119 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

Christian, epistemology is the study of knowledge and the development of theories about how, why, what "it" is and how such "systems" develop.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEM.html

Rhetoric and Epistemology
Presents a brief history of epistemology and discusses its relationship with rhetoric in classical philosophy.
http://www.lcc.gatec...istemology.html

Hopefully these will help you understand of what I speak.

Maybe you will enjoy this image:
St. John Reconsiders Modern Epistemology
James B. Janknegt's Paintings 1982-2002 St. John Reconsiders Modern Epistomology 60X48 oil/canvas 1995 Religious Back Home Next Alphabetical http://uts.cc.utexas...negt/c0156.html


Yes they are purported to be Jesus's words and no they are not paradoxes they are parables and promises. They also are what amount to a "position statement" in secular modern English. In other words Jesus is reported to be pro-immortality in his own words, and pro-popular immortality, and not in an afterlife but in the world we understand.

As to my statement about nothing is beyond understanding, I don't have to prove it true, you have to prove it false by supplying me with something I cannot understand. I only retain the right to learn but I have found that is sufficient to light a candle against the darkness of ignorance.

The point is that this argument is the same that is applied to issues of faith but less subjective, in that each of us is a potential subject that can acquire all available knowledge and seek that which is still unknown. Every human alive (and I haven't even argued about Super Artificial Intelligence) is an opportunity to prove you wrong, for my statement to be true only one of us need achieve this potential and thus your statement would be proven false. But the point is that it is just as valid for me to make my claim as for you to.

The Day of Reckoning is drawing near, yet the people heedlessly persist in unbelief. They listen flippantly to each fresh warning that their Lord gives them: their hearts are set on pleasure.

In private the unbelievers say to each other: 'Is this man not mortal like yourselves? Have you no eyes that you should yield to witchcraft?'

Say: 'My Lord has knowledge of whatever is said in heaven and earth. He hears all and knows all.'

Now guess this one?

[micah]

Ok, I give up. What are you trying to say with thse quotes?
-micah

[tbeal]

if christian still reads this post or any other theists I would like to ask them what makes them believe in god? since you cannot prove god exists or disprove that god exists ( I am a weak athiest purely because there is no difinitive evidence)

[micah]

Hmmm...why believe in God?

From my perspective, Jesus is really the central subject of my theism. Jesus was an extremely profound individual. He opposed authoritarian religion, religious ritual (he taught that how one lived was the only true religion), sexism, racism, classism, etc. These realizations did not really come to the western world for another 1900 years after he died. He was FAR ahead of his time.

Jesus is the only religious leader who directly opposed churches, temples, etc. He is the only religious leader who told people not to listen to religious leaders! He specifically told his followers not to EVER set up churches or religious authority structures. He told them that there were to be no "places of worship" (churches), since a person's life was the important thing, not their religious rituals.

Jesus was an extremely unique individual, both in how he lived, and what he taught.

I have often said that any person who taught what Jesus taught is *A* god by definition, whether they are *THE* God or not.

We have objective evidence as to what Jesus did and taught. The fact that someone could teach something so far ahead of its time, so contradictory to the current culture, is proof of something profound going on.

I call that profound thing, whatever it is, "God".

-micah

[tbeal]

good answer and a good reason for belief but surely other people in history have been extrodinaryly advanced in their ideas

[Lazarus Long]

Jesus is the only religious leader who directly opposed churches, temples, etc. He is the only religious leader who told people not to listen to religious leaders!  He specifically told his followers not to EVER set up churches or religious authority structures. He told them that there were to be no "places of worship" (churches), since a person's life was the important thing, not their religious rituals.

Actually this is not quite true. Both in the sense that Jesus is the only historical figure to take this approach (he wasn't) and second that this accurately depicts his statements exactly. While I tend to agree with this more esoteric perspective of the character it is also the case that he felt strongly that building such institutions were the right of the believers. He didn't oppose the principle of temples and churches, he opposed the corruption of the leadership that took advantage of the faithful, the money lenders, and Caesar's tax men. But in the case of Rome he backed off.

