Adventure Game Studio

I am Christian Orthodox, but long time ago, i was searching things (not for learning to do them, i just wanted to learn what they tell and what is their philosophy) that had to do with spitirualism, white magic e.t.c.
Ã,  Now, after some research, i decided that all these Spirits, Astral Projection, Communication with Dead People, White Magic e.t.c. haven't any truth inside them and maybe they are supported by dark forces (black magicians e.t.c.).
Ã,  I do not want to insult anyone, all the above are totally personal beliefs. That's why i posetd this letter, i would like to hear your opinion. :)

Magic, communication with death people, moving thigs with the mind, telechinesis and such things are not real... So, more than supported by dark forces, they are supported by swindlers who defraud incautious people. It's specially annoying that they use the sorrow of people who have recently lost a beloved relative to win dirty money. They should all go to jail. Shame on them.

http://skepdic.com/

I recommend reading from this site if you want to learn many many things about various "magical/spiritual" things.

I don't think you should be taking the idea of white magic and saying "hmm so this is interesting but wait, I think this is actually DARK magic!" you should be taking the entire concept and saying "Is there any truth to any of this?" and if there is THEN you can go ahead and say "So there's the truth and there's the proof, but what category does it fit into?"

read up on cold reading if you want to learn how people "talk to the dead". You can do it too with no demons involved!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBNp1Y7fiwA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFNKsmwgw8w

also, just for fun, "psychic" Sylvia Browne messing up big time...

When you start thinking critically of things and read into the history of things, even just a little bit, your mind will be opened up wider than you thought. And then you'll be really sad that people regularly pay money to people who say they can talk to the dead, or read your fortune, or talk to god, or heal people (http://www.randi.org/jr/021805a.html) or HEAL PEOPLE (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bV90zKd_SaU)...

Remember to examine your own spiritual beliefs at the same time as dismissing others.

MrColossal and Becky, i noticed an anger to your textÃ,  :(Ã,  Well,Ã,  i can't talk for what Nachos has written, as don't know what research he has done. But i think he speaks only about people who tell lies to no-educated people, to "steal" their money.
Ã,  Now, about me, i have done MANY research my fellows, and personally i believe that Christianity is above all these supernatural beliefs. It is only my opinion, i don't want to persuade anyone, and i posted this so to make a dialog, but without fanaticism.
Ã,  Ã, About telepathy and such things are not supernatural, science can offer an explanation. But White Magic and Communication with the Dead, is totally supernatural activity.Ã,  Ã, I can't get it, White Magic from what does it "take power"; Black one takes power from the dark lord, so White Magic should take power from the good one, Jesus. But Jesus dismisses magic. So, i see a contradiction. What is your opinion;

My guess is that anyone who believes they are practicing white magic either believes in a different supreme good being than Jesus/God. And anyone who calls themself a Christian whilst practicing what they believe is white magic is probably confused.

My research is that I am studying paranormal activity in amateur degree since I was 14 till 21 or 22, when I lost interest, and... it simply does not exist.

I talk of future telling, telepathy, telechinesy, UFOs, ghosts, Pentagon missiles, and Kubric filming moon landings...

Where is the science you talk about to tell that this supernatural stuff is explained? Please I'd like to consult it. But if you are going to post the link of a book of "People who had a feeling while their beloved being was dying thousand miles away" and crap like that you can save your time.

My friend have you heard about Uri Geller, who bends spoons? Well, actually i have never seen anyone who has telepathy or telekinisis, but many scientists, even in USA's laboratories, make expariments with people that can sense danger, move with the power of their mind objects e.t.c. I don't know, maybe they tell lies, but the object of this post isn't to talk about telepathy, because even if it exists, science has an explanation (non-supernatural of course) to offer.
  I was refffered to communication with dead and White Magic, because these are things that science can not explain, they are 100% supernatural theories, and the most important for me, Christianity dismisses them. So, these things i would like to discuss. If telepathy exists or not, it's useless to ask, because even if it is or nor, as i said before, science can offer an explanation, and Christianity doesn't dismiss these.

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Tue 26/09/2006 22:15:27
My friend have you heard about Uri Geller, who bends spoons?

A prooved fake. Next one?

The existance of 'white' and 'dark' magic as you describe it is total fantasy, which is what Eric forgot to say before pointing you to places that explain why. The human imagination is good at rationalising something completely ficticious when there is a lack of understanding - and it's especially easy to dupe people with illusions and clever psychological tricks (even moreso if they're young or easily impressionable) - so you're better off worrying about where your next meal is coming from than the existance of 'magic' ;)

You know, i am glad because i hear that Uri Geller's abilities are just a lie :D
Listen, basically i would like all these paranormal powers such as telepathy to don't exist. I think human should not have so much powers. If you read my posts carefully, you will realise that i am not saying that surely exists or surely not telepathy, telekinisis e.t.c. I hope, as i said, that they don't exist and all these "experiments" are totally lies!
Ã, But this topic is for Christianity and White Magic (and Spiritualism). I like that you have done research about telepathy, but please tell your opinion about magic anf communication with dead only. Because, as i said before, EVEN IF telepathy exists, it doesn't matter, because this matter hasn't any religious consequences.
Ã,  However, if i find any telepthy-event that troubles me, i will ask your advice through a P.M. maybe Ã, :)

Christianity and White Magic...

Erenan's opinion: White magic probably does not make sense within the confines of Christian theology.

Christianity and communication with the dead...

Refer to I Samuel 28.


