#287679 - 04/10/2006 01:49
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: ]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Before anything else, I want to answer your final question first: Why and how is it here? I don't really care. The need to have an answer for everything is a religious trait, one I don't share. Science may always seek answers to any question that presents itself, but science insists on having a plausible answer, where it seems Christians are willing to simply leave it up to the mysterious will of the all-powerful sky faerie.
Actually, the stuff you're talking about is pretty much armchair-astronomy. The problem with astronomy (and all science in general) is that it didn't stop 2000 years ago, like Christianity did. By that I mean that Christianity had all the answers it needed contained in the introductory text. Science continues to evolve (pun most certainly intended), and will continue to for the forseeable future. We don't have all the answers, and have never claimed to. In fact, one of the basic tenets of science is that we don't have all the answers. Sadly, religious people simply avoid the questions with pithy aphorisms like "God works in mysterious ways."
It never fails to amuse me how people who are religious love to use the Big Bang argument as a wedge. The problem is, I have yet to meet someone who does this and, at the same time, has a deep understanding of the actual science behind it. Until you (and I mean "you" as in "religious people," not any specific individual) can sit down with pencil and paper and prove the physicists wrong, arguments like these would be better suited to the first year philosophy / astronomy / physics classes where they belong. No offense.
The biggest problem here is that Christians love to argue against science without understanding that science has nothing to do with disproving the existence of their god. Einstein felt that his theories more clearly showed the great glory of his all-powerful sky faerie. And he wasn't alone. Even Newton was a good Christian boy. Albiet most likely gay. So unwelcome in the church. Because gay people can't bring glory to the all-powerful sky faerie. Or something. My point is, what does it look like when the all-powerful sky faerie says "let there be light." Is it like a halogen desk lamp being turned on? Or does it look like an expansion wave of charged particles? Sorta like...
...the Big Bang.
See, you don't know. You assume that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive. And so Christians eschew any scientific theory that doesn't suit their ossified view of the world. And that's why we have things like bans on gay marriage, abortion doctors being murdered, etc., etc.... And arguments against the Big Bang.
It's ridiculous, really. Say what you want, but Christians have nothing over Scientologists, or any other cult that only listens to, and bases their view of the world on, what one individual says, without any regard for that grapefruit sized chunk of grey goo in their noggin. I don't have 100% faith in science, but I will say this for it over religion:
How'd that prayer work out for you during the Black Death? No? Shame, we're doing quite well on things like smallpox and polio over here in the science camp. And if you need a bit of help, we're doing fantastic stuff with the Black Death lately, too.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287680 - 04/10/2006 02:01
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: jimhogan]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
How is this elegant or simple? If God was really elegantly omnipotent, why not a message every month? An insert in your cable bill, say.
Excellent, Jim! Simultaneously blasphemous and hilarious in just a few short characters.
I think I feel a new .sig coming on....
(No offense intended to Jeff, whose calm and well-reasoned posts are also much appreciated.)
Now I have to decide if this reminds me more of Woody Allen, Jerry Seinfeld, or, I don't know, Harlan Ellison.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287681 - 04/10/2006 02:11
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: webroach]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
The biggest problem here is that Christians love to argue against science [...]Einstein felt that his theories... showed the great glory [...] Newton was a good Christian
Dave,
Even today, there are some scientists who are religious.
In fact, there are even cosmologists who profess to be Christian.
So you are being a bit unfair in lumping all non-atheists into one big lump.
Actually, I'm quite interested in how cosmologists and molecular biologists
reconcile their science with their religion, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or what have you.
If for no other reason than that I think it might give me some insight into human psychology.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287682 - 04/10/2006 02:15
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: music]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
You might want to check out The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287683 - 04/10/2006 02:26
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: webroach]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I never said that science and christianity had to be mutually exclusive. Actually, I don't see how they can be.
What I am saying is that science has yet to disprove christianity, which you dismiss as being false.
I'm further saying that science *can't* answer the question that has plagued man throughout recorded history: how and why we are here. Science (and by "science" I mean we, people) can't answer it because the problem is paradoxical and currently contradicts our natural logic and understanding.
Christianity *does* answer the question: there's a higher being that exists beyond our own understanding. Perhaps one day we will understand that being and then it'll become science.