That he was not a class oriented individual is exemplified by Christianity's origins as a slave's religion (classless by default) that eventually appeals to the upper classes and is adopted by them and as for racism this did not exist in the form we understand it to mean today at that time. Don't everybody jump up and down on me for saying that but it didn't. The definitions of "race" were profoundly different as applied in classical times and it is misleading to use the term as it is applied today to the past much before five centuries ago.

They did have racism but it was both more complex and simpler, it was clearly ethnically defined and based on recognition of linguistic groupings more than physiological features, Greeks versus Persians, Latins versus Visigoths etc. I just want it clear that what life in that period defined as against "racism" is not how we look at the same problem except as it regards "promoting tolerance".

Now as to that the various Buddhas are also clear promoters of tolerance and they too did not practice racism, sexism, or classicism in any of the traditional senses. We should return to the discussion of the definitions of "sexism" also because what constitutes sexism today is clearly defined by the ancient Christian definitions for the roles of gender.

Also even Mohamed can be said to have been against the traditional abusive and corrupt temple structure and definitely was against "racism and sexism" so again the argument you are using to distinguish Christianity is not so clear Micah and BTW, the passages above that I haven't yet identified are from the Koran.

[radagast]

Greetings Christian,

I could not help but reply to some of the things you said. I apologize if I seem less... I guess the word is friendly... than some of those in the forums -- I don't mean to, and when I was your age I was where you are. I can but hope that you will forgive me.

You said:

>One of the problems most people (including other Christians) seem to have with Christianity is they think it's nothing but rules. The >ten Commandments, the laws of Moses, the seven deadly sins, Etc... The're all nothing but a bunch of does and don'ts, haves and >have nots. They think there is nothing nice or fun about Christianity.

>This couldn't be further from the truth. If you read the Bible you will notice that Jesus Christ himself gave people only two rules. >Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and spirit. And love your neighbour as yourself. If you obey these two >rules, everything else comes naturally. The whole Bible and all those church sermons boil down to these two rules.

Let me repeat you are where I was at your age, in fact, you are PRECISELY where I was at your age. The problem is that while what you say may be true according to a certain theology -- it is not what is lived or believed by the vast majority of those who claim to be Bible believing Christians. It is sometimes given lip service, but it is not lived.

Do you, for example, believe that homosexuals (the great bogeymen of the fundamentalists) should have ABSOLUTELY EQUAL rights within the SECULAR world, and that their differences with FUNDAMENTALIST Christianity should be resolved solely within a religious context? If not why not? Do you believe that Christian Churches that are NOT fundamentlalist are within their rights to grant equality to those same homosexuals -- since it isn't against THEIR religious beliefs -- since they don't view the Bible as divine? IF so, are you in agreement with your denomination (or "non-denominational" body)? Or do you stand somewhat alone?

That asked, it is only fair for me to say that I believe the Bible is entirely mythological, and its usage a negative for most of those who are engaged with it. Every piece of evidence points that way. It took me until 22 to realize it, by which time I had a degree in theology and was ordained -- but the truth was out anyway.

Feel free to contact me directly at radagast@nycap.rr.com to continue this discussion. If I do not see anything at home in email I will presume that you have no interest in pursuing this. I am rarely on the forums and stumbled on this one by accident. Should you wish to continue the discussion we can do it in the forum, but I will probably not know you have posted a reply, unless you copy me at home (simply copy and paste and send via email will work admirably.

Good luck

Reynolds Jones
("radagast")

[micah]

Sorry I haven't posted for a while. Let me see if I can make a few responses.

Yes, other people in history have been far ahead of their time, and I celebrate them. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc. were all people who drew on Jesus' teachings (they affirmed that they did this) and used them in profound ways not envisioned by the majority of religious people (who never "got" Jesus' message in the first place).