This reminds me of an article that Robert Fripp quoted in his online diary two weeks ago.


~~~~~~~~~

British Association for the Advancement of Science

Theories of telepathy and afterlife cause uproar at top science forum
The Times Ã, September 06, 2006 By Mark Henderson, Science Editor

SCIENTISTS claiming to have evidence of life after death and the powers of telepathy triggered a furious row at Britain¹s premier science festival yesterday. Organisers of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (the BA) were accused of lending credibility to maverick theories on the paranormal by allowing the highly controversial research to be aired unchallenged.

Leading members of the science establishment criticised the BA¹s decision to showcase papers purporting to demonstrate telepathy and the survival of human consciousness after someone dies. They said that such ideas, which are widely rejected by experts, had no place in the festival without challenge from sceptics.

The disputed session featured research from Rupert Sheldrake, an independent biologist who is funded by Trinity College, Cambridge, that claims to have found evidence that some people know telepathically who is calling them before they answer the telephone.

Other presentations came from Peter Fenwick, a doctor who thinks deathbed visions suggest that consciousness survives when people die, and from Deborah Delanoy of the University of Hertfordshire, whose work suggests that people can affect the bodies of others by thinking about them.

Critics including Lord Winston and Sir Walter Bodmer, both former presidents of the BA, expressed particular alarm that the three speakers were allowed to hold a promotional press conference. Some said telepathy has already been found wanting in experiments, and had no place at a scientific meeting.

"Work in this field is a complete waste of time," said Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford, "though it is politically incorrect to dismiss ideas out of hand, in this case there is absolutely no reason to suppose that telepathy is anything more than a charlatan's fantasy."

www.randi.org is the place to go to if you want to read about the latest hucksters on the block and their many evasions of actual empirical tests on their supposed 'powers'.

Hmm, Nacho, ok, i said "These things (telepathy) of course are exist" but by mistake, i didn't mean it. I will modify it...

Erenan, Christianity dismisses any method fro to communicate with dead. Except of course if God allows this for a specific reason.

Ok...

Now, if you want to know my personal beliefs about all the supernatural stuff in the Bible, and life after life, I would say that these events have suffered the same exact process than the ones we agree that are unreal... Credulity, need to invent something to fight fear to death, or need to think that our beloved departed relatives are in a better place, but nothing is real, after all.

I don't tend to be so harsh about religion, tought, because I think that the tale behind the message is not so important after the message itself. Basically, if you feel more open to love the others after reading any religious book, I am not going to criticise the fact that people walking over the waters, or prophets flying over donkeys are total stupidities...

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Tue 26/09/2006 22:38:46
Erenan, Christianity dismisses any method fro to communicate with dead. Except of course if God allows this for a specific reason.

So if God sometimes allows the supernatural, then what's the contradiction?

Nacho, everything is a matter of belief, isn't it? I believe in Christianity, but i love people because i feel it, not because i fear that i will go to hell if i hate the other e.t.c. about miracles now, Christians Monks, if you read history, you'll see that they did more thatn "flying, turning people into sheeps e.t.c.". Healing, giving hope, courage, these were their offer to humanity. If they are truth or not, no one can answer for sure.

Erenan, there is the huge contradiction that if you try to communicate with a spirit, this isn't happening, how can i say it, to the name of Jesus, because Jesus himself dismisses such actions. So, Jesus doesn't "help" your trial. As a consequence, every supernatural activity that you will do will be with the assistance of dark powers. At least all of these are what Cristianity believes.

Giving hope and courage is not supernatural... what are you talking about?

About healing, if you mean it "supernatural healing"... dude: Do you mean the medieval writings? It is dare to call this writings "history", you know?

Do you also believe in swords in rocks, dragons and ladies living in lakes?

An anger to my text?  No, not really.  I just can't see the difference between one set of "white" supernatural beliefs, another set of "black" or "dark" supernatural beliefs, or the idea that the supernatural beliefs inherent within Christian doctrine are somehow above/different to these.

Don't mind me :P

To be honest, the bible is a supperb book of moral (not very original, tough) and a good book of history, but the scientific value of the supernatural facts in it is not better than the evidences regarding the existence of Santa Claus or the aliens...

What good is magic if it's not black magic?! Pentagrams, goats, menstrual blood and semen!

http://www.snopes.com/

Nice page about urban myths...

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Tue 26/09/2006 22:50:42
Erenan, there is the huge contradiction that if you try to communicate with a spirit, this isn't happening, how can i say it, to the name of Jesus, because Jesus himself dismisses such actions. So, Jesus doesn't "help" your trial. As a consequence, every supernatural activity that you will do will be with the assistance of dark powers. At least all of these are what Cristianity believes.

But you already said that God allows some supernatural activity, such as in I Samuel 28. And why wouldn't the miracles performed by Jesus' disciples count as supernatural? It seems to me that they are supernatural events done directly in the name of Jesus.

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Tue 26/09/2006 21:53:29
MrColossal and Becky, i noticed an anger to your text

Any anger in my text is directed at people who lie and cheat and pretend they have special powers. From Sylvia Brown to Uri Geller [the slightest bit of research about Uri proves he is and has always been a fake, the best one being this link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lH-6hMEdmfA ] to Peter Popoff to John of God ["psychic healer"] to homeopathic "medicine".

When anyone looks someone in the eye and says "If you put this crystal on your neck it will cure you of cancer." or picks you out of a crowd and says "Jesus has just healed you of your bone spurs." [as Peter Popoff and Pat Robertson do] or "I can speak with the dead, I'm getting a vision of the name John, is there a John in your life?" or anything like that, they should be beaten.

Not only because it's exploiting people's emotions to get money [99.9% of the time] but in many many cases it is killing them.

If there is anything magical or psychic that you're confused or interested in and would like to be directed to places where you can read objectively about what is happening, just PM me and I'll track something down and we'll have a chat about it.

As far as talking with the dead... There's mostly a concept known as cold reading. It's where you walk up to a person and you know nothing about them and start making a series of guesses that are carefully chosen.

For Example:

Two of the most popular names in the US are Michael and John. If someone were to ask me if there is a Michael or a John in my life I'd have to say my brother's name is Michael and my middle name is John. That's two hits in one family. If they asked anyone in my family, my friends or my girlfriend's family, they would know a Michael and a John because of me and my brother. Now all of the sudden they have a hit, they can continue on that. "I see a John..." and then you say "My middle name is John!" and you just told them something they did not know. Now they will direct everything at you and base it around you. If I just stood there passively and said, "And?" they'd have to flounder more and just make guesses. They'd probably say "Maybe a Johnathan or a Jerry or a J... Does a J mean anything to you?" J is the first letter of my girlfriend's name. If there was no John in my life there would be a J for my girlfriend. It's all about slowly breaking it down until you've got a hit and then you just make up a bunch of stuff and make more educated guesses. If I mentioned it was my girlfriend now they know that I am straight, have a girlfriend and her name begins with a J, chances are in my "astonishment" at the reader getting the "J" right I'd say "Her name is Jessica" and bam! There's another thing the pyschic didn't know before. And so on and so forth...

The other thing to remember and notice is that so called psychics will ask many many questions in a short amount of time. Take my "John" example and say my middle name wasn't John but my girlfriend was still Jessica. "I see a John... Or a Johnathan... Jerry... Maybe it's just a J..." That's 3 questions in maybe 3 seconds. I will forget the fact that the psychic asked me 2 questions that didn't mean a thing to me and remember that she said the letter J and I equated that to Jessica. I'm doing all the work for the psychic! They just had to say a letter and I put the peices together! They should be paying me!

So anyway, there you go... That's talking to the dead. Add in some spooky music, dark clothes, a crystal ball and people who WANT to believe that they can talk to the dead and you've got yourself a psychic. If you WANT to believe something [and especially if you're paying money for it, you will believe it because you don't want to feel suckered] you will believe it. Simple as that.

Eric

P.S. I'd love to see a psychic cold read someone fresh off a plane from Japan... "Is there a Yasunobu in your life?" now that would be impressive!

Quote from: Helm on Tue 26/09/2006 23:22:44
What good is magic if it's not black magic?! Pentagrams, goats, menstrual blood and semen!

Are you still coming to the monthly sacrificial rite? With the amount of virgins we have, we can certainly find one the Dark Lord will approve of!

There is no "black magic" or "white magic".  There is Divine Magic and Arcane Magic.  Divine magic is what clerics and priests use, it is power from God, whatever they call him and whatever god they happen to worship (The native Manitou grants spells too), channeled through the chosen faithful to enact miracles.  Healing, protection, creation of food.  Even divine fire to smite those who would threaten the cleric or his flock.  A particularily devout cleric can even summon the hosts of Heaven to his aid.  Angels and Archons and the like, or communicate with the dead spirits or even God himself.

The other sort of magic, Arcane magic, is more natural in origin.  It is enacted by gently shifting the patterns, or "weave", of the world to allow things that would not normally be possible to happen.  It takes a great deal of study and ritualization and physical sacrifice, though making pacts with various outer powers can reduce these costs.  The energy is channeled not from a divine higher power, but rather from the inner elemental planes from which all creation is forged.  These planes of pure energy and elements require great control and force of will to manage, but no sort of spiritual devotion or code of holy conduct must be followed.

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Tue 26/09/2006 22:15:27... science can offer an explanation, and Christianity doesn't dismiss these.

Like, for example, evolution? ::)

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 27/09/2006 00:13:50
P.S. I'd love to see a psychic cold read someone fresh off a plane from Japan... "Is there a Yasunobu in your life?" now that would be impressive!

Ohmygodohmygodohmygod!  One of the 600 students that I teach is named Yasunobu!!!  Eric, how do I send you all my money?

Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 27/09/2006 05:02:53
Like, for example, evolution? ::)

Hey, don't dismiss Christianity because some Christians dismiss evolution... I don't want to start an argument on evolution (I think there have been enough threads on that already), but I think it's a popular misconception that evolution and Christianity (or at least all branches of Christianity) must be mutually exclusive beliefs.

As I have posted in an earlier thread, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself:
"The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimension of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.  These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.  With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me""

Sorry for the off-topic...

There is no magic. It's as simple as that. I don't even want to talk about the jesus.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 26/09/2006 23:17:52To be honest, the bible is a supperb book of moral

Not if you actually care to read the whole thing.

(I'm not suggesting you should)

Quote(or at least all branches of Christianity)

What I really love about branches of christianity is that every one has to think that their god is the real one and everybody else has got it wrong, even they appear to be close. This means that if say, branch X is right, then God starts the second coming and he sees that like, 300,000 people are all the REAL followers he still has on earth and everybody else that claims to love him is going to hell. I am amused by the concept of God high-fiving his 300,000 and sending everybody else to the pit going 'close, but no cigar, lol!' greatly.

Who cares what's right or wrong. Let me let you in on a little secret. No one is right. Not a single person in the universe knows the truth about anything, not religionists, spiritualists, or scientists. My advice to you and anyone is this: If you want to be a Christian, study the Bible for yourself, never let a human being tell you what to believe. If you want to be an occultist, select a branch of occult science and study it from whatever ancient grimoires or texts you can find. If you want to be a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Judaicist, a Greco-Roman mythologist, a Pastafarian, or a Hare Krishna, study whatever writings you find truth in and interpret them for yourself. Anyone who bases his or her beliefs on what other people tell them needs to be murdered most brutally. 

And if anyone ever tells you you shoud listen to them because they possess the only truth, you should rend them terribly.

Quote from: esper on Wed 27/09/2006 06:19:21
Anyone who bases his or her beliefs on what other people tell them needs to be murdered most brutally. 

You tell people to study the bible, ancient texts, or other religious documents, but they shouldn't base their beliefs on what other people tell them to believe?

Just who do you think wrote those texts?

@Helm: This is getting kind of off topic, but I feel inclined to point out that what you love about branches of Christianity is clearly not based on much at all within Christian theology. Salvation vs. Condemnation isn't a question of getting all the minute details right in your definition of God, and nobody who counts ever said it was.

@esper: There's a big difference between blindly accepting what you are told and going to a teacher for guidance. If you rejected everything that people before you have learned until you confirm it for yourself, then you'll have a LOOOOOOOOONG road ahead of you, even if you're just specifically looking into religion. There's nothing wrong with being taught, just so long as you use some measure of discretion.

Quote from: MashPotato on Wed 27/09/2006 05:19:17Hey, don't dismiss Christianity because some Christians dismiss evolution...

No, I wasn't trying to. Mostly I was being a smart-ass, and I apologize if I offended.

But what I do find dangerous about where SilverWizard is going with this is: his discomfort with the belief in or existence of something he doesn't understand because it might conflict with his religion.

Certainly religion is useful as a means to try and lead a moral and ethical life, but using it as an end in itself is where I get uncomfortable. To use his example, if communication with the dead is possible, then there must be some physical explanation for it, whether we call it "magic" or whatever. But are we going to dismiss it outright as "evil" because of a passage in the bible? Sadly, history (heck, current events) suggest that those who cling blindly to religion will do a lot more than just "dismiss" it.

In some obscure, non-intelligible way, that's what my little quip about evolution was getting at. MashPotato, I appreciate you posting that excerpt, as I wholeheartedly agree with it.

I think I'm open minded that certain things might exist. But since I've never seen anything, never had anything, or whatever really (andprobably never will) I don't really care.

While Constantin is fighting angels and devils somewhere in the world, I don't knwo about it, and I don't give a shit! I won't be spending all my time in this world to research on all the occults nad religions to decide which one is true. More over most religions do have more or less the same god with different morals. I tend to like the 1 god religions than the multiple ones ;) So no Bhudism, or Khrisna and stuff. But moamethanism, orthodox church, protenstant, catholic etc, sound more or less the same in the end. 1 god, (probably the same one), who gives different instructions to different religions.

Well since I already don't follow much apart my own instructions (as taught in an orthodox enviroment of course! Surprise! I don't think that declaring I'm catholic will change anything in my life. I don't care about going to church or even baptising my kids (which I did btw). But I do believe in a higher power, and honour him (<-god is a male, right??? haha) with everything I do (more or less), and also expect him to look the other way when I do something that he doesn't fancy. ;)

I believe what I believe and I act accordingly...

PS. I've asked this before but here goes again. I'm ready to disbelieve any claims in youtube or something, but if esper, or someone else here ,with whom I feel that I know a little better comes and tells me of the supernatural then I'll be able to ask questions and actually believe them.

@Vince 12: Basing the argument on the thought that the question was "Christianity" vs. "White Magic." If you want to be a Christian, you have to study the Bible. But when you study the Bible, you can say "Oh, look, there's rather quite a bit of truth here" or "oh, look, this is completely ludicrous and contradictory" rather than "Oh, look, this says what the preacher said it said, so he and it must be right."

If you want to choose a religion, you have to study something. I would prefer people study everything they have available to them and then choose what they believe rather than select one particular "group," "religion," "cult," or "denomination" and then study it exclusively, but that's not what was asked.

Eranan: Albert Einstein would tend to disagree with you, as would many scientists, religionists, and occult masters. The only truth is the truth you find yourself. I know what I believe, and I believe it strongly, because I have proven it to myself. And yes, there is a long road for people who decide such a following. Tibetan monks spend their entire life in search of truth. In the case of belief, would you rather randomly accept something because it seems okay to you, or would you rather know for a fact that what you believe is true? Some people may be lazy in such matters, because those matters don't concern them. However, I would rather devote my life to the study of truth than allow truth to be presented to me and accept it.

Some things are pointless to investigate. For example, in the matter of the world being round...  There are the logs of sailors who have circumnavigated the globe, there are the aerial and orbital photographs taken of the planet, there are the jillions of airplane flights that circle the globe daily, and there is the continuous cycle of astronomy and orbital celestial objects that prove the world is round. I believe it's round, although I've never circumnavigated it myself. However, it doesn't matter to me if the world is round or not. It could be conical and full of cream cheese for all I care, as long as life continues properly around me the geometry of the universe doesn't matter to me. To paraphrase what Sherlock Holmes said to Dr. Watson shortly after their initial meeting, "Thanks for letting me know the world is round. I'll try my best to forget it now so I can use the part of my brain it's stored in for things that matter to me."

My ultimate destiny is very important to me, and if I want to dedicate my life to the investigation of the immaterial factors that work into that equation, it is the best thing for me to do. Not everyone feels that way, and that's their prerogative, and I respect that. However, for a searcher such as the originator of this post, such investigation is of the utmost importance. No man has the right to tell me what to believe. I have a close friend that I go to in times when I need guidance, and he comes to me when he needs it as well. But neither of us would ever presume to say "God is an elderly white-haired gentleman who sits on a throne of pure white light and sends you into a pit of burning fire if you don't believe exactly what I'm saying." That is grounds for cannibalization.

Well, I was writing a response to you, esper, but I realized that I was arguing over minor details rather than what you're actually talking about, so I'm going to stop.

I want to know why you're all ignoring the reasoned scientific approach of Unilin.

Quote from: esper on Wed 27/09/2006 06:56:27
If you want to be a Christian, you have to study the Bible. But when you study the Bible, you can say "Oh, look, there's rather quite a bit of truth here" or "oh, look, this is completely ludicrous and contradictory" rather than "Oh, look, this says what the preacher said it said, so he and it must be right."

If I'm not mistaken you can have the same "Oh, look, there's rather quite a bit of truth here" or "oh, look, this is completely ludicrous and contradictory" conclusions from what a preacher says...

Saying "Anyone who bases his or her beliefs on what other people tell them needs to be murdered most brutally" could apply to someone reading a book and believing it word for word just as well as it could apply to someone listening to the preacher on the pulpit.

I think what you might actually mean is that everything that you learn, be it from a teacher, preacher, parent, or book, should be considered and examined with a critical eye rather than taken word-for-word as gospel -- something which I would suggest should be applied to everything in life, not just religion.

I'm not saying that preachers are good places to find the truth, I'm just saying to be careful when you suggest that a 2000 (rounding significantly up) year old book can provide better summary of what is right and wrong or what is "true" than what someone (a teacher, a philosopher, or your mom) in the modern world could teach you.  Things change.  Books usually don't.

Erenan: hope you weren't writing a lengthy response because something I said offended you. I mean no offense by anything I said, even though the whole murder/cannibalization bit is a tad strong :P

Vince: You know how to say what I'm talking about better than I do, using quite a few less words. Of course, I mean precisely what you are saying. But again, the originator of the post mentioned he was torn between Christianity and a "right-hand" occultic path. There is no "Christianity" without the Bible, and thus it's obviously what one would study if that was what they wanted to know about. To defend my position about reading the bible instead of listening to preachers: I grew up in a Baptist home, and I went to Catholic school. I've been in Baptist, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Non-denominational, and Pentecostal services. They all say some things that coincide with the "book in question," but it's more a matter of picking and choosing what suits them. Most followers of a particular religion believe the religious leader and forget entirely to bother investigating the source material. So, to restate my original post, "If you want to be a Christian, don't choose a denomination and study the bible in light of what they want to say. If you think christianity is for you, go to the source of Christianity (the bible) and make sure it's something you want to believe." I would offer this same advice to someone no matter what spiritual path they chose to follow.

And you've got to remember... Sure, YOU know that things change, but books don't, but most people see black or white, forgetting the infinite spectrum of shades of grey between them, and follow the black and white of a scripture, person, or organization to the letter. That's why, at the end of the day, I make the saying in my signature the ultimate "scripture" in my life.

Quote from: Las Naranjas on Wed 27/09/2006 07:17:47
I want to know why you're all ignoring the reasoned scientific approach of Unilin.

You mean the "Dungeons&Dragons" quote?

Nothing is impossible, only improbable.

Quote from: HillBilly on Wed 27/09/2006 05:36:47

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 26/09/2006 23:17:52To be honest, the bible is a supperb book of moral

Not if you actually care to read the whole thing.

(I'm not suggesting you should)

He... It's been ages since I don't read it deeply, maybe since catechesis (sp?) The thing is that the message has been rewritten almost since the beginning, starting with saint Paul, who re-wrote it to make it more suitable for the Romans.

Maybe if you read it line by line it's not totally correct, from the moral point of view, but it's being mutated into that... Maybe not the lines of the bible, which can't be easilly changed, but the interpretation people do abot them. A cool, ulta-politically correct, sissy message. A pitty, the original message might be more interesting.

Basically, what I am saying, is that I agree with you, and we don't have a hint of what Jesus said... That makes the whole message unconsistent.

Actually, there wasn't something like "I am not here to change the sword for the feather. I am here to raise nations against nations, brothers against brothers, and fathers against sons" said by Jesus in the bible?

And there's also this line "I am not going to change a comma of an accent of the Law" which makes me think that he actually was an ultra-orthodox, in spite of a reformer.

But who knows...

Yes, the established and widely respected reference source for all paranormal studies Krysis. They even release new material constantly to keep at the cutting edge of knowledge, as well as being the general text book for undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the field.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 27/09/2006 07:48:55
And there's also this line "I am not going to change a comma of an accent of the Law" which makes me think that he actually was an ultra-orthodox, in spite of a reformer.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? He said that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfil it (by taking the punishment of death). And if someone else has taken the punishment anyway, you can do what you like...

Quote@Helm: This is getting kind of off topic, but I feel inclined to point out that what you love about branches of Christianity is clearly not based on much at all within Christian theology.

Well of course it's not! I find Christianity to not be my cup of tea. The christian morality is not very far away from my own, and I've always practiced intuitively, as learnt behaviour (I was not brought up in a christian family even) and biological programming, because it is to my best interest to not murder people and to usually be helpful and whatnot. That is the sole reason variations of the same core moral mentality are practised all across the world: they work. We survive. I understand that this basic thing can be codified - and has been indeed - in a million different ways, but I don't really need the hierarchically inane and epistemologically far-fetched bible or any similar text to feel content to be a moral automaton.