Whether or not you care about how or why we exist doesn't make the question irrelevant. Most people do care, even those who aren't scientists.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287684 - 04/10/2006 02:26
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Sheesh. JeffS + Post-On-Any-Topic = Intense-relgious-discussion. I guess it's been a while since we've had one of these and we were about due. Anyway, I'm just chiming in to say that I'll take both science and religion and don't feel that I need to choose between them. I don't have any desire to disprove the Big Bang, and I'll take all the cures for desieses that science can give me. There are places where the Science and faith don't quite meet, it's true, and I'm OK with that. I don't know everything, and somtimes we humans get things wrong. Through research and/or enlightment I'm sure we'll get it right some day- and if we don't in my lifetime I'll understand in heaven. As I've said before, the central idea of Christianty is salvation by grace through faith, not to combat science. While I"m posting, though, I do have an observation. I understand that a bunch of you look at Christiaty like a common myth- given that you aren't believers this makes complete sense- I don't see why Christiantiy would be treated any differently than any other belief system in your eyes. At least you're level headed not to try and hedge your bets the way most people do. That being said, I do get the sense that some of the language being chosen in recent posts is a deliberate attempt to shock myself or John (while other statements and posts are clearly intended to simply lighten the discussion). Honestly this doesn't bother me (disbelief is the same whether it is attempting to be shocking or not), and I might be misunderstanding the intent, but if some of these words are being choicen for the purpose of tweaking those who are Christians to get a rise out of us, I think other language might serve the discussion better. I honstly do hope and pray that some of you will come around to trust in Jesus for salvation, and if it ever happens I'll know this for certain: it won't be a wishy-washy, "I'm trying Christiantiy because everyone else is doing it" kind of faith. Though if some of you became believers it might shake the faith up quite a bit!  At any rate, I'm fairly convinced that I'm not going to say or do anything on this BBS that will ever make any of you change your minds, but I can still hope that God works in your lives elsewhere to bring you to Him. I remain happy that this board allows such an honest and open exchange of ideas from such diverse belief systems, usually in the most respectful way possible. There are very few places that I've experienced this.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287685 - 04/10/2006 02:27
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: webroach]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
And so Christians eschew any scientific theory that doesn't suit their ossified view of the world. And that's why we have things like bans on gay marriage, abortion doctors being murdered, etc., etc.... And arguments against the Big Bang.
Yes, yes, I know. Not to mention the attempted banning of the teaching of the theory of evolution in Kansas and elsewhere. This despite the fact that we have a great example (in the Soviets teaching Lysenkoism) that educating your youth with flawed science can set your science back by decades.
But I think you are conflating "Christians" with "American Protestant Southern Literalist Fundamentalist Anti-Science Christians" which is a much smaller subset of all of Christianity.
They are just very noticeable because they have an enormous amount of political power in the U.S. (and thus in the world) right now.
But you wouldn't have to search too far to find some American Christians that are officiating at gay weddings, in favor of stem cell research, etc., etc.
Nor would you have to search far to find a few atheists who accept science in a purely faith-based manner. I.e., science was the religion of their parents, so it's their religion now, too.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287686 - 04/10/2006 02:35
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: jimhogan]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
I kinda appreciate the elegance and simplicity of that idea.
How is this elegant or simple? If God was really elegantly omnipotent, why not a message every month? An insert in your cable bill, say.
Perhaps then you'd blame those pesky christians for forcing their message on you. If you got that message in your cable bill every month for your entire life, would it make a difference?
Would it make a difference if it was printed on all of your money for your entire life? Or in a book in every hotel room you've ever slept in? Would you know the face of God if you saw it, every day of your life -- or would it just be another insignificant object of this godless earthly life?
Would you believe if one day, the sky changed colors or a loud voice boomed out from the clouds? What if this happened every day of your life, like say, a rainbow?
No, you wouldn't, because you don't already.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287687 - 04/10/2006 02:43
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
You might want to check out The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.
Thanks, Bitt. I have read that in the past and liked it.
I have also read Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer -- which didn't really deliver on the promise of the title, but was still somewhat interesting.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287688 - 04/10/2006 03:00
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: ]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I kinda appreciate the elegance and simplicity of that idea.
How is this elegant or simple? If God was really elegantly omnipotent, why not a message every month? An insert in your cable bill, say.
Perhaps then you'd blame those pesky christians for forcing their message on you.
Well, if the message clearly came from God, rather than from "those pesky Christians" then I certainly couldn't be upset that the creator of the universe was meddling in my cable bill, now could I?
