119 replies to this topic

[truth_believer2003]

John Galt: Oh my…I find a couple of your comments in your post on Apr 13, 2003 to be very comical. I try to be understanding of other people’s views to better understand my fellow mankind. For example, your quote “and among other things was repulsed by the idea that according to Christian doctrine most of the world would not go to heaven (some Christians would go so far as to condemn them to hell)” was funny. When I read it I said to myself, “No duh, man!” I wondered whether you fall into the category of thinking of God as a completely loving God, which He is, but if you also neglected the part of God being a just God. The Christian belief holds that all people are sinners that that the wages of sin is death. A loving and just God is the God of Christianity. You should know, growing up in the church, that the only way we are cleaned of the penalty is by asking for forgiveness of our sins. John Galt, how can a perfect God step outside of the boundaries that He created? If He cannot be near any sin, but allows every sinner the opportunity of repentance then how can you not understand the concept of Hell? I have talked with many Atheists before whose only complaint against Christianity is the existence of Hell. They do not understand why a loving God can punish people to an eternity of death. The True Christian God is not always what you may picture Him as. In the Bible there are examples of His anger and wrath and His swift and mighty justice. A just God deals a just punishment. Explicitly stated in the Bible, those unrepentant people shall be sentenced to an everlasting death in a realm that we call Hell. If you grew up in the church, I can only imagine the weak messages you were delivered if you were unable to recognize these Christian concepts. The concept of sin is not that difficult either. We are inherently born with sin. Is that fair? Of course it is. Human kind on a whole was given an opportunity to either choose or reject God. God knew ahead of time what would happen. If you would have been there John Galt you would have committed the act as well. That is why we are inherently born with sin. We are not perfect nor will we be on this earth. As lame as it is John, the Bible pronounces it is truth. I took a math test the other day, and I got an answer wrong. I did the work and got the answer that I thought was correct. How lame is it that I received a lower score on a test for putting an answer down that I thought was correct but in actuality incorrect? Maybe this analogy can bring a little light to the idea that there is only one truth, and if you do not obey and believe in that truth you will be punished. Many people consider this the difficult side of Christianity, but it is the harsh reality. To your post about morality and the atheist: I concur with the people that you have talked with that with Atheism there is no basis for morality, and the reason is relativism. In an Atheistic society, people are not held accountable for anything. Why should they be? Christians answer to God, Muslims to Allah, Jews to Yahweh, and others yet to their “life force” or god. In Atheism, there is no higher calling, no set order. It is all relative to the thinking of the particular individual. You claim to have your three guides for moral living. However, how can you, as an Atheist, become angered if a person finds it moral for them to steal a possession of yours? To that person, it is moral. How can you argue that he is wrong? You would require a foundation to base your morality upon. If you state that it is what feels right or what you had instilled in your inner being, where did that feeling or sense of conscience come from? Did it evolve with the rest of the world? Did ethics evolve over billions of years along with all other forms of life? I would beg to differ that you were created with the knowledge that you do not commit murder. I would argue that you were created with the knowledge that you aren’t to steal another’s possession. Why then do people do this? The Christian solution to this question is sin. What is the Atheist solution to the question? I honestly do not know. I cannot imagine it being far from a relativist ideal. And if so, then the fact is proven that Atheism provides no basis for morality. I also find your comment “After years of practice, I don’t find myself needing much effort to keep to them,” very comical. First, your three moral laws are all representative of Jesus’ second greatest commandment: You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40). Be honest with yourself, John, before answering my rhetorical questions. Do you ever lie? Do you like to be lied to? Do you ever think badly of anyone else? Do you like it when others think badly of you? Do you ever cheat or steal? Do you like the prospect of people cheating and stealing from you? Do you ever do something to someone that you hate happening to you? I don’t know any living person who can answer no to the first and third question and yes to the second and fourth when they reflect on their actions. If you do answer as stated above, then you are truly amazing. You will have reached a state of perfection. You will have made history, John. I DO NOT want you to respond to my questions above. Many people are tempted to lie about their answers above to try and make a point. I will try and spare the temptation, John (if you even respond to my post). Truth is that there is only one person (who is God himself) who lived in that fashion. His name: Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Over three-quarters of all the people on the planet are religious in some form or another. Is it really due to a kind of human weakness? Ever since the beginning of history mankind has possessed some form of religion. In ancient days it was Judaism or Paganism. Later it still followed the same flow. Judaism branched into Christianity and Paganism branched in Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek and Roman mythology, and many others. You claim that it could be due to a human weakness, but if you were to glance at BJ Klein’s post on Mar 30, 2003 you may find something interesting. Brain research is suggesting that we are “wired” to believe that there is a God and to respond extremely well when thinking about Him. Maybe ponder what I said in my previous post. WOW!!! I can’t believe I wrote so much…Sorry… [wacko] ...I will step off my soapbox now. I'll stay quiet for a few days.