QuoteSalvation vs. Condemnation isn't a question of getting all the minute details right in your definition of God, and nobody who counts ever said it was.

I'm sorry, Erenan, it's been made quite clear by people of various offshots of christianity that their belief is incadescent and very much based on that their specific small sect is indeed correct and the only one to achieve salvation and all the rest will suffer a different fate. Maybe they don't 'count' by your standards, by those are real people in the real world too and they believe this stuff fervently. And it amuses me.

Quote from: SSH on Wed 27/09/2006 08:49:41

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 27/09/2006 07:48:55
And there's also this line "I am not going to change a comma of an accent of the Law" which makes me think that he actually was an ultra-orthodox, in spite of a reformer.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? He said that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfil it (by taking the punishment of death). And if someone else has taken the punishment anyway, you can do what you like...

To be honest, I don't really know which is Jesus' point, since if you note all the sentences he said in a paper and read them aloud you should only get a 4 or 5 minutes speech, Andrew...

I actually think that it's 1,000 times more meritory to practise this message of christianity knowing that there is not God above us to punish us if we don't practise it, and no paradise at the end. Actually, promising a reward if you behave propperly is quite inmoral... Good behaviour is something that has to be intuitive, as Helm said. (Not sure if he agrees with the first part of this paragraph, though...)

Nacho: Christian Monks, at least according to what Christianity believes, have done miracles. Ok; So, if i will axcept it or not, it's personal matter. Now, twelve fishermen, completely non-educated, "conquered" with their words the whole Roman Empire, defeated it, and made Christianity higher than Roman's Polytheism. You can see it as you like, personally i treat is as a miracle. History confirms that and many many other cases of Christian Monks, who were wealth people before, that gave all their fortune to the name of Jesus and wrote books of incredible morality, so don't tell me about "medieval writings". That's what i said, that Christianity's miracles it's something more than supernatural impression like "turning people into a stone". Also, about supernatural healing (where you said me dude), i am not reffered to medieval incidents, but to HUNDREND cases where many many people believe that the blessing of a Christian Monk cured their sickness. Ok, you find that stupid, but if you think that these Monks believe that their power is coming from Jesus, they wear a black cloth all the time e.t.c. you will realise that these Monks have not any personal profit to tell lies. So, that troubles me.

esper: Of course it is extremely important to search by yourself. What do you think i did??? Searched all supernatural stuff, like spititualism and so, trying to examine by MYSELF if there is a truth inside them. And i ended with the decision that there isn't. But i searched.

eagermind: Why do you find it dangerous? I told that i searched both Cristianity and Spiritualism/White Magic. But you know, if someone is Christian, then he can't be at the same time a White mage. And vice-versa. So, if i believe in White Magic, i won't be a Christian any more, because Christianity doesn't believe in White Magic. So simple as that. If there is any physical explanation, then it's ok, but when i talk about White Magic/Spiritualism, i talk about the aspect that they are supernatural activities.

Ã, Look, i think most of us were a bit out-off-topic. Maybe i didn't explained well its meaning. My point wasn't to discuss if christianity exists or not, or how a person should choose what to follow. Well, i wanted to invite here people that believes in Christianity and people that believes in White Magic/Spiritualism and to discuss a bit their disagreements and if Ã, a person can be both Christian and White Mage at the same time. I was troubled by that point and that was what i wanted to be discussed in this topic. I would like to hear opinions of e.g. Christians that searched Spiritualism and dismissed them, and vice-versa opinions.

Something last about existence or not of Christian God. I don't want to analyze this. Nacho, there are many arguments to your opinion but also and many pillars from it. If you believe that Jesus is a "thief", please don't post it here, because you are off-topic.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 27/09/2006 09:59:25
To be honest, I don't really know which is Jesus' point, since if you note all the sentences he said in a paper and read them aloud you should only get a 4 or 5 minutes speech, Andrew...

Well, there are actions that speak louder than words: like someone who has a hotline to an omnipotent being allowing himself to be nailed to a cross.

Quote
I actually think that it's 1,000 times more meritory to practise this message of christianity

The message of christianity is that we're forgiven. How is that something you can practice without believing in a god, and eternal life? You're perhaps confusing christianity with judaism.

QuoteGood behaviour is something that has to be intuitive, as Helm said.

You obviously haven't tried to get a 3-year-old to have good behaviour ;)

Yes, tell us more on how you teach the teachings of christ to a 3-year old in order for it to behave.

It can be done, but please don't be out-of-topic :)

Quote from: Helm on Wed 27/09/2006 10:27:04
Yes, tell us more on how you teach the teachings of christ to a 3-year old in order for it to behave.

Nah, I generally use promises of sweeties

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Wed 27/09/2006 10:03:51
Nacho: Christian Monks, at least according to what Christianity believes, have done miracles. Ok; So, if i will axcept it or not, it's personal matter. Now, twelve fishermen, completely non-educated, "conquered" with their words the whole Roman Empire, defeated it, and made Christianity higher than Roman's Polytheism. You can see it as you like, personally i treat is as a miracle. History confirms that and many many other cases of Christian Monks, who were wealth people before, that gave all their fortune to the name of Jesus and wrote books of incredible morality, so don't tell me about "medieval writings". That's what i said, that Christianity's miracles it's something more than supernatural impression like "turning people into a stone". Also, about supernatural healing (where you said me dude), i am not reffered to medieval incidents, but to HUNDREND cases where many many people believe that the blessing of a Christian Monk cured their sickness. Ok, you find that stupid, but if you think that these Monks believe that their power is coming from Jesus, they wear a black cloth all the time e.t.c. you will realise that these Monks have not any personal profit to tell lies. So, that troubles me.

A guy with a silly western story placed in the space (a long time ago, in a place far, far away...) also defeated the big holywood producers and won millions. The fact that something small gets into something big it's not a miracle... It's a mathematical fact. Billions of projects are started everyday. Only if one per million succedes you'll have 1,000 miracles per day, from your point of view.

You refer to historical (and completelly natural) facts, as miracles. If you are going to see the hand of good at example of good behaviour, at any healing or at any story of improvement, then we are going to end discussing if "The power of the imagination of billion kids in the world makes Santa Claus real for one night per year".

Ain't that a miracle, from your point of view?

You are talking to me as folklore.

And, if you see giving your fortune to Ã, the poor as an evidence that something exists... Well, there is also people who gives their fortune to the aliens in Prima Raticuli. Does that mean that they inhabitants of Prima Raticuli are real?!?

About the "supernatural healings" that's just another case of urban legends stuffed into an attractive packing. They are not real, at least in the sense you want to believe. There are placebo effects, natural recoverings and apparent healings that ain't finally real. Quote me one of those cases from the hundreds you have which has passed ascientific filter and I'll be more open to discuss...

@ SSH: If the cases of the nailing were clear... Anyway, sacrificing yourself for a motive supposed to be important does not prove divinity. (Mohammed Atta was a deity?) I am not comparing both characters, but both gave their lives for something they believed it was very important. You assume Jesus motivation was directly influenced by God. I don't.

And, about the real message of the new testament... If he came to forgive the sins of the people, I just can ask... why? So, the message now is that no matter what you do, that you are going to be automatically forgiven? So, Hitler is at the same step than mother Therese at the eyes of God?

If that the message, then I am out.

EDIT: Anyway, why do you pick one specific sentence of the new testament as the main message on it? If allowed to choose, I am more opened to choose something like "Treat the others as you wish to be treated". It's simple, and terrible effective, and does not imply to believe in people walking over the waters and white bearded old people sitting in a throne in the skies...

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Wed 27/09/2006 10:34:33
It can be done, but please don't be out-of-topic :)

Stop telling people they're out of topic, please.

12 fishermen completely non-educated, "conqouered" Roman Empire with their word, without using any form of violence. Do you know any other incredible fact like that? I didn't tell that this is an evidence, but it is a serious element for me.
Also, some people give their fortune to the name of aliens, ok, but you compare them with the daylights of Saints of christianity. They didn't just gave their fortunes and waited to happen something. They FIGHT, they helped people, they wrote books of magnificent morality they offer something to humanity, and that is confirmed by history.
Ã, I think you can't understand that i am not talking about evidence,as i said before, but about serious and wonderful facts. It doesn't nedd to be so sarcastic, because this s my opinion, which was created after many time of research.
Ã, You want quotes from cases of supernatural healing. Ha! Do you know Monks from mount Athos? Anyway, at least in Greece, which is the land of Orthodox Christianity, you can find many many cases of people who were "escaped" from sure death. Make a research on your own if you are interested. ;)

I replied to you because i think you have misunderstood me. I don't say i am absolutely sure for Christianity, but, as i said many times before, i have serious facts that trouble me.
But anyway, please do not be out-of-topic! >:( Ã, How many times do i have to tell you, this is not a topic for to judge Christianity. It is a topic for to compare Christianity and Spiritualism/White Magic, is that ok? Is that ok? IS THAT OK? Please, don't judge Christianity if you are not a follower of Spiritualism. And vice-versa. If you believe or not to Christianity, as far as you don't believe either in Ã, Spiritualism, your opinion shouldn't be posted here.

But Helm, if they are indeed out-of-topic, it is not bad to tell it

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 27/09/2006 10:41:23
@ SSH: If the cases of the nailing were clear...

Well, in your earlier argument, you seemed to be accepting that the bit where he said X and Y was true, so I assumed we were arguing about what the bible meant, not whether the bible was true or not. Obviously, if you don't believe that the bible is true, then you're in a whole different argument than something so specific as what |Jesus's intentions were according to the word in the bible...

Quote
Anyway, sacrificing yourself for a motive supposed to be important does not prove divinity.

I wasn't claiming divinity for him in my argument. I was just trying to explain that saying that you can't possibly know what Jesus was really on about from reading the bible simply isn't true: you were arguing that becuase direct quotes from Jesus in the gospels are relatively sparse, then you can't know anything about his motives or intentions. I think you can deduce things. Can we stick to arguing one point at a time, because you're moving the goalposts...!

Quote
And, about the real message of the new testament... If he came to forgive the sins of the people, I just can ask... why?

For the same reason that I forgive my daughter when she jumps on me and accidentally hits me in the nads... I love her. Now, I explain to her why she shouldn't do it, but I don't get angry. If she kept doing it, I would maybe have to use a punishment such as going to her room alone for a while and so on. But even if she kept deliberately doing it and causing me a lot of pain, I'd still love her and still forgive her. But if she was doing this as a teenager and moved away from home and cut off contact then although I'd still forgive her, it wouldn't make any difference  to whether we were together or not, as she wouldn't know. But if I suddenly got an email or phone call from her from the other side of the world saying she was in trouble in some way and wanted my help then I woudl drop everything and go to help her.

The Christian message that I believe in is that God is like that.... but more so. Funnily enough, some guy called Jesus tells a similar story about a son who goes off and ends up eating pig swill...

In that story, the other son is angry and jealous at the end, as he doesn't think the fatehr shoudl have forgiven the son who went off. In the old testament, there is another story about a guy who God sends off to tell some people who are bad to stop being bad. The guy doesn't want to, as he doesn't want them to be good as he hates them and would hate for God to forgive them. The guy was called Jonah. God is forgiving and merciful, and its up to him as to whether he forgives anyone. So maybe he'll forgive all those devout, peaceful muslims as well as forgiving the devout, peaceful Christians. I love that God is "big enough" that that is a possibility. So maybe he can forgive those involved in murder conspiracies, like, for example, St Paul. It is his forgiveness to give and I hope I will be accepting of it, whosoever is included.

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Wed 27/09/2006 11:03:46
12 fishermen completely non-educated, "conqouered" Roman Empire with their word, without using any form of violence. Do you know any other incredible fact like that?

Gandhi. With the British Empire. Dressed with nappies.

Castro. A group of 15 revolutionaries defeated the regular cuban Army.
Alexander.
Genghis Kahn.

And...

Hitler. He started a movement that almost conquered the world. Are we going to worship him, now?
Usama Bin Laden. Al Qaeda es effectivilly fighting against the most powerful army in the history of the world. Are we going to move to Yihad for that?

Edit: SSH. I f you read carefully my previous posts you will see that I claim that the actual message of the bible has been mutated into something "cool" and "correct". I basically agree with that because no one can be against peace and love in the world. I don't know which was the original message in the bible, though...

Your second argument is quite easy to reply. If we can't know what he really did, we can't know his motivations to make the sacrifice, ergo, we can't even know if it was actually a sacrifice. We don't actually have anything clear about why he was nailed, starting from the fact that he was nailed. Romans were totally openend to allow native religions, except if they include a hidden nationalistic message.

About the third argument, I still don't see why we must automatically forgive people. You directly gave me a lovely example of a father forgiving his daughter, but you don't explain how can a religious message put in the same pack Hitler and Mother Therese. The message that "automatical forgiveness" gives allows people to do everything. If that's the message, what Jesus said was "Ok, in 1,200 years it's going to be ok to start the cruzades, guys..." And "No matter Adolf, kill those jews, I'll forgive you, because I'll love you" Might work with a teen who dissapears, yeah... But if my son turns into a drug addict, steals my money and finally kills my wife and me, sorry, I am not going to forgive him. Actually, I would try to kill him beofre. I am allowed, no? God will forgive me because he loves me...

Actually the argument, in it's deepest sense invalidates almost all the discussions against moral you made in this boards. For example, you have been critical with terrorism... but basically you have been more fierce against the disproportionate reply and the preventive war on terror. Why? God is going to forgive them, no? Or are you saying that you can only forgive the ones you love? Then, ok, God is going to forgive Bush because Bush is his son, but you shouldn't, because Bush is not your son, then, basically, your forgive only concerns the ones you love... Then, from the very moment that the message implies that that the forgive musn't necesarilly be give to everybody, it also implies that it's not necessary to forgive even one person. As you can see the message implies some autodestructive issued that totally invalidate it.

Look, the answer is very simple, but i won't answer here, if you want p.m. or say me any chat adress to discuss about these, or create a post for these matters. This discussion you open has nothing to do with this topic which has a title: Christianity VS White Magic.

QuoteIt is a topic for to compare Christianity and Spiritualism/White Magic, is that ok? Is that ok? IS THAT OK?

no, that's not ok. This topic will be what this topic will be. Don't try to keep us in check, this is neither a formal argument, nor a tv panel discussion.

Yes, but i created this topic to discuss into this subject. Would it seem nice if in a topic you did that has to do with animals, someone to send something that has to do with cars? That's the meaning that TOPICS exists. I don't want to check, but i suppose you read the title of a topic, before you post.

The topics allways mutate. If you really want to keep this discussion into something related with Gandalf against the Voodoo lady, this thread will probably die in a few minutes and we should create a new one about the really interesting topics above...

I don't have a problem with that. Let it die if no one finds this interesting. But i wouldn't like someone enter here, see this out-of-topic discussion, and so get bored and leave. So, let this topic, if no one finds it interesting, to die and create you anew topic, for the discussion you opened. I will participate with pleasure in it.

Tip for the future: Discussing religion on the interweb is in general, not a good idea at all.

People come from all walks of life. You will never be able to keep it to one topic because those who're religious are religious (kekekeke) about their beliefs, and those who aren't religious are still pretty religious about their lack of belief.

My opinion is that both Christianity and white/black magic are fairytales. Christianity just has more followers. Actually, Christianity is like VHS, and white/black magic like Betamax and Video2000.

Is that "out of topic"?

Ok, i've changed the title of the topic. Now it will be more specific.

That is not a change to the topic, it is an attempt to restrict who posts here, which I think is a very bad idea as it will neither work nor be a good thing if it did work.

If you want to have this strict control over subjects, start your own forum where you can be a moderator and choose your own rules.

I don't see anything bad as you describe it. Any topic has a specific point of view. I didn't created that topic for posting critisism against Christianity or White Wizardry, without belonging to one of this "teams". The conversation has gone to a discussion about Christianity and that wasn't the purpose of this Topic. I just wanted to make it clear. I don't have any "bad intentions", if there was createdÃ,  a topic about Christianity and critisicm, i would post with pleasure, without fanaticism of course (i don't have any fanaticism anyway).Ã, 
Ã,  So, i don't see it as an unproper restrict. If you see it like that, then don't post. Maybe there are AGSers who wants to talk about the matter i want to discuss, without having to argue with other people who will try to convice them that supernatural is a kind of fantasy and doesn't exist.
Anyway, if this topic dies soon and no one finds this interesting, no problem with that. Create SSH a new one with more interesting subject. That's it how a forum works, i guess.

why not just use this one for it, since this thread is where the discussion was born.
and why the heck are you telling others to stay on topic when you are discussing about forums instead of staying on-topic yourself?

Good luck finding White Magicians to debate with ;D

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Wed 27/09/2006 13:11:26Maybe there are AGSers who wants to talk about the matter i want to discuss, without having to argue with other people who will try to convice them that supernatural is a kind of fantasy and doesn't exist.
Anyway, if this topic dies soon and no one finds this interesting, no problem with that. Create SSH a new one with more interesting subject. That's it how a forum works, i guess.

When i was searching Spiritualism's philosophy, i noticed that they are about the same with New Age stufs, in which they claim that all Gods and Godesses in this world are images of the same God. In my opinion, this is a contradiction, since if this was correct, then all Gods and Godesses would have the same teachings. That was one thing that troubled me. The next one is the idea of redemption, which i find it quite bad. It represents soul like a cold box which is filled with emotions from time to time, to be empty and fill again. Then, i noticed that Spiritualism accepts all the wicca stuff, which Christianity thinks they are eveil. I wonder if there is any Christian who is at the same time follower of Spiritualism. Personally i couldn't "compromise" them

Are you an actual wizard?

You are aware that Spiritualism includes a whole bucket load of stuff and you cant just lump everything into a "spiritualism" label?  Such as Wicca incoprorates several different avenues of belief too.  You can't claim that everything is incompatible with Christianity...but then there are so many branches of that too that everything could probably fit somewhere.

Eh.

I'm not really into White magic and stuff, but I did see a man pull a coin out of someones ear once, that was pretty special.

Quote from: Helm on Wed 27/09/2006 09:00:11

QuoteSalvation vs. Condemnation isn't a question of getting all the minute details right in your definition of God, and nobody who counts ever said it was.

I'm sorry, Erenan, it's been made quite clear by people of various offshots of christianity that their belief is incadescent and very much based on that their specific small sect is indeed correct and the only one to achieve salvation and all the rest will suffer a different fate. Maybe they don't 'count' by your standards, by those are real people in the real world too and they believe this stuff fervently. And it amuses me.

Oh, I see. You are amused by people then, and here I was talking about the religion itself. Nevermind.

Yes, I don't find christian doctorine very amusing itself. In fact the bigger part of christian imagery, especially the apocalyptical aspects are downright foreboding and dreadful. Or to be frank, the more you look into any aspect, any teaching, the apocrypha are horrifying and insane. Christianity has very directly inspired such great acts of artistic maligance:

The destroying genius of Idols,
Will shroud the world with utter lies.
Dance the cobbles, his abode named Dis.
Portraits have spoken of their masters' distress.
Icons with kisses, tell me who have seen this?
Failing Enochian tapestries...
Depict the prince of fallen virtues,
In almost poetic rhapsody.
Masturbate to the sound of the knell.
The Pathetic stench of dying children.
Perhaps our fall is certain.
Limbs entwined in absolute contortion.

Please stop whining. You're like one of those kids who don't wanna play anymore when the other kids have made much nicer lego-cars.
You dished out a majorly debatable topic and it's bound to develop along the way. Not that much, though.
Start a blog if you wanna keep your opinions neat and tidy and protected.

Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 27/09/2006 06:37:28
No, I wasn't trying to. Mostly I was being a smart-ass, and I apologize if I offended.

But what I do find dangerous about where SilverWizard is going with this is: his discomfort with the belief in or existence of something he doesn't understand because it might conflict with his religion.

Certainly religion is useful as a means to try and lead a moral and ethical life, but using it as an end in itself is where I get uncomfortable. To use his example, if communication with the dead is possible, then there must be some physical explanation for it, whether we call it "magic" or whatever. But are we going to dismiss it outright as "evil" because of a passage in the bible? Sadly, history (heck, current events) suggest that those who cling blindly to religion will do a lot more than just "dismiss" it.

Nah, I wasn't offended, so no need to apologize to me ^_^... I just get a little tired of the religion vs. evolution debate sometimes.
I agree that blindly following doctrine can be dangerous, as that provides a ideal environment for extremist views to develop (though this applies to all ideologies, not just religion).

I'm utterly lost in the search for things beyond ourselves, such as gods, supernaturals forces, etc.

Personally, I often wonder that, if there were anything out there, why can't we all find it and agree on it?  What's with so many different religions and beliefs?

Have you ever asked for a supernatural force to show itself to you?  I did, once.  I was pretty down and confused, and while walking outside one night, I was like, "Whatever is out there, please show yourself."  Nothing happened. 

Maybe I did it wrong? 

Have any of you ever encountered a supernatural force that you KNEW was indeed supernatural?  How did you contact it?  Or did it contact you?

QuoteMaybe I did it wrong?

Yes. Next time say 'Hastur'. Three times.

I think that the supernatural could exist, I just have never really been presented with much convincing evidence of its existence.
I think UFO’s could be something. for example I read in a reputable source  of UFO spotted both visually as well as on radar. now if that’s not something I don't know what is.  Unless both people involved are lying of course.

you don't have to be lying to be wrong.

the main problem with mystical and unexplained things are that people think "But I saw it with my own eyes!" and think that their eyes are infallible.

According to your eyes David Copperfield cuts a woman in half. But we know that he really didn't but it LOOKS just like it! "Are you telling me that I'm lying when I say he cut a woman in half?" obviously not. Your eyes and brain decieved you. You can very easily fool your eyes with simple optical illusions.

"for example I read in a reputable source  of UFO spotted both visually as well as on radar"

can I see?

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 27/09/2006 21:25:28
the main problem with mystical and unexplained things are that people think "But I saw it with my own eyes!" and think that their eyes are infallible.

According to your eyes David Copperfield cuts a woman in half. But we know that he really didn't but it LOOKS just like it! "Are you telling me that I'm lying when I say he cut a woman in half?" obviously not. Your eyes and brain decieved you. You can very easily fool your eyes with simple optical illusions.

Precisely!  I remember learning this lesson early in life, while watching movies with my mother commenting, "That's not REAL blood!"

