same basic principle.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Although your thoughts do make sense. If religion and science don't belong together, why are we debating it? Why are people fighting overer it? |
People invest a lot in what they believe, and many are so insecure about their beliefs that they react disproportionately whenever those beliefs are even challenged.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Why is it an issue to teach creationism in schools? I mean, it's just different thought? Right? |
The question is, what subject should it be taught in?
Science? Obviously not, because the theory does not satisfy the requirements of a scientific theory. Science should and does teach competing scientific theories. Most branches of science are so old and so well established that at the level of, say, a high school student, there is no real competition - in most cases; a single theory has been virtually the only theory in existence for decades or even centuries. Those theories that are actively challenged are usually beyond the syllabus of a high school course.
To compensate, most science syllabuses include teaching theories that, although they are now known to be false, were stiff challengers to what have now become the accepted theories. For example, most every course that teaches atomic structure begins by teaching Thompson's "Plum pudding" model, before going on to show how Rutherford's alpha particle scattering experiment showed it incorrect. Some go even further back to discuss non-atomic theories (infinitely separable matter), and show how atomic theories came into vogue. Courses in anatomy often discuss the four "humours" before going on, and courses in immunology or medicine - or even psychology - discuss the theory of "demons" or "fluid imbalances" causing medical and psychological problems before going on to discuss what we now know. And courses that teach ballistics and the motion of particles will discuss pre-Newtonian mechanics, Galileo's alleged experiment, and so on, before going into Newtonian mechanics (and in some cases, Einsteinian mechanics).
It is unfortunate that most modern areas of science where there is current debate are beyond the realm of high-school-level science classes, and it is unfortunate that the best we can do to compensate for that is to teach "dead" theories as the only alternative to modern theories, but what else can we do? Although we now know those old theories to be incorrect, they are still valid scientific theories, and so, worthy of discussion in a science class - for several reasons. First, it shows that scientific theories are not always "right", and that a widely accepted theory can be discarded as soon as a better one comes along. Second, it shows what a wide range of scientic theories look like, and why they come into being - hypothesis-observation-conclusion, and so on. Third, it shows how and why scientific theories get tested, and perhaps, eventually discarded.
Where does creation theory fit into that plan? It's not a valid scientific theory, so passing it off as one is counter-productive. It's not, and never has been, seriously considered by anything that looks like scientific circles - all the way back to the ancient Greeks. By its nature it cannot be tested or proven wrong (no theory that includes a hidden, omnipotent being can). In the final judgement, it's not science, it never was, it masquerades as science so well that it can confuse students not well-enough versed in the methods for detecting pseudoscience, and many students who believe the theory of creation are not willing to tolerate criticism of it even though that criticism would be inevitable in a scientific discussion. In short teaching it would confuse students into thinking that it is science, and lead to religious arguments in a science classroom by students that are not prepared to hear it torn apart as pseudoscience, with no real benefit towards a better understanding of science.
Thus, it should not be taught in a science class.
So what class should it be taught in? | Quote: |
| Where does creation theory fit into that plan? It's not a valid scientific theory, so passing it off as one is counter-productive. |
We'll agree to disagree, it is my opinion that creationism is just as much a theory as evolution.
Whichever class it's taught in isn't the issue - I don't really care. Perhaps you're right, and it doesn't belong in the science room, however, you yourself mentioned something about well-roundedness, correct? (Forgive me if I am mistaken), so therefore, shouldn't students at least be exposed to the idea?
And I am not saying the Christian way. I am saying the "higher power" way. It doesn't, and shouldn't be only the Christian view.
By teaching this, it doesn't force you to believe it. Nobody would cram it down their throats saying "This is fact" (Much like too many people do with evolution - it's only a theory, mind you), but it keeps your mind OPEN. It makes you think. Facts leave no room for possibilites, and can it be said 100% that creationism is impossible? I would say not.
In school, perhaps not in science, but in school. | Soulfire wrote: |
| Quote: | | Where does creation theory fit into that plan? It's not a valid scientific theory, so passing it off as one is counter-productive. |
We'll agree to disagree, it is my opinion that creationism is just as much a theory as evolution. |
That depends on what you mean by "theory". If you mean scientific theory, then no. A scientific theory has requirements in order to be valid - you can't just call any old random supposition a scientific theory. Creation theory does not satisfy the requirements of a scientific theory, and thus is not. That's not a judgement on how likely it is to be correct, or whether it makes sense, or how much evidence there is for it. Simply put, it fails the the checklist, so it's not a scientific theory.
If you mean "theory" in the layperson sense, then sure, whether you prefer one or the other is a matter of personal opinion. For example, in this case, if you put more faith in God than in scientists (which is a logical thing to do if you believe in God), then it only makes sense to reject evolutionary and big bang theories in favour of creation theory. If you put more faith in science than in religion, then you're going to side with the more secular theories.
Just because a theory is scientific doesn't necessarily mean that it's right, or even that it's more likely to be right. A theory is scientific if and only if it satisfies the requirements for being a scientific theory - nothing more, nothing less. There have been dozens and dozens of scientific theories that are wacky and/or completely dead wrong, but as long as they fit the bill, they can be called scientific theories. There have been dozens and dozens of theories that have been around for millenia, make perfect sense and work, but if they don't fit the bill, they're not scientific theories.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Whichever class it's taught in isn't the issue - I don't really care. Perhaps you're right, and it doesn't belong in the science room, however, you yourself mentioned something about well-roundedness, correct? (Forgive me if I am mistaken), so therefore, shouldn't students at least be exposed to the idea? |
No, not really. Should Ojibwe be taught in a science classroom? Should the fundamental theorem of calculus be taught in a class on Shakespeare? Science should be taught in a science class, nothing more, nothing less.
Certainly there should be a place where ideas are discussed openly, and academically, without regard to whether or not they fit within the narrow parameters of a given subject. But, practically speaking, students have so much to learn in high school that time really can't be spared for that kind of meandering discourse, as enlightening as it may be. And of course, at that level, they don't really have the academic foundation - the intellectual tools - that they need to really make a discussion like that worthwhile.
Later on, after high school, and in the higher levels of college and university, you do get courses like that - and of course, boatloads of that kind of anarchic academic discourse by just talking with your peers. That's because by that point, you have been given the academic foundation you need to fully appreciate the topics. i mean, you can't really have a meaningful conversation about something as seemingly simple as "spare the rod, spoil the child" without something to base the discussion on, like statistical regression to the mean or Pavlovian conditioning, etc. etc. But once you are armed with that kind of knowledge, you can sit a math major and psych major in a room and get an awesome discussion going - and i've seen it done.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| And I am not saying the Christian way. I am saying the "higher power" way. It doesn't, and shouldn't be only the Christian view. |
Well, "creation theory" is actually the name of a whole body of theories covering different aspects of the creation of the universe, earth, life and humanity, among other things. Lumped under the umbrella of "creation theory" are several sub-theories and variants that range from religious to quasi-secular - an example of the latter is "Intelligent Design".
The university i went to had an attached seminary - Divinity College - and i actually helped one of the students there years ago with a conceptual experiment that could be run as a computer simulation to determine the relative rate of convergence of an evolutionary emergence versus an intelligent design. In the concept i outlined to him, there was no religious implications at all - it was all mathematical.
But it wasn't science. It was the functional equivalent of something like the movie Blade, which came up with the idea of vampirism as a virus, and explained that the reason that vampires hate garlic is because the virus makes them highly allergic. Cool? Sure. But all it is in the end is just painting a facade that looks vaguely scientific onto something that simply isn't. The underlying concept that he was examining was interesting sure, and certainly the methodology i outlined is fairly solid scientifically... but it wasn't science. It was about as scientific as the average episode of Star Trek (which is to say, not very).
| Soulfire wrote: |
| By teaching this, it doesn't force you to believe it. Nobody would cram it down their throats saying "This is fact" (Much like too many people do with evolution - it's only a theory, mind you)... |
Well, yes and no. First of all, it is incorrect to say evolution is only a theory, for two reasons. First, "evolution" is both the name of a scientific theory and a process. The process of evolution is a fact, and it can be observed every day in many different ways. Every time you get over a sickness you have evolved, usually by your cells evolving to produce antibodies to the virus.