[Cyto]

Do you believe in the Evolution Theory? From what you have stated, I gather that you do. You say that you find evolution to be the truth. I must admit that I have done some research and that I have found that the harder I search the more I am convinced that Evolution is completely wrong. The more I searched the more I found to disprove evolution. Along with the question of whether you believe in Evolution, do you believe the "whole nine yards?" Do you believe that Big Band, soup on a rock story, etc.? (This will only help me understand your viewpoint better to more appreciate your comments.) (I am willing to compile some facts that I have come across that disprove Evolution if you desire to see them.

Yes, please do "lay out the facts."

And I think you mean The Big Bang and Abiogenesis.

I wait for the complete upheaval of the scientific world.

[galtsgulch]

John Galt: Oh my…I find a couple of your comments in your post on Apr 13, 2003 to be very comical. I try to be understanding of  other people’s views to better understand my fellow mankind. For example, your quote “and among other things was repulsed by the idea that according to Christian doctrine most of the world would not go to heaven (some Christians would go so far as to condemn them to hell)” was funny. When I read it I said to myself, “No duh, man!” I wondered whether you fall into the category of thinking of God as a completely loving God, which He is, but if you also neglected the part of God being a just God. The Christian belief holds that all people are sinners that that the wages of sin is death... The True Christian God is not always what you may picture Him as. In the Bible there are examples of His anger and wrath and His swift and mighty justice. A just God deals a just punishment. Explicitly stated in the Bible, those unrepentant people shall be sentenced to an everlasting death in a realm that we call Hell...

Your response was "textbook" Christian thinking, as I recall it. By the way, I fall in the category of thinking "there is no such thing as a GOD," period. There's no point in otherwise defining a nonexistent.

The concept of sin is not that difficult either. We are inherently born with sin. Is that fair? Of course it is. Human kind on a whole was given an opportunity to either choose or reject God. God knew ahead of time what would happen. If you would have been there John Galt you would have committed the act as well. That is why we are inherently born with sin.

I rest my case. IMHO it is worst than horrible that there are humans who preach this nonsense and attempt to condemn mankind on the basis of "being human" rather than by their specific acts. This is, on it's face the ultimate "injustice." Your "GOD" is a vengeful, warmongering, egotist. If one can supposedly be sent to "Hell" for merely refusing to worship IT, regardless of how that person otherwise lives, then as they say: "I would prefer to be free in Hell than a slave in Heaven."

I concur with the people that you have talked with that with Atheism there is no basis for morality, and the reason is relativism. In an Atheistic society, people are not held accountable for anything. Why should they be? Christians answer to God, Muslims to Allah, Jews to Yahweh, and others yet to their “life force” or god. In Atheism, there is no higher calling, no set order. It is all relative to the thinking of the particular individual.

Morality is simply living consistantly with reality. It is not self-evident what is moral; this must be learned. Since our understanding of reality is constantly improving, our knowledge of how to live consistently with Nature/Reality is constantly improving also.

Christian morality is based on fear - fear of pissing off a vengeful GOD. If God told you to kill a bunch of non-christians, or jump off a bridge, you'd do it. I value life. My morality is based on "what works" best for the successful continuation of life. Honesty, living by your promises, and not encroaching on the person or property of others is what works in civilized society. Look around the world, those people who live by these rules enjoy far higher standards of living than those who live in chaos. These rules are at the heart of every civilized society.

  I also find your comment “After years of practice, I don’t find myself needing much effort to keep to them,” very comical...

Personally, I could care less what you think; laugh all you want! Just don't try to interfere with my life or try to impose your beliefs on me - you might be headed to your GOD faster than you thought...