Yes, it was the 1969 "science of the year" book.  had a big painting of the lunar lander during touchdown on the cover. I am sorry I can't tell you more, but I don't have the book on hand right now, other wise I could tell you the publisher and other pertinent details. Now, remember I mentioned the radar and a person, who had a camera on hand. what I am saying is there is two separate sources of information,  one of the key things needed for some form of truth .one of the witnesses a highly trained professional. I think it does warrant some consideration.

Signal in a radar = Spaceship crewed by an alien intelligence?

Mmmm...  ::)

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 27/09/2006 23:03:36
Signal in a radar = Spaceship crewed by an alien intelligence?

Mmmm... ::)

UFO just means Unidentified Flying Object
if we found out for sure little green men were at the helm, then it wouldn't be a UFO anymore

Yes... UFO is something in the sky that we don't know what it is. Why do you assume it is crewed by an alien intelligence? You did, hence you mentioned it like something extraordinary. Don't try to change the sense of your posts saying it was an alien object and now denying it.

Any way back to the topic,

I'm a Christian, and I reckon that not beleiving in anything raises mor questions than beleiving in something, eg.
"If there is no God or anything, how was the universe created?"
But then some-one could come back with
"But how was God created?"
Trying to witness to people can be annoying sometimes.

And Raggit, if your reading, God wants you to beleive in Him without seeing (read Hebrews 11:1).

Quote from: Creator on Thu 28/09/2006 09:57:48
I reckon that not beleiving in anything raises mor questions than beleiving in something

"Scientific study and reasoning involves more questioning and rational thought than religious devotion."

Also in the news today:

"Excercise requires more work than liposuction."

"Diplomatic and peaceful conflict resolution takes more thought and time than nuclear strikes."

and

"Christianity topics on this forum just go around in circles for days."

It's completely fine to answer 'I don't know' to questions such as "who made the world" or "who made whom who made the world". You don't have to know. Don't be scared, it's okay.

Quote from: Helm on Thu 28/09/2006 10:40:17
Don't be scared, it's okay.

Are you or are you not teasing me with this cause I don't like people teasing my faith.

You'd do well to forgive me then.

I've always regarded religions in general to be nothing more then pacifiers (those thing you stick in a babies mouth to keep it from crying. Because of the exact reason creator mentioned a couple of posts above: Not believing raises more questions then believing.

In fact it raises the questions posted by helm, which can be quite daunting and overwhelming, yes even scary. The questions raise an awareness than we are not the protegees of some omnipotent being that will save us in the end. But yet that we are alone in a vast and empty space and that whatever trouble we run into, we'll have to solve it ourselves or quietly hope for it to go away.

So i suppose Helms remark about it being ok to be scared is quite understandable and not directly meant as an insult towards anyones religion. Although with Helm you can never be sure. Those chaotic atheists always have a hidden agenda :P

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Thu 28/09/2006 10:19:44

Quote from: Creator on Thu 28/09/2006 09:57:48
I reckon that not beleiving in anything raises mor questions than beleiving in something

"Scientific study and reasoning involves more questioning and rational thought than religious devotion."

Although this may be true because scientific study and reasoning doesn't exist without questioning, that doesn't mean that religious devotion involves no questioning and rational thought. In fact, it works best when you ask lots of questions and think rationally a lot. Especially if you are studying it, such as by going to seminary or something like that. Anyone who has ever written an exegetical paper on one of Paul's epistles could vouch for this.

Quote from: Helm on Thu 28/09/2006 10:46:52
You'd do well to forgive me then.

You'd have to apologize first.

Quote from: Creator on Thu 28/09/2006 09:57:48
...And Raggit, if your reading, God wants you to beleive in Him without seeing (read Hebrews 11:1).

Why?

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Wed 27/09/2006 10:03:51eagermind: Why do you find it dangerous? I told that i searched both Cristianity and Spiritualism/White Magic. But you know, if someone is Christian, then he can't be at the same time a White mage. And vice-versa. So, if i believe in White Magic, i won't be a Christian any more, because Christianity doesn't believe in White Magic. So simple as that. If there is any physical explanation, then it's ok, but when i talk about White Magic/Spiritualism, i talk about the aspect that they are supernatural activities.

Here's why this is dangerous. Your argument, as best as I can make, goes something like this:

- You're a Christian, and thus believe that Christianity is good.
- White Magic appears to be in conflict with Christianity.
- Therefore, White Magic must actually be a "dark force," which I take to mean as "bad," "evil," or "wrong."

Wow! That was easy! No fanaticism there, but we certainly left the door open. Now let's see what Christianity says about homosexuality, birth control, or Muslims, etc., etc.

Not only is this flawed logic, but have you asked yourself what it means to you personally to be a Christian?

Sure, the church may have an official line on ghosts, magic, the supernatural, etc, but what's the reasoning behind it? Do you agree with it? And what church are you even talking about? One of the countless variations of Protestantism, or the "original" church - and even then you get to choose between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy? Certainly "the church" has no monopoly on what the "right" answer is.

You've been asking people what they think about reconciling Christianity with White Magic. Well, people have either been saying that White Magic is a bunch of baloney (in which case, what's the problem?), or that you need to make your own decision. Religion is (or should be) a deeply personal thing.

So what does it mean to you to be a Christian? An what about White Magic conflicts with that, other than the fact that the church (or even the bible) says it does? And if magic, ghosts, and the supernatural do exist, does it necessarily mean they're evil, or do you need to re-evaluate your faith? Personally, I'd have a hard time subscribing to any interpretation of religion that would require me to perfunctorily label a group of people as being "evil".

Well, technically Christianity labels everyone as evil until they repent. Except for Jesus.

They're still evil after they repent, just forgiven ...

QuoteAccording to your eyes David Copperfield cuts a woman in half. But we know that he really didn't but it LOOKS just like it! "Are you telling me that I'm lying when I say he cut a woman in half?" obviously not. Your eyes and brain decieved you. You can very easily fool your eyes with simple optical illusions.

You're the one who's been had!  In ten years time, Geraldo will find a stack of neatly carved female corpses in Copperfield's basement.  THEN YOU'LL BELIEVE!

QuoteYou'd have to apologize first.

Is that the limit of your god-endorsed forgiveness? Did christ when he was once upon the cross say to the lord  'forgive them for they do not know what they are doing' or did he say 'dad, they're being a bit assholeish but forgive them 'cause they apologized'.

Come on, put some faith in your faith. Let me spit on your cross and the forgive me wholeheartedly, you can do it.

I'm not god and I would certainly not forgive you ;D

It seems though that this is a retorical question coming from your post, so being a silly silly person I would like to know the answer please. Otherwise I would have to assume that you, Helm (as I didn't quote you I had to name you, sorry), do not know the answer yourself, and thus your ignorance dictates you to accept the answer given to you by others.

But right now the ball is on your grounds. ;D

PS. My post derives from my belief that indeed faith is not to be mocked up. And maybe my confusion as to Helms posts (and Erenans), if is a joke or not. If indeed it is one then I do wholeheartidly appoligse and will erase this post. If not, awaiting for an answer please. :)

There was a time when people believed that Zeus was the deity, and they had faith, and there was people who could give dozens of evidences of its deity, and evidences of its existence (the toys found in the cave in Crete, where Zeus was supposed to be hidden while prosecuted by Cronos) and people who was so sure about the existence of Zeus that could sacrifice their lifes for it.

So... Believers... Now, when everybody agrees Zeus does not exist... The question is:

What does make you believe you are right now? The previous gods were pagan superstitions... but yours is the good one? Are you better than the romans, or the greeks? Are you better than the Sintoists, or the muslims?

There is no metaphysical differences between the different Gods in history. Yeah, you can use a magnifier to look at the different divinities and say "Well, the greeks were politheits..." or "The Aztec's God was cruel!", but basically, what you can't really say is "My God is real, and their wasn't". The Christian God is just one more of the million of deities invented by the mankind.

I am open to discuss that religion can be a good tool. I have faith, because faith is good, and faith can work as a lighthouse which brings light... But believing the supernatural stuff is... totally unnecessary.

Quote from: Creator on Thu 28/09/2006 09:57:48
I'm a Christian, and I reckon that not beleiving in anything raises mor questions than beleiving in something, eg.
"If there is no God or anything, how was the universe created?"

Well, for sure. That's my biggest problem with those kinds of beliefs.

- "How was the Universe created? Seems a bit mystifying to me!"
o "Hmmm... yeah. It's a tricky one. Uhhh.... erm.... God made it"
- "But the complexities... it's fascinating! Let's discuss it! All the possibilities!"
o "I told you, God made it. The end."

It's our openess to questioning the world around us that leads to progress. Firm belief to me doesn't seem very open to change.

Raising more questions is a good thing, but you talk of it as if it's a bad thing and we should just accept "God made it" regardless of it's accuracy.

Quote from: Nacho on Fri 29/09/2006 14:09:56
There was a time when people believed that Zeus was the deity, and they had faith, and there was people who could give dozens of evidences of its deity, and evidences of its existence (the toys found in the cave in Crete, where Zeus was supposed to be hidden while prosecuted by Cronos) and people who was so sure about the existence of Zeus that could sacrifice their lifes for it.

So... Believers... Now, when everybody agrees Zeus does not exist... The question is:

Zeus does not exist? Who told you so? Who agrees? Where is the proof?

Just ask any priest or you local Imam if Zeus exist or there is just one God/Allah...

The official doctrine of any major religion nowadays is that its deity is the only. Do you mean that any believer who deffends the existance of Zeus is automatically denying the offical doctrine of its religion? Yes, it's implicit in your stalement. Therefore there must be only two kind of religion believers. The ones who believe in the offical doctrine (therefore they are asuming Zeus did not exist, therefore, they are assuming they are better than the rest of religions in different parts of the world or along the history...) Or the ones who do believe that Zeus existed, therefore, they are not following the official learnings of its church.

Therefore, worshippers a) and b) are both falling into a fatal inconsistency.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

The people who are making the extraordinary claim of god or gods existing are the ones that need to provide the proof. Someone who does not believe does not have to offer proof that they don't exist.

"I believe there is a million year old space station deep inside one of Saturn's moons... Now prove me wrong!" No, you prove the existance of a space station and then we will check your data and see if it holds up.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. Always remember that.

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 29/09/2006 17:24:24
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Always remember that.

Prove it.   ;D

There being only 1 God/Allah does not add to or subtract from the existence of Zeus. The genitive for Zeus is Díos, which pretty much means God. Allah means God. Gott means God. Throughout the history of the world, people worshipped reasonably large groups of gods. There was invariably one of them 'higher' than the others. The Big Guy. Sometimes they worshipped The Big Guy without any other gods. I did not say that there is not one God/Allah.

You with your local Imam's and agendas.....:D

About white magic...isn't that what Moses did with his staff? Perhaps the Christian term for white magic is "The Power of God" or "The Gift of God". White magic generally involves healing and such, no? At least that is what I get from the magic categories in the RPGs I play. Didn't the Disciples have healing powers?


MrColossal: I agree with you about the space station. It's from a Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away.

Quote from: Babar on Fri 29/09/2006 17:39:52
There being only 1 God/Allah does not add to or subtract from the existence of Zeus.

Yes it does, because then you have to also believe in Thor and Athena and Hermes and all the hundereds of gods they had.

Quote from: Helm on Fri 29/09/2006 11:34:30

QuoteYou'd have to apologize first.

Is that the limit of your god-endorsed forgiveness? Did christ when he was once upon the cross say to the lord Ã, 'forgive them for they do not know what they are doing' or did he say 'dad, they're being a bit assholeish but forgive them 'cause they apologized'.

Come on, put some faith in your faith. Let me spit on your cross and the forgive me wholeheartedly, you can do it.

First of all, I don't see how forgiving someone who does not repent constitutes greater faith. And second, doing so directly contradicts the biblical model of forgiveness. There are many, many passages that clearly state to forgive anyone who repents of their sin. It does not say, "Yes, that guy murdered your wife and kids, and no, he doesn't care one bit, nor does he feel any remorse or guilt. But what the heck! Forgive him anyway!" In the Christian faith, that is not how God forgives mankind, and that is not how God endorses forgiveness, as you put it.

That having been said, I suppose I should mention that I'm not even entirely sure I want to be a Christian any longer, but the details of that are entirely a personal issue between me and God. It was Creator who asked if you were teasing him, so if you really want his forgiveness, then maybe ask him again?

Also, I don't care if you spit on any cross. And if you should find Christ's body and spit on that, then I'd certainly not be a Christian.

Note: This post was written without anger.

I assume Thor IS Zeus/Jupiter. At least that is what the Greeks believed (for some reason they did not identify him with Odin?). Like I said, there is always The Big Guy god who's better than all the other gods. The Sky God, The Head God, The Father. Athena and Hermes and the rest may very well exist also. Angels may exist also. Demons may exist also. Peoples' perceptions of everything change along in history. Some things get confused. Some new things pop up. I don't know why I'm having such an odd argument.


PS: Forgiving someone who wants to be forgiven is not worth much. Forgive someone who absolutely does not care. Love your enemy.

Why isn't it worth much? It's forgiveness. It's inherently worth much. In fact, I'd say that if you don't want forgiveness, then to you it's basically worthless. How is it worth more if you don't want it? That makes no sense.

Saying that Zeus and God are the same is a nice dialectical tactic, but it's actually a torpedo to your floating point.

You claim that the Real metafisical God is the same during all the times and in different cultures. If that was true, the image of God should have been basically unalterated during all the process, with small modifications, but the same, an unique BIG GUY.

But what happens then with the Titanomaquia and Gigantomaquia? The greek myth is seen now as something unalterated, because we see the final result, but it was not allways like that. At the beginning Chronos was the Big Guy, and it was not clear if Zeus was going to success or not. If we see in the books that Zeus was the deity who defeated Chronos, it's because Chronos was the historical divinity workshipped originally. Therefore Chronos was the Big Guy... and it changed into something different... How can this be explained if the source of the sacred beliefs is the unique and only BIG GOD? How can be explained that Amon was defeated by Aton, and then by Ra?

As seen, it seems more sensible to see the mankind as te source of deities, and not the opposite.

Anyway, if God, a divinity attempting to create a race with its own shape, really exist, he must be really dumb, because it has been here for 4650,000,000 years, and he only succedded creating us since, how... 1,000,000 years? of this, from how many years has it been able to illuminate us with the idea of his presence? 20,000 years? This God is really slow...  :P

That counting that God was born with the earth... If he is really the creator of all, he has been 20,000,000,000 years lurking doing nothing... That means that for each year that an intellgent civilization has had the idea of "Jesus", there happened 10,000,000 years without him. Actually... Actually I think that the Universe doesn't really need this skinny hairy carpenter, or this analphabet (Ummi) from the desert, no?!?

You're assuming that God endures the same constraints that we do. His perceptions of time are in all likelihood not like ours. He probably doesn't have to wait around for anything. He can probably act upon the world at any place and time in the world's history.

No... You are assuming that it exist...

No, I'm not. I'm speaking hypothetically in an attempt to point out that your argument doesn't cover all the bases in terms of weakening the idea of God's existence.

But my ideas of the age of the Universe and the Earth are widely spread. No matter if I piss it off by some millions of years, the main idea is that from the beginning of the times till now has happened a lot of friggin' time...

So it is dare from you saying that the one who "assumes" it's me, while you invented a time-traveler God...

If it' s an hipotethical theory, mention it. Say that there' s no rational idea to understand the idea of God, and assume that it' s you who assumes.

EDIT: Forget all my argument... You are right, deities can travel along the time...

(http://kafkaskoffee.com/pubicon.gif)

Well, I did say "probably." :P

I don't think it's Erenan who invented a 'time travelling God'. Apologies for launching into this futile theological discussion, but if God exists at all, and is omnipotent and omniscient (infact any one of the omnis. I assume having one would automatically mean having all), then God would also be omnipresent. God didn't 'start' at some point in time, then decide "I'll make the universe" then decide "I'll Ã, create man". God would have to have always been there. It doesn't matter if it's even 600 billion years since the beginning of the universe, and only 20 for the existence of humanity. God isn't controlled by time. This doesn't mean that God is some sort of time traveller who does work in one point in history, and then moves to another point to do other work. God is everywhere, all the time.

If out of the 46 50,000,000 years of the universe that you mention, we've only existed for 1 million (I am somewhat unsure where you got these numbers from), does that make us any less important? I'm sorry, but for all the billions of years the universe will ever exist, I believe the most important for me would be the few decades I'll be in it. For me, at least, the entire 46 50,000,000 years leading up to now were in preparation of my existence.

This, of course, is assuming what I'm assuming: that for God to be God, He'd have to be one (and all) of the omni...'s. Anyhoo, there is plenty of evidence for Zeus, and the way you said that "Everyone agrees that he doesn't exist", I thought you had something definitive to the contrary. :D

Quote from: Babar on Fri 29/09/2006 21:33:00
For me, at least, the entire 46 50,000,000 years leading up to now were in preparation of my existence.

Better get to work on a kickass game and make it all worth while then!

That (It is omnipresent during all the time) implies that he is also in the future... Therefore, the future is written, therefore, this God is not the Paladdin of the free will that the religion books talk about. As you can see, this God does not support a medium analysis.

I think that my point is quite clear... So, unless further appealing posts (I am not saying that your posts are not interesant or something, but I think my point is quite clear and something GREAT should be posted for making me take the effort to reply...) I think I am not going to reply. ^_^.

The complete guide to the theology, ideals, politics and beliefs of the AGS forums:

Curious/pissing yourself over the end of the world?Ã,  Let the wisdom of the forums flow over you in one of the most comprehensive studies ever compiled on the Revelations of St. John:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=27665.0

Still not sure about the end of the world?Ã,  Maybe you're going to be Left Behind:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=27689.0


Who was Jesus, and what does it mean to have a personal relationship with him?Ã,  If these questions have been on your mind lately, and you feel an abscense in your life, you probably won't find an answer in Was Jesus a Timelord:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=27635.0

What do ancient Christian doctrines and modern politics have to do with each other?Ã,  Will America actually become Jesusland?Ã,  Read All About Religion: Rights, Wrongs, Theocracy, Etc. by yours truly:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=25962.0


Mohammed cartoons.Ã,  Enough said:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=24930.0

Discover the impact of language on basic rhetoric, and uncover the shocking truth behind DGMacPhee's Dumpster Pissing debacle:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=27601.20


Take a trip into the Paranormal with esteemed author Nikalos, and others:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=23632.0

Hey kids, it's Scientology time!:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=25767.0

Tuomas presents a case for physical evidence that ghosts exist:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=23307.0

Is Christianity a Crock?Ã,  Have a look at the studied opinions of the greatest thinkers of our forums onThe DaVinci Code:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=26647.0

This DaVinci got locked.Ã,  Guess that secret STILL isn't getting out:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=26642.0


Was Bob Marely A Christian?Ã,  Find out:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=27645.0

This had something to do with religion somewhere around page 2.Ã,  Previously only available in bargain bins!:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=24241.20

It's one of the most debated and fought-over questions of all time:Ã,  If Jesus had a band...:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=27691.0

IT'S TOO LATE TO STUDY UP ON IT, BECAUSE THE DAY OF THE DEVIL IS HERE:

http://americangirlscouts.org/bbc.com/yabb/index.php?topic=26892.0

The existence of God is a matter that can't be answered with logic (or at least, only with logic). I will speak only as an Orthodox Christian: God is mainly an "experience", not something like mathematics, where you can proove something. If we have two philosophers, one who is an atheist and one who believes to a Higher Supernatural Entity and they have a dialog with the topic "Does God exist?" they will start an argument that won't have an end!
If someone is conviced that God exists only from a "blah, blah" conversation, then he should be worried, because the next time another better "rhetorician" will be found to persuade him from the opposite.
And one personal opinion: I think that's the way that the whole subject works, because if God gives us clear signs of his existence, then there wouldn't be a freedom to our choice. So, we have to search to find True God. And if we start this journey, then God will help us to reach to the truth. But if i choose to be an atheist, then again i will be free to follow this direction.
Someone might claim this: True freedom is when human has the chance to live as he would like to live. If only God of Orthodox Christians exist, then we are "obligated" to follow a specific direction. But if e.g. New Age--Spiritualism teaches the right things, then it's very simple, i can "create" or find, whatever, a God as i like to be.
Well, in this question, i have to answer this (answer is subjective of course): If there is a Higher Entity/God, then this Entiry knows better, much better for us what's the true way that leads to the true hapiness. In life sometimes there is not only black and white, but grey too. However, if God exists, then he must be the Absolute White. So, he only shows the Absolutely Riht and Light Way which leads to the True and Real Hapiness. This means that God shouldn't be represented to humanity with different forms and philosphys and whatever. He will have ONLY ONE "lifestyle" to "suggest".

I wrote all these to compare them with theories that support what Spiritualism/New Age believes about true God (all Gods lead to the same Higher Entity) . And also White Magic, at leats the White Magic that it is supported by Spiritualism, claims that regain its power mainly from this Higher Entity. So i think that if someone follows Spiritualism then he might follow also White Magic, which is in many cases supported, as i said before, by New Age theories. And here comes the subject of this topic: Christianity versus White Magic.
EagerMind, let me explain this:
   -I am a Christian, and thus believe that Christianity is good.
   - White Magic appears to be in conflict with Christianity {in matters that have to do with faith.}
   So, it is not possible to believe both in Christianity and in White Magic, can  i? How can i believe that i can have supernatural powers without Jesus and ONLY Jesus "support" and at the same time say "I am Christian", when Christianity says something like this: Only Jesus can give supernatural powers.


   {- Therefore, White Magic must actually be a "dark force"}   
IF White Magic says "Using White Magic you can achieve supernatural powers" then, according to the above that i said, White Magic, according to my beliefs, is a wrong theory and IF i see a White Magician e.g. creates water to the name of a Spiritual Entity, i will say "that is evil". But all these IF a have done research and i am sure that e.g. Christianity express my heart and i think it's true and White Magic not. And such research i have done.

Is there any Christian that is at the same time White Magician? And if there is, could he give us his opinion about all these?

Good show, SilverWizard!

QuoteIf there is a Higher Entity/God, then this Entiry knows better, much better for us what's the true way that leads to the true hapiness. In life sometimes there is not only black and white, but grey too. However, if God exists, then he must be the Absolute White. So, he only shows the Absolutely Riht and Light Way which leads to the True and Real Hapiness.

You must be an incredible optimist to believe that a higher entity must automatically be the "Absolute White"! :)

Edit: Daz washing powder (http://www.dazwhite.co.uk) claims it cleans "whiter-than-white".  Does this mean it's better than a god? :P

Yes, i believe that this Higher Entity is The Absolute White, because if it is not, then it's something that makes moral mistakes, so it should not be considered as God.

SilverTrumpet, what do you mean by "Good show"? My english is not so good, and i don't know what this expression means :)

QuoteYes, i believe that this Higher Entity is The Absolute White, because if it is not, then it's something that makes moral mistakes, so it should not be considered as God.