I think that the Buddha was also very advanced, and I agree with a lot of his ideas. Unfortunately, I think he was tied too much to Hinduism.

Affirming the greatness of these people, however, does not exempt me from saying that I have not yet seen any historical figure whose teaching was as far ahead of its time as Jesus' was.

Lazarus, I am interested in discussing why you don't think Jesus set out to prevent religious institutions. Jesus made two statements which strike to the heart of religious institutions:

1) He specifically forbid his followers from taking any religious authority over others, and indicated that this was a rule for all time.

2) He stated that no religious rituals were needed, that there was no need for temples or other places of worship.

I can give you specific references for these if you like. They aren't a big secret, however. They just don't get noticed by religious people.

Racism may not have been like it is today, I agree. But a LARGE part of the New Testament is spent trying to abolish what we would label as racism. I would say that Jewish-Gentile relations were the most prominent subject dealt with in their writings.

Also, Jesus directly confronted racism, sexism, and religion when he talked with the Samaritan woman. He was forbidden by his society's standards from being around Samaritans, being alone with women, or talking to women in public. He did all of these. Further, he told her that the Jewish-Samaritan conflict over where the temple should be located was irrelevant because God didn't need temples - people could worship wherever they were, internally.

That was radical, and I don't see any way to get around that.

As an aside on Sexism, a lot of Christians practice and advocate it. But I don't believe that any part of the bible does. Paul, traditionally considered the "sexist" of the New Testament, actually said that women and men were fully equal, and worked for women's full inclusion in the Christian community.

Just like Jesus, The Buddha and his followers did make a lot of progress in denouncing artificial distinctions between people. And I think that the Buddhist philosophy is probably a lot more advanced than the common practice of Buddhist religion. I've studied Buddhism for a while, but not having directly examined a lot of the texts, I'm not really competent to state what the Buddha did or did not say.

Perhaps what Buddha really taught is a lot closer to Jesus than what Buddhism practices, just as what Jesus really taught is a far cry from what Christians practice and teach.

I think that there are a lot of religious leaders who have come close to the truth (or to rationality, anyway). I have no problem affirming that. But I don't see anyone who did this as completely as Jesus. I don't know any other religious leader who (independently of Jesus) suggested that God didn't need corporate worship, and that temples were irrelevant. (Buddhists would approach this differently, but they do have temples). I also don't know any religious leader who would suggest that there should be no religious authority structures.

So while I see some definitely great individuals, and some connections between teachings, I don't see anywhere as full of a divorce from religion as Jesus teaches.

Tell me what you think.

-micah

[micah]

Reynolds,

Christianity (as taught by Jesus) directly opposes any Christian attempting to control the civil rights of others. So...Jesus would oppose any "Christian" who attempted to take away the civil rights of homosexuals.

In recognition of this, I don't believe the government should have any say as to who is "married". It simply doesn't matter, and "Christians" who try to prevent gay marriages are making fools of themselves.

-micah

[chubtoad]

Do you beleave in the apocalypse which is predicted in the book of Revelation?

"Christianity, like Islam and some branches of Judaism, looks forward to the end of time, when the world as we know it will either be destroyed or made over into an eternal paradise of peace and glory in God's presence. For orthodox Christianity, this apocalypse will include a final judgment during which God destroys all forms of wickedness in the world via plagues, war, and fire. All believers who remain steadfast in their faith will survive the destruction to live forever with God in paradise, or heaven.(http://www.greatbook...pse/index.shtml) "

[JonesGuy]

It's a mistake people often make, to think of the 'end times' as something that will happen later. It's just like they seem to think the 'afterlife' is where you go when you die. It's not an 'afterlife', it's an 'instead of death'. The end times have always existed, there's no time component - it's just the way to explain it to people.

The trick to making the christain religion elegant (instead of clunky, and trailer-parkish) is to understand dimensional theory first. Remember that time is not an actual dimension, but a way for decribing the next dimension. A 3D object can be explained as a 2D object, if you observe how the 2D object changes through time. Same with a 4D to 3D, etc.