The theory of evolution is a theory, yes, not a fact, but it a scientific theory. That does not make it "better" or "worse" than a regular layperson theory. Just different. A scientific theory is a very special construct, and should not be confused with the layperson concept of "theory", or what you might call a "hunch", "hypothesis" or "belief".
It's very hard to explain what a "theory" is in science to someone who does not work with science - and there are even scientists who don't get it. But i've found that it's best to start by throwing out the idea that a scientific theory is in anyway related to what most people think of as a theory - a scientific theory is not "i have a theory that...". Just forget that completely - a scientific theory has nothing to do with that. Same word, totally different idea. That's why it's wrong to say that any scientific theory is "just a theory" - you're confusing terms from science and regular usage, to the point that the comparison is meaningless.
Think of it like this. You're at Joe's house, and he has a pet kitten named Fluffy that likes to sleep on your foot when you're sitting down. You feel something on your foot under the table, so you ask what it is. Joe looks and says, "Oh, it's just Fluffy." So you shrug it off and don't worry about the sensation on your foot. Then you go to Al's house, and he has a pet snake - a 2 m long taipan snake, one of the most poisonous snakes in the world - named Fluffy. You feel something on your foot under the table, so you ask what it is. Al looks and says, "Oh, it's just Fluffy."
Now, clearly, "Fluffy" means something entirely different to Joe and Al. And while it's fine and good to shrug Fluffy off at Joe's with "it's just Fluffy", that really doesn't make much sense at Al's. Similarly, saying "it's just a theory" makes sense on the street, but not in science.
Or, as most scientists like to joke when responding to challenges like "evolution is just a theory"... they reply, "Yes. So is gravity. But are you going to jump off of a building any time soon?"
| Soulfire wrote: |
... but it keeps your mind OPEN. It makes you think. Facts leave no room for possibilites, and can it be said 100% that creationism is impossible? I would say not.
In school, perhaps not in science, but in school. |
Hm, i don't know what kind of school you're talking about. Certainly not high school. The purpose of high school - and even the early years of college or university - is not to "open your mind", but to give you the intellectual tools you need to function in the world, and that you will build upon in more advanced thinking. True, it also tries to show you some of the possibilities that you can pursue with the tools it gives you. But in the end, the goal of high school is to show you were you can go, and prepare you to go there. It's not actually about taking you anywhere.
It's all fine and good to say that high school students should be taught everything, but that's just not practical. Because of that, you have to pick and choose what you teach them. It would be so awesome if high school students could be taught to solve mechanics problems using the Lagrangian rather than by Newton's laws - it's soooo much easier that way, and really the Lagrangian isn't that hard to understand. But time is limited, and students benefit more by understanding Newton's laws than they do by just glossing over them and learning how to use Lagrangians, even though it makes problems so much harder to do.
In my experience going through college once (math) and university twice (mechanical engineering and now engineering physics), i found that the first year was ALL about laying the theoretical and practical foundations. No time for mind expansion there - first year is all about learning the tools. Second year is more tools, and the start of learning the concepts that form the core of the course - still no time for mind expansion. Third year is the meat of the core concepts of the course. And finally FOURTH year is where those concepts are applied and their implications explored. It is at THIS stage that the real mind-opening stuff happens. Fourth year university or college. Not high school.
Frankly, the average high school student is not ready to be exposed to ideas that require deeper analysis. They don't have the intellectual tools they need. Most wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit them in the scrotum. They don't have the math background to detect when the math of an argument is wrong. They don't have the philosophical background to apply philosophical concepts to an argument, or judge the ones that are there. They don't have the biological, or psychological or ANYTHING background to approach a new idea from any of those angles.
You can't just throw concepts at high school students and expect their minds to be opened. At best, they're going to record the raw facts of what you throw at them, and then probably parrot your opinion (or if not yours, someone else's). They don't have the tools they need to form opinions of their own at any deep intellectual level. So throwing something in the curriculum to "open their mind" is counterproductive.
If you can find a reason why knowing a creation theory will provide them with some kind of intellectual tool that they need, then sure, add it. But what do you gain by knowing a creation theory... other than knowing a creation theory? The knowledge that there are other possibilities? That's already taught - they just don't bother to tell you what the other possibilities are because they don't really matter.
By contrast, it is necessary to know the theory of evolution if you are going to be a scientist, and also important if you're going into medicine and several other fields. Thus, it is taught.another promising thread killed by creationism vs. evolution
Yantaal, I think you might be interested in a book called A Heretic's Guide to Eternity. I picked it up the other day, haven't gotten very far yet, but it's talking about religion (specifically christianity) and how alot of stuff has been jacked up by religion, and how "christanity" is moving beyond religion. I've enjoyed it alot so far, and I think from your posts I've read (espically the paragraph that starts with I don't so much disagree with religion as an idea) you might as well. I'd say its at least worth heading to a Barnes and Noble, snagging one off the shelf and sitting in one of the big comfy chairs for a while and checking it out.
| Yantaal wrote: |
| i think if god really loved and had the ability to do so he would help us, he would end the evil, help polutionn, his creatures have suffered and caused so much suffering yet he lets it all go. |
I'm wondering what that would look like in your opinion. Or to put it another way, how would God (if he exists) do those things? I know everything is so confusing. Whether there is god or not is something that everyone is not sure of. The buddhist philosophy is pretty different. It is believed that there is no god and we are in a circle of life and death. All things and phenomena are impermanent and all desires and feelings bring misery and pain. Knowing and realizing these truths will bring about nirvana and enlightenment in our lives.
Last edited by sumangurung on Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:19 am; edited 1 time in total
religion is there to give people something to believe in...to support human will or even a belief in something...ahh...I forgot what my friend said, but it was something along those lines.
first off, i disagree with the whole "nature is too perfect to be random" arguemnet against science
well for one, doubt nature is perfect at all. We can't call something perfect if we have no other standard to judge it on.
Basically, im saying that we wouldnt be able to tell the difference between perfection and randomness without someother example.
| Quote: |
My belief in God is based on a simple observation:
Nature is too perfect for it to have happened by accident. Although I identify with Christianity, I am not saying that it's the Christian God - I just know there is a God out there. This didn't happen by accident. |
Totally disagree with this. The numbers are so huge it would be almost impossible for life not to happen.
I also agree with everything Indi has said. Schools are here to teach people practical skills they need to survive in our world. What they actually teach us means very little. What information isn't instantly available us from the internet? All we need to know is the basic skills to retrieve this information.Hmm hmm hmm...
You people and your questions. You don't have to hunt proof to believe in God. Look around - Nature, this Earth, the beautiful heavens above, and God's Word. That's all the proof anyone needs.
"My Grace is sufficient," told God unto Paul. - Colossians 4:17
Also,
This is where faith comes in. You simply take God's proof - His Creation and His Word - and believe in and worship Him.
The problem here is too many questions are being asked.
[/i]
Just to comment on Indi and Soulfire.
Indi is totally right, not that that should mean anything to your beliefs, but creation is not a scientific theory, and should not be taught in a science class, maybe some college class on something like that, but not in a science class. And yes, religion and science are not dependent on each other.
I never commented on that in particular, so I don't know what you're getting at.
| Tyler wrote: |
Hmm hmm hmm...
You people and your questions. You don't have to hunt proof to believe in God. Look around - Nature, this Earth, the beautiful heavens above, and God's Word. That's all the proof anyone needs.
"My Grace is sufficient," told God unto Paul. - Colossians 4:17
Also,
This is where faith comes in. You simply take God's proof - His Creation and His Word - and believe in and worship Him.