Let me ask you a question, True_Believer2003: why are YOU here posting on an Immortality Forum? What are your interests in life extension, longevity, cryonics, etc (Or are you here as a Christian Agent Provocateur)?

[Lazarus Long]

Actually John, just to be fair (and don't take this wrong for I happen to agree with much of what you said)

"I would prefer to be free in Hell than a slave in Heaven."

The paraphrasing you chose is from Milton's Paradise Lost and it says:

"Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n."

It is still arguable if there exists any form of rulership that does not come with "strings attached".

Just teasing Enjoy [!]

Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail
Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less then he
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.

JOHN MILTON, PARADISE LOST
http://www.dartmouth...shtml#servitude

[galtsgulch]

Since I have no desire to RULE over anyone, you can make the following my quote: "It is better to be free in Hell than be a slave in Heaven." Okay? I will not "serve" anyone, especially not the Old Testament description of their god.

[Lazarus Long]

John read the passage above carefully please. It agrees with everything you are trying to say I just wanted to be precise.

What Milton is discussing is everything that "True_Believer" is trying to claim and he isn't agreeing with him he is saying we make our own Hevean and Hell; particularly through fixed mindsets that are implacable in the face of evidence to the contrary through their beliefs.

The entirety of Paradise Lost is about the being cast from Heaven not for what Blind Faith, oh excuse me I mean True Believer said, it is about how Hell "Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings a mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time. The mind is its own place, and in it self
can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n."

The point is that Milton is then going on to say: "Here at least we shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built here for his envy, will not drive us hence:"

He isn't preaching the Old Testament, he is agreeing with you that is why he was almost excommunicated. "Here" is not the Garden of Eden that mankind was cast out of, "Here" is the Earth we are living on. Milton is suggesting that it was blind faith that was our crime in the face of reason and that is what makes the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge poison.

I only interjected this because I felt the accuracy emphasized your point of view, not detracted from it.

[galtsgulch]

Lazarus, please do not jump to any false conclusions. I was merely clarifying my own stance.

[Lazarus Long]

So was I )

[fruitimmortal]

" Nature is a good name for an effect whose cause is God "

(William Cowper)


" I've always regarded nature as the clothing of God " (unknown)


" Every thought is the word of God " (unknown)


The word God expresses the 2 opposites, the dualing serpents or the active and passive principles in nature. A devout Immortalist automatically serves the ACTIVE principles in nature.
The Kingdom of God is within you, and God is within His Kingdom.

[Christian]

Hey all sorry I havn't posted in a while but I've been a bit busy (school and all)
I've still got things to do so this probably won't be as long as my usual posts.

John Galt
You're letter to Dr. Laura shows very effectively what I mean about people making mistakes when using only small portions of the Bible. My main reply to all of those is that they are from the Old Testament and many things changed when Jesus showed up. I don't know what to say on your post on my logic except that I will listen to my own beliefs before considering the laws of nature. For example, I know I shouldn't jump off a cliff because I would fall but if I felt I needed to jump off a cliff then I would. Also why would God be super-natural, he is the one who decides what the laws of nature are

fruitImmortal
Nice quotes on God and nature, I really like them.

truth believer
I must admit I find it hard to consider myself a true christian as well if you are an example of one.
I honestly couldn't care less about Creation or Evolution. Whichever one happened makes no difference to the way things are right now
I do believe in God mostly because of my feelings and it has worked very well for me for the last ten years.
I believe that my body right now is like the body of a child and that as I grow so will my body. I just intend to grow a great deal

truth believer after reading your posts I can see why many people dislike Christianity. You demonstrate what I consider one of the worst mistakes a person can make. The belief that their view is the only right view. Your beliefs and "facts" may be right for you but that does not make them right for everone else and they certainly aren't right for me. If you post again please show at least some respect for other peoples opinions.

Sorry about being so judmental but I really can't stand Christians who think they can judge other people. It makes things a lot harder for the rest of us and it's just plain rude. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that.

Talk to ya all later.
Christian

[Casanova]

Christian,

I would recommend that you read the anthologized writings of the Intelligent Design advocates; especially "Signs of Intelligence" edited by William Dembski.
Some of the writers are Christian advocates, and others are merely making the case for the universe having been designed by some kind of intelligence.
Personally, I agree with the basic idea. The universe was designed by an intelligence.