It's all quite complex, but like I've said before, any properly constructed religion can't be deconstucted by reading a few paragraphs over the internet. It all comes down to belief - belief about whether some higher power out 'there' actually care about you.

[thefirstimmortal]

When I got to know God better, I found out he was pretty nasty sometimes, so I studied him....

I agree, God is pretty nasty sometimes. For example no biblical narrative is more dramatic, more poignant, and more confusing than God’s command to Abraham that he sacrifice his son Isaac. What kind of a God would ask such a thing of a father? What kind of a father would accede to such a request, even from a God? Why did Abraham, the man who argued so effectively with God over the fate of strangers, suddenly become silent in the face of so great an injustice toward his own beloved son? Why did God praise Abraham for his willingness to engage in an act of ritual murder? And what are we to learn from a patriarch who follows, without question, immoral superior orders to murder an innocent child?

No God should ever ask a father to kill his child, and no father should ever agree to do so.

Rev. William O'Rights. Defender of all faiths.


POSTED UNDER THREAT OF CENSORSHIP.

(3) Full Members can lose membership status if at any time in violation of the user agreement (Bylaw A), ... or if engaging in active contravention of the ImmInst principles.

Bylaw A
ImmInst members must adhere to the following agreement or risk losing membership privileges.

Any user who finds material posted by another user as being offensive or objectionable will be encouraged to contact an ImmInst leader. ImmInst leaders are authorized by you to remove or modify material submitted by you to these forums for any reason that we think constitutes a violation of our policies, whether stated, implied or not.

Language Guidelines: Any foul or hostile language used in the forums will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements or profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are prohibited.

ImmInst leaders reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or post.

ImmInst will, however, consider removing inappropriate links and material as we become aware of them.

Disciplinary Action: A warning will be sent via email to anyone breaking this forum user agreement. Usually, if three violations occur, the offending member can be permanently blocked from making further posts to the forum. Severe violations require only one incident for the member to be permanently blocked from making further posts to the forum.

Lifetime Membership as long as no exceptional circumstances necessitates reconsideration on the part of ImmInst as decided by authoritative directorial vote.

[Bruce Klein]

William.. feel free to post what you feel you need to post.. but please, try to explain what you're doing... maybe you could reply to the first incident here.

[thefirstimmortal]

I do not take kindly to you
telling me that the most anti-Christian thing is Christianity
when the most anti-Christian thing is anti-Christianity.

I can see his point Bush, in the name of your religion of Christianity, hundreds of thousands of people were not merely killed but atrociously tortured in ways that made the gas chambers of Beslen seem humane.

From Augustine down, theologians have tried to compel people to accept their special interpretation of the Scripture, and the tortures of the inquisition, the rack, the thumb-screw, the stake, the persecutions of witchcraft, the whipping of naked women through the streets of Boston, banishment, trials of heresy, the halter about Garrison's neck, Lovejoy's death, the branding of Captain Walker, shouts of infidel and atheist, have all been for this purpose.

Men of generous culture or of great learning, and women of eminent piety and virtue, from the humble cottage to the throne, have been led out for matters of conscience and butchered before a mad rabble lusting after the Christian God. The limbs of men and women have been torn from their bodies, their eyes gouged out, their flesh mangled and slowly roasted, their children barbarously tortured before their eyes, because of religious opinion.

You see Bush, in ruder days, disputes about Christianity often led to sordid quarrels in which the disputants tortured, burned and hanged others in the conviction that torture, burning and hanging were Christian things to do....

Live Long and Well
Rev. William O'Rights
The First Immortal

[micah]

Because there only seems to have been two serious posts in a while, I will deal with them instead of the non-serious ones. If I am wrong about the other posts, I will reconsider, as I am not opposed to discussing the "difficult issues" in christianity.

chubtoad wrote:

Do you beleave in the apocalypse which is predicted in the book of Revelation?