The problem here is too many questions are being asked.
[/i] |
well asking question is waaay better than blindly accepting what was passed down or told to you as a child | Tyler wrote: |
Hmm hmm hmm...
You people and your questions. You don't have to hunt proof to believe in God. Look around - Nature, this Earth, the beautiful heavens above, and God's Word. That's all the proof anyone needs.
"My Grace is sufficient," told God unto Paul. - Colossians 4:17
Also,
This is where faith comes in. You simply take God's proof - His Creation and His Word - and believe in and worship Him.
The problem here is too many questions are being asked.
[/i] |
If god didnt want us to question things, he wouldnt of made us the most intelligent creature ever to have existed. | Tyler wrote: |
Hmm hmm hmm...
You people and your questions. You don't have to hunt proof to believe in God. Look around - Nature, this Earth, the beautiful heavens above, and God's Word. That's all the proof anyone needs.
"My Grace is sufficient," told God unto Paul. - Colossians 4:17
Also,
This is where faith comes in. You simply take God's proof - His Creation and His Word - and believe in and worship Him.
The problem here is too many questions are being asked.
[/i] |
What kind of sick cretin creates a bird, gives it a love for the sky, then punish it when it flies?
If God exists, we can ask questions because God made us able to, and we are a curious race because God made us so. Now he's going to punish us eternally because we follow our nature, asking questions, and he gives us lame responses?
Why would God not want us to ask questions? On one side of the apologist face they say "God gave us free will because he didn't want mindless puppet slaves to worship him", and then on the other they say "God doesn't want us to ask questions, he wants mindless faith". Which is it?You have a real knack for misunderstanding me: I said too many questions were being asked, and that leads to confusion. I never said anything about being punished, so don't go pointing fingers at me.
Also,
If I had ever told my family when I was younger that I'd given on Judaism and our beliefs altogether, they would've caned me until I never thought of it again. Judaism commands faith and reverence, so I have no problem merely accepting what has been taught to me since birth.
The school I attended in my youth, St. Johann's Academy, religion was very prominent in our studies, so all of the questions your posing now were answered for me then.
I have no questions about my beliefs and I do not question God. What you do is none of my concern, and I will not worry about it.
In my opinion, I think it is a mistake to use God and religeon inerchangeably. Religeon is a man made institute based on someone else's interpretation of their own relationship with God. God is an infinite, divine being obtainable within each and every one of us. Evangalism gives Christianity a bad name, and Christianity isn't one single minded religeon, it is simply the beleif in Christ. There are many different religeons which express a belief in Christ, and anyone who believes in Christ can be called a Christian. I believe these are all terms designed by Man to harness something we can't even touch into definitions we can control. I have had personal experiences which have proved to me beyond any doubt that God exists. The beginning of my road started by asking myself( or possibly God, now that I think about it ) "How could God exist in a world like this, full of the madness I see everyday?" He showed me how.
Many would not even be able to relate to how He showed me. The only way to know God for yourself is to "ask, and you shall receive" - The Bible. So, here is my key in a nutshell for proving or disproving God for yourself. Write down all the reasons you think God doesn't exist. Contemplate on them while asking God the "why" of these reasons (this is called praying). Pick up the Bible and try to find the answer to these reasons. Document your findings, if desired. This is the challenge I propose if you are truly interested in knowing the truth of God's existence.
Handled earnestly, and with sincerety, I believe you will find your answers.
As far as Creationism vs. Evolution, I do not believe either side is interested in finding out the truth about the other, rather, the controversy is a means for each side to push their own agendas. God's way is to console people to the truth with a love and understanding we do not deserve. An infinite amount of grace and forgiveness for all of our wrongs.
As a father to his children. Not to condemn us to truth with mouth foaming raving lunacies of how everyone else is wrong. The fact is, not one of us is 100% right, therefore, we are all wrong. Hence, the reason for Christ, at least for me.
GOOD LORD PEOPLE! WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOMEBODY IN HERE TALKING SENSE NOW! I praise you, cardo71, it's apparent that you've really done your share of praying for answers and receiving them. May Adonai be Praised.
Indi,
I don't mean to sound offensive in any way. I am merely trying to discuss the greatness of God and of His Word.
cardo71, I myself am not a Christian, but a Jew. However, I have taken an interest in studying Christianity. (Of course, Jesus himself was a Jew, as was all of God's people before Christ's Death and Resurrection. I would love to have further conversations with you on the topic.
Cheers,
Tyler
Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with your faith. In order to have a more meaningful conversation, I would like to have answers to two questions.
One. What is the difference between a Christian and a Jew?
Two. Why have you taken an interest in Christianity?
I ask because my faith in God gives everything a reason, and it seems at this point that I need this information to find His reason and to know what He wants me to say next.
| cardo71 wrote: |
Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with your faith. In order to have a more meaningful conversation, I would like to have answers to two questions.
One. What is the difference between a Christian and a Jew?
Two. Why have you taken an interest in Christianity?
I ask because my faith in God gives everything a reason, and it seems at this point that I need this information to find His reason and to know what He wants me to say next. |
Ah. Firstly, the difference is that the Christians, of course, believe that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God. Us Jews only believe He is a prophet. My denomination actually refers to him as the halach Madar, or the "Highest Prophet." Secondly, I find Christianity to be interesting in many ways. The main one being the many gospels of the New Testaments. I've recently taken interest in studying the Book of Acts and reading about the Disciples spreading the news of Jesus's soon-to-be return.
I am very interested in Christian ideals as well as the entire of the New Testament.
First of all, I am unlike most Chirstians. I follow no sect or demonination. I try to establish my relationship through Christ to God myself. Second, I understand one thing, and have asked the same question to myself. A dangerous question to any traditional Christian, for without faith that Christ is the Messiah, how can a Gentile such as myself receive salvation? The question is, "If Christ is the Messiah, why are we still here?". Afterall, there was only one predicted Messiah in the Old Testament, and His coming was supposed to herald the end of all we know and establish the Kingdom of Heaven. And Christ did, just not in the physical way that is always assumed by ourselves.
In my belief, the Law was given in the Old Testament, the age of Grace was given in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, everyone was responsible for their own atonement for sin. It is very clear exactly how a sacrifice was to be given in accordance to the sin that was committed. Then, it goes on to document the miracles God performed to disipline the Israelites into the fact that faith in Him is stronger than the circumstances they see around them. After this, examples of all the kings that reigned are given to demonstrate what pleases and displeases the Lord. Next, comes the praise of Psalms, then the wisdom of Proverbs. Now for prophesy of things to come. Then, I think because of no more good juicy miracles, Israel and Judah leave the Lord. Prophet after prophet are sent, to no avail.
Then Christ comes, and turns the world upside down. He shows once again all of the miracles of God. He teaches undistuble truth, nobody ever debates the teachings Jesus gave, most just try to discredit the Man himself, or point out the fact that He was a man. He followed His Father God, and did not always know what His Father wanted. He tied the Old Testament together by giving Himself as a sacrifice, so personal sacrifice is no longer necessary. He hung around the most destitute people in the world: drunkards, prostitutes, tax collectors. He healed them and gave them hope. All of the Apostles, except for Judas, shared a similiar fate with Jesus. Being tortured, or stoned, or imprisoned, and dying a wrongful death. This is what I think it truly means to do the will of God, to have the endurance and perseverance to choose God, no matter how easy it would be to choose myself(what I want) or to choose the world( what everyone else wants for me).
So, Christ did end all that was known in Law and establish a way for us to forgiven through love, grace, and forgiveness, instead of sacrifice. He also established the Kingdom of Heaven by making Heaven accisble to more than just Jews, or those that were adopted by Jews in the faith. Now, anyone in the world whom God has judged can go to Heaven by establishing a relationship through Christ with our Father God.
Aha.
Your views are brilliant and most definitely come from the Lord Himself.
Thank you for discussing this with me!