Also, I recommend reading "The Intelligent Universe", and "Evolution from Space" by the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle.
Hoyle makes a fascinating arguement for intelligent design, and he is a scientist who thinks Darwinism is mostly baloney.

Hoyle, and his Indian (India) scientist friend, stop just short of advocating a God in the Christian sense. They are convinced, as I am, that there is a hierarchy of intelligences. It is possible that one of these higher intelligences created the universe. God would be the highest intelligence, of course, but Hoyle is interested in the hierachy, and states that he doesn't want to get involved in debates about the ultimate God.

Hoyle wrote a fascinating science trilogy, which argues that life originates in space, in cosmic dust clouds, and large comets, and seeds planets.

"Lifecloud"
"Diseases from Space"
"Evolution from Space"

He really gives Darwinism a well deserved bashing. Hoyle believes in evolution of course, as I do, but not in the kind of evolution decribed by Darwin Bible thumpers.

There is another book titled, "Living Comets" which is interesting too.

Try the used book website, Alibris, for used copies of the books.

John Galt,

I have read all of Ayn Rands philosophy books, and even some books about her.
I was not impressed overall, but she was a damn good writer, and she did have some valuable things to say.
One essay that did impress me, was the one wherein she constrasted the Apollo Space program, with the hippe movement. I agree with her, that the "let it all hang out" Dionysian movement, of the 1960s, was a step backward into mud, and cretinism, whereas the Apollo program was mankind at it's finest, and noblest; reaching for the stars.
Well, we ended up with America in the mud, for the last 30 years.

As to why people are religious, I think that memes (see Viruses of the Mind; www.memecentral.com) have a lot to do with it.

And vice versa concerning Aethism, and Materialism.
Belief systems.

[John Doe]

I am in the middle of Galt's speech. AS is my first Rand novel and speaks to me in so many ways.

Although I suspect she may be contradicting herself about the space program.

I also intend to go to law school.

Edited by John Doe, 27 June 2003 - 09:27 PM.

[Christian]

Hey everyone

All the books you've recommended sound really interesting but as I've stated before, I simply don't have the resources to aqcuire them. if there's something really interesting or important in them you want me to reply to, you'll have to post it here or provide a link to it. Otherwise I'll have no idea what you're talking about.

Something I thought of a while back;

If you read Genesis you'll notice that when God originally created man he designed him to be immortal. It is only when adam and eve sinned that God gave them the 'curse' of death. To a lot of Christians this seems to point out that mankind is supposed to die for their sins but I see something different.
1. Mankind was designed to be immortal originally, thus he can be immortal again. It's not impossible we just have to find a way to make a tree of life.
2. Mentally and Emotionally man can handle living forever. It doesn't state this right out but if man was originally meant to be immortal, wouldn't God have designed him so that he could handle it.
3. (this one I'm not sure about but it seems likely to me) Man is not immortal because he is missing something. If we can figure out what was in the fruit of the tree of life, and copy it, then we can become immortal. Simple right?

That's my take on it at least. I feel light there is something important in that that I'm missing. Something that would give a good reason for Christians to embrace immortality. But I can't figure out what it is. Please share your own thoughts on the subject.

Christian

[Bruce Klein]

If there's one short article i'd recommend you read, Christian.. it's Darwin's Autobiography the original/unedited version:

http://www.update.uu...ry/cd_relig.htm

I'd love to hear your reply as the the change that came over Darwin after taking the Beagle voyage. Why do you think he made this change? Is he somehow mistaken in his views on religion?

[Bruce Klein]

Also, would you agree, Christian, that even if large number of people believe in an idea, this fact doesn't make that idea correct. (ie. the world is flat, etc.)

[curious]

Hi Christian.

I admit I have only scanned this thread, so if I end up with foot-in-mouth syndrome, it's my own fault.

One thing that I notice is that you use the scriptures when they suit your belief system but when they don't, you say there were errors in translation, etc. I talked with a woman who translated the "original" new testament text from Greek to English. She told me first of all that none of the existing Greek texts are originals; along the way, men made "corrections" to each other's wording, punctuation, etc. Secondly, there are many words that could be used in place of the words that were finally selected. Her advice to me was to get the meaning of the whole, not to go by the words themselves.