But where do you get your morality from?  Doesn't god/God/gods dictate it to you in the first place?  Isn't it drawn from holy texts or texts "inspired" by the word of the god/God/gods?  How can you, without referring to religious texts, be certain that this higher entity is "absolute white" or perfectly moral?

To me, that requires just too much of a leap of faith to accept that a higher being is "good" because text apparently inspired by the higher being say so.  I'd rather form my own independant morals, fully knowing that I am an imperfect human being, than trust a higher entity that I have no evidence that exists because it says so :P

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Sat 30/09/2006 16:12:41
SilverTrumpet, what do you mean by "Good show"?

Sorry, it pretty much means 'good job', or in this case, 'I agree with you". Do you understand now?  :)

Quote from: Becky on Sat 30/09/2006 16:34:02
But where do you get your morality from?Ã,  Doesn't god/God/gods dictate it to you in the first place?Ã,  Isn't it drawn from holy texts or texts "inspired" by the word of the god/God/gods?Ã,  How can you, without referring to religious texts, be certain that this higher entity is "absolute white" or perfectly moral?

Becky, my point is exactly that: If God exists, i agree with you that He will define morality. But i believe that God is an Entity which is full of love and wisdom. That's personal believe of course (and Christianity's believe also) . So, if God isn't The Absolute White and The Absolute Wisdom, he will make moral mistakes, because their actions will conflict with his teachings, which say that God is full of love, full of wisdom, The Truth, The Pure Holy Light e.t.c. So God is The Absolute Love. So, he is The Abolute White. Of course to axcept someone these, he has firstly to axcept that Love=White ;)
You form your own moral beliefs, such i also do. I say "I am a Christian" but the truth is that almost every man on this earth (maybe except Monks and Holy humans) is mostly an agnostic. I am an agnostic who has searched Christianity, and realised that untill now this religion expresses myself to many matters. Some things you hear them for first time, and you say "these are stupid" but if you search deeper, you will realise that these are the right way. I won't do what many Spiritualists do, i mean to take some things that i like from e.g. Christianity and some things from e.g. Hinduism. If i axcept Christianity, i will axcept all of its teachings. If i discover that calling spirits using with the help of white magic is a healthy activity, then i will forget the Triadic God.
I didn't say that if i axcept with all my heart beyond any doubtness Christianity, that i will be a monk. Or that i will have the will to follow every suggestions, guidelines and advices that God gave us. But when you say "i form my own morality", isn't better to search and find what Higher Entity teaches; It's much better to know this and then maybe try to follow this path, doing might some zick-zack during the path ;) At least you won't be trapped by lies or by arts that are evil. Now you will ask me "how can i find the true religion". Personally i try to fully understand what a religion says and then compare it with my heart's true feelings. I make that and for Christianity and up to now i don't face any contradiction ot problem.
So, once again this kind of quest leads me to this: Christianity can't except that we can handle supernatural forces by our own, or to talk with spiritual entities by our own, because God, as Absolute White, give us of course freedom (someone would say "but freedom for me means to be able to talk with angels without having to use let's say evil tools like ouija board") but this doesn't mean that He will support us if we do something that won't be for our good. God doesn't find good to talk with spirits and so He will not support it.
Now, that this matter of freedom is i think cleared and after some thought, there is a conclusion: Someone can't be a Christian and a White Mage at the same time. Untill now Christianity covers me and i have reasons to suspect that White Magic is not so white as it says it is. Anyway, if someone here practises White Magic, he can tell us his experiences.

A, and SilverTrumpet, yes now i got what you meaned by "Good Show" :) God/Higher Entity/Nature/Physical Laws bless you ;D

I have some concerns... If it's a proof of the existence of God that it does not give real evidences of its existence... Why the hell it gives "little" evidences? Is it testing the faith of the fidels giving just small proofs, and, therefore, it is going to condemn the ones who do not believe in him? That brings me some questions...

If there is an aborigen in the middle of Australia who has never heard of God but he behaves correctly and following all the rules of morality... Is he going to be condemned behause he does not believe?

This is the God full of love of wisdom?

I am going to put it even more complicated... What happens with someone who follows the rules of morality, and he is atheistic? He has heard of God... He has not the excuse the aborigen has... Is he going to be condemned? Mmmm... This sounds a little bit like blackmail to me...

If the opposite happens, and God allows in heaven the ones who behave propperly, despicing if they believe or not... Where is the point of believing?!?

Heheh...don't worry about me making a kick-ass game, MrColossal. That's the least of what's going to happen!

About the white magic thing, Silver wizard, I don't know...what would you call what Moses did (with the snakes, and the Red Sea, etc.)?

Nacho, about the free will thing...well, without getting into another side-debate, I really don't see how God's fore-knowledge of what's going to happen negates free will. God knows. We do not.

Now about the 3rd sub-branch of the debate, ethics, it's pretty obvious that there are many athiests with very high moral values, and many God-believers with very little morality. Once again, if God is God, then God is the God of all things, not just believers. It would be silly to think that He only takes care of people who believe. Personally, I believe "The right thing to do" is something well ingrained into humans.

The whole "fellow who knew nothing about God but lived properly all his life" is pretty simple to me. I mean, just be logical and think about it. If he knew nothing about God, he can't really be at blame, can he? About the other guy, I don't know...it all depends on him and his own reasons. I believe that God rewards people who don't believe in Him on Earth. Sort of like how karma works.

Just a quick note:

QuoteBut when you say "i form my own morality", isn't better to search and find what Higher Entity teaches; It's much better to know this and then maybe try to follow this path, doing might some zick-zack during the path ;) At least you won't be trapped by lies or by arts that are evil.

Well, uh, you're assuming I -haven't- looked at what various other religions say that their God/gods say.  You're also still assuming that all/any higher entities MUST be pure 100% good, as you define it, because other things are lies or arts that are evil.

I don't believe in a good/evil dichotomy.  Some things have mostly positive effects, some have mostly negative effects, but I don't believe you can label something as wholly "evil" or wholly "good".  Which is...really where I think this "white magic = NOT CHRISTIAN = BLACK MAGIC EVIL!!!" thing just falls down and appears stupid.

Sad how some people view "magic" and such.
I agree that if they are using it only to make money and such , they are most likely frauds that don't deserve the money they get from their exploitation. It's the frauds and the people who are quick to flag everything different as evil that keeps people down over things they shouldn't be down about.

To be down on all "magic" and those who do / use it is pretty upsetting.
I have tried "psi balls" sometimes but haven't mastered it yet since I'm a newbie.
A hardcore skeptic will always be skeptical unless something huge happens them to change their mind. I consider myself a bit of a skeptic but I'm also a believer in many things and I want to believe alot of things.

To say all "white magic" and such is actually Black magic is like saying a White robe is actually Black. Wrong! People wouldn't call it "White" if it was "Black". Although I hate it when people equate White with Good and Black with Evil so much , if you're healing somebody or yourself...this is a good thing not an evil thing....regardless of how you do it...whether through a spell or through special lotion and bandages. If you want to protect your family / yourself through a ritual or spell , how can this be a bad thing? Just because you are using an unconventional method? Pshaw!
Even if you're using "dark" energies ( for some people it is easier to imagine darkness / a "Black light" rather than a White one or a different color entirely... ) , if you don't misuse them then you are doing good. Plus there should be balance in all things.
I prefer the night over the day and I prefer the moon
over the sun but I try to keep myself and things balanced.

Nachos, i would apreciate if you create a topic in which you will post your doubts about Christianity. It would be my honor to participate. However, if you don't desire that, i won't have any other argument for this matter, i will answer to your critisism because i will connect my opinions with an asnwer that will set questions also for this topic's proper subject: "Christianity versus White Magic".

First of all, i didn't say it's a proof. I said that God respects our freedom to make choices. Don't you think it would be a bit against freedom to reveal Himself to us? Because then we would be "forced" to obey him (possibly because of fear) even if we don't, how can i say, "axcept" Him. God wants our relationship with Him to be based on true love and friendship. Jesus didn't make miracles in front of His enemies, to avoid exactly that thing. If their enemies had good intentions, then i suppose Jesus would make miracles to them or He would explain everything they couldn't understand, as He did with Saint Paul, who was an enemy of Christianity, but he had good intentions and he was not acting under personal benefits (as Jesus' enemies) but under his good intention to do the right but the right that he thought it was the right  :).

Now, i would like to talk about punishment. Many (almost all) Atheists say "Is it a good God He who will allow people to go to Hell e.t.c.". You Nachos talked about Aborigines and atheists who are moral and about the way that God will judge them. However, it was not proper to say that Christianity tells that, since Christianity DOES NOT tell that! Christians believe that NO ONE knows how God will judge people. NO ONE said that because someone tells that he is Christian, he will be automatically saved, or that a canibal who hasn't heard about Jesus, will be judged the way that will be judged someone who had the chance to be moral but he wasn't (e.g. some wealth people). NO ONE knows how God will judge people. So, stop saying "it is going to condemn the ones who do not believe in him" because it's a lie.

Now, about Hell something. Hell it is not a place where people are burning into fire! But when God reveals himself after Revelation, then these people which have chosen by free will to do terrible things, such as killing people to gain money e.t.c. they will blame theirselves because they have chosen to dismiss God's goods (love, compasion, friendship, hapiness e.t.c.) and so they will suffer with the thought that they have lost these things which bring the true hapiness. So they will create Hell by themselves. God does not create any Hell. Humans create Hell or Paradise for themselves.

If an Atheist has heard about God and he is moral, which means he lives the Heaven from the earth already (he feels love, hapiness e.t.c.), well his fate is not so different from the fate of a Christian, because as i said before, Christianity says that NO ONE knows how God will judge people and with what measures. You say, if there is the same to be a moral atheist and christian, then why to believe, well, it obviously has difference. Its difference is that if you believe, then you feel that you have a Higher Source that see your good action and does not leave evil to hurt you. Also, i suppose someone feels hapier when he knows that life continues after death. Then nothing is pointless that you do in this world. So, one factor for to believe is our physical and spiritual health. They are more reasons, more important, but well i suppose you can think many of them ;) I will say also antother one: Morality is a meaning very unstable. It is not bad to have a teaching to guide you, when you won't know how to act to a situation. Ok, i assume that God exists now, but for to answer to your question. It is much easier to take "bad" way if you don't believe, isn't it? Because if God does not exist, EVERYTHING are allowd, there is not defined good and wrong, no one can define proper and unproper.

So, now about White Magic, which troubles me, i don't think that the idea of calling supernatural powers is healthy. It looks like a harry-poter way of life, in which easy people solve their problems. Having a God like Jesus to believe, means act, take actions, but knowing that someone Higher is watching you and gives strength when you will indeed need it. Also, the idea of revival that Spiritualism believes is not healthy for me, because it represents soul like a cold box, which fills and empties with feelings from time to time. The idea of having an end the life-circle means that our emotions and action are not pointless and every moment of our life is extra important.
White Magic teaches love and respect, but how, with supernatural powers; When i was searching all this magic stuff, i thought: Hey, do i really want supernatural powers? Casting spell and so on? What true is it possible to find to rituals to the name of an unknown power? Queen Kara, it would be nice if you post your experiences and why did you decide to learn White Magic.


Babar, what Moses did is not White Magic. He got his strength by God, he alone has not any supernatural power, so we can't call him "a Wizard". God chose this time to act Moses, if Moses wanted to do that by himself, he wouldn't be able to do this. Miracle is not equal to White Magic. When people asked a Saint "are you a Mage;" he answered negative. I don't remember what exactly answer he gave, but it was something like "No, i am just an instrument (with the good meaning) of God, who spares love to all people"

Queen Kara, something else:
"It's the frauds and the people who are quick to flag everything different as evil that keeps people down over things they shouldn't be down about." I hope you don't tell this from me also. Because, as i've said many times, i have done many many research and i troubled my mind a lot with all this Meditation Supernatural Spell stuff. I just ended to the conclusion that Christianity is higher than them, that doesn't mean that i am fraud.
"I consider myself a bit of a skeptic but I'm also a believer in many things and I want to believe alot of things." Of course that's what every man should do. But i won't say that i believe in everything, when i don't, so to don't call me "close-mind". Open-mind doesn't mean to believe in everything, but to don't hurry to dismiss anything. I don't completely dismiss Magic, that's why i posted this Topic, to discuss this subject ;)
" Although I hate it when people equate White with Good and Black with Evil so much , if you're healing somebody or yourself...this is a good thing not an evil thing....regardless of how you do it...whether through a spell or through special lotion and bandages. If you want to protect your family / yourself through a ritual or spell , how can this be a bad thing? Just because you are using an unconventional method? Pshaw!
Even if you're using "dark" energies ( for some people it is easier to imagine darkness / a "Black light" rather than a White one or a different color entirely... ) , if you don't misuse them then you are doing good". Come on now, i used White to sumbolize Good, but there's no need to be upset for that ;) Also, of course the method might be not healthy! If someone e.g. bothers your sister and to prevent this you shoot that guy and you kill him, this method released your sister from this bothering, but is it truly the right and healthier way to solve this problem? Of course method matters.
"Plus there should be balance in all things." My friend, to return to the original subject of this topic, do you think that all things can be balanced? Can someone being Christian and White Mage at the same time? Are you? And if yes, i would like very much to explain me how, since God dismiss any form of magic.
I am not close-mind my friend, i used to LOVE all these supernatural lifestyles. But i think using a harry-potter style to change our environment and our selves it won't have any good results. If you disagree, i would like to hear your opinion, without fanaticism.

Right, this is a subject that always touches a nerve with me, and to be honest, after the first page, I couldn't be bothered reading anymore, so here goes..

Christianity is the same as White Magic/Wicca.

It provides a sense of community and hope for the people that need it.  Neither have any real proof one way or another.  If you truely believe that Christianity's the right path, and that makes you feel better, then fine, go with it.  Same applies to the Witches.  Since Christianity is just a belief, what right do you have to tell someone of another faith that they're wrong?

Islam is more believable than Christianity.  Though, the Christians refuse to accept that.  They believe what they've been told.  More than likely, you believe in Jesus and whatnot, because 1. You were brought up that way.  Or, 2. You had a time in your life where you needed some kind of guidance, because you couldn't figure things out for yourself.

If God truely does love everyone, then surely he'd let people decide for themselves.  Man creates religions so that people have something to believe in, and take all the hardship out of finding out for themselves.  In return, they usually just want some kind of donation or something.  (Not counting fundamentalists, who are just too angry to read between the lines).



If White Magic is just there, because of the Dark Lord, where does the Dark Lord come from?  God is everything and everywhere.  Ergo, God is the Dark Lord.  We are all part of God, but when we die in sin, we go to hell.  Ergo, when we go to hell, part of God dies.  God isn't infalliable.  God is slowly dying, one sinner at a time.

From that, I can see that either:
1. God doesn't exist.  ..Or..
2. God is trying to save his own ass.  Which in turn, stops him being a God, since he's no longer mortal, therefore GOTO 1.



If you're going to judge someone else's belief system, don't judge it from a different belief system.  Judge it with an open mind, where nothing is concrete and everything is possible.



On a side note, religion is based on fear and greed.  Which one are you?  Fear of hell or greed for an afterlife?

So, can I reply here or not? Because I am not going to start another thread...

I express only my opinion and i don't blame anyone's faith. If you were a more careful reader, you would see that i write: "I am not close-mind my friend, i used to LOVE all these supernatural lifestyles." and everywhere that i say something like "i don't think that is healthy", i also say the words "I,in my opinion e.t.c.", these are what I think and what I would like to discuss about. I would like very much to know your point of view and how do you use magic e.t.c. I want to hear your opinion and compare it with the thoughts i did when i was searching about Magic and Spiritualism.

"If you're going to judge someone else's belief system, don't judge it from a different belief system"  Topic's title is "Christianity versus White Magic", which means White Mages and Christians gather here and tell their opinion about the other "side" with respect and with no fanaticism. Personally i feel sad with the idea that magic exists, and i don't think it's so bad to ask for you to tell me why you don't feel bad and how do you use magic to your life, to what exactly you believe, why, how did it came e.t.c.

"what right do you have to tell someone of another faith that they're wrong?" I have good intentions which are not to change your faith of course, but to realise what is really magic and what does it really mean for a White Mage. I don't see anything wrong to tell "Hey, IN MY OPINION magic is wrong", because this is only my opinion, and posting this means that i am not yet sure that magic or at least all forms of magic are eveil or lie or wrong.

The other things about God and Dark Lord you say are completely personal thoughts. I have the right to ask myself  "daemons are behind every communication with the dead?" and also to express my doubts to the others. Through a dialog without fanaticism and anger we can achieve a lot, i guess.

Nachos, i suppose you are free to post :) You know i prefer this conversation to be kept to the subject i defined when i created this topic, but if you post, i will answer to you.

Ok... Then my question basically concerns about the "Nobody knows how God judges"... If we can't know something so basical about It (*) why must we behave in some or other way having It in mind?

I mean... You recognise you can't know how It thinks... Why do you assume it is not an entity who made the Universe, and then, at some point, it turned completely mad, a little naughty devil, and now it wants us to go killing people? How can deny that? You can' t. You must recognise that you know nothing about it.

The main issue in the oldest Gospel (Saint Thomas. the one which reflects better Jesus' thoughts) is that we are all individuals. We don't need temples, or woshipping anybody, or anything. We don' t need to pray, or give money to the Church, or avoid eating meat in Easter... We don' t need to make a ceremony to put our kids a name, and make them Christians...

And of course we can' t expect any help from him...

(*) Why do you call it "He"?

First of all, i used "He" because in Christianity we say "Father" and the word God in greek is a male word. It doesn't matter, obviously God has not genre, you can say "Him", "She", "It". I didn't mean that God is male!
Now this "Nobody knows how God judges": You have his teachings. If you are an honourable man with love for others, i suppose it is sure that you will join with God to the next life. This phrase is mainly referred to those Aborigines you said, or Canibals, or Christians who haven't real faith (i don't say i have real faith, i just try to find the truth) e.t.c. You said something that many Atheists think that Christianity says, that every non-Christian will go to Hell. Christianity doesn't say this. We don't know the way God thinks, because we can't understand this way of thinking, since we are "lower" beings. We have God's teachings and we know He is a God of love, that's enougn for to take courage and hope. So, this phrase is to understand that we can't tell "You will go to hell, or you will go to hell e.t.c.", so we must respect the others.

We can't expect help from God? Of course we can. Just God's help comes when human strength is not enough. E.g. if you try to find a job and you do all the search you could and you didn't manage to find one job, then God will recognize your trial and will help you to find one.

No, I am not saying that Christianism is a "blackmaily" religion. I asked you if it's necessary to believe to go to Heaven. Asking is different than saying.

You replied that it's not necessary. Then I asked you where is the point of believing if it's not necessary, and happened 3 pages of thread and you haven't replied.

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Sun 01/10/2006 16:09:40
You say, if there is the same to be a moral atheist and christian, then why to believe, well, it obviously has difference. Its difference is that if you believe, then you feel that you have a Higher Source that see your good action and does not leave evil to hurt you. Also, i suppose someone feels hapier when he knows that life continues after death. Then nothing is pointless that you do in this world. So, one factor for to believe is our physical and spiritual health. They are more reasons, more important, but well i suppose you can think many of them ;) I will say also antother one: Morality is a meaning very unstable. It is not bad to have a teaching to guide you, when you won't know how to act to a situation. Ok, i assume that God exists now, but for to answer to your question. It is much easier to take "bad" way if you don't believe, isn't it? Because if God does not exist, EVERYTHING are allowd, there is not defined good and wrong, no one can define proper and unproper.

As you can see, i have replied.

Yes, indeed you asked, but you told "that sound blackmail..." and i thought you took this idea of condemn as my certain answer. anyway

I would like Nachos to ask you something: All of these thoughts and questions, have you told them to a Monk/Priest? You know, i search Christianity, but a Monk/Priest "lives" this situation. Have you talked to a Monk?

You haven' t replied. You say that believing makes you better than me (You are better preppaired to fight the evil, and you are happier). And you don' t know me... And of course you can' t know any of the millions of atheistics in the World. I can' t accept that this is the answer to my question, because then the reply is that the believers of the world actually are a bunch of supperb people with a too high concept of theirselfs. Another issue implicit in this reply is also that believers are a group of weak and fearful people who need something (A deity) for making something I do without the deity (Fighting against its fears and being happy). Sorry, the reply don' t work to me.

I asked to a priest, the one who gave religion to us in High School...

Maybe he was not the propper one to ask, because two years after I graduated he left the Chuch...

I didn't said that believing makes me better than you. And i didn't say i am happier than you. I am hapier when i hope that there is life after death, but that doesn't mean i am hapier than you.
Listen, the matter of believing or not is very very personal. And some times it has to do with how much someone wants to search the unknown. Anyway, i don't think it's weakness to believe that, when e.g. a part of your family gets sick, there is a Higher Power which watch and will do what's the best to do for you and the people around you. Ok, the thought that a God exists makes me happy. I would be very sad if it, let's say was proven that God doesn't exist, but i don't think that this is weakness.

Anyway, i tried to give a reply to the matter of what's the point of believing with my pour english and with my knowledge about Christianity. But i realise that this (and of course many other matters that has to do with religions) can not be described with words. You talked with your school-teacher. Is that your only search about Christianity?
I have sent e-mails and had discussion with White Mages. Not only one or two. There bad priests and good priests, as there are people with good and people with bad intentions.
I suppose you have gone to church, you tried to follow Christianity, before you dismiss it. If not, then i am sorry, but you haven't any idea about what you judge.

Thanks for finally admitting that religion is something personal and not coming from a supernatural source.

The matter of believing is something very very personal indeed. This doesn't mean that there isn't any supernatural power. The matter is if someone has the will to find it, this is not inspired by supernatural power. Because freedom means that we have to find it, to choose to find it. And during this quest, if we face difficulties that are above our powers, then God will help us to overcome them

QuoteBut anyway, please do not be out-of-topic! Ã,  How many times do i have to tell you, this is not a topic for to judge Christianity. It is a topic for to compare Christianity and Spiritualism/White Magic, is that ok? Is that ok? IS THAT OK? Please, don't judge Christianity if you are not a follower of Spiritualism. And vice-versa. If you believe or not to Christianity, as far as you don't believe either in Ã, Spiritualism, your opinion shouldn't be posted here.

Ok, it's a few pages back, but i'm still catching up here..