Cheers,
Tyler
| Tyler wrote: |
| You have a real knack for misunderstanding me: I said too many questions were being asked, and that leads to confusion. I never said anything about being punished, so don't go pointing fingers at me. |
And exactly how many questions is a person supposed to ask before they've asked too many?
If the problem is that asking too many questions causes confusion, then where does the fault lie? The questions or the answers?
And whether or not you said anything about being punished, the fact remains that according to your theology, i am doomed for infinite torment simply because i have asked "too many" questions, and God isn't giving answers that make sense. Do i deserve that? Is that merciful? Just?
| Tyler wrote: |
Also,
If I had ever told my family when I was younger that I'd given on Judaism and our beliefs altogether, they would've caned me until I never thought of it again. Judaism commands faith and reverence, so I have no problem merely accepting what has been taught to me since birth. |
How delightfully open-minded and tolerant. Intimidation is a Jewish tradition, you say? Faith at the point of a sword (or cane, as the case may be), or else? Teaching the children to be good little followers of the faith by beating the shit out of anyone who isn't?
Nice.
| Tyler wrote: |
| The school I attended in my youth, St. Johann's Academy, religion was very prominent in our studies, so all of the questions your posing now were answered for me then. |
The questions i'm posing have all been answered for you, hm? Peculiar, because the questions i am asking are not really of my own invention. These are questions that have been asked for millenia. Even before the Tanakh was actually transcribed, these questions were already being asked. Philosophers, apologetics and theologists have wrestled with these questions for as long as we have recorded history of philosophers, apologetics and theologists. And they continue to wrestle with them today, because they're not satisfied that they have the answers yet.
So now, if these questions are generally considered unanswered by the people who spend their lives and their careers discussing them, how is it that they have been answered for you? There are two possibilities: the first is that somehow you were taught something that the entire rest of the world, inlcuding apologist thinkers and Jewish philosophers, does not know. The second is that you only think you have the answers, but do not.
*shrug* Which do you think? Even if i were inclined to think that the first possibility is likely, i then see you saying something like: "I have no problem merely accepting what has been taught to me since birth." Isn't it very likely then, that these questions have no satisfactory answers, and that neither your God nor your religion actually make any sense at all, but that you have been taught that they do since birth and are merely accepting it?
Hello Indi, I would like to discuss a few points which you have brought to Tyler's attention. God does not teach us not to ask questions. He teaches us how to ask questions wisely. "Ask and you shall recieve." I think this means prepare yourselves for the answers to the questions you ask, before you ask them. Afterall, the exploration of questions produces the consequence of answers.
As far as God's answers not making sense: I think its God's answers for someone else that will not make sense to you. You see, when people explore answers through prayer and supplication with God, the answers He sometimes give them are for them alone. The answers make such perfect sense that some people mistakenly think that this answer must be for everyone, then are misled trying to shove their answer into your life. Now, to you (as an example) this answer will not make sense. God's purpose for you is unique. Your answers must be explored on your own, not come from anyone else. He will not punish you for asking. The only punishment you will receive is the natural consequence of not accepting the truth of what you find, then pushing forward with a lie(logically, to deny truth is to accept a lie, in response to a question posed.)
Consider this question, "What happens if I mix amonia with bleach?". The answer, of course, is that a poisionous gas results. Now, some people hear this, accept the answer and never give it another thought. Others do not just blindly accept the truth of the answer given. They want to see for themselves. There are two approaches for this second group. Accept the answer as truth, then proceed to test, or accept the answer as a lie, then proceed to test. The first group prepares with a respirator, then proceeds to mix to verify a poisionous gas. The second group simply picks up the bottles and mix. The second group will either get sick or die. There is another group as well, the ones that are not interested in the answer at all because they do not like the question posed. These will simply talk in circles to lead people away from the answer.
The point is that there is a third possibility. Maybe the truth to the questions have been given, and the the people who spend their lives and their careers discussing them simply have not accepted the answers for truth.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tyler wrote: | | You have a real knack for misunderstanding me: I said too many questions were being asked, and that leads to confusion. I never said anything about being punished, so don't go pointing fingers at me. |
And exactly how many questions is a person supposed to ask before they've asked too many?
If the problem is that asking too many questions causes confusion, then where does the fault lie? The questions or the answers?
And whether or not you said anything about being punished, the fact remains that according to your theology, i am doomed for infinite torment simply because i have asked "too many" questions, and God isn't giving answers that make sense. Do i deserve that? Is that merciful? Just?
| Tyler wrote: | Also,
If I had ever told my family when I was younger that I'd given on Judaism and our beliefs altogether, they would've caned me until I never thought of it again. Judaism commands faith and reverence, so I have no problem merely accepting what has been taught to me since birth. |
How delightfully open-minded and tolerant. Intimidation is a Jewish tradition, you say? Faith at the point of a sword (or cane, as the case may be), or else? Teaching the children to be good little followers of the faith by beating the ****** out of anyone who isn't?
Nice.
| Tyler wrote: | | The school I attended in my youth, St. Johann's Academy, religion was very prominent in our studies, so all of the questions your posing now were answered for me then. |
The questions i'm posing have all been answered for you, hm? Peculiar, because the questions i am asking are not really of my own invention. These are questions that have been asked for millenia. Even before the Tanakh was actually transcribed, these questions were already being asked. Philosophers, apologetics and theologists have wrestled with these questions for as long as we have recorded history of philosophers, apologetics and theologists. And they continue to wrestle with them today, because they're not satisfied that they have the answers yet.
So now, if these questions are generally considered unanswered by the people who spend their lives and their careers discussing them, how is it that they have been answered for you? There are two possibilities: the first is that somehow you were taught something that the entire rest of the world, inlcuding apologist thinkers and Jewish philosophers, does not know. The second is that you only think you have the answers, but do not.
*shrug* Which do you think? Even if i were inclined to think that the first possibility is likely, i then see you saying something like: "I have no problem merely accepting what has been taught to me since birth." Isn't it very likely then, that these questions have no satisfactory answers, and that neither your God nor your religion actually make any sense at all, but that you have been taught that they do since birth and are merely accepting it? |
I got many answers by simply praying to God.
Now the caning part was not Jewish tradition, that's just my family for you. We're very serious about our beliefs. Many Danish families (mine included) hold their religion very dear. Many of my older relatives were killed in the Holocaust. My great aunt Marzinia was shot by Nazis for buying German made bread! Now today, there are extremist Muslims and some Christians. Do you have any idea what it's like to be hated for your faith? My aunt's home in Israel was burned by Muslims merely because it was there. Yet, our beliefs are with us, so why should I have to supply you with answers until you're satisfied when all you have to do is pray for them?
I'm very used to being hated and belittled by people of other faiths. I've been shot at, threatened, and intimidated by people merely because I don't believe what they do. Do you have any idea what it's like?
Nadyut Achtayl Vesidri! | Tyler wrote: |
| I'm very used to being hated and belittled by people of other faiths. I've been shot at, threatened, and intimidated by people merely because I don't believe what they do. Do you have any idea what it's like? |
Aside: | Tyler wrote: |
| Now you, I could agree with the fact that you're a parasite... You need to really read the Bible and learn that being a pro-murder anti-humanic chayat'lyelted will get you nowhere in life! |
| Tyler wrote: |
| However, atheism is not my bag, and I really don't want to go there. |
| Tyler wrote: |
| You sound as if you're contradicting yourself, like the only thing you have to live for is to tell theists they're wrong. |
| Tyler wrote: |
| You stand and point fingers whilst yoy have nothing better to do than to compare yourself to a machine. |
(You may fool the moderators of this forum by insulting me in other languages, and my Hebrew may be really weak, but i do know enough to know what words like chay mean.)
| Tyler wrote: |
| I'm very used to being hated and belittled by people of other faiths. I've been shot at, threatened, and intimidated by people merely because I don't believe what they do. Do you have any idea what it's like? |
Yes.