Quote:
Would it make a difference if [...]
Would you believe if [...]
What if this happened every day of your life [...]
No, you wouldn't, because you don't already.
Oh, you better believe I would. Because in that universe, all those omens would be testable by science.
We could have everyone wear blue shirts one month, to see if the messages stopped or doubled in frequency. We could see if the hand of God smote every person who defiled their cable bill. Repeatably. Predictably. Every time.
In that universe, God would simply be a fact.
But that universe is not this universe. And if I understand Jeff correctly, it never will be. Because according to his beliefs, the way to God is through faith. I.e., you must believe even though there AREN'T any repeatable testable facts that science could use to say, "Yep, there's your god, right there."
The God that Jeff believes in is not a "prove it to me!" kind of god.
Obviously, Jeff, please correct me if I'm mis-stating your faith.
But my point is that a "daily testable miracle" would probably convert most or all of the atheists here into true believers, especially if it is one that no one could ever fake through any alternate means.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287689 - 04/10/2006 03:24
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
Sheesh. JeffS + Post-On-Any-Topic = Intense-relgious-discussion. I guess it's been a while since we've had one of these and we were about due.
I think what it is Jeff is that there are two camps which can never come to a mutually agreeable concept of reality. And that's not neccessarily negative. But the fact remains that those who believe in a thing and those who do not really have no acceptable middle ground: you can't "kinda believe in somthing you don't bellieve in" or vice-versa.
Quote:
Anyway, I'm just chiming in to say that I'll take both science and religion and don't feel that I need to choose between them. I don't have any desire to disprove the Big Bang, and I'll take all the cures for desieses that science can give me. There are places where the Science and faith don't quite meet, it's true, and I'm OK with that. I don't know everything, and somtimes we humans get things wrong. Through research and/or enlightment I'm sure we'll get it right some day- and if we don't in my lifetime I'll understand in heaven. As I've said before, the central idea of Christianty is salvation by grace through faith, not to combat science.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: you are not the standard Christian in this country, Jeff. Thankfully.
Quote:
While I"m posting, though, I do have an observation. I understand that a bunch of you look at Christiaty like a common myth- given that you aren't believers this makes complete sense- I don't see why Christiantiy would be treated any differently than any other belief system in your eyes. At least you're level headed not to try and hedge your bets the way most people do. That being said, I do get the sense that some of the language being chosen in recent posts is a deliberate attempt to shock myself or John (while other statements and posts are clearly intended to simply lighten the discussion). Honestly this doesn't bother me (disbelief is the same whether it is attempting to be shocking or not), and I might be misunderstanding the intent, but if some of these words are being choicen for the purpose of tweaking those who are Christians to get a rise out of us, I think other language might serve the discussion better.
I'm gonna guess that you're referring to my using the term "all-powerful sky faerie" to talk about your diety. I mean no offense by it, honestly, and I certainly don't use it to shock you. I use the term for two reasons: (1) I don't believe in your diety at all, and to me it seems no more believable than faeries. And in your belief system, the diety is omnipotent. Hence, to me, the diety represents an all-powerful faerie in the sky. (2) I refuse to use thee term "god" for a specific individual. That usage is nothing more, historically, than an attempt to disempower the dieties of other belief systems (also known as "gods").
Quote:
I honstly do hope and pray that some of you will come around to trust in Jesus for salvation, and if it ever happens I'll know this for certain: it won't be a wishy-washy, "I'm trying Christiantiy because everyone else is doing it" kind of faith. Though if some of you became believers it might shake the faith up quite a bit!
Thank you for the vote of confidence Jeff. Sadly though, you're wrong: if we became believers, we wouldn't shake up anything, because the process of becoming believers would entail giving up that part of ourselves which questions, which requires tangible, testable evidence. You won't find your diety in a petri dish unless you decided you would before even looking.
Quote:
At any rate, I'm fairly convinced that I'm not going to say or do anything on this BBS that will ever make any of you change your minds, but I can still hope that God works in your lives elsewhere to bring you to Him.
You're right Jeff, at least as far as I'm concerned. Nothing you say will change my mind, because I've heard the arguments. I've weighed the evidence and found it wanting. So you see, it isn't something you can do, making me change my mind. The evidence would have to. And there is NO evidence for your diety that can't also be attributed to any all-powerful sky faerie I choose to imagine.