Off-Topic? Ã, So you only want people who agree with you, or people you can argue with sufficiently to respond? Ã, I'm afraid people who are neither Christians nor Wiccans have a say in this, and to say otherwise is to start a thread like "N*ggers, do we need them? (Only Honky's may respond)". Ã, Surprisingly, it's not just you vs. a sect in the real world.

As for the off-topic stuff you mentioned, it's not like someone asked what is your favorite food? Ã, They were still in the realms of religious debate, and therefore, a completely legitmate post. Ã, I'm not going to say you're going to hell because of the color of your shirt, don't disrespect other people's opinions in the same way.

Right, now that we're semi-caught up..

"In my opinion.." and "It's is my opinion that..". Ã, Yea. Nice turn of phrase. Ã, Basically, it's a way of covering your ass in case of flak from other people. Ã, "In my opinion, all Christians are paedophiles". Ã, Not necessarily true, but I can use it as a defence if I'm questioned. Ã, Hopefully saying it's just an opinion will mean I can skip large parts of a conversation, like you seem to have.

QuotePersonally i feel sad with the idea that magic exists, and i don't think it's so bad to ask for you to tell me why you don't feel bad and how do you use magic to your life, to what exactly you believe, why, how did it came e.t.c.

Personally, I feel sad that Christianity exists. Ã, Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Wiccan, though I have looked into it in the past. Ã, Much like most other belief systems. Ã, All Wicca provides is a community for people who have rejected the mainstream religions, in favor of a smaller more firendly and forgiving community.

Christianity is just bigger, with more members, who disapprove of the lower groups. Ã, It's like the Jocks and the Geeks in a high school. Ã, There's the jocks, with all their friends, lording it over the more close knit community of the geeks. Ã, If a jock does something embarrassing, then he's shunned. Ã, If a geek does something embarrassing, then no one cares. Ã, The geeks already know that friendship and community counts more than popularity. Ã, If a Christian does something wrong, who stands up for him?



"He", the Father, etc.. Ã, What version of the Bible are you reading? Ã, My guess is the King James Version, which has been altered. Ã, If you're going to read the Bible, at least do it with some conviction and not just read what's been laid out in front of you. Ã, One of the masin things in Islam is research. Ã, You're supposed to investigate things. Ã, Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness, where such a thing is banned, what reason do you have for not doing any investigation?



I have an obscure request, that you probly won't accept, but here goes anyway..

Denounced the Lord. Ã, For just a week. Ã, Tell him before hand, that this is just a test of your faith. Ã, He's God, he'll completely understand*. Ã, Go about your life, as normal, speak to people as you normally would, and most of all, ENJOY LIFE. Ã, No matter how banal, just enjoy it. Ã, Spend time with friends and family. Ã, Just don't think about God at all. Ã, If you do think about him, think to yourself "He's on vacation this week, he's not looking".

I really doubt you'll go out and kill someone, or get cancer, or burn crosses or anything. Ã, Chances are, it won't make the slightest impact on your day to day life.



On a side note.. The people who haven't heard about Christianity (rain forest people, who are covered by Islam).. Ã, What happens to them? Ã, From what I remember from the Bible, they don't get a mention..

Also, what actual faith are you, SilverWizard_OTF?



EDIT:
I see my Fear/Greed section got completely omitted.  Do you have to ask your priest about that one?

Quote from: Renal Shutdown on Sun 01/10/2006 19:06:01
Denounced the Lord.  For just a week.  Tell him before hand, that this is just a test of your faith.  He's God, he'll completely understand*.  Go about your life, as normal, speak to people as you normally would, and most of all, ENJOY LIFE.  No matter how banal, just enjoy it.  Spend time with friends and family.  Just don't think about God at all.  If you do think about him, think to yourself "He's on vacation this week, he's not looking".

Now what does this have to do with anything?

As a joke is lame (and offending)
As an idea is stupid (the idea not you).
As a comment it's rubbish
and as an argument it will fall in a sec: What makes you think that he's not already enjoying his life with God and all that inside?

There you go!

now onto other stuff:

IMO does serve a purpose and, although it shoudn't be overused simple as a shield, there are times that indeed it is the only excuse out there. I love my wife because she's the most beautiful creature in the world! Is it true? Nope! But if I add the word, in my opinion, suddently everything falls into place. :)

The version he would probably reading (being greek) would be a translated greek one, in the orthodox way ;D Who is King James??? (I honestly don't know...)

Why the generalisation?

QuoteChristianity is just bigger, with more members, who disapprove of the lower groups

So mainly Christians think that they're better than everybody else (especially in religious matters) and think/believe/wish that all other religions (with their members) renounce or go to hell. That reminds me of, all the other religion, actually...

Personally I feel sad for the post you made, and the post you made me write. :D

I hate it when people say that Christians think they're better than everybody else. It's rude and narrowsighted.

Quote from: Renal Shutdown on Sun 01/10/2006 19:06:01
On a side note.. The people who haven't heard about Christianity (rain forest people, who are covered by Islam)..  What happens to them?  From what I remember from the Bible, they don't get a mention..

They receive the consequences for their actions, same as everybody else. Whether they know their actions are wrong and whether it's just to punish them for those actions would be a decision for God to make. I think it would be foolhardy and arrogant to say, "This is what he'd decide..." so I won't.

EDIT: Sorry, I meant to edit the post above. :'(

Quote from: Renal Shutdown on Sun 01/10/2006 19:06:01
  Much like most other belief systems.  All Wicca provides is a community for people who have rejected the mainstream religions, in favor of a smaller more firendly and forgiving community.

Christianity is just bigger, with more members, who disapprove of the lower groups.  It's like the Jocks and the Geeks in a high school.  There's the jocks, with all their friends, lording it over the more close knit community of the geeks.  If a jock does something embarrassing, then he's shunned.  If a geek does something embarrassing, then no one cares.  The geeks already know that friendship and community counts more than popularity.  If a Christian does something wrong, who stands up for him?

This metaphor doesn't support your argument.  Switch Christianity with atheism (or something else) and the metaphor could apply to that too.
Like Erenan said, to say all Christians think they're better than everyone else is extremely inaccurate--it's as fair as me saying that all atheists look down on religious folk.   

Quote from: Erenan on Sun 01/10/2006 19:57:44
I hate it when people say that Christians think they're better than everybody else. It's rude and narrowsighted.

Who are you talking about?

Quote from: Nacho on Sun 01/10/2006 20:25:50

Quote from: Erenan on Sun 01/10/2006 19:57:44
I hate it when people say that Christians think they're better than everybody else. It's rude and narrowsighted.

Who are you talking about?

Renal Shutdown most probably :)

Quote
As a joke is lame (and offending)
As an idea is stupid (the idea not you).
As a comment it's rubbish
and as an argument it will fall in a sec: What makes you think that he's not already enjoying his life with God and all that inside?

You obviously haven't bothered reading what I said, and just got all judgemental before you had to.

If you'd bothered to read the statement, Nikolas, you'd have noticed I was saying he'd have pretty much the same life with or without God. Ã, I'm not saying oppose God, or follow Him. Ã, Just try to avoid him for a week, and see if life changes so drastically that you realise that you need him with you. Ã, He enjoys life with God, but how does that mean people without God DON'T enjoy life as much?


Off Topic..

Quote
IMO <GOD?> does serve a purpose and, although it shoudn't be overused simple as a shield, there are times that indeed it is the only excuse out there. I love my wife because she's the most beautiful creature in the world! Is it true? Nope! But if I add the word, in my opinion, suddently everything falls into place.

You don't really need to add "IMO" for your wife. Ã, We all assume that she's beautiful to you, why else would you be with her? Ã, If you don't feel that's true, then you probably not be with her.


Back on Topic..

Quote
So mainly Christians think that they're better than everybody else (especially in religious matters) and think/believe/wish that all other religions (with their members) renounce or go to hell. That reminds me of, all the other religion, actually...

Why do you choose (oxthodox greek) Christianity and not another religion? Ã, What makes it better or more divine than the others? Ã, Therein lies my point.

Quote
They receive the consequences for their actions, same as everybody else. Whether they know their actions are wrong and whether it's just to punish them for those actions would be a decision for God to make. I think it would be foolhardy and arrogant to say, "This is what he'd decide..." so I won't.

Islam covers for people who die before they hear about Islam, like the rain forest tribes, and they automatically go to heaven. Ã, Where is the get out clause for that in Christianity? Ã, Original Sin?

Mash Potato:

Precisely my point. Ã, It's a belief system or an organised belief system. Ã, No one is right. Ã, It's like saying everyone's favorite color should be blue, and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Ã, It's a personal choice.

That said, if some group think red is a better color, they don't have a right to come and tell any of us what we should prefer. Ã, The whole point is that it is personal, and should be discovered for yourself, and not be indoctrinated into you by friends, family or people who are willing to take advantage when you are in an unstable mindset.

(My friend, half Christian, half Muslim, mostly atheist suddenly started following fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, because he was going thru a rough time family-wise at home and people at his Uni provided vague answers as to why. Ã, He doesn't speak to us now, since, we're agents of Shaitan, and our only goal in life is to corrupt him. Ã, He's apparently forbidden to talk to us. Ã, It's sad, purely for the fact that he was one of my closest friends, and one of the most level headed people I've ever met).

Quote
Quote from: Erenan on Today at 07:57:44pm
I hate it when people say that Christians think they're better than everybody else. It's rude and narrowsighted.

Who are you talking about?

Show me a learned Christian who doesn't think he or she is right, and I'll show you a thousand that only know what they've been told and don't want to learn anything else.

(I'll start off with:
KKK = Christianity + Bigotry * Ignorance).

OFF TOPIC..

Quote from: Nikolas on Sun 01/10/2006 20:41:10

Quote from: Nacho on Sun 01/10/2006 20:25:50

Quote from: Erenan on Sun 01/10/2006 19:57:44
I hate it when people say that Christians think they're better than everybody else. It's rude and narrowsighted.

Renal Shutdown most probably :)
Who are you talking about?

Now what does this have to do with anything?

As a joke is lame (and offending)
As an idea is stupid (the idea not you).
As a comment it's rubbish..

Sorry, Nik, I had to take the opportunity as it arose..

NOW, BACK ON TOPIC..

EDIT:

Ack, Sorry.  Double post.  I got a little ahead of myself, there.

Hehe...

Fair enough, but it's a typo ;)

Take the "Renal Shutdown most probably:)" out of the quotes and you'll see the correct one, or even better let me edit it so it can be seen. Actually I was quite serious and answered Nachos question :)

You are the one who mentioned with big capital letters "ENJOY LIFE". How am I supposed to know that you are implying that life would be the same! It doesn't mean that "godless" people don't enjoy life. Nothing of a sort. I just don't see the idea behind trying to prove to someone that denouncing his beliefs will help in absolutely any way.

Actually "IMO" as a sentence does serve a purpose, not <GOD?> hehe... The language barriers (I'm not brittish so it could come from my side ;)) By havig someone saying that it is his opinion he is clearly stating that he is not offending anyones beliefs or anything like that, and should not be taken as an excuse as you did, for Wizards' posts :)

You also seem to be missing the point of my post. I'm saying that christianity and christians do what all human beings do: They think they're better! But it is not something reserved for christians as you imply (or assume). That's my point.

My opinion is this: In several aspects of life (not only religion), we meet people who are obsessed with it. Whether this be sports (have you seen Fan?), music (have you seen bodyguard?), love (have you seen all the other movies of Hollywood? ;D), religion (check the threads here...). It does have to do with personal prefferances and there lies the problem. No one can make me change my mind about marrying my wife, or having children or believing in Bhuda! Same goes for most people in certain aspects of life. Religion is a rather popular aspect for this kind of thing, as it is based on loose beliefs and supports, and arguments (at least for me <-so that no one will start discussing about this sentence ;)) and thus the rest of the population does not share that belief.

But these discussions are soo appealing that alwasy hit 10 pages over here ;D

Quote from: Renal Shutdown on Sun 01/10/2006 21:00:02
Show me a learned Christian who doesn't think he or she is right, and I'll show you a thousand that only know what they've been told and don't want to learn anything else.

(I'll start off with:
KKK = Christianity + Bigotry * Ignorance).

Okay, first of all, there's nothing wrong with thinking yourself right. Any beliefs you hold are ideas that you at the very least suspect very strongly are right. If you didn't think you were right about your beliefs, then how are they beliefs at all? Example: "I believe that cats are mammals. Oh, but maybe I'm wrong. In fact, I think I am wrong about that. But I still believe it anyway." Does that make any sense?

Second, I'm not suggesting that few or none of the Christians among us are blindly following and have no interest in learning anything. In fact, that has nothing to do with what I said. Believing yourself right about your beliefs doesn't mean that you think you're better than anyone. What if your beliefs are that nobody is inherently good, and the only way you can make any headway at all in terms of spiritual progress is by admitting that to yourself and to God? That doesn't look to me like a holier-than-thou attitude at all. My problem is with generalizations. Saying that Christians consider themselves better than everyone else is like saying, "Black people like Hip Hop, and white people like Rock and Roll." Like all people, Christians come in different forms and believe different things and have different attitudes. This is a fact of life, and you'd do well to acknowledge it.

Quote from: Erenan on Fri 29/09/2006 17:45:06First of all, I don't see how forgiving someone who does not repent constitutes greater faith. And second, doing so directly contradicts the biblical model of forgiveness. There are many, many passages that clearly state to forgive anyone who repents of their sin. It does not say, "Yes, that guy murdered your wife and kids, and no, he doesn't care one bit, nor does he feel any remorse or guilt. But what the heck! Forgive him anyway!" In the Christian faith, that is not how God forgives mankind, and that is not how God endorses forgiveness, as you put it.

It is very clear to me you don't believe in the Christianity I am familiar with. The bible says a lot of things. You tell me with some authority that 'that's not the type of forgiveness God endorses, sorry!' but you have your extraconceptual sources and I just point out what happened in the bible: Christ/God forgave everyone without the smallest bit of repentance by them. He uh.. died for their sins. Gladly. That is the crux (haha, small pun!) of Christian doctorine. What a petty god he would be if he only forgave those that aknowledged him and asked for forgiveness directly. This is why I don't care if God exists after me being a colossal unrepentant atheist for all my life: he wouldn't mind, he wouldn't judge me, I'd go straight to heaven, along with everybody else. If god exists, he loves us all, and that's great. It's a win/win situation for me.

Of course for the social institution that is the Church what I am describing is BAD BUSINESS, and of course they need hell, they need earthly messengers and forgivers and they need to be them themselves. That shouldn't define the premise of the Christian faith, which is to the best of my knowledge UNCONDITIONAL NEVER-ENDING LOVE.

Quote
That having been said, I suppose I should mention that I'm not even entirely sure I want to be a Christian any longer,

What you seem to be is not very christianic for me, you seem to grasp theology, or at least have devoted a lot of your time to it, but for you to tell me with a straight face that you don't see how real faith is about forgiving the sinner without them asking to be forgiven, I'd say you're not the good sort of christian, in my opinion.

QuoteIt was Creator who asked if you were teasing him, so if you really want his forgiveness, then maybe ask him again?

Which was the point: I don't want his forgiveness at all. I shit on his forgiveness. But he better forgive me, turn the other cheek, so on, if he wants to be a Christian. FAITH IS DIFFICULT. Christ's standard is a very high one. Get to it.

QuoteAlso, I don't care if you spit on any cross. And if you should find Christ's body and spit on that, then I'd certainly not be a Christian.

Is there some sort of freudian I/you error in that sentence, as it makes no sense now.

QuoteNote: This post was written without anger.

I didn't detect any anger :)

Anyone subscribe to the discworld theory of deities? A very interesting explanation if we had gods that DID anything. As a philosopher, I subscribe to deism, that is some god or gods created the universe and then gave the whole thing up as a bad job. what happened after that is open for debate. heck, its ALL open for debate. I just think from my own thoughtful analyses that a creator is necessary but I have 50 % chance of being wrong. to quote a crustacean doctor high on happy pills [in mock-Yiddish accent] "Why all the fighting?" Why do we get so rattled when, all in all its all, its just a matter of opinion and belief? why do we incensed over these things? I say live day by day, as best we can, helping others, and following our own Way. What is truth? I don't know, but if we don't have to kill ourselves over it.

Quote from: Helm on Mon 02/10/2006 11:35:14

This is why I don't care if God exists after me being a colossal unrepentant atheist for all my life: he wouldn't mind, he wouldn't judge me, I'd go straight to heaven, along with everybody else. If god exists, he loves us all, and that's great. It's a win/win situation for me.

nope.
only those who accept Him as their God and has faith in Him will go to heaven.
in other words, if God exists, atheists are not in a win/win situation at all.

thats only if you go by a rather stringent interpatation of the bible, a book which I don't compleatly trust, due to the fact it was written by PEOPLE. people who may have been bonkers, had there own adgenda, or simply misinterpated. 

Quote from: Mordalles on Mon 02/10/2006 19:57:31

Quote from: Helm on Mon 02/10/2006 11:35:14

This is why I don't care if God exists after me being a colossal unrepentant atheist for all my life: he wouldn't mind, he wouldn't judge me, I'd go straight to heaven, along with everybody else. If god exists, he loves us all, and that's great. It's a win/win situation for me.

nope.
only those who accept Him as their God and has faith in Him will go to heaven.
in other words, if God exists, atheists are not in a win/win situation at all.

Okay.

Quote from: Mordalles on Mon 02/10/2006 19:57:31

Quote from: Helm on Mon 02/10/2006 11:35:14

This is why I don't care if God exists after me being a colossal unrepentant atheist for all my life: he wouldn't mind, he wouldn't judge me, I'd go straight to heaven, along with everybody else. If god exists, he loves us all, and that's great. It's a win/win situation for me.

nope.
only those who accept Him as their God and has faith in Him will go to heaven.
in other words, if God exists, atheists are not in a win/win situation at all.

But which one? I sure wouldn't want to piss one of by having spent my life believing in the wrong one. If I go with atheism I'm at least safe with all the gods who don't give a damn if I don't believe in them, as long as I don't believe in any of the other ones.

I think Agnostics are better off than Atheists...

"I never said I didn't believe in you!"

EDIT: What's a "White Mage" and does it nulify my +12 Mace?

I agree with all that Nikolas said. Especially to the matter of the phrase "In my opinion".
Renal Shutdown.... are you serious? You the one who offends, not me.
"I'm not going to say you're going to hell because of the color of your shirt, don't disrespect other people's opinions in the same way." Sorry, but that sounds like a stupidity! I don't disrespect, where did you see that??? It is you who disrespect with YOUR offenses. I DIDN'T offend anyone.
"I see my Fear/Greed section got completely omitted. Ã, Do you have to ask your priest about that one?" Indeed i omitted it :), not because i wanted to ask a priest's advice, just i thought the answer is obvious, but it seems the answer is not obvious for you ;)

{"He", the Father, etc.. Ã, What version of the Bible are you reading?} No comment for this disagreement Renal Shutdown, only that the phrase "If you're going to read the Bible, at least do it with some conviction and not just read what's been laid out in front of you" it seems that it goes to you. Because i doubt you will search what i mean, let me help you Ã, :) Ã, "Father, Son and Holy Ghost".

"The people who haven't heard about Christianity (rain forest people, who are covered by Islam).. Ã, What happens to them? Ã, From what I remember from the Bible, they don't get a mention.." I will repeat it: the phrase Ã, "If you're going to read the Bible, at least do it with some conviction and not just read what's been laid out in front of you" indeed goes to you. Or another explanation is that you suffer from amnesia. What from these two is happening???

Maybe i offended you in this reply, to show you that is not a very good idea to have a discussion talking ironically, as you did but i, whatever you say, i didn't ;)

I am someone who was Christian, then while i was still a Christian searched many religions, then in a specific time i was troubled with Spiritualism and White Magic, searched them, their fhilosophy and the way that they face problems and finally i dismissed them and i came back to Christianity and even if i don't follow it with great passion e.g. like a Monk, i am trying to discover if this religion expresses fully my heart and to remain to, if not a white path, at least to a silver path. That's all about now. I didn't reply to this question for to do your favour, but for to prompt White Mages and Christians to share their way of researching up to now.

I am not going to ask you what is YOUR actual faith, because this question, since you are not a Christian or White Mage, is out-off topic :)

well, as far as i know, i think Christians and Muslims (Islam) believe in the same God.
where Christians believe Jesus already died for us, I think Muslims are still waiting for the "messiah/prophet".

I think that if the creator of the universe is a petty enough dude that he requires people to be completely devoted to him for their entire lives, I'd be better off hanging out with the devil, because at least he doesn't care about what you believe in, he accepts you for who you are.

Fortunately, one time God came by my house and made me lunch and told me "Don't worry Pesty, you don't have to be a Christian or even a White Mage for me to love you! THE MAGIC WAS INSIDE YOU ALL ALONG!"

So I guess I don't have to worry about where I'm going when I die. God and me are like THIS.

Quote from: Pesty on Mon 02/10/2006 20:31:25
Fortunately, one time God came by my house and made me lunch and told me "Don't worry Pesty, you don't have to be a Christian or even a White Mage for me to love you! THE MAGIC WAS INSIDE YOU ALL ALONG!"

I think that was ET.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Mon 02/10/2006 20:40:35

Quote from: Pesty on Mon 02/10/2006 20:31:25
Fortunately, one time God came by my house and made me lunch and told me "Don't worry Pesty, you don't have to be a Christian or even a White Mage for me to love you! THE MAGIC WAS INSIDE YOU ALL ALONG!"

I think that was ET.

No, I think I'd notice if a walking penis made me lunch.

Note:  This reply is related to the turn the thread has taken rather than the original topic of Christianity and Spiritualists/White Magic.

These sorts of discussions never go anywhere but to multiple pages, do they-- and in all honesty I'm curious, what's the point, really?  Step back and take a look at the way religious type discussions pan out:  with a very closed view on both sides of the dime; either you don't believe and won't be convinced or you do believe and won't be dissuaded.  If there was some sort of headway to be made in such a discussion I'd say yeah, go for it, but no progress will be made here toward any kind of understanding or resolution, so I ask what's the point?  Entertainment?  Boredom relief? 

God exists for those who believe in the message of the Bible and its teachings, or the teachings of holy documents like the Qur'an,etc.  God does not exist for those who value science and tangible truths above faith or those who simply don't believe in an overarching presence that guides man.

I could not convince you that there is a God  any more than you could convince me there is not one, so my question stands:  why are threads like this so popular?

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!

Because underlining the differences between ourselves and others makes us feel like distinct people, outside of the herd and such?

Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 02/10/2006 20:49:11
I could not convince you that there is a God any more than you could convince me there is not one, so my question stands: why are threads like this so popular?

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!

I have no idea, a friend of mine had the idea that religion started because certen people wanted control, but if thats true, why does it cause such strong feelings? Why are wars fought over whether islam should be led by a relitive of the founder, or not? Nations have been SLAUGHTERED over these questions. Its just so STUPID. I like religion, it does good, it has provided sociel programs, help with schooling, created great art and music, and inspired people to love there fellow man. but so many wars, so many wars.
And why does it so popular with US? Maybe the internet attracts these kind of people.

QuoteBecause underlining the differences between ourselves and others makes us feel like distinct people, outside of the herd and such?

Isn't this just an illusion, since striving to be 'outside of the herd' as you put it often involves falling into just another category?

Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 02/10/2006 22:35:36

QuoteBecause underlining the differences between ourselves and others makes us feel like distinct people, outside of the herd and such?

Isn't this just an illusion, since striving to be 'outside of the herd' as you put it often involves falling into just another category?

Dunno. I just hate black people.

Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 02/10/2006 22:35:36

QuoteBecause underlining the differences between ourselves and others makes us feel like distinct people, outside of the herd and such?