Tyler
I do hope that you see the wisdom of what Indi wrote. It is good that you stand by your beliefs in spite of the hardships you face. It is called persecution. However, as seems one the more common cases, you have learned how to persecute from your persecutors.
I see that you are zealous about your beliefs, this is called conviction. It is a good thing, however, not to the point that we can no longer learn from someone else just because they say they don't believe in God and we do. Indi had some very convicing points on your arguments. You should have not only prayed, but researched points you were unfamiliar with before responding "Through prayer and contemplation" - Bible. Not only prayer, but contemplation as well. Research brings contemplation through education. Not a point to get angry from, just a point to learn from.
I have already told Indi that I tired of arguing, yet Indi still throws argument starters my way.
Not that I'm being hurtful, but I've looked over the Statute of the Danish Orthodox Judaism Church and it reads
XXIII
On the matter of witnessing.
a) To witness to another of a seperate belief of the book, approach in a non-hostile manner and ask of them to listen to a summary of Danish Orthodox Judaism beliefs.
b) To witness to those of no theological beliefs, present the Danish Orthodox Judaism beliefs before them. Ask them to pray to the Almighty Father for answers, but aid them by asking that they ask with confidence and seriosity.
c) To witness to those of Pagan beliefs, present to them the urgency that they need convert. The Pagan beliefs are blasphemous to the Lord our God and must be halted.
...
Maybe I'm being to harsh, but I'm merely helping. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'd love to, but I'm just sharing His love.
| cardo71 wrote: |
| Hello Indi, I would like to discuss a few points which you have brought to Tyler's attention. God does not teach us not to ask questions. He teaches us how to ask questions wisely. "Ask and you shall recieve." I think this means prepare yourselves for the answers to the questions you ask, before you ask them. Afterall, the exploration of questions produces the consequence of answers. |
If i know what answers i am going to get, i don't see the point in asking the question. How can i prepare for answers when i don't know what they will be?
Despite what some people think, i don't approach these questions with preconceptions - at least as much as humanly possible. When i question the claims of Christianity, i don't quote the Talmud, the Rig Veda or the Quran, because none of them apply as standards to judge Christianity. i also don't pick up the bible and read it with notions like "the theory of evolution is right, so anything that contradicts it here is wrong" or "the universe began with the big bang, so if this does not agree with that it's bunk". i set all of those things aside and i judge the bible for what the bible says, coloured only by my own personal experiences and observations.
For a simple and relatively non-contraversial example, i look at something like how Judas died - in one place (Matthew), he hanged himself; in another (Acts) he fell "headlong" (Greek: πρηνης) and his belly burst open. i have heard this contradiction "resolved" by saying that he hung himself, then fell and blew apart. Now my personal experience tells me that if one were to fall while one hangs oneself, one falls feet first, not head first... unless one is hanging oneself by their ankles.
How far am i to stretch my suspension of disbelief until it becomes ridiculous? The way i see it, you can't make rational sense of that contradiction on its own. Don't you agree? If two people came to you and one said Joe hung himself and the other said Joe fell on his face and blew apart - would you think it rational to believe they were both telling the truth? If you want to resolve the conflict without calling one or the other a liar, you must assume that both must be true... but what justification could you possibly have for making that assumption?
The only reason to assume that both versions of the story must be true is if you assume the bible is completely and absolutely true. So, essentially, you have circular reasoning. The only way to use the bible to show that the bible is true... is by assuming the bible is true to begin with.
That's not honest, and it's not particularly productive. i can assume any number of nonsensical things are true, then "prove" them true based on that assumption. In reality, it proves nothing.
So what am i left with but the conclusion that the bible is self-contradictory? Is this due to a failing in myself, as i'm often told, because i'm blind to the truth/unwilling to accept it/ignoring the bigger picture/asking the wrong questions/in denial? Once again, why assume the fault is with myself and not the bible... unless i'm starting with the assumption that the bible is true? Circular logic again.
| cardo71 wrote: |
| As far as God's answers not making sense: I think its God's answers for someone else that will not make sense to you. You see, when people explore answers through prayer and supplication with God, the answers He sometimes give them are for them alone. The answers make such perfect sense that some people mistakenly think that this answer must be for everyone, then are misled trying to shove their answer into your life. Now, to you (as an example) this answer will not make sense. God's purpose for you is unique. Your answers must be explored on your own, not come from anyone else. He will not punish you for asking. The only punishment you will receive is the natural consequence of not accepting the truth of what you find, then pushing forward with a lie(logically, to deny truth is to accept a lie, in response to a question posed.) |
There's a problem with this train of thought.
Basically:
- "Do you see that A is true?"
- "Yes."
- "Then you have found wisdom."
But:
- "Do you see that A is true?"
- "No."
- "Then there is something wrong with you." (ex: you are denying the truth (as you put it), or you are not asking the right questions, etc. etc.)
It's a double standard, once again based on the presupposition that the bible and its claims must be true.
My failing seems to be that i'm not willing to blindly accept that before asking the questions. If i were to blindly accept that and not ask questions, there would be no problems - although my acceptance would be blind, it would still be acceptance of the truth. Also, if i were to blindly accept that then ask questions, there would be no problem - the presupposition leads me (via circular logic) right back around to self-confirmation, but since it's true it's ok. However, because i start with no assumption - without blindly assuming that what the bible says is either true or false - i cannot arrive at the conclusion that it's true.
While it's true what you write - that God will not punish me for asking questions - it turns out that he will punish me... infinitely... despite making an honest attempt to ask them. In fact, what it works out to be is that i will be punished eternally because i refuse to make that first blind assumption, because i insist on finding the answers by an honest search for truth.
| cardo71 wrote: |
| Consider this question, "What happens if I mix amonia with bleach?". The answer, of course, is that a poisionous gas results. Now, some people hear this, accept the answer and never give it another thought. Others do not just blindly accept the truth of the answer given. They want to see for themselves. There are two approaches for this second group. Accept the answer as truth, then proceed to test, or accept the answer as a lie, then proceed to test. The first group prepares with a respirator, then proceeds to mix to verify a poisionous gas. The second group simply picks up the bottles and mix. The second group will either get sick or die. There is another group as well, the ones that are not interested in the answer at all because they do not like the question posed. These will simply talk in circles to lead people away from the answer. |
Your formulation of the problem is biased and unfair. First you begin by saying that the two groups in question (ignoring the third because they're just unproductive) are from the subset of people that do not blindly accept the truth. You then define the first group consistent with that - they do not blindly accept the truth, but they test with caution.
But then you create the second group and define them as blindly accepting the opposite claim. So you end up comparing a group of rational people with people who have blindly and irrationally accepted some random fact. Even worse, the fact is contradictory to existing evidence, good or bad. Unsurprisingly, the first group comes out rosy.
However, i reject the method of both groups. Neither one is being responsible with regards to finding the truth. You don't accept or deny anything until you test it. However, you don't be stupid. If there is any possibility that there may be a threat - especially if there's existing evidence, whether you believe it or not - you take precautions. It doesn't matter if you want the result to be true or not, or whether you think the existing data is good or bad. Risk potential exists? Take caution. That's all there is to it. If you have data that suggests that the gas produced may be poisonous, even if that data is questionable at best, you don't stand there and breathe it until you're certain it's not.
The first group may be doing the right thing, but they're doing it for the wrong reasons.
| cardo71 wrote: |
| The point is that there is a third possibility. Maybe the truth to the questions have been given, and the the people who spend their lives and their careers discussing them simply have not accepted the answers for truth. |
What are the other two possibilities?The Bible lying? The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is not a lie and I will not here of this! Unless you can prove to me that every statement in the Tanakh is wrong, I will not even listen to your so called "evidence."
There are many underlining factors to as why the 39 books of the Tanakh aren't lying:
Many of the Tanakh's recorders lived during these times and witnessed these events first hand.