Yes I do, but not how you probably think.

The book of Revelation is a Jewish document using Jewish language and metaphors. When you read the Old Testament, these metaphors become clear.

The metaphors in the book of Revelation deal with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. The apocalypse has already happened, and Revelation is totally fulfilled. No more apocalypses remain.

-micah

[JonesGuy]

Time after time, in the bible, only certain people were able to interpret dreams. Joseph interpreted the Pharoah's dream. David interpreted (I think) Nebuchadnezzar's dream (the one with the multi-ore statue).

The whole point of revelations is that it's a dream, and thus, can only be interpreted by a select 'receiver' for the message. This makes Revelations pleasantly consistent with the rest of the Bible (in that it doesn't have to make sense to you, just a prophet).

I'm not a believer*, but I like how consistent the Christian belief system can be (once you factor out some of the editing details, and go for the bare-bones of God's relationship to man). You have to read people like Decartes, Anslem, Constatine, CS Lewis, etc. for their thoughts if you are really interested in debating the religion. The beauty of an old religion, is that a LOT of smart people have been working on it for a long time.

*I just can't make the leap between my existence and a caring creator. I'm pleased some people can, because they like having faith. I just don't.

[JonesGuy]

...but who says he cares about you any more than he cares about the mountains he is grinding into sand?

My point exactly. I'm willing to acknowledge there might be a creator (I sure didn't create myself), but to assume it give a whit about our morals is too much of a leap.

... but if you're looking in the bible, I'm pretty sure Jesus said something about God caring for people. Something about loving birds fallen out of their nests. And something about giving a son a snake when he asks for bread.

[MichaelAnissimov]

Here we go with another blatantly obvious (and barely coherent) troll post.

[Jace Tropic]

vote_for_bush: How many times are you people going to keep repeating that I'm a troll?! It's getting really annoying.

I think that is the point -- to annoy you as much as you are annoying others. TROLL!

Jace

[Jace Tropic]

I, personally, am actually a very forgiving person. I can hold a grudge for years, but I've learned that takes too much energy.

From this moment on, let's begin holding each other accountable. You see, sometimes I, too, have a tendency to say things I shouldn't say just because I'm angry with the world (though, I'm not saying that you are). If you say something that you know is not really constructive, I will call you a troll. If I say something that is not really constructive, you must call me a troll. What do you think?

Everyone here is well-intentioned, and I believe that includes you. The only fundamental difference separating us all is that we are self-aware within unique circumstances, and we are all sensitive at different degrees toward our experiences.

Jace

[Jace Tropic]

I bet you revel in the pain you cause.

Yes, I've been known to be sadistic.

Feel like commiting suicide lately?

Yes. There are many things that I value. I believe most of my values are good and well-intentioned. However, many times they are contradictory among themselves and it tends to leave me with a lot of mental anguish.

I imagine you are the kind of person that takes their pain out on others for being sexually molested.

I was never sexually molested; at least that I can remember. However, I was physically abused excessively up until the age of seven.

Over your eating disorder yet?

I don't have an eating disorder, and I never had.

Jace

[Bruce Klein]

In case I don't come back, have a merry Christ-Mass and a happy turn of the century

Take Care

[micah]

QJOnes wrote:
>The whole point of revelations is that it's a dream, and thus, can only be
>interpreted by a select 'receiver' for the message.

Actually, all through the book, the reader is urged to understand what the author was talking about. The author assumed that the readers would have a pretty good idea what he was saying.

Just because you don't understand it, and modern "Christians" have invented all kinds of fanciful interpretations for it, doesn't mean it is incomprehensible.

Actually, the meaning of it would have been relatively clear to a Jew in the 1st century. And while all the details may not be clear to US, by studying history and Jewish thought, we can understand the basic message.