I, too, have thought that eternal damnation is very unfair punishment from a "fair and just" god. So I've started exploring on my own. You seem like an open-minded person, so I'd like to know what you think about deism. You can find info at this site http://www.sullivan-...y.com/deism.htm. To me, it makes more sense than anything I've been taught so far, including the years that I considered myself an atheist.

Something inside me (the heart?) knows that there is a god. But that God is not a celestial Santa Claus that rewards good boys and girls and punishes bad boys and girls. Deism makes a lot of sense in that regard. Deism states that God created the universe and everything in it. We may not be the only "intelligent" beings in this universe. Deism also states that Jesus was a wise man, but was not God. Explain as the Christians might, the trinity makes three gods, not one. And why would Jesus pray to himself on the cross? Makes no sense.

Anyway, this site explains a lot of the history of the making of the Bible as we know it today. (I have not confirmed this information, although I plan to when time permits.) It took 300+ years after Jesus for the powers that be to decide on which writings would be included and which writings wouldn't. Furthermore, the Paul of the new testament is not the same Paul that spent time with Jesus. As should be suspected, the Bible was "edited" to control the masses and support a political agenda.

Check it out and let me know what you think. I'm interested in your opinion as you seem to be a smart cookie.

Curious

[Christian]

BJKlein

First Post
I've read your article but i'm still trying to understand it. Once I've figured out what he said I'll reply to it.

Second Post
I believe we currently don't know enough about this universe to decide what is true and what is not. many people today think the earth is round but that is just how we see it. Maybe if we get a better understanding of the nature of the universe we will find that the world is not round but really a bowl. That said I think people should believe in whatever they want to believe in as long as they keep an open mind.

curious
I looked at that site and Deism sounds very interesting and definately something I could believe in. I'll keep looking into it but I'm not going to make any decisions right away. I've been a Christian for ten years and I need some time and prayer to decide if I'm going to change the basis of my beliefs. Still I doubt I'm going to be a christian much longer. I'll always believe in God but I'm losing my belief in Christianity. I think I realized this best last sunday. I went to church for the first time in months and left just after the service started. I couldn't stand church anymore and as I was walking home I realized why. (People really should walk more, not only is it good exercise and cuts down on pollution but it gives you time to think about things while your blood is pumping.) All you do in church is sit there and listen to someone tell you how to run your life. The only interaction is shouting your agreement and singing christian songs. (It should be noted that, do to some bad memories in a Christian private school, I HATE Christian songs, especially slow ones. And there are very few things I actively hate.) Christianity seems to be a religion for sheep nowadays, with no real thinking going on, just mindless listening to rules. The last few times I've had a religious argument with my mother ( A devout Christian) the majority of her answers seem to boil down to "Because" and "God say's so". I can't stand answers like these yet these are the answers I get most in Christianity.
So, just to warn you all, this may not be be views from a Christian for much longer.

That said I will always believe in God and base my posts on that belief.

I would like to take a moment to describe my non-religious beliefs.
I desire to be happy, and I desire other people to be happy.
This is the belief I live my life by. I try to do things that make me and other people happy. And I try to avoid doing things that make me or other people unhappy. This is one of the main reasons I dislike politics, as they almost always put the total ahead of the individual. What's the point of survival if you can't have fun.
Also I believe the universe is far more complicated than anyone thinks it is. I believe that no matter how far our sciences and knowledge advance, there will still be mysteries and unanswered questions. I also believe that anything is possible.
Just a little view of how my brain works.

And a bit of description into my religious beliefs
I believe in God and I believe he cares for me like a father.
I believe that Jesus was the direct son of God and the ultimate role model.
I don't believe that there will be eternal damnation in hell for certain people.
I believe in heaven.
I don't believe it is immoral to try and live forever.
I believe humans were made in the shape of God.
I don't believe we have to stay in that shape if we don't want to. (but I do)
Just a bit more insight into how my brain works.

I also change my beliefs if I think of something better.

That's all for now
Christian

[Christian]

One thing I forgot

As the universe is beyond our complete understanding, so are human beings. I don't think you can describe everything about us simply because of memes or genes or whatnot. I think we are way more complicated than that.

Though I'm sure many people will try.
Christian

[Lazarus Long]

As the universe is beyond our complete understanding, so are human beings.

Nothing is beyond our complete understanding.

If this is a false assumption now prove I am wrong.