Quote:
I remain happy that this board allows such an honest and open exchange of ideas from such diverse belief systems, usually in the most respectful way possible. There are very few places that I've experienced this.
I couldn't agree more. I think the fact that we can have pretty heated debates about such a loaded topic and still remain friends speaks volumes about the community here.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287690 - 04/10/2006 03:59
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: music]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Well, if the message clearly came from God, rather than from "those pesky Christians" then I certainly couldn't be upset that the creator of the universe was meddling in my cable bill, now could I?
How would you know whether or not it came from God?
Quote:
Oh, you better believe I would. Because in that universe, all those omens would be testable by science.
We could have everyone wear blue shirts one month, to see if the messages stopped or doubled in frequency. We could see if the hand of God smote every person who defiled their cable bill. Repeatably. Predictably. Every time.
In that universe, God would simply be a fact.
Just like rainbows and burning bushes are provable by science. Yet, because it is explained by science, it supposedly doesn't come from God, right? If you could prove why God exists then he wouldn't be God, would he? I think you would be.
If you wanted to be a true scientist, then you'd acknowledge the question as to why we are here, and at the very least, entertain the only plausible solution put forth thus far by mankind -- that there's a higher being, known as God.
And, you would take into account the billions of first hand accounts from witnesses who claim to have had an experience with God. There have been far fewer reported UFO sightings, yet most people, and probably most scientists, would entertain the possibility of them actually existing. To not do so would be unscientific.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287691 - 04/10/2006 11:49
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Peter, an attempt to answer some of your questions with my limited knowlege: Quote:
The source for his "acceptance by the other apostles" is Galatians 2:7-9, written by Paul. What's the source for their "endorsement of his writings"?
2 Peter 3:14-16
"So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless,
blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our
dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his
letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which
ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
Peter not only endorses Paul, but also forsees that people will have trouble accepting his letters. Ironic.
Also, Luke describes Paul's ministry (and indirectly endoreses it by not condemning it) in the book of Acts.
Quote:
Is any of it "historical" as opposed to "scriptural"?
Several of the early church fathers, some of them contemporaries of the apostles, acknowlege Paul:
Clement of Alexandria, The Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 5 (AD 94,95)
"Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. ...By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and West, we won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance."
Ignatius of Antioch, To the Romans, Chapter 4 (August 23, 97 AD)
"I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour."
Polycarp, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 3
"For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truly carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you, which is the mother of us all, while hope followeth after and love goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor. For if any man be occupied with these, he hath fulfilled the commandment of righteousness; for he that hath love is far from all sin."
Irenaeus (140-202 AD) cites Paul in his work "Against Heresies."
I acknowlege that there are disputes about these ancient writings. You may well find an argument that Polycarp's letter is a forgery, or that the reference to St. Paul is a forgery. However, one must examine both sides of these arguments. Entire books have been written on the matter, which I will not reproduce here. Although initially some of the Jewish Christians did reject Paul (which is understandable since he had been hunting them down and killing or imprisoning them), by the time of the Council of Jerusalem, at which both Peter and James the brother of Christ were present, all of these issues seemed to be resolved.
I agree with Jeff though, in that regardless of the amount of evidence that is produced, the choice to reject Christ will likely remain the same for readers of this discussion. Because of the nature of all historical writings of that age, enough doubt could be cast to reject just about any of them if one wished. There simply isn't a volume of corroborating evidence available. In the end, to be a Christ-follower requires a certain amount of faith. That said, I'll probably not post any further on the issue.
Also, to Bitt: I do apologize for being abrasive in my earlier post with the whole "pet argument" thing.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287692 - 04/10/2006 13:00
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
If you wanted to be a true scientist, then you'd acknowledge the question as to why we are here, and at the very least, entertain the only plausible solution put forth thus far by mankind -- that there's a higher being, known as God.
First, science never claimed to be able to or want to answer the question of "why". That is the realm of theologians, and, maybe, philosophers. In addition, to atheists, the question of "why" isn't even a question. There's no guiding force, no intelligence for there to even be a why. It just is. It's like asking "why does water freeze at a certain temperature and pressure". Humanity can explain the methods that cause it to freeze, but expecting us to explain the rationale behind choosing those data is absurd.