Isn't this just an illusion, since striving to be 'outside of the herd' as you put it often involves falling into just another category?

I think that's why, we like feeling like part of a group, and we like hating other groups.
When scientists did studies on group psychology, they found jingoism could be achieved with einie meenie minie mo. we like to say our group is best, and we like to prove it in time honoured competitions . been on a sports team and a team fan can fill this desperate need. So canÃ, religion

Quote from: Helm on Mon 02/10/2006 11:35:14
It is very clear to me you don't believe in the Christianity I am familiar with. The bible says a lot of things. You tell me with some authority that 'that's not the type of forgiveness God endorses, sorry!' but you have your extraconceptual sources and I just point out what happened in the bible: Christ/God forgave everyone without the smallest bit of repentance by them. He uh.. died for their sins. Gladly. That is the crux (haha, small pun!) of Christian doctorine. What a petty god he would be if he only forgave those that aknowledged him and asked for forgiveness directly. This is why I don't care if God exists after me being a colossal unrepentant atheist for all my life: he wouldn't mind, he wouldn't judge me, I'd go straight to heaven, along with everybody else. If god exists, he loves us all, and that's great. It's a win/win situation for me.

Of course for the social institution that is the Church what I am describing is BAD BUSINESS, and of course they need hell, they need earthly messengers and forgivers and they need to be them themselves. That shouldn't define the premise of the Christian faith, which is to the best of my knowledge UNCONDITIONAL NEVER-ENDING LOVE.

We could argue about Christianity for a long time, but what it looks like to me is that I understand one thing from the Bible, while you apparently understand something else. All I can really say is that Jesus did in fact teach forgiveness prompted by repentance. He taught this in parable (Matt. 15) and he taught this in plain words (Luke 17). I don't know where you've gotten this notion that God forgives sins with or without repentance. And I don't know if you're interested even the least in reading the Bible at this point, but since we're talking about it, I figured it was logical to refer to it.

In my understanding, forgiveness first benefits the forgiven. If someone does something to me, believing that they have done nothing wrong and ask for no forgiveness, even in fact rejecting it outright, and I go up to them and say, "I forgive you," they are going to say to me, "Fuck you." So then, what's the use of this? Forgiveness makes no sense unless it is wanted.

Quote
What you seem to be is not very christianic for me, you seem to grasp theology, or at least have devoted a lot of your time to it, but for you to tell me with a straight face that you don't see how real faith is about forgiving the sinner without them asking to be forgiven, I'd say you're not the good sort of christian, in my opinion.

I'm going by what the Bible and Jesus himself appear to me to have taught. I'm also fairly certain that we don't understand the same thing by the word "faith."

QuoteWhich was the point: I don't want his forgiveness at all. I shit on his forgiveness. But he better forgive me, turn the other cheek, so on, if he wants to be a Christian. FAITH IS DIFFICULT. Christ's standard is a very high one. Get to it.

Yes, his standard is difficult. But in my opinion this is not Christ's standard that you're suggesting.

QuoteAlso, I don't care if you spit on any cross. And if you should find Christ's body and spit on that, then I'd certainly not be a Christian.

QuoteIs there some sort of freudian I/you error in that sentence, as it makes no sense now.

No, I meant that if you find Christ's body and ask me to forgive you for spitting on it, I won't, because a Rotting Christ (;)) would suggest to me that he wasn't God and didn't rise from the dead.

QuoteI didn't detect any anger :)

Good to know.  :)

QuoteForgiveness makes no sense unless it is wanted.

This isn't strictly true.  While it doesn't benefit the person you forgive, in many ways true forgiveness can benefit you emotionally by lifting baggage and such, particularly from difficult events in your life.  So I wouldn't say forgiveness is useless if the person who wrongs you doesn't care, so long as it lifts some emotional torment from you to do so.

Of course, but then we're not talking about a faith issue any longer, and that's what I'm debating at least.

QuoteHe taught this in parable (Matt. 15) and he taught this in plain words (Luke 17). I don't know where you've gotten this notion that God forgives sins with or without repentance. And I don't know if you're interested even the least in reading the Bible at this point, but since we're talking about it, I figured it was logical to refer to it.

How about when he forgave everyone before dying for their sins? Does that footnote hold any weight?

QuoteForgiveness makes no sense

Makes no... sense? Are you approaching christianity with pragmatism in mind? It seems to me you desire to be an atheist much more than it originally was clear. THERE IS NO PRACTICAL USE in forgiving someone that doesn't want to be forgiven, but it makes all the difference for their immortal souls and yours (I am playing devil's advocate, but what can I do?). Christian doctorine makes no sense inherently. It says 'love your enemy' and 'forgive those that do not wish to be forgiven'. It makes me wonder on what sort of christianity you were brought up on. It must have been something different. Were we reading the same book, at least? I was brought up in a Christian Orthodox environment. Perhaps you are a protestant or strange catholic of some sort? We kiss pictures, you kiss statues! Let's have an orgy!

QuoteI'm going by what the Bible and Jesus himself appear to me to have taught. I'm also fairly certain that we don't understand the same thing by the word "faith."

How about when he forgave everyone before dying for their sins? Does that footnote hold any weight? It's in the bible somewhere. I think.

QuoteYes, his standard is difficult. But in my opinion this is not Christ's standard that you're suggesting.

Okay. I understand that. I think your idea of christ's teachings is a very besides-the-point one, probably one that makes more sense to apply (forgive when it's needed, help when help is wanted) but one that severily disgraces the concept of christianity as I understand it. Love everybody, forgive everybody! Turn the other cheek and SMILE.

It's great, some Christians say that the message is that God forgives us, some other think It won't, some think that believing is the key of being saved, some others think that God does not make blackmail...  ;D And the list go on... It's really funny to see that most people believe in God and they don't have a clue of what It really says...  ;D

Personally, I think Helm has a greater understanding of what he doesn't belive in than Erenan has of what he does believe in. Although my understanding is that Jesus forgave us by dying on the cross, rather than before dying on the cross.

Anyone who thinks that God's mercy is restricted to some set of neat rules clearly has missed the point. And anyone who thinks that forgiveness has to be accepted or acknowledged by the other party is obviously too young to have experienced real life. The point of forgiveness is that the other person doesn't deserve it! And forgiveness is more for the sake of the forgiver than the one forgvien. Families of murder victims in the US often don't get a sense of closure from the killer being executed, but rather when THEY let go of it. Which is another reason why the death sentence is so barbaric.

Yes I agree that by putting his money where his mouth was, he actualy forgave WHEN he died, although I'd say it would take huge balls just to say 'it's ok' to someone that is nailing you to the cross, but to the general point I think you are correct. Jesus was one awesome motherfucker.

It' s amazing how the people still believes that Ieshua bar Iosef was "Jesus" the Son of God who hapilly walked to the cross for giving his life for us...

Ieshua bar Iosef was a Rabi, probably an ultra-orthodox nationalist Pharisee who was condemned by the Romans by acts of Nationalism and Sedition, whose life was changed into something "cool" and suitable for romans standards by Saint Paul, who also changed the reasons of his death, attributing them to the "evil Jews", and inventing a resurrection and a divinity that their actual original followers never knew about...

For me reading this of an adult person causes so stupor as reading that someone adult really believes in Santa Claus, and reading how he enumerates evidences such "Gifts appear in the houses in Christmas!!!"

Quick questions:

- Do you really think that if we educate a person following education rules based in moral and science, and, when he becomes an adult, we first talk him of "God, and his son Jesus" is he going to believe it?

Let' s be clear... probably not. Religion is told to kids for some reason... And to be honest, to put in the brain of the kids ideas based in folklore, with no rational evidence, just because the "faith" of the parents, for me it' s a conduct that thought in cold can fall into inmorality.

Second question:

If Jesus went to the cross as a sacrifice... Why the hell did he resurrected? Personally, for me, that's a complete shit of sacrifice. That's taking advantage of the knowleadge (he knew he was going to ressurect) and the power (He knew hoe to resurrect) to commit an empty and totally hypocrital sacrifice. The only rational reason for that is that, without the idea of resurrection, the whole idea of Christianity should have lasted like 2 weeks. So, resurrection basically is an act of propaganda.

Divine propaganda? Mmmm... if so, I am not going to join that God, sorry.
Human propaganda? 99,9999999999999999 % of possibilities that yeah... And I an not going to swallow it, either.

EDIT: I am re-reading the post and seems to be directed to SSH... I can' t know him just by the forums and IRC, but I think he is the nemesis of the inmorality. So, the commentary based of "it's an inmorality to educate kids in a lie" it' s not related to the parents who do this with the firm belive that it' s the best for the education of their kids, but in the others... and there will be of those, I am sure.

The historical truth about the person to whom the acts and teachings of Jesus are attributed to does not interest me very much, since I am discussing theology, morality and philosophy, and not history here, for one. If there's anyone that must bear the burden of the 'You christ didn't exist, lol!' that is the christians of this forum. I am content to discuss the Christ paradigm even though I don't think such a person existed and did the miracles attributed to him.

Because I don't know who this god thing is at all.


but I agree with you nacho on that the ressurection weakens the sacrifice, and that in the end if there wasn't a ressurection Christ would by just another martyr for a cause, just like oh, millions before and since, who would not be of much use as the figurehead of a religion. I mean, he'd do, but probably not for 2,000 years. The moral ramifications of this 'empty sacrifice' are... interesting, but besides the point that Christianity should be/is about full-on love and forgiveness to all.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 03/10/2006 12:07:26
It' s amazing how the people still believes that Ieshua bar Iosef was "Jesus" the Son of God who hapilly walked to the cross for giving his life for us...

Ieshua bar Iosef was a Rabi, probably an ultra-orthodox nationalist Pharisee who was condemned by the Romans by acts of Nationalism and Sedition, whose life was changed into something "cool" and suitable for romans standards by Saint Paul, who also changed the reasons of his death, attributing them to the "evil Jews", and inventing a resurrection and a divinity that their actual original followers never knew about...

I find it very odd that people use this argument. As if calling him Ieshua bar Iesof and politicising what he was supposed to have done makes him more 'normal' and makes what most christians believe a load of malarky. It's like correcting someone who mentions Adam and Eve by telling them, no, it's actually Adâm and Hawa, and they were 2 micro-organisms.

I don't think there is any mention of Jesus anywhere outside of religious texts. While what is written in the religious texts may be very, very unlikely, it is the only source of any of the events that could possibly have happened to Jesus. So while what is written in the Bible may be wrong, to make up (or assume from the basics) your own version is going to result in something just as wrong. If you insist on believing in Jesus, but completely discount all the texts, assuming that there must have been SOME guy who was the basis of all these stories, the most you can come up with is "He must have been an awesome guy".

I don't know about your quick question 1, Nacho, because it hasn't happened yet. It's pointless to assume. From what I know of the story of Abraham (despite how much this may mean to you), he searched and discovered without much provocation that there must be God. Then he went through worshipping the sun, moon and stars, before realising that God is more than that. But hey, it's just a story, right?

QuoteI don't think there is any mention of Jesus anywhere outside of religious texts. While what is written in the religious texts may be very, very unlikely, it is the only source of any of the events that could possibly have happened to Jesus.

That is such an awesome argument you present to us here. Because there's no mention of Jesus anywhere else than on the texts that later consisted of the Bible... they are... the best account of what... possibly... must... have... happened... to him.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 03/10/2006 12:07:26
Ieshua bar Iosef was a Rabi, probably an ultra-orthodox nationalist Pharisee who was condemned by the Romans by acts of Nationalism and Sedition, whose life was changed into something "cool" and suitable for romans standards by Saint Paul, who also changed the reasons of his death, attributing them to the "evil Jews", and inventing a resurrection and a divinity that their actual original followers never knew about...

You've said this before, but have never given any evidence. Anyone who believes "what some guy on the internet says" is surely even more gullible than us Christians?

Quote
Do you really think that if we educate a person following education rules based in moral and science, and, when he becomes an adult, we first talk him of "God, and his son Jesus" is he going to believe it?

Well, with modern secular society bringing kids up this way in the UK at least, we'll probably find out quite soon whether any of them get converted.

Quote
Let' s be clear... probably not. Religion is told to kids for some reason... And to be honest, to put in the brain of the kids ideas based in folklore, with no rational evidence, just because the "faith" of the parents, for me it' s a conduct that thought in cold can fall into inmorality.

I tell my daughter that she shouldn't pick up dirty things off the ground and put them in her mouth or she will get a sore tummy. I could try and explain the evidence for this assertion, and a detailed explanation of bacterial lifecycles, but she really wouldn't follow or be interested. Similarly, I don't explain freewill versus predestination to her or present evidence of ancient manuscritps and reliability of modern translations. I tell her what I believe to be true and important. I'm sure that athiest parents tell their children thigns that they believe to be true and important, too. What's the difference? The difference is your opinion of whether I am correct in my beliefs. I don't see how that affects whether I am being moral or ethical.

Quote
If Jesus went to the cross as a sacrifice... Why the hell did he resurrected? Personally, for me, that's a complete shit of sacrifice. That's taking advantage of the knowleadge (he knew he was going to ressurect) and the power (He knew hoe to resurrect) to commit an empty and totally hypocrital sacrifice. The only rational reason for that is that, without the idea of resurrection, the whole idea of Christianity should have lasted like 2 weeks. So, resurrection basically is an act of propaganda.

So an omnipotent God can do anything, right...? That's what omnipotent means. Oh, his son was killed, but he doesn't do anything about it? Oh, he doesn't want to bring him back to life in case some cynics say it was all a big fix. If it helps you, consider the agony of being nailed by the wrists to a bit of wood for hours to be the sacrifice rather than the death.

Quote
EDIT: I am re-reading the post and seems to be directed to SSH... I can' t know him just by the forums and IRC, but I think he is the nemesis of the inmorality. So, the commentary based of "it's an inmorality to educate kids in a lie" it' s not related to the parents who do this with the firm belive that it' s the best for the education of their kids, but in the others... and there will be of those, I am sure.

I don't have a high opinion of anyone who tells stuff as true to their kids that they don't believe is true themselves. I've already told my kids that Santa is just a story, and I tell them that Los Reyes Magos did come to visit baby Jesus with gifts.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 03/10/2006 12:33:23

Quote
If Jesus went to the cross as a sacrifice... Why the hell did he resurrected? Personally, for me, that's a complete shit of sacrifice. That's taking advantage of the knowleadge (he knew he was going to ressurect) and the power (He knew hoe to resurrect) to commit an empty and totally hypocrital sacrifice. The only rational reason for that is that, without the idea of resurrection, the whole idea of Christianity should have lasted like 2 weeks. So, resurrection basically is an act of propaganda.

So an omnipotent God can do anything, right...? That's what omnipotent means. Oh, his son was killed, but he doesn't do anything about it? Oh, he doesn't want to bring him back to life in case some cynics say it was all a big fix. If it helps you, consider the agony of being nailed by the wrists to a bit of wood for hours to be the sacrifice rather than the death.

What Nacho is saying is not why it happened. If I was Jesus's mommy, I'd want to fix his boo-boos too. What he's saying is that it sort of takes away the validity, or at least some of the validity of his sacrifice since he knew he could come back all along. It's sort of unfair for Jesus to say "Hey, people, I'm dying for your sins! This is a very crucial and important thing I'm doing JUST FOR YOU!" and then come back to life a couple days later, like "Yeah, I was just joshin', dying isn't nothin' to me!"

Quote from: Helm on Tue 03/10/2006 12:33:13
That is such an awesome argument you present to us here. Because there's no mention of Jesus anywhere else than on the texts that later consisted of the Bible... they are... the best account of what... possibly... must... have... happened... to him.

Is there something illogical in what I say? I did not enforce the view that what was written about Jesus is true, just that the religious texts probably have greater precedence than any 'truer' account that can be completely made up from the 'false' one.

Consider the fellow who originally came up with the Little Red Riding Hood story (bad example, I know there are many versions, but take it as an example). A few hundred years later, someone says "No! That can't possibly be true, because AHAAA! If you look at it scientifically, wolves can't look like grandmas, and they cannot possibly talk. THIS MEANS THAT THE STORY DISTORTED! The original antagonist was a cannibal who's name translates to Wolf'!". It's a ridiculuous argument, because (if you are going along with the example), the guy who originally wrote Little Red Riding Hood is probably the best bet on what happened, and it's his story after all.

Quote from: Pesty on Tue 03/10/2006 12:43:04
"Hey, people, I'm dying for your sins! This is a very crucial and important thing I'm doing JUST FOR YOU!" and then come back to life a couple days later, like "Yeah, I was just joshin', dying isn't nothin' to me!"

However, Jesus was fully God, and fully a human man at the same time, so dying like that would've course been a huge deal. All the pain (I can provide details if you would like), plus the humiliation that went along with a crucifiction, would've been keenly felt by any human, and consequently God himself.

Quote from: Pesty on Tue 03/10/2006 12:43:04
What he's saying is that it sort of takes away the validity, or at least some of the validity of his sacrifice since he knew he could come back all along.

Did he know? I'm not quite sure what orthdox (little O) theology is on this point, but I think that Jesus as a human was not himself omniscient...

Note: This question goes only to these people that know for what i am talking about.

Has anyone who has readen the Ritual of the Messenger, performed or tried to perform it? Even if the author of the book in which this ritual is decribed says to his website that this ritual should not be performed (at least that was i understood from his sayings), the matter remains that in his book he performed that ritual and he said that this is a useful "experience" and he helped him a lot e.t.c.

A, and something else that it is not off-topic, because i have heard this also by a White Mage, actually for a strange reason, this belief that Jesus is reffered only to religious texts made him to follow magic and a wonder if many mages are affected by that. Anyway, Jesus as a person is reffered to MANY HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS. Roman, Jews (not Christians) and many other have reffered him to his writtings, of course not as a God, but as a person who indeed said that he is God. His existence fulfills all demands of history-crisitism to accept that aperson existed in the past. So, Jesus is ABSOLUTELY a historical person and his existence IS CONFIRMED BY HISTORY, whatever you say. Now if he is a God or he was only a human, that is another matter.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 03/10/2006 13:46:54

Quote from: Pesty on Tue 03/10/2006 12:43:04
What he's saying is that it sort of takes away the validity, or at least some of the validity of his sacrifice since he knew he could come back all along.

Did he know? I'm not quite sure what orthdox (little O) theology is on this point, but I think that Jesus as a human was not himself omniscient...

I dunno, I'm no Jesusologist. From what I thought I've heard, but I could be wrong because I don't care that much, Jesus gave his buddies some idea that he was going to come back after he died, and that he knew what was going to happen to him. I agree Jesus probably wasn't omniscient, but he always had angels yelling at him, maybe one of them told him. Angels like to yell about stuff all the time in the Bible.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 03/10/2006 13:46:54
orthdox (little O)

Something typical: the word "orthdox" of course is with "little O", since it's a word that you evented, as i don't think it is written in any english vocabulary. But if you mean the word "orthodox", then it would be nice to show some respect and write him "Orthodox", as i write "White Magic" and "White Mages" and "Spiritualism", although i am a Christian ;) You could edit that part of your reply and delete this branding that you made. Or may you want to edit that word "orthdox" and change it into "orthodox", insisting to your opinion. Of course it's up to you.

EDIT: Oh, ehm i see below Tuomas' explanation that you meant not Christian Orthodox but the actual word "orthodox", so that's why you said "little O". Ok, sorry for the incovinience, anyway, this joke that i made with word "orthdox" wasn't for to offend you, don't be insulted :) , it was just a request. Greetings!

SSH, my theories about the real trial of Jesus are not "something told in the internet" like the "missile to the Pentagon" or something... They are serious studies made by experts in history and historycal roman and hebrew law, and consider a lot of aspects. To make a quick brief:

- Romans were basically respectful with Religions, and, therefore, the "profets". Except if these profects inducted to insurrection, who were killed by crucifixion.
- The Jews were allowed to kill people, therefore, if they wanted to kill Jesus for what he was accused, they could have done it by lapidation.

So, all the trial in the Sanhedrin and the visit to Pilates is, from the historycal point of view, a joke. For me looks like a cheap trick in the storyline made by a bad scriper (let's say that there was a conspiration, ok? Sounds great!!!) If the Sanhedrin wanted to kill Jesus it could have been really easy to kill him with a sword in the middle of the desert, all that pantomime was unnecessary. Not only unncessary, but also very dangerous because it could have been unnefective.

For me it makes more sense that Jesus was an unltra orthodox who attacked the invaders and the collaborators as well, considering the Sanhedrin a doll in the hands of the invaders. How can a man like the one you worship say:

"I am here not to change the spells, I am here to keep every comma and accent of them"

(Remember that the Spells are the ultra orthodox "If your husband dies, his brothers will be allowed to marry you" spells, ok?)

or

"I am not here to bring peace, I am here to bring the sword, to make that in a house of 5, father will be facing the son, and mother the daughter and the brother the sister"

If he was not an orthodox nationalist?

It just makes no sense to me. Actually it makes no sense to anybody, dozens of sentences in the Bible make the believers say "uh?"

So, I don' t know, it would be cool to hear a believer say "Mmmm... Dunno, maybe it's not real, actually it does not look real at all, but it's great, it helps me" in spite of "Believe, it' s truth, if you don' t, you'll be a inferior being, a person without faith". But it' s up to you! I don' t believe, and I have all that believers have. If you believers need a tale to have what I have, it' s ok, but don' t come me telling you are better or that I am wrong.

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Tue 03/10/2006 14:22:08

Quote from: SSH on Tue 03/10/2006 13:46:54
orthdox (little O)

Something typical: the word "orthdox" of course is with "little O", since it's a word that you evented, as i don't think it is written in any english vocabulary. But if you mean the word "orthodox", then it would be nice to show some respect and write him "Orthodox", as i write "White Magic" and "White Mages" and "Spiritualism", although i am a Christian ;) You could edit that part of your reply and delete this branding that you made. Or may you want to edit that word "orthdox" and change it into "orthodox", insisting to your opinion. Of course it's up to you.

orthodox: "Straight opinion." Conforming to established doctrines or beliefs. Opposite of heterodox, "different opinion."

I think he meant the word, not the religion...

Oh yeah, and that's from the hinduism dictionary, for orthodox. At least where I come from it's a word as much as a religions.

Furthermore: Orthodox . (Gr. "correct or true belief"). The common and official name used by the Greek Christians and Eastern Christian Church. The Orthodox Church maintains her belief that she alone has kept the true Christian faith, complete and unaltered.

this was from the site of some orthodox dictionary thing... http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9152.asp

On a sidenote, I'm not taking part in this silly argument since it's never going to create any sensible solution.

@SSH and Helm: It appears that I am caught between "you are not the good sort of Christian" and "you obviously are too young to understand," as well as between "of course it's not practical!" and "yes, it is practical, and here's why!" This is neither a position that I really care to defend nor one that really encourages me to continue talking about this issue. I feel that I've made my point and argued it fairly and reasonably well, and I stand by it, but I think I'm going to have to bow out at this point. I don't mean to guilt trip, and I understand it's generally a bad idea to take Internet discussions personally, but that's all the more reason I need to stop now, because it's not beneath me to get upset.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 03/10/2006 13:46:54