Here's how:

1) Everything in the book is stated to be happening "soon".
2) The climax of the book is the destruction of a certain City, identified as the one which was persecuting Christians.
3) The City is destroyed by a "beast" which had previously supported the city.
4) This "beast" is "worshipped" by the whole world, and has a number which identifies him.
5) At the end, the Christians survive the destruction of the City, and form a new community with full equality between Jews and non-Jews.
6) All of this is specifically stated to take place ON EARTH.

And the rather straight-forward interpretation (to anyone familiar with the time period):

1) Everything in the book happened in the 1st century.
2) The climax of the events discussed was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. Before this, the religious leaders in Jerusalem had persecuted and killed Christians.
3) Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome, which had previously supported Jerusalem in the persecution of Christians.
4) Rome was in control of the entire ancient world. Since letters in the ancient world doubled as numbers, Nero Caesar (ruler of Rome) was popularly identified by mathematical plays on his name. Authors from around the time period described Nero as a "monster" (or "beast"), and equated his name with 666.
5) Christians refused to fight in the Jewish-Roman war, and instead left the city, as Jesus had told all the Jews to do. They thus survived the total destruction that came on the City, and formed new communities around the world.
6) All of this happened ON EARTH, during the 1st century.

>This makes Revelations
>pleasantly consistent with the rest of the Bible
>(in that it doesn't have to make sense to you, just a prophet).

I pleasantly disagree. Most of the bible is quite practical, and understandable. A lot of it consists of proverbs about how to deal with everyday life. A lot of Jesus' statements were the same way. Paul's writings (composing most of the New Testament) also simply dealt with practical issues people were facing.

Other parts of the bible are simply poetry, songs, and love stories. History and dramatic stories form the majority of the bible.

The other section, the prophets, consists of social reformers and revolutionaries protesting oppression of the poor, social inequality, and legalism. They used really dramatic language to do this. But little of it goes beyond simply trying to convey their revolutionary message.

-micah

[micah]

...but who says he cares about you any more than he cares about the mountains he is grinding into sand?

My point exactly. I'm willing to acknowledge there might be a creator (I sure didn't create myself), but to assume it give a whit about our morals is too much of a leap.

God grinding the mountains into sand doesn't decrease their happiness or value. Nor does the fact that he simultaneously builds them up. If anything can be deduced from the changing mountains, it is that God values change.

There is a fundamental difference between us and the rest of the universe, even though there is no difference in physical composition. The difference is that we contain software that is self-aware, and that is a potential infinite-state machine.

It is reasonable to conclude that any infinite-state, self-aware creature, would see and value this similarity in other beings, no matter how different the level of intelligence.

... but if you're looking in the bible, I'm pretty sure Jesus said something about God caring for people. Something about loving birds fallen out of their nests. And something about giving a son a snake when he asks for bread.

Yes, Jesus said something about that.

Jesus said God is aware of every sparrow that dies, and especially of everything that humans go through. Jesus compares God to a father who gives good things to his children when they ask him, rather than giving them mean things like snakes.

Jesus was talking about "spiritual" blessings, rather than physical blessings (he specified this). Just as physical fathers ideally take care of their children by feeding and clothing them, a "spiritual father" takes care of his children by giving them spiritual insight when they ask him for it.

IMO, Jesus was pointing to himself as the fulfillment of this. People had asked God for understanding for ages, and God had finally sent someone who would explain things to anyone interested.

-micah

[micah]

The lesson of morality is this: ...if you play by other rules you burn in Hell

There is no traditonal "hell" in the bible. The only "hell" talked about is "the valley of Hinnom" (literal translation), which was a burning garbage pit outside of Jerusalem. This is all well-documented and accepted by every bible scholar I have ever heard about.

Jesus essentially said "watch out, or someone will throw you in the burning garbage pit, and you'll be destroyed". He was using the local garbage pit as a colorful metaphor for violent death at the hands of enemies. He was warning people who wanted to incite war.

-micah

PS. As strange as my ideas may sound, there are lots of bible scholars and researchers who think the same things. I can point you to resources for this, if you desire.