Second, why is the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God the only plausible explanation? Certainly there were and are many other religions each with their own creation myths. Just because you were born into a Christian society, all of those other explanations are null and void?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287693 - 04/10/2006 13:01
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Also, to Bitt: I do apologize for being abrasive in my earlier post with the whole "pet argument" thing.
Not a problem. Not exactly an incorrect assessment, either.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287694 - 04/10/2006 14:05
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Just a few general comments on some recent points/arguments made. We keep doing this: "Why do you believe xxx" "Because I read yyy in scripture" "I don't buy scripture, especially Paul's stuff" It should be obvious from the outset that if we don't agree on the authority of scripture then we're not going agree on the conclusions I draw from it. I never appeal to scripture here to convince anybody of anything; rather my purpose is to explain why I believe what I do. Since we are starting from different places, obviously beliefs will diverge. But I'd hope an honest inquiry trying to understand my beliefs would also understand that I am always going to be coming from a frame of reference that starts with scripture as the inspiried Word of God. You don't need to adpot this belief to understand mine better, but if every time I appeal to scripture we end up having the "Paul didn't meet Jesus/ had his own agenda/ was gay" discussion we are not going to get very far in seeking to understand one another. My suggestion is that if we want to have a discussion about the authority of scripture and why John and I believe it to be the inspired Word of God, that might be an interesting thread. But if there are other questions we are intrested in discussing regarding things such as gambling, greed, or how Christians derive their moral outlook, it would more profitable to accept that we have different starting places and move on to where that leaves us and how we apply our different views rather than constantly re-treading the same issue of the inspiration of scripture. Just an observation and a thought to try and get a little farther in these disuccions I also wanted to respond to the whole "why dosen't God talk to us anymore" stuff. I'd like to make clear that Christians believe God still does talk to us, just not in the authoritative way of scripture. Scripture remains the objective Word of God that we can use to measure individual subjective encounters with Him. In scripture He has given us all we need to live the Christian life the way He intends; no more objective truth is needed. The Bible never seeks to prove the existense of God. It always just assumes His existense and centers around themes of our relationship to Him. So saying, "God spoke 2000 years ago and then became silent" is an innacurate characterization of the Bible. Rather, God spoke through the Bible to tell us how to relate to Him, and has been communicating to us in His still small voice ever since. It is easy to think that we'd relate to God differently if He suddenly appeard and start doing God-like things, but scripture teels a different story. When He actually DID come in human form doing God-like things, here are some of the responses people had: -Some believed and became followers -Some called Him evil and not worthy of being followed -Some felt threatened by the implications of the things He said and claimed -Some thought it was a hoax. -Some treated Him like a curiosity but no real significance -Some really couldn't be bothered because they had their own issues to deal with These are the same responses people have today, and it appears that even putting the miraculous right in our faces didn't make much of a difference from the beleif standpoint. I think very few attitudes would change if God were to show up and start working miracles. There would still be doubters, those unconcerned, and people who believe and trust. At the end of the day, the real issue isn't belief in His existense (though that is the first step of course)- it is answer the question of our need for a savior and putting our trust in His sacrifice. His showing up might help with the first part, but the second part is always going to be a matter of faith.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287695 - 04/10/2006 15:24
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Well, that's the question I'm (I guess implicitly) asking. What leads you to believe that the Bible has any credence? I'm personally happier with people who believe that God exists and see the Bible as a written record of other people who believe the same thing, not as some doctrinal credo. It is, in some respects, an historical record of the life of Jesus and the history of the Jewish people, so it's hardly irrelevant to the Judeo-Christian experience, and there's a decent amount of good philosophy in it (as well as a decent amount of bad, too) but to put it at a higher priority than your own personal relationship with God I don't understand. It's more like you're more interested in being an upright member of a club than being okay with your God.
I also have some personal theories about the notion of feeling an internal God, but I think that, beyond some extreme examples, there's nothing wrong with that notion, as long as you don't force your views upon others. While I don't think that you do that directly, I do think you support and encourage a culture that does, and that's where my problem lies.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287696 - 04/10/2006 19:20
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
I'd like to make clear that Christians believe God still does talk to us, just not in the authoritative way of scripture. Scripture remains the objective Word of God that we can use to measure individual subjective encounters with Him. In scripture He has given us all we need to live the Christian life the way He intends; no more objective truth is needed.