However, I will admit that some of the books where recorded later, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. When someone writes a biography about someone 200 years after they die does that mean it's wrong?
| Tyler wrote: |
| The Bible lying? The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is not a lie and I will not here of this! Unless you can prove to me that every statement in the Tanakh is wrong, I will not even listen to your so called "evidence." |
Why is it that you can hold that view, but Indi or anyone else can't do the same thing by making you prove everything true?Well, if Indi can't prove it false, then that's the same thing as me proving true, now isn't it?
| Tyler wrote: |
| Well, if Indi can't prove it false, then that's the same thing as me proving true, now isn't it? |
No.
I once arm-wrestled Arnold Schwarzenegger.
According to your claim, if you can't prove that false, then it's the same thing as proving it true.
So is it true? | Tyler wrote: |
| Well, if Indi can't prove it false, then that's the same thing as me proving true, now isn't it? |
what a dodge.
And as Indi has already shown, its not at all the same thing.I'M TIRED OF YOU PEOPLE! YOU TAKE PRIDE IN TELLING THEISTS THEY'RE WRONG WHEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF. PLUS, YOUR WORDS AREN'T MAKING ANYBODY GIVE UP THEIR BELIEFS ANYWAY, SO WHAT DO YOU GET OUT OF IT ANYWAYS!?
CHAYDTLYALAD ANHE'IM!
| Tyler wrote: |
I'M TIRED OF YOU PEOPLE! YOU TAKE PRIDE IN TELLING THEISTS THEY'RE WRONG WHEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF. PLUS, YOUR WORDS AREN'T MAKING ANYBODY GIVE UP THEIR BELIEFS ANYWAY, SO WHAT DO YOU GET OUT OF IT ANYWAYS!?
CHAYDTLYALAD ANHE'IM! |
wow, not only a dodge this time, but misinformed hurtful words.
My question was why do you afford one thing to yourself, but not Indi? Specifically why should Indi have to prove everything false for you not to believe, but she can't hold you to the same thing.
What suprises me is that Indi is/has been actually searching, and Indi, you know your stuff, but very few theist don't take the time to actually discuss stuff with her, instead we see people, much like yourself, decide to get incredibly defensive. It seems people can't handle the questions she poses, and instead of searching for themselves they dodge it and spit out accusations. If you and your faith can't handle questions and scrutitny from those with real questions and real scrutitny, I feel sorry for ya bro.
And nobody here is trying to get you to give up your beliefs. | Tyler wrote: |
I'M TIRED OF YOU PEOPLE! YOU TAKE PRIDE IN TELLING THEISTS THEY'RE WRONG WHEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF. PLUS, YOUR WORDS AREN'T MAKING ANYBODY GIVE UP THEIR BELIEFS ANYWAY, SO WHAT DO YOU GET OUT OF IT ANYWAYS!?
CHAYDTLYALAD ANHE'IM! |
Don't you think it rather cowardly to resort to insults the moderators can't understand?
At any rate, i can't imagine why you think i would want to make anybody "give up their beliefs". It is not in my creed to harass, threaten and intimidate anyone that believes in something other than what i believe. It is yours.
(i could have linked more, but i ran out of words and didn't want to get repetitive.)
What would i, or anyone - according to my belief system - gain by "giving up their beliefs" and thinking like me. Unlike your belief, no one suffers eternally if they disagree with what i believe. i don't get spiritual brownie points for getting more players for the team. i have no motivation at all to "convert" anyone. As far as i'm concerned, you can worship cheese. See if i care. It's about the same to me as worshipping "God" or any other construct, except that at least cheese is real and tastes good.
(Actually, i much prefer you on "the other side". ^_^; You're doing far more for "my" cause over there every time you open your mouth than i ever could.)
My only motivation to speak is when i see the truth abused. And you've pulled some whoppers, including many i didn't even bother to challenge. You have openly admitted that truth is a secondary concern for you - for example, you have advocated that one should shrug off honest and open-minded thought when reading the bible here, here you speak out against asking "too many" questions, and here you warp and misrepresent the rules of truth and logic to suit yourself.
i don't really care what you believe or what you worship - provided you don't try to control me - but i will not sit idly by while you lie, either blatantly or by omission. And as i said, i've caught you out a number of times, and will continue to do so. For example:
Except:Now something like that i normally wouldn't bother to call you out on, because it's not really a harmful lie. But you were asking for it. ^_^ (And i admit, the mean part of me really wanted to catch you out in a lie that was specifically about your own religion, since that's what you're using to browbeat everyone else with. ^_-)
So you just go on spreading your hate against atheists. i don't care. Insult me all you want. i don't care. Call me names in any languages you like (and a_dubDesign, too, if he doesn't mind - and if you run out of Hebrew insults i speak eight languages, i can give you plenty more... but if you're going to insult me, please at least make it funny, like: "im hatipshut hayta etz, ata hayita chorshat kakal!"). i don't really care. ^_^
And you seem to think that i have some kind of personal hate on for you. Hardly; i don't even know you from dirt. ^_^ In fact, i honestly couldn't pick you out of a line-up of crackpot religious extremists. Honestly, your brand of wacky radical fundamentalism isn't really that novel or interesting to me, and i don't relish in fighting battles of wits with unarmed opponents. You go on about your business of proselytizing, or whatever it is you do, and i won't bother you.
But speak the truth. Or you will hear from me.Indi wrote:
| Quote: |
| If i know what answers i am going to get, i don't see the point in asking the question. How can i prepare for answers when i don't know what they will be? |
First, by determining the reason you ask in the first place. Then, by contemplating the question within yourself, examine possible outcomes, and adapting the format of the question, if necessary. This will lead to preparation for the answer.
Indi wrote:
| Quote: |
| Despite what some people think, i don't approach these questions with preconceptions - at least as much as humanly possible. When i question the claims of Christianity, i don't quote the Talmud, the Rig Veda or the Quran, because none of them apply as standards to judge Christianity. i also don't pick up the bible and read it with notions like "the theory of evolution is right, so anything that contradicts it here is wrong" or "the universe began with the big bang, so if this does not agree with that it's bunk". i set all of those things aside and i judge the bible for what the bible says, coloured only by my own personal experiences and observations. |
Aren't your personal experiences and observations the very definition of your preconceptions? Doesn't how and by whom we have been taught play a large factor in shaping our preconceptions? Is it possible to quote, if even indirectly, concepts from the Talmud if someone who believed in the Talmud was an influential factor to you at, say, a young age?
Indi wrote:
| Quote: |
For a simple and relatively non-contraversial example, i look at something like how Judas died - in one place (Matthew), he hanged himself; in another (Acts) he fell "headlong" (Greek: πρηνης) and his belly burst open. i have heard this contradiction "resolved" by saying that he hung himself, then fell and blew apart. Now my personal experience tells me that if one were to fall while one hangs oneself, one falls feet first, not head first... unless one is hanging oneself by their ankles.
How far am i to stretch my suspension of disbelief until it becomes ridiculous? The way i see it, you can't make rational sense of that contradiction on its own. Don't you agree? If two people came to you and one said Joe hung himself and the other said Joe fell on his face and blew apart - would you think it rational to believe they were both telling the truth? If you want to resolve the conflict without calling one or the other a liar, you must assume that both must be true... but what justification could you possibly have for making that assumption? |
Matthew was written by Matthew, and The Acts was written by Luke. Both by memory. Two different men, two different perspectives, possibly even two different times. There are many possibilities. What if Judas hung himself from a tree branch overhanging a cliff? Now, Matthew is at the top of the cliff and sees Judas hang himself. At some time the tree branch breaks, or possibly the vine with which he hangs himself. Luke is standing at the bottom of the cliff, and sees the corpse fall headlong, and the bloated belly split. Is this satisfactory?
Indi wrote:
| Quote: |
The only reason to assume that both versions of the story must be true is if you assume the bible is completely and absolutely true. So, essentially, you have circular reasoning. The only way to use the bible to show that the bible is true... is by assuming the bible is true to begin with.