Your claim could be true but you have not proved that either. You have entered a realm in which you are not recognizing a "known" epistomological limit but rather instead are surreptitiously trying to impose one.

Oh you might say it is based on humans being imperfect beings trapped in Zeno's paradoxical quest of perfection but guess again, because all you are in fact doing is playing with definitions by saying that once we attain such perfection we are no longer human; you are making ignorance an a priori condition of being human not a transitory phase of human existence. I call these tricks, "shell game logic".

All that is really implied by your argument is that you place faith above reason in this respect but you are too ignorant to make your claim and thus it is an empty claim. I may be too ignorant yet to prove it wrong but guess who has the best chance of succeeding in the long run?

What if it takes BOTH faith and reason to comprehend the vast complexity of the universe and ourselves?

What if that is why we are hardwired to believe as well as reason?

[Lazarus Long]

Basically you have trapped yourself in a paradox, not anyone else. [>]

For the above claim to be true you can never claim to know its veracity because your acknowledged ignorance precludes such knowledgable certainty. For you to claim such knowledge implies the falsehood of the claim both for the Universe and the reflected argument about our ability to know ourselves.

Guess what? [?]

You are damned if you do and damned if you don't; either way you are damned... [8)]

Checkmate [":)]

You can set up the pieces for the next play please.

The Goddess loves you anyway, maybe either way, as any mother loves her child. )

Now we are having fun [!] lol [!]

[Bruce Klein]

So, just to warn you all, this may not be be views from a Christian for much longer.

I'll gladly change your nick if you so feel the need.

Also, it's quite interesting to see your feelings toward the church/preaching change. I notice your use of the term 'sheep' to describe the church goers. When I was younger, before I broke from my Catholic upbringing, I enjoyed going to church and seeing everyone dressed up. Although I do remember falling asleep quite a few times, it was nonetheless overall interesting to observe as a social gatherings inside the church.

But, I gradually began to question and eventually the whole thing became a bit silly after a while. So many people just sitting there, just listening, not questioning. It began to feel like a waste of time.

One important key is that I’ve never been much of a follower by nature. So, I felt the freedom to question. I read much about religion. And I read much from the other side of religion. Eventually, the contradictions and overwhelming evidence against the likely hood of Jesus having anything to do with a supernatural event became apparent. Thus, I became agnostic and eventually an atheist.

What's most important and what's most telling is that I began to see myself as no longer some type of static self. I’m not complete, nor will I ever be. What I may have held on to strongly just a year ago..I’d gladly give up in a heartbeat today. This makes me wonder about the things I hold on to now.

[Lazarus Long]

OK, Ok, I'll set up the board for you. It means I'll even give you the first move.

Do you recognize this quote?

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

For the son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

I will refrain from interpreting your scriptures for you, but I will not refrain from interpreting them for myself. You go first please but I'll add one thing this guy also said:

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because they seeing, see not; and hearing, hear not, neither do they understand...

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them...

For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and hear those things and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower...

Let us today sow the seeds of clear thought on fertile minds and leave thine scriptures behind. Perhaps the time of parables is long past.

Whoops, I snuck in and took the first move.

Should I take it back?

Your choice )

[Christian]

I'm Baaaack.

Lazarus

You're posts are very impressive looking but I'm afraid a barely understood any of them (Remember I'm just an uneducated high school student) and what does "epistomological" mean anyway.

"Nothing is beyond our complete understanding"
can you prove this is true?
I won't argue more than that because we will end up with another evolution/creation debate with neither side being able to prove what is right and what is wrong.
"I" believe things are beyond our understanding because it gives me more to look forward to. Although I shouldn't have put complete in there, I meant our current understanding.

The quotes are from Jesus, and they are paradoxes. He used them sometimes when trying to get a point across to people. What is the problem with them?

BJ
I am like you in my beliefs, they are ever-changing. I'm (currently) glad for this. I think it helps me work towards becoming a better person.
As for what I believe now, some things ( Like God) I've believed in for as long as I can remember. They may change a little but they are always there. These are the foundations of my life and everything else is meant to be changed as the times change and I change.
Do you have foundations BJ? If you do than what other beliefs really matter? Let them change, it keeps us modern.

As for staying a Christian
I thought long and hard about this (and that's a rarity for me, usually I just pick the first choice that comes to mind) and I've decided to stay a Christian. It really describes me well. I believe in God and I believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God. That's Christianity at it's basics right there, the Bible and Church and such are distant seconds. Besides, I want to see if I can help bring Christianity into the new era and I think that would be easier as a Christian.