The Bible never seeks to prove the existense of God. It always just assumes His existense and centers around themes of our relationship to Him. So saying, "God spoke 2000 years ago and then became silent" is an innacurate characterization of the Bible. Rather, God spoke through the Bible to tell us how to relate to Him, and has been communicating to us in His still small voice ever since.
The former paragraph is a fair characterization of many Christian theologies, but it's certainly not true of all Christian theologies. You use Bible and scripture synonymously (which is an important thing to note), making the claim that it's "all we need," and that "no more objective truth is needed." If that were truly all we needed, why would He bother continuing to communicate with us, as you suggest he does? If one believes that God continues to communicate with us, then I'm of the opinion that one can't believe that the Bible (a word I'm using specifically) is all we need.
For example, in the church I was raised in, the Bible is the principle scripture (it does, after all, contain the basic tenets of Christianity), but is certainly not "all we need." It also has a Doctrine and Covenants, which is a record of what the church perceives as God's continued communication. In that end, it's a scriptural record, not there to supplant the Bible, but to supplement the Bible with current revelations of (and from) God. (Thus the Bible is a subset of "scripture", as opposed to being synonymous.)
One great benefit that having such a document affords is that it allows the church to recognize that the Bible is a historical document, written for a particular society, during a particular time period, and, as such, parts of it may be irrelevant to modern society. Can you imagine how well the people of that era would have accepted Christ teaching not to have slaves, or that women aren't property to be bought and sold, but equally important members of society, due the same rights as men?
In the same way a parent evolves their instructions from "Don't touch the stove," to "Only use the stove when I'm around to supervise," to "Feel free to bake cookies whenever you want," I think God evolves his instructions to us based on our capacity to greater understand the nuances. To believe that the Bible is "all you need," and the complete "objective truth," does a disservice to God, because it artificially puts a limit on His ability to teach humanity new concepts or "objective truths" that would have been too radical a change for a previous society to accept.
Scripture must be a living, adaptive, document, or it ceases to be any more relevant than any other beneficial philosophy.
(If you read the beliefs of the church mentioned above, I think the one single most important line that sets that church apart from many, if not all others, I've encountered is this: "Recognizing that the perception of truth is always qualified by human nature and experience, there is no official church creed that must be accepted by all members." That's a powerful thing for a religion to recognize.)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287697 - 04/10/2006 19:53
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
(If you read the beliefs of the church mentioned above, I think the one single most important line that sets that church apart from many, if not all others, I've encountered is this: "Recognizing that the perception of truth is always qualified by human nature and experience, there is no official church creed that must be accepted by all members." That's a powerful thing for a religion to recognize.)
What about Unitarians?
Don't they also allow/encourage some belief flexibility among their members?
Edit: Apparently they do.
Also, BBC link and Wikipedia link.
Edited by music (04/10/2006 20:05)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287698 - 04/10/2006 23:09
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Sadly, religious people simply avoid the questions with pithy aphorisms like "God works in mysterious ways."
Or worse, tell you "See? The fact that you can't explain this proves that God exists."
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287699 - 04/10/2006 23:09
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
The former paragraph is a fair characterization of many Christian theologies, but it's certainly not true of all Christian theologies.
True enough- obviously there are many differing versions of Christianity out there and I promise I do not presume to speak for all of them; only that with which I am a part of/ most familiar. When I say "Christianity" I generally mean "the conservative evangelical Christiantiy that I am a part of", but I just used the single term for brevity's sake.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287700 - 04/10/2006 23:15
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
making the claim that it's "all we need," and that "no more objective truth is needed." If that were truly all we needed, why would He bother continuing to communicate with us, as you suggest he does?
It is all we truly need as a guidline for objective truth about God. However, I believe that God is not only interested in teaching objective truth about Himself, but also helping us to experience Him in an objective mannger.
Quote:
One great benefit that having such a document affords is that it allows the church to recognize that the Bible is a historical document, written for a particular society, during a particular time period, and, as such, parts of it may be irrelevant to modern society. Can you imagine how well the people of that era would have accepted Christ teaching not to have slaves, or that women aren't property to be bought and sold, but equally important members of society, due the same rights as men?
Historical context is important to intepretation of scripture whether you believe that it is a living document or not. No Christian I know believes the practices listed above should be followed in modern society (or even that they were necessarily correct at the time). The people in the Bible existed in a time and place different from ours, but the fundamentals of faith were still the same.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287701 - 04/10/2006 23:34
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Well, that's the question I'm (I guess implicitly) asking. What leads you to believe that the Bible has any credence?