That's not honest, and it's not particularly productive. i can assume any number of nonsensical things are true, then "prove" them true based on that assumption. In reality, it proves nothing. |
I would rather place my belief of absolute truth in God, rather than the bible. The bible has a beginning and an end. God is miraculous in that this book has survived being both written and translated by men as a source of wisdom, a realiztion of truth, and a moral roadmap in an immoral world. God is infinite, and only a prayer away.
| Quote: |
| So what am i left with but the conclusion that the bible is self-contradictory? Is this due to a failing in myself, as i'm often told, because i'm blind to the truth/unwilling to accept it/ignoring the bigger picture/asking the wrong questions/in denial? Once again, why assume the fault is with myself and not the bible... unless i'm starting with the assumption that the bible is true? Circular logic again. |
You are left with that conclusion because you have read the bible, found the first, not even plausible, contradiction, and then rejected the bible. Even further, how have you given God a chance and explored the possibility of His existence by this example? To give God a chance, you must cry out to Him with some sort of passion, or love, or understanding, or whatever you feel strongly about. Reading the bible does not give one God.
I could continue with this tirade of picking apart each other's word's and trying to find the logical inconsistencies, however, that discussion will probably remain inconclusive, since there are logical inconsistencies within all of us. They are called emotions.
You seem to place a great deal of your own security in logical answers. You will come to a point where all of your own reason has logically deducted the next step in the direction of your life. Just as you are about to take that step, something will feel very wrong to you. This is God. How would you react if you followed your reason and things went wrong? How would you react if you went against your own logic, and the conviction proved true, taking you to higher places? This question is for you alone, since each of us has a unique answer. If we recognize God in this, faith can build. Then, Jesus comes in and a concept that brings me to my knees in tears is realized. He loves us for who we are, regardless of the mess we are making of this world. | cardo71 wrote: |
Indi wrote:
| Quote: | | If i know what answers i am going to get, i don't see the point in asking the question. How can i prepare for answers when i don't know what they will be? |
First, by determining the reason you ask in the first place. Then, by contemplating the question within yourself, examine possible outcomes, and adapting the format of the question, if necessary. This will lead to preparation for the answer. |
The reason i ask is because i don't know the answers, and i want to know them. Are you saying that before i look for answers to my questions, i should make up answers? Then adapt the question to suit the answers i have made up? That doesn't strike you as dishonest and self-defeating? If you presuppose what the answer will be then adapt the question to the answer you expect, don't you greatly increase the probability of getting exactly the answer you expect?
And before you say "no" and offer some convoluted explanation for why not, i have to point out that you will very likely get the answers you expect. This is a well-documented effect known as observer bias, and it's why they invented double-blind testing.
The simple fact is that any attempt to presuppose the answer to a question fouls the whole process of asking the question. Thus presupposing the bible is true before you read it will most likely result in you "discovering" that it is true. Even if it's not.
The correct way to do it is to presuppose nothing. Don't assume the bible is true, don't assume it's false. Just read it and collect facts. Then test those facts. If they check out, then the bible is probably true. If they do not, then the bible is probably false. Simple and honest.
But i have done that. And the facts just don't check out. You can try to warp and bend them into all kinds of strange contortions to make them work out - like you try to do below with the Judas example - but that's not warranted, and that's not honest. Why try to bend and warp the facts to fit one theory (that the bible is true), but not another (that it's not)? And if the facts fit the one theory without any bending or warping... what on earth would make you try to make up bizarre explanations in order to fit the other?
If you're really making an unbiased analysis, why are you trying such extreme measures to defend one position, but not the other? Isn't that rather biased and unfair?
| cardo71 wrote: |
| Aren't your personal experiences and observations the very definition of your preconceptions? |
No. There is no relation at all, actually. You preconceptions of a topic may have nothing to do with anything you have observed or experienced. For example, you may believe that Roma are mostly thieves, even though you've never met a Roma in your life. Or you may believe that Roma are mostly thieves despite the fact that you know dozens of Roma and not one of them is a thief.
| Quote: |
| Doesn't how and by whom we have been taught play a large factor in shaping our preconceptions? Is it possible to quote, if even indirectly, concepts from the Talmud if someone who believed in the Talmud was an influential factor to you at, say, a young age? |
i don't get your point. Are you saying that i have preconceptions? Duh, everyone does. But it's not hard to design a way to test something such that your preconceptions are not a factor in the test.
Taking the Roma example above, assume you believed that stereotype, but you wanted to find out if it were actually true. It's not hard. Simply get crime statistics and compare the amount of Roma criminals to non-Roma criminals. Or make a simple survey that asks Roma people if they've every stolen anything and take a census (for bonus points, get a disinterested third party to design the survey questions, and give the survey). The results you get will confirm or deny the theory of whether most Roma are criminals - regardless of your preconceptions.
It's really easy to test whether the bible is true as well - regardless of whether you personally believe it is or not. Just read a chapter or two and list checkable facts. Then check them. Simple as that. If the bible is mostly true, then those facts will check out as mostly true. If they don't check out mostly true... well then there's your answer. Your preconceptions simply aren't a factor.
Of course, if one were to test it the way you suggest, by presupposing the answer then adapting the test to that answer, you won't be testing without preconceptions - it will be a biased test. In other words, meaninglesss.
| cardo71 wrote: |
| Matthew was written by Matthew, and The Acts was written by Luke. Both by memory. Two different men, two different perspectives, possibly even two different times. |
i picked that particular controversy because it was so blatantly silly but theologically harmless. To try and resolve the two different stories is absurd - and sure enough, attempts to do so have been laughable. It's not even a question of numbers or dates - it's such a wildly different story that you can't really argue that one or both of them just goofed.
"Two different perspectives"? >.< One event. One very important event that is the climactic followup to the treachery of a man who personally betrayed both alleged writers and almost destroyed everything they believed in. The event they were waiting for, Judas getting it in the end when God's justice finally caught up to him... and one or both just... screwed up?
| cardo71 wrote: |
| There are many possibilities. What if Judas hung himself from a tree branch overhanging a cliff? Now, Matthew is at the top of the cliff and sees Judas hang himself. At some time the tree branch breaks, or possibly the vine with which he hangs himself. Luke is standing at the bottom of the cliff, and sees the corpse fall headlong, and the bloated belly split. Is this satisfactory? |
Uh, no? Both Matthew and Luke say it was in a field. One or both of them even says which field. Don't you know the two versions of the story?
Possibilities? Sure. It's possible he fell down, exploded, died, then God resurrected him, and he went out and hung himself end died again. Anything's possible But probabilities? Hell no. -_- Come on. Seriously. You should know your holy book, but if not reread both versions and see if there's really any room for both to be right without serious mental acrobatics. Not hardly. Not even close.
So why do those mental acrobatics unless you are determined not to admit the bible is wrong? And if that's your attitude, then you have no real interest in the truth, do you?
| cardo71 wrote: |
| I would rather place my belief of absolute truth in God, rather than the bible. The bible has a beginning and an end. God is miraculous in that this book has survived being both written and translated by men as a source of wisdom, a realiztion of truth, and a moral roadmap in an immoral world. God is infinite, and only a prayer away. |
Which means what? That the bible doesn't need to be true for God to be true? Sure, i agree.
... but then why fight so hard to make up excuses for the bible to be completely true?
| cardo71 wrote: |
| Quote: | | So what am i left with but the conclusion that the bible is self-contradictory? Is this due to a failing in myself, as i'm often told, because i'm blind to the truth/unwilling to accept it/ignoring the bigger picture/asking the wrong questions/in denial? Once again, why assume the fault is with myself and not the bible... unless i'm starting with the assumption that the bible is true? Circular logic again. |
You are left with that conclusion because you have read the bible, found the first, not even plausible, contradiction, and then rejected the bible. Even further, how have you given God a chance and explored the possibility of His existence by this example? To give God a chance, you must cry out to Him with some sort of passion, or love, or understanding, or whatever you feel strongly about. Reading the bible does not give one God. |
Excuse me? -_- You can't be serious.
i stated - quite clearly - that this was only one contradiction that i have found. One of many.
i further stated - quite clearly - that this was a simple and relatively non-contraversial example.