There was something else I was going to say but now I've forgotten it so bye for now.
Christian

[micah]

I am very interested in this thread, and I thought I would post a few thoughts. First of all, reality is real, and we need to deal with that. There are real facts, and real truth, although it is often hard for us to understand it. We should never think we are impervious to criticism or correction.

Second, Christianity does not ask for the "blind faith" that truth_believer seems to think it does. In the bible, "faith" just means "trust". It's important to trust each other (when someone has proven themselves), and its important to trust the truth of things we can PROVE, but not SEE. We know, for example, that the future is likely to hold a lot of weird experiences, so it is beneficial to us to consider those possibilities. But it is easy to lose sight of that and think that *now* is all there is, and eventually be caught unawares. That is what "faith" is supposed to remedy.

Third, Christianity is not opposed to physical immortality. Quite the opposite: it is unbiblical to die. Bible characters always see death as an enemy, rather than as part of the "natural cycle" that our death-loving culture teaches. The Christian hope is for immortality of an advanced body, rather than the immortality of the soul that Plato taught. The apostle Paul talked about this quite a lot.

Fourth, Christianity does NOT teach the doctrine of Original Sin. This is a prominent view in America, but not in the Eastern Orthodox-type churches. Many protestant churches today reject it, and the church I was raised in (Church of Christ) vehemently opposes it. The Bible teaches adamantly that guilt cannot be passed down or inherited. Adam and Eve alone were punished for their sins.

I have more to say, but I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts about this. I feel a great affinity with Christian's desires, and also a great affinity with BJ's thought processes.

I look forward to more,
-micah

[Bruce Klein]

Warm welcome micah,

In the bible, "faith" just means "trust".

Could you define your interpretation of the difference between the two terms?

In part I agree that Christianity doesn't promote death. The pro-life movement is another good example. Yet, there is a flaw because if an individual is to go to heaven they must die. I suppose this may not be a universal flaw however because some believe in a second coming which would not (i guess?) require death to see god.

Is the second coming idea prevalent in your religion micah?

[micah]

Thanks for the response, BJ. I will answer in parts to deal with the different subjects.

Could you define your interpretation of the difference between the two terms?

“Faith” in common usage means “belief in something without proof”. This is absolutely NOT what the bible advocates. The first christians all believed that their teachings were based on facts which could be objectively verified.

“Trust” means warranted confidence in something not directly verifiable by the individual. Like my confidence that the stars are really giant balls of gas, based on my trust in the overall processes of science and physics. Or my belief that my friend won’t betray me based on the fact that he has always been loyal.

The bible usually refers to trust (“faith”) as something between friends. Since the bible is mainly concerned with teaching us how to have good relationships with each other, this is the main application of “trust”. Christian is right about there being only two laws in the bible: several times it is stated that love (relationships) fulfills all of God’s requirements. The bible additionally equates love for God with love for humans...you can’t love God and hate others at that same time...conversely, all who love people love God. So the whole focus of the bible is on relationships, and trust plays a large part in that.

However, there is a more general sense in which “trust” is used. The bible talks about having trust in the future, that it will work out. This referred to some specific historical situations, so it is not *necessarily* true that we need this same kind of trust today. Jesus-followers at that time were under lots of persecution, and their trust that they would eventually have relief helped them persevere. I do not think this, either, was “blind faith”. They had reasons to believe their situation would get better, and they were proven right. I could go much more into depth about the specific things they dealt with and their reasons for trust, but I’ll leave it at that.

There is an even more general sense in which we need trust. In order to live effectively, we need to be able to act without anxiety. We don’t need to be careless; but we do need to be confident, living without too much trepidation. “Trust” in this sense is trusting life, ourselves, and reality...living without fear. This was a specific teaching of Jesus.

Hope this helped a little.

-micah

[micah]

In part I agree that Christianity doesn't promote death. Yet, there is a flaw because if an individual is to go to heaven they must die.

Or maybe not. Genesis, which details humanity’s origin, would seem to indicate that humans were meant to live forever physically on this earth UNTIL God steps in and actually lifts them out. If this is true, then the bible positively advocates physical immortality, until such a time as God steps in, and would oppose the idea of humans choosing to die. If someone suggested to me that a christian should be eager to die and go to heaven, I would point this out.