Long answer that I don't have the energy right now to fully answer to anything close to satisfactorily. There are plenty of arguments about consistency of doctrine, internal and external claims of devinie insipration, and my own experience of the truth of it as lived out in my life. Each of these are topics that would have to be expounded upon in great detail, and honestly I'm just not up for it at the moment 
Quote:
as long as you don't force your views upon others. While I don't think that you do that directly, I do think you support and encourage a culture that does, and that's where my problem lies.
I'm not quite certain what you mean by this. While I am a part of the evangelical church and do seek to share the gospel with people, I don't try to force people to follow my moral code- I DO try to convince people that I'm right, but then don't we all?
I don't really get wht you meant by "supporting and encouraging a culture that does". Are you talking about politics and the religious right, or something else? If it is the former, I don't do anything I know of to encourage that. I try to vote the way I think will be best for the country overall, but I always feel like I'm picking between to bad choices; I don't remember ever having voted and feeling like my choice was a good representation of myself or my goals. I want less government, not more, and I don't want the government telling people what to believe or how to behave unless it's going to infringe on the rights of others. I honestly don't beleive either party in the US is offering that though.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287702 - 04/10/2006 23:40
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: music]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
You might want to check out The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.
Thanks, Bitt. I have read that in the past and liked it.
I have also read Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer -- which didn't really deliver on the promise of the title, but was still somewhat interesting.
I would add to the list Richard Dawkins' new The God Delusion, drawn in part from previous work done for a BBC special (that will likely never air on TV in these United Snakes!).
As the title might suggest, this was a somewhat less polite, less tentative/apologetic treatment. Nothing I needed to be convinced of, particularly, but I wanted to see what kind of a job he'd do. Not always cohesive -- seemed to digress in the middle parts particularly -- but I thought Dawkins covered the territory well. And, yes, frankly.
By way of heinous Dawkins-thumping proselytization, and given Jeff's thoughtful nature, I'd pony up to get Jeff a copy if he was interested to read start-to-finish (no obligation for refutation or book report!) Of course, as an alternative, you may find that TGD has not yet been removed from library shelves in Texas.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287703 - 05/10/2006 00:01
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Are you talking about politics and the religious right
Partially. I can understand voting Republican and not liking some of their aspects (well, in times past when the Republican party was not the asylum I believe it to be today), but you base at least some of your choice on your religion, thinking that somehow Bush (to pick today's candidate) represents your faith more than whatever other party might be involved. Honestly, I believe that he represents the opposite of what you believe. You may say that you don't want the government dictating morality, but you vote for the people who want it to do so anyway. (I also have issues with you believing that somehow the Republicans still stand for smaller government -- see the beginning of this thread for evidence that it doesn't -- but that's neither here nor there for this argument.)
I also believe that you're part of a culture that looks to overwhelm every other culture you don't agree with. I could go on a rant here, but I won't. I just encourage you to look with whom you're aligning yourself. You may not share the same views on things. They may be strange bedfellows, but they're bedfellows nonetheless.
I guess what I'm getting at is that you have strong views about things. I think that's great. What I'm confused by is that, to me, your ultimate choices always seem to undermine those views. When put on the spot, you always seem to have a copout like "well, they all do that". What has to happen to get your political actions to line up with your professed beliefs?
I'm all too understanding of not having anyone to represent you politically. I have the benefit of having my personal politics lie well to the far side of one of the major parties in the vast majority of ways, making my choice easy, if lousy. But at some point you have to realize that someone that used to represent you no longer does, even if they still claim to do so.
I don't know. I've always had very leftist political views, but, until recently, I've not been all that politically minded. It just seems that all of the organizations that you support are, in my opinion, undermining the very foundation of the United States and are changing this country that I love into one I can't even respect. I know I come off as arrogant and argumentative, but it's a topic that is as close to me as I imagine your religion is to you.
That wasn't a very coherent post, I imagine. What I'm getting at is that I think you're a decent guy with whom I have some differences of opinion. But I see you backing virtually everything that I think is wrong with the country these days, and it makes me angry. It makes me even angrier and sadder to know that decent people like yourself are backing this insidiousness.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287704 - 05/10/2006 00:26
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: jimhogan]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
in these United Snakes!