And the whole point of this conversation was that i have been searching, but not not finding. You told me that i was asking the questions wrong, and i asked how i was asking them wrong. i described the Judas contradiction as a means of showing how i made what i believe is an honest attempt to find the truth. And THIS is your response?
You were never really interested in a damn word i said, were you? You thought that you would take advantage of a person who is honestly seeking answers, and make an attempt to "convert" them right while they were at their most honest and open - and thus weakest - didn't you? But you found out that you were wrong about me; and that i wasn't credible enough to swallow your half-assed conversion attempt, and that i really had dug deeply into the religion and found real shaky ground that you can't easily shrug off - that you probably weren't even aware of until i mentioned it - and you realized that your conversion attempt was doomed to failure... and since you can't turn me, now you're going to insult me and try to paint me as totally hostile to the idea to the point that i'm not even trying to find an honest answer.
That's it, isn't it? You thought i was an easy mark, and when you found out i wasn't, you got pissed, then turned nasty. You were never really interested in helping me find the truth. You just wanted me to think your pet theory was the truth, and find that.
| cardo71 wrote: |
| You seem to place a great deal of your own security in logical answers. You will come to a point where all of your own reason has logically deducted the next step in the direction of your life. Just as you are about to take that step, something will feel very wrong to you. This is God. How would you react if you followed your reason and things went wrong? How would you react if you went against your own logic, and the conviction proved true, taking you to higher places? |
You know what. You don't understand me at all. i think you already figured that out partly, now that you realize that i'm not going be easily swayed by vagaries and blinded by logical fallacies, but you still think you have me at least partly pegged, but the fact is that you don't have a clue.
What do you think i am, a machine? A Vulcan from Star Trek? You think that i'm bound by "logic" and that i can't escape it? Come on. -_-
Logic is a tool that i use to help me understand the universe. A powerful tool, but only one tool of many. Do you really think that i've never followed my intuition, and logic be damned? Do you think i've never done anything crazy or stupid in my life that made no logical sense? Or that i've never just sat back and enjoyed the mysterious without questioning it? Or that i've never loved - really loved?
Give me a break. i am not a slave to logic. Most of my favourite shows, books and movies make no scientific sense. i don't care. i live for the mystery and the imagination in them. And the person i loved, i didn't "choose" them because they were a good genetic and/or social match. Far from it. But even when i'm lying on my deathbed i will remember every damn minute i spent with them - every precious one.
But i am not an idiot.
i know when the shows, books and movies i like are fudging physics for the sake of the story. And i know that my feelings for the person i loved were at least partly based on biology. Logic tells me those things. It doesn't make them any less magical to me. But it keeps me from being deluded by falsehoods... and myself.
i seek answers, and while logic is not the only tool in the kit that i use to find those answers, it is the one that is most capable of weeding out lies - even beautiful lies that i want to believe. You think i don't want to believe that i can be good for 60 odd years then have eternal, blissful life? Of course i want that! But i will not delude myself.
The fact is, i have used every tool at my disposal to research every aspect of what you believe, and i don't get the same answer as you. i asked a few honest questions - what else can i do? how do you get the answer you do? And what do you do? You turn it all into a farce, first making a half-assed attempt to convert me, and then demeaning my entire search.
You think i'm a slave to logic? No. But i'm a willing servant of truth, whatever that truth may be - as long as it's an honest truth. i absolutely refuse to compromise the search for truth, just to get results you approve of. Not going to happen.Hey Indi, that article appears to me to apply mainly to Conservative Judaism. My sub-denomination is a branch of Orthodox Judaism that believes that Jesus is a prophet. My sub-denomination regards him as the heigendeprofet or sanhayat lota'or meaning "Highest of the Prophets" or "the High Prophet." Also, The Orthodox Judaism Talmud is a revised version of the original Talmud. It states Jesus as a prophet and I'm looking at it now and it doesn't state but one type of false prophet:
| Quote: |
| ...False prophets; those who claim in falseness as to being a prophet of God are to be noted a false prophet, and deemed as untruthful and blasphemous toward the Lord, our God. |
Also, don't say I'm lying until you've checked everything out - had you paid attention to my earlier posts, you'd already know my specific sub-denomination, thus, what to research. I've believed in this all my life, so I know much more about it than you.
I'm quite tired of talking to you,
and I don't plan on taking this further with you.
Be blessed by Adonai's Grace!
Tyler | Tyler wrote: |
| Hey Indi, that article appears to me to apply mainly to Conservative Judaism. |
"That article"? There were four. Not enough?
| Tyler wrote: |
My sub-denomination is a branch of Orthodox Judaism that believes that Jesus is a prophet. My sub-denomination regards him as the heigendeprofet or sanhayat lota'or meaning "Highest of the Prophets" or "the High Prophet." Also, The Orthodox Judaism Talmud is a revised version of the original Talmud. It states Jesus as a prophet and I'm looking at it now and it doesn't state but one type of false prophet:
| Quote: | | ...False prophets; those who claim in falseness as to being a prophet of God are to be noted a false prophet, and deemed as untruthful and blasphemous toward the Lord, our God. |
Also, don't say I'm lying until you've checked everything out - had you paid attention to my earlier posts, you'd already know my specific sub-denomination, thus, what to research. I've believed in this all my life, so I know much more about it than you.
I'm quite tired of talking to you,
and I don't plan on taking this further with you.
Be blessed by Adonai's Grace!
Tyler |
i do know what your demonination is. i also know what you wrote: | Tyler wrote: |
| I do, however, know some about Jesus's message, because Judaism regards him as a prophet.... |
Nowhere in there do you say "my form of Judaism". Instead you try to pass off your beliefs as the beliefs of Judaism in general, when they are not. Most forms of Judaism do not consider Jesus a prohpet. Thus the phrase "Judaism regards him as a prophet" is a lie.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Prophet wrote: |
| The status of Jesus... is an important and controversial matter. For the most part Judaism does not regard [him] as a genuine prophet... |
(Emphasis added by me)
Either you did not know that (ignorance), or you chose to make a statement that you knew was generally untrue and pass it off as the truth (deliberate deception).
Being honest is more than just not saying things that are completely untrue. Lying by omission, and misleading implications are also both dishonest.
Here's a really wacky idea, and i'm just going to throw it out there even though i know it's going to blow your mind. But take your time and mull it over... let it roll around for a while... then maybe... just maybe... if you don't think it's too wildly and insanely crazy, give it a shot.
RESEARCH!
Go out there and find evidence that supports your claim that Judaism regards Jesus as a prophet and share it with us. If you're telling the truth, then you will be educating me, the people reading, everyone!
If you're wrong, then you will find that out, and you will learn something.
Either way, someone wins. Your current method - insulting me - helps no-one.Sorry,
That was a mistake. I meant to say "my form of Judaism" but my mind usually tends to work faster than my fingers and I periodically forget to type certain words while I'm thinking. I'm not all that interested in putting you on the spot, nor do I wish to make you feel inferior. I just disagreed with a few things you said and I, like the rest of my family, am very extreme in my immediate reactions.
I apologize if I offended you or anything like that.
I don't really feel like fighting anymore, because my sickness is starting to really slow me down. I just don't have a lot of energy to waste on the computer anymore.
Cheers,
Tyler
I gues it's pretty darn difficult to understand Jesus. People rather turn atheist than have faith.
| sonalobramo wrote: |
| I gues it's pretty darn difficult to understand Jesus. People rather turn atheist than have faith. |
i guess it's pretty darn difficult to understand the way the universe works. People rather turn to silly beliefs like gods rather than actually trying to figure out how things really work.