[bacopa]

BJKlein

I definitely want to upgrade my current body.  Obviously I'll need a body more durable than my current one for this.



As to what I'd want to improve it to. Right now I'm thinking that, if the technology becomes available I'd slowly improve my body with nanotechnology until I'm more tech than flesh. Considering the possibilities I find the current human organs respiratory, circulatory, digestive, etc really inefficient compared to what nanotechnology could probably do. And the thought of skin made of self regenerating diamond (through interlocking diamond nanomachines capable of making copies of themselves) seems oddly appealing.

I often look for God's opinion by seriously considering something and seeing if it feels right or wrong, I'ts not a perfect system but nothing in this world is.)

[randolfe]

I can't believe I waded through all these pages this evening. I can understand why this young Christian was such a tempting target. He was just a kid who thought he was a Christian.

I read the review of the book "Why God Won't go Away" and must say I was disappointed that BJKlein recommended it. I found the reviews attacking it as soft-pedaled theo-philosophy to be most convincing.

As always, the appearance of "The First Immortal" was uplifting. I forget who posted the series of questions to Dr. Laura, but they were great as well.

What surprised me in all these discussions was that no one seemed to express the sociological psychological anthropological perspective that I have come to regarding religions.

Religions, all religions, simply reflect the social lessons learned by people over time about how to organize their lives and society. Basically, do unto others as you would have others do unto you, is just good sensible practical social practice.


The only convincing argument for religion I heard from a religious humanist. he argued that even if we could decide on proper codes of conduct and individually be responsible, how could we make "Joe 6-Pack" behave. Didn't Joe 6-Pack need to have the fear of the Lord to keep him in line.

That makes a more interesting avenue of investigation rather than this scattershot discussion which wandered all over the map. The fact that Christian embraced immortality was encouraging. So was his openness to being improved. I assumed that would include being genetically engineered. However, the fact that all religion is based on the promise of immortality wasn't really emphasized (unless that was included in some of the longer postings I just scanned).

If Christian actuyally ceased to be a Christian. Even if he just became a pantheist, this dialogue would have been more interesting.

I would suggest someone check on where Christian is theologically before including this thread in the book. He obviously is destined to become alienated from organized Christianity pretty soon.

[Lazarus Long]

Do you know how stilted it makes the text sound folks to not have the original posts of the references being made present? I wish we had left Bush's commentary in place. It was demonstrative of the extreme intolerant religious zealot and highly appropriate even if distasteful. I think most censorship is mistaken and here especially.

It makes those quotes I took from the Qúran more like the self fullfilling prophecy of the Jihad they were intended to be. I never did identify them because I wanted to demonstrate how much of both Islam and Chrisitanity makes the same basic premises. Those lines could have come straight from Revelations; they didn't.

The best way to teach tolerance is to practice it and the best way to define intolerance is to expose it, both require very strong standards of free expression.

[imminstmorals]

In my experience, most Christian is commited to life as under control of nature and God's will. I'm sorry about such nature and condition do exist without valid science proof(such as pi, universal constant). However, human kind is revolutionary, we have ideal scientists who has their own will and utopia dream!

You should not have any faith in god, believe in science and real human will =D

If you die, you died, God doesn't justify your destination to either heaven or hell

Will god prevail as you think he is the Creator, or will science revolutionise human kinds under human will and innovation??

Science and god cannot co-exist.

[micah]

If Christian actuyally ceased to be a Christian. Even if he just became a pantheist, this dialogue would have been more interesting.

Christianity is panENtheistic. That is, it holds that God is more than the universe, but the universe is not separate from God. As Paul said, "in him we live and move and have our being". God is the ground of all being.

I would suggest someone check on where Christian is theologically before including this thread in the book. He obviously is destined to become alienated from organized Christianity pretty soon.

Organized Christianity is irrelevant. Jesus was never associated with organized Christianity or organized Judaism either.

-micah