If that's how you feel about the USA, then why don't you leave? Oh right, because it's the best country in the world. So if you're gonna stay why don't you not try to tear it down.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287705 - 05/10/2006 01:10
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Quote:
If that's how you feel about the USA, then why don't you leave? Oh right, because it's the best country in the world. So if you're gonna stay why don't you not try to tear it down.
Yeah, my country right or wrong. Let's all march in goose-step with our elected leaders because.... well, because they're our elected leaders.
I'm here to tell you, they're not my elected leaders. I have never voted for a single one of the corrupt incopmpetents now holding elective office. Any elective office. From local school board to dicta... err, President.
I always liked the sign I saw in the gas station across the street:
"I love my country. It's my government I'm afraid of."
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287706 - 05/10/2006 01:15
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I'm with you there. I don't trust the government a bit, even the ones I did vote for. But I still think the USA is a great country and I believe in the principles it was founded on. You can dump on the politicians all day, but if you're going to trash the country itself then get the F out.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287707 - 05/10/2006 02:01
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I also have issues with you believing that somehow the Republicans still stand for smaller government -- see the beginning of this thread for evidence that it doesn't
No, I'm convinced. No need to argue this point. I do want smaller government, and I dont' believe either the Democrats or the Republicans want a smaller government. I never really did believe either party had that goal, so when I voted last I felt this particluar issue was a wash. I never voted for a Republican thinking it would make for smaller government. I just didn't think voting Democrat would be any better for that particular issue.
But there are many things the Replucicans have done that have angered and frustrated me. In fact, I hate to say it but I've become so disenchanted with our political system that I might not vote next time. Not because of the smaller government stuff (though I do want a smaller government), but because you are correct about Bush and the other Repulicans not representing me.
And this didn't just come about because of gambling. At the end of the day it's a small thing that I can live without. There are plenty of other things going on that I don't like, INCLUDING how we're handling the war in Iraq.
Quote:
When put on the spot, you always seem to have a copout like "well, they all do that".
Not a copout- I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I DO think they all do that, and I despise it in all of them. What you may have missed in my earlier post is that I agree it was a mistake supporting any political entity that pulls this garbage and I'm really upset about it. Again, not because of what the indivdiual issue was, but because I got to see close up just how sleezy these politicians are- politicans that I helped put into office.
Do I sound bitter? I am.
Quote:
What has to happen to get your political actions to line up with your professed beliefs?
Honestly, at this point I jsut feel helpless. I do not have a voice, and those I thought would carry my voice for me betrayed me. Those on the other side of the isle also stand for things I do not support, so I am at a loss. I think I would rather not vote at all (in which case "they" win) than to support someone from either party.
Just to make a note on the gambling issue specifically, it was the Democrats who made online gambling a felony in Washington State, not Republicans. Both sides are just as capeable of pulling this same garbage.
Quote:
But at some point you have to realize that someone that used to represent you no longer does, even if they still claim to do so.
I case I didn't make this clear, I am at this point, and have been for a while now- before the gamlbing stuff started even.
Quote:
I also believe that you're part of a culture that looks to overwhelm every other culture you don't agree with. I could go on a rant here, but I won't. I just encourage you to look with whom you're aligning yourself. You may not share the same views on things. They may be strange bedfellows, but they're bedfellows nonetheless.
There are plenty of similary minded evangelicals out there who share my beliefs but act on them in was I don't like. I do not support those activities, but I will not hesitate to worship with them in unity. Because at the end of the day the most important thing is faith and worship. But I can worship with somone and not agree with all that they do. That is part of the grace inherint in Christiantiy.
I DO try to do whatever I can to bring the world to Christ, so in that way I am trying to "overwhelm" others with my faith. But I don't try to do force other cultures into mine; rather I hope to show them what I view as the truth so that they might come to know it as I do.
Edited by JeffS (05/10/2006 02:13)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287708 - 05/10/2006 17:25
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
In fact, I hate to say it but I've become so disenchanted with our political system that I might not vote next time.
Please don't "not vote". If you can't stomach voting for a member of either ruling party (and I can't say I blame you), then vote for either an independant or third-party candidate who you can stomach. If third-party candidates obtain enough votes during an election, then they can qualify for public funding in the next election, raising their visibility. In time (and a loooong time it might be), this is the sort of thing that might help break the two party debacle we have now, and restore some sanity to politics in the US.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index