However, there is a more comprehensive way of looking at this, I think. Basically, the christian hope is for the resurrection of the body, although that body might be vastly different than the bodies we have now. I would further argue that this resurrection is to occur IN OUR UNIVERSE. The bible speaks of “bringing heaven to earth”, rather than taking everybody to heaven.

Sooo...if we choose to die, we will be resurrected in the future at some point. Or, we could choose to live, and survive into that future ourselves. In this understanding, dying does not take you to the resurrection any faster, so the best option is to live.

There is a story I like to tell about a woman trapped by a flash flood. She climbed up on her roof and prayed for God to rescue her. Soon, along came a guy hanging on to a board. “Get on!” he shouted. “There’s room enough for both of us”. But the woman refused. “God is going to rescue me,” she replied. Later, two guys on a small boat rowed by. “Get in!” they yelled. “No! God is going to rescue me,” the woman responded. Finally, a helicopter flew in to lift her off her roof. But she refused to board it. “I believe in God, and God is going to rescue me!” the woman stated. So the water continued to rise, overwhelmed the house, and drowned the woman. When she got to heaven, she asked God, “I had faith in you, why didn’t you rescue me?”. God replied, “I sent you a board, a boat, and a helicopter, but you refused me every time! What more could I do?”

The moral I take from this is that we shouldn’t pass up the opportunities that we are given, in favor of our naive expectations. Resurrection is a last-ditch remedy for death. Why would you seek out the illness, so you could get the remedy? Instead, a rational person hopes to avoid the illness as long as possible, only taking the remedy if it becomes needed.

In a related way, I have no problem see advancements in medical technology as the work of God. I have no problem seeing the development of physical immortality as the work of God. God promises to resurrect us one day, but why should we refuse what he is giving us now?

-micah

[tbeal]

Sooo...if we choose to die, we will be resurrected in the future at some point. Or, we could choose to live, and survive into that future ourselves. In this understanding, dying does not take you to the resurrection any faster, so the best option is to live.

[tbeal]

sorry I do not know how to qwote properly yet (lol)
even though I am not a christian it is very easy to put a hole in this statement
because if there is a resurrection in the future and you died as far as you are concerned you would arrive at the reserrection instaonously because you would not expirience the period between your death and resurection. (much as often (bar dreams) you appear to wake up the moment you went to sleep) so YOU WOULD GET TO THE RESURRECTION FASTER - not that I like the idea of death but only because I don't believe in resurrection!

[micah]

Tbeal, I agree with your statement. Subjectively, dying would take you to the resurrection faster. But I was talking in terms of real utility: it is better to live and make a better life for yourself, so that when you get to that point in time, you’re “farther ahead”.

I question any modern person who does not believes in the possibility of a resurrection. Being on this website indicates that you take seriously the possibility of physical immortality, which implies that a human is defined as a collection of matter, energy, and information. Given that definition, resurrection of the dead is merely a technical problem. It is only a matter of whether you can extract enough information from the past.
That, of course, is debatable, but I believe that eventually, all the information we need will be available.

For example, how would I resurrect my great-grandfather? I might start by digging up his body for any remaining DNA. If I were a supercomputer, I could try to deduce some of the information contained in his brain from whatever remained of it. I could consult old records to find information about him, talk to my relatives, etc. This would allow me to piece together a very hazy picture of the information making up who he was. But, by making enough assumptions, I should be able to recreate a passable imitation of my great-grandfather.

Now, considering the likely explosive growth of technology and science in the years ahead, I doubt any particular bit of information we required would remain permanently lost. So as technology increases, the closeness of a feasible replication to my great-grandfather will increase also.

Given that the universe is scheduled to last for billions of years more, it seems only reasonable that the technology to extract ALL of the information necessary to create an EXACT replication will be attained at some point in time, and will thereafter become trivial. Whatever limit there is to this imposed by the laws of physics could be circumvented by creating all replicas of my great-grandfather consistent with the known facts. Therefore, my exact great-grandfather would end up being resurrected eventually.

This may sound slightly horrifying, but I’m just trying to establish the feasibility of this. Do you see a problem with it on that level? Or is your objection to it more philosophical/moral?

-micah