I think that Jesus as a human was not himself omniscient...

You can't really separate the fact that Jesus was completely God and completely man all at once, except to acknowledge it, if that makes any sense. The concept of being two things at once as Jesus was is truly mind-blowing. Since he was fully God, he had to have known what was going to happen. As a man, that allowed him to suffer fully, with the weight of the world's sin upon him and experience the emotional pain of rejection.

Firstly, no disrepect was intented to those of Greek or Russian Orthodox faiths when I said "orthdox (little o)". As Tuomas said, I wanted to mean "standard" rather than refer to the specific denomination. And the missing o was a typo.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 03/10/2006 14:47:11
SSH, my theories about the real trial of Jesus are not "something told in the internet" like the "missile to the Pentagon" or something... They are serious studies made by experts in history and historycal roman and hebrew law, and consider a lot of aspects.

So which theological book is this claim made in?

I'm sure you'll find plenty of historians and hebrew law experts in Bible colleges across the world who have also studied such things and come to different conclusions. You have chosen to believe one side of it, and I chose another.

Quote
"I am here not to change the spells, I am here to keep every comma and accent of them"

(Remember that the Spells are the ultra orthodox "If your husband dies, his brothers will be allowed to marry you" spells, ok?)

In English, the quote is:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Yes, he came to fulfil the law by taking our punishment (the death penalty) for us on the cross, so we could be forgiven. And the thing of brothers marrying the widow of their dead sibling was to provide for the widow who would otherwise have no means of support and thus a very early form of social security.

Quote
"I am not here to bring peace, I am here to bring the sword, to make that in a house of 5, father will be facing the son, and mother the daughter and the brother the sister"

If he was not an orthodox nationalist?

It just makes no sense to me. Actually it makes no sense to anybody, dozens of sentences in the Bible make the believers say "uh?"

He actually asks a question: "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth?". Why would his followers think that if he was an orthodox nationalist?

Maybe he was simply describing the kind of division that can occur in a family (or a forum) when people disagree on religion?

Quote
So, I don' t know, it would be cool to hear a believer say "Mmmm... Dunno, maybe it's not real, actually it does not look real at all, but it's great, it helps me" in spite of "Believe, it' s truth, if you don' t, you'll be a inferior being, a person without faith". But it' s up to you! I don' t believe, and I have all that believers have. If you believers need a tale to have what I have, it' s ok, but don' t come me telling you are better or that I am wrong.

I certainly don't think I am better than you, Nacho. I'm a pretty lazy person (amongst other vices), and I'm sure you are not as lazy as I am. But, I'm forgiven, and as such will have eternal life. Maybe God's mercy will mean that it doesn't  matter if you believe or not, but I believe in the Bible, and it doesn't really convey that message: "No-one can come to the Father except through me". So I'd be pretty happy if people I like, such as yourself, also could have eternal life. That's why I argue about this stuff, even though I know there's little chance of it making an impression on anyone.

QuoteConsider the fellow who originally came up with the Little Red Riding Hood story (bad example, I know there are many versions, but take it as an example). A few hundred years later, someone says "No! That can't possibly be true, because AHAAA! If you look at it scientifically, wolves can't look like grandmas, and they cannot possibly talk. THIS MEANS THAT THE STORY DISTORTED! The original antagonist was a cannibal who's name translates to Wolf'!". It's a ridiculuous argument, because (if you are going along with the example), the guy who originally wrote Little Red Riding Hood is probably the best bet on what happened, and it's his story after all.

I think the clue that you're missing from my other post is that Little Red Riding Hood is a ficitional character.


Erenan: I don't know what you think you're caught between (I and SSH? Now here's a shit orgy!), and feel free to not reply to me, since this is a conversation that can end at any time, but I don't think there's any reason for you to get upset by what I'm saying. I respect you bowing out before you became unreasonably upset anyway.

That's completely irrelevant, Helm (at least concerning my point in the previous post). In fact, if assuming that it is fiction, creating an alternate "more realistic and earthly" version of events is even more ludicrous, especially considering that this 'fact' would be built on fiction.

But... I don't know why you make me do this: The point was that was being made is that the Jesus the bible speaks of is a fictional character only very lightly based on one of the many prophets that came -along with scorpions- from Judea, and that in this case, looking inside the Bible for the acurate historical information regarding the latter is not the wisest thing to do. Nobody said you could learn more about the theological figure, Jesus, anywhere outside the Bible.

Mmmm... about the Orthodox thing... I am not sure what Jesus was, he has been said (By an hystorical analysis of his words) that he was a Pharisee, a Shamai or Hilel (quoting from memory, maybe misspelled), so, as the most simillar to those currents nowadays is the Jewish Orthodoxia, or Hareddim, therefore, I am calling him Orthodox. I don't really see if this is the point of making an issue of this...

About some things said here... Ok, then, he is not going to abolish the laws that say that if your husband dies, his brother can marry you if he wants... Great. this laws also allow penalty death, so, it is ironic that he sacrificed his life for deffending a Law like this...

And yeah... There are a lot of serious scientists studing the Bible. And no one has came with something of the sort of "Yes!!! I believe everything it's Ã, true, He walked over the waters, He made water into wine and he resurrected, yes... All He said has been perfectly translated and there have been no alterations in the Bible!!!" Come on... Even the choosing of the Gospels was... curious.

About the Quotes. The paragraph I am talking about is this:


Luke 12, 49-53

I came to set the Earth on fire, How I'd liked it to light it on! Do you think I came to put Peace on Earth? No, I tell you, better division; So, from now, there will be 5 in a house, and they will be divided three against two, and three against three, they will be divided the fahter against the son and the son against the father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, and the mother in law against the daughter in law, and the daughter in law against the mother in law.

I think it's a stalement... not a question. Or.

Matthew 10, 34-36

Don' t think I came to bring peace on Earth, I did not came to put peace, but the Sword. I came to sepparate; The father against the son, the daughter against the mother, daughter in law agaisnt the mother in law and the enemies of the man; The ones in his house.

And now, to end, I must say that you are probably better than me in many aspects... You are a good and loving husband and father with a productive job. But you would be better than me in that aspects if you were not a believer, therefore, still better than me.

So, the question basically is: Has the faith had something to see into making you a better person? Probably yes, and examples like yours are the ones that make me deffend the religion in many discussions. But cases like your are one in a hundred. And I honestly think that you' d have probably been as good as you are with exact the same education without the supernatural stuff.

Anyway I wouldn't attack religion if it was hamless, or uneffective. But there is 1% good believers (like you), 79% of "average" ones, and 20% of hypocrites who use the religion as an alliby to be total assholes. I know they would be assholes anyway without the religion, but the use of it as an excuse still annoyes me.

And just talking of Christianism...

i don't think Jesus knew he would be resurected (spelling?).
but i also think that the "sacrifice" was more the immense pain and suffering he went through. his resurrection took him to heaven (afterlife). its not like he stayed on earth and lived untill he died again.  ;D

as to whom will be saved, according to Christianity (since it seems there are a lot of confusion, which nacho find funny ;D):

loosely translated: "He who says Jesus is God and believes with his heart that God resurrected His son from the death, will be saved."
doesn't matter if your a Jew or a Greek or whatever.

And i dont believe God is this friendly guy who will just be friends with everyone and forgive you just like that and won't judge you. we as humans should not judge others, for we shall be judged. but God, he can judge whomever he wants to. and he will.

also, in my life i have rarely met someone who were "trying to force" Christianity on me.
but i have met uncountable number of people who have tried to convince me that God does not exist. because, they really want be be right, because if they are wrong, bad things will happen.  ;D

nacho, Jesus didn't want to sacrifice his own life, God asked him to. it was God's sacrifice.

Eeeer... Ok!Ã,  ;D

One question... How can you find people forcing you to be Christian, if you are Christian?

It`s like a white guy in Alabama saying "I' ve never suffered racial problems..."

Thanks Tuomas, i realised you have right about the word "orthodox". I thought this word was used only with religious-meaning.

Quote from: Tuomas on Tue 03/10/2006 15:06:35
On a sidenote, I'm not taking part in this silly argument since it's never going to create any sensible solution.

I tried my fellow to prevent this argument which indeed is never to create any sensible solution and i told that many times this conversation was not the purpose of this topic, but you can check how many attacks i had from people who suppose that to start discussing a completely another subject then the original of this topic is very normal and that this has fun to go on...

What do you preffer? A 3-post thread about Saruman against Gandalf or a popular one?  ;D

Quote from: Helm on Tue 03/10/2006 16:09:02
Erenan: I don't know what you think you're caught between (I and SSH? Now here's a shit orgy!), and feel free to not reply to me, since this is a conversation that can end at any time, but I don't think there's any reason for you to get upset by what I'm saying. I respect you bowing out before you became unreasonably upset anyway.

I don't feel up to defending my position simultaneously against two viewpoints at once which are themselves directly opposed to one another ("forgiveness without repentance is not practical, but that's how it's supposed to be" and "forgiveness without repentance is practical after all because..."). But I'm not really all that upset. I just don't want to become upset, and I felt pressure from two directions, so I was worried. Maybe I didn't need to be.

I suppose I was just disappointed that instead of reasoning with me concerning how forgiving despite a lack of repentance constitutes greater faith, you did what looked to me like a punt. "Well, if you can't see how that's true, then you're just not a good Christian." I honestly don't understand how acting in a manner that I understand to be contrary to what Jesus appears to have taught constitutes greater faith. If this looks like poorly practiced Christianity to you, that's fine, but at least attempt to explain to me how this is so, because as much as I think I'm right, I'm not interested in simply stating my opinion. I am actually in this for discourse. I just don't see what your purpose is in saying that you don't think I'm the good sort of Christian.

And I understand we're jumping back a few posts here, but eh... This is what's on my mind.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 03/10/2006 18:20:42
What do you preffer? A 3-post thread about Saruman against Gandalf or a popular one?Ã,  ;D

I prefer the subject this topic has created for, no matter if it will ended a 3-post or a 0-post. As i said, maybe there are people who want to discuss the subject i wanted to discuss, but they don't want to have an argument with all you that you don't believe in a Higher Power. Is it so hard to respect that? It seems that is for you (and for some others of course).

Quote from me:
Note: This question goes only to these people that know for what i am talking about.

Has anyone who has readen the Ritual of the Messenger, performed or tried to perform it? Even if the author of the book in which this ritual is decribed says to his website that this ritual should not be performed (at least that was i understood from his sayings), the matter remains that in his book he performed that ritual and he said that this is a useful "experience" and he helped him a lot e.t.c.

Quote from: SilverWizard_OTF on Tue 03/10/2006 18:34:50

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 03/10/2006 18:20:42
What do you preffer? A 3-post thread about Saruman against Gandalf or a popular one?Ã,  ;D

I prefer the subject this topic has created for, no matter if it will ended a 3-post or a 0-post. As i said, maybe there are people who want to discuss the subject i wanted to discuss, but they don't want to have an argument with all you that you don't believe in a Higher Power. Is it so hard to respect that? It seems that is for you (and for some others of course).

Apparently Christianism brings bad humour also...  :-X

I wasn't joking. Because you talk ironically and you don't respect the others ("prefer a Gandalf vs Voodoo lady discussion", "christianism brings bad humor", "you want to discuss about Gandalf against Saruman" e.t.c.) this doesn't mean that the others are also doing the same.

It' s obvious that you are not joking... And that your are very sensitive... I will shut up now...  :'(

QuoteI suppose I was just disappointed that instead of reasoning with me concerning how forgiving despite a lack of repentance constitutes greater faith, you did what looked to me like a punt. "Well, if you can't see how that's true, then you're just not a good Christian."

But it's very embarassing for me because what I can only tell you - and remember I am a godless heathen that eats feces and marries goats! - to explain that you are not what I understand to be a good christian is.... study the Bible more.

Do you see why I wanted to avoid having to say this? Seeing how the christian faith is not important to me but is important to you, to recieve that sort of patronizing instruction by me would rightly seem infuriating.

I think the message of Christ's death is very clear as far as what forgiveness is and what unconditional love is, and I've written to you about this three times and running now and you seem to dodge it. What can I say? If you don't see how the ultimate sacrifice of Christ means a good christian (a person following Christ's example) should love everybody and forgive everybody... then look at your sources again until you do.


I am ashamed to cause you grief about this because for me it is an academic conversation: I hold no faith and I am moral (probably very similar morality to yours) without the need of gods, but for you it's probably a bigger deal to be told 'read the bible, lol!'.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 03/10/2006 17:53:12
Eeeer... Ok!  ;D

One question... How can you find people forcing you to be Christian, if you are Christian?

It`s like a white guy in Alabama saying "I' ve never suffered racial problems..."

er . . . how would you or anyone else know I'm a Christian? I never said I was, nor did I say I was a Muslim or Atheist or anything else.   ;) what i believe in is between me and myself.

you can see someone is physically white, but when somebody walks past you in the street you can't tell which religion he belongs to.

unless he's wearing really tight pants.

hehehe.  ;D

Note: Please answer only if you know and not for to tell "i don't believe in this e.t.c.", because there is no reason to tell that, since it won't offer any help.

For those who have searched and believe to that: About Spirit Guides, when i noticed that the two most famous version of this theory are:
1.) We have many Spirit Guides to protect us and we can contact with all of them
2.) There is one our personal Spirit Guide, which is different from our Guardian Angel, and also we can contact with him, be friends, but we should not reveal his name to other people (or spiritual entities).

Which one of these two do you find most near to the truth? And if you are also Christians, what do you have to say about Christianity's belief that any attempt to contact with such spiritual entities it is doomed to fail or it will make you to be trapped by daemons?

So, someone has tried to convince you that God does not exist without knowing if you believe in God or not? Ã, ;) That's Ã, impossible (or very silly of them). Anyway, believers go walking door to door trying to convince people God exists (Jeahova witnesses, mormons, etc...)

So, we got a draw... Ã, :)

not that impossible. a few on these forums have tried.  ;D

Or you can do like me: Be a good christian when you get the pros, like baptism, marriage in a church, christmas (which is more like a every-year-tradition than a biblical celebration), etc etc.

And believe in ghosts when you see one, believe in magic unless you can prove it's not, OK, I noticed whenI went to see this magician show that the tricks weren't true magic, but very cunningly done, and very intruguing. I failed to interpret some of them, but the fascination is in how the guy does it, not in what he does, well, not anymore.

Frankly, I don't give a horses shit if you think jesus wanted to die or some guy started doing odd things during a spiritism session and for some reason the video taken was erased. BUT, if I get the chance to see that myself, I will take the time to look at it properly. after all, I was to confirmation camp, as are 99% of Finns, 75% of which come home religious, full of thoughts, and 90% of them forget about it in 2 weeks. I did. But it was fun, and it was different.

Heh, i guess this is the modern hypocracy and hedonism that drives me. Well, who cares frankly. I believe in the machine. Why? because I did it, and it's bloody concrete. Besides, it can scratch my back and carress my genitals

@Helm: In that case, we are getting nowhere, because I have no choice but to make the same suggestion of you: Study the Bible more. But since you aren't Christian and don't intend to be one, that's silly of me. In any case, in response to your claims about the Bible, I have referred directly to the Bible, whereas you have said, "I think it says [whatever]." I won't presume to know how much you have studied the Bible, but I have been studying it for my whole life, both under the tutelage of different people and on my own, and all I can say is that you're going to have to be more persuasive if you really want to convince me (and I suspect you probably don't really). I am not dodging your points. Not by a long shot.

Also, I think I initially misunderstood what you meant by "good Christian," so I am okay.

Now then, what I really need to do is get to work on my game projects. :)

For not dodging my point, you really are dodging my point! For the fifth time: What about when Jesus died for everybody's sins? Doesn't that mean everybody then (and presumably, everybody now) was forgiven whether they care to be forgiven or not and that if someone wants to follow in his example, he should love everybody unconditionally?

I will not ask you this again if you go blank on me, just know that I will no longer adress you in this topic, since if you say you do one thing (not dodge me) and do another (dodge me) there's not really any point to ask you for your opinions. There's worse fates than not being talked to by Helm on a subject, but I'll let you be the judge of how important all this is anyway.

Helm,

I can only assume that once forgiven you can always resin ;)

I steal something for you. You find out, you track me down, I give it back, you forgive me. I do it again, you get pissed off but yet you forgive me. The third time, you won't forgive me and never hang around me again. ;D

Just because Jesus dies 2000 years ago, does not mean that you are free of sins, or will go to heaven or whatever you believe or christianity believe.

But Jesus died, so that our children can be free of sin and forgiven on the day they're born (and baptised more over). That's the idea. And even if not baptised (something that church will not like), I can certainly understand how people can still go to heaven (assuming there is one), and so on.

But someone specifically mentioned that the Bible says everybody is forgiven, no matter what they do...

As much as the thread advances, I have more clear that believers don't have a clue of what the Bible really means. I really understand that people feels so reluctant about Religion.

QuoteFor not dodging my point, you really are dodging my point! For the fifth time: What about when Jesus died for everybody's sins? Doesn't that mean everybody then (and presumably, everybody now) was forgiven whether they care to be forgiven or not and that if someone wants to follow in his example, he should love everybody unconditionally?

I will try to answer this, and the answer is...No.  Based on my albeit limited grasp of Biblical teachings as a whole, nowhere have I read that a Christian must love or forgive everyone unconditionally; in fact, let's go back to the Old Testament for a recap of the 'Wrathful God' years so I can further illustrate this point to you, Helm.  Shun the adulterers and stone them to death, too!  Unrepentant sinners of the highest degree?  Stone them or shun them, but certainly do not carouse with them.  Now let's fast forward a bit to the New Testament, King James edition.  A much gentler worldview, indeed, preaching forgiveness and love--but this 'unconditional' concept you mention only extends from God, and yet he will still punish you for stepping out of line.  The difference here between Old and New Testament is that God does so out of duty, like a father to a son who just tried to burn down the house out of ignorance.  Similarly, (now I'm going on my interpretation of the Bible's teachings, mind) Christians ideally should be open to forgiving anyone, but not for everything that they do.  It's not unchristian to have righteous anger toward a murderer because God shows righteous anger at times against those who have no respect for life or anything but themselves.  This is a key distinction between forgiveness and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  So no, nothing that I've read suggests that a 'good christian' as you put it has to forgive everyone for everything because Jesus made the conscious decision to sacrifice himself to level the playfield.  I think that your idea of Christianity, while naive, is flattering really; the idea that Christians go around being forgiving for everything is a nice thought, though nothing I have read has suggested that God's followers must behave in such a way.  If my explanation is still ambiguous, feel free to contact me via private message and perhaps I can make it clearer, though admittedly I'm no expert on the subject.

Naive? woo

I am aware of the awesome Wrathful Tyrant stylings of god in the Old Testament, but for whatever reason (were come the Theologists to explain if you so desire) God had a change of heart (what?!) and decided to be all different in Testament v2.0 In the Greek Orthodox faith, the New Testament is what people base their faith on. The wrathful Jewish god is gone (hiding behind his huge finger), in enters unconditional love through Jesus. Don't ask me about the ramifications of an ultimate, unfathomable and all-powerful being having changes of heart, I don't really want to consider this. After all, I am playing devil's advocate here. And God is the devil.

oh, I think you'll also like that bit where Jesus says 'he who is without sin may cast the first stone', as far as unconditional forgiveness goes, and where he says 'love your enemy' as far as unconditional love goes. Seriously, I don't understand how Christians can miss these things.

Quoteoh, I think you'll also like that bit where Jesus says 'he who is without sin may cast the first stone', as far as unconditional forgiveness goes, and where he says 'love your enemy' as far as unconditional love goes. Seriously, I don't understand how Christians can miss these things.

I think you're confusing God's teachings and Jesus' teachings, though.  Though there has been lofty discussions about whether Jesus was just God in the flesh or not, the question remains:  why are there variations in their messages?  My answer is that Jesus was, afterall, a man and more in tune with this world, whereas God, not exposed to human failings, needs, desires, has a much harsher view of sin (going back to the Old Testament again, which really hasn't been forgotten or discarded as much as you seem to believe).  Jesus was sent as more of a mediator, in my opinion, between God's wrath and man's spiral into evil.  In the past when such events occured God would summon a great rain to drown the sinners (which he promised Noah he would never do again) or to turn a city to salt, but this time he tried a different approach.  Jesus, having the feelings of a man but the knowledge of God, and together these made him unique because he was 'like us' rather than 'our father' and did not want to see suffering of any kind, even if it was law.  I believe that despite him teaching his views to the apostles there are still passages in the New Testament discussing a reckoning for sinners.  Bear in mind that The Rapture exists in the New Testament as well and cites everlasting damnation in the lake of fire for unrepentant, faithless sinners.  Also, remember that Jesus' teachings were so controversial and contrary to God's word as written in the Old Testament that the Sanhedrin turned against him and brought about his arrest, believing him a Heretic.

I have to state that I'm not a christian (I don't believe in christianity ways), but I do believe in 1 God.

Other than that as prveviously said by almost everyone, it seems that religion is a highly peronsal matter and everybody dissagres on everything it seems :) There is little room for logical arguments in somefthing sooo personal and sooo different between nations. Cause somehow the greek way varies greatly fro mthe spanish/US/whatever. No matter if all of them are christians...

Actually, the direction Helm has taken the discussion (should christian forgiveness be absolute?) is a very interesting one, at least to me.

QuoteJesus was sent as more of a mediator, in my opinion, between God's wrath and man's spiral into evil.

What kind of a screwup god gets mad at his creations for his own crappy craftsmanship.

As for forgiveness, the bible seems contradicting enough to support any view.

QuoteWhat kind of a screwup god gets mad at his creations for his own crappy craftsmanship.

I gather you don't have children?  If you do I wager you'd see how someone could get mad at something they created for screwing up/getting into trouble.

An interesting point progZmax, and that APPEARS to be the metephor the bible uses. 

God making parenting mistakes!

Quote from: ProgZmax on Tue 03/10/2006 22:29:39

QuoteWhat kind of a screwup god gets mad at his creations for his own crappy craftsmanship.

I gather you don't have children?Ã,  If you do I wager you'd see how someone could get mad at something they created for screwing up/getting into trouble.

So, as a parent, I would be allowed to design my children from scratch, molecule for molecule, knowing everything there is to know about the universe, and the outcome of any action? Not to mention I'd be rid of any human failings, such as irrationality, which allows us to blame other things for our own mistakes.

Parenthood does sound nice.

Quote from: loominous on Tue 03/10/2006 22:50:44
Parenthood does sound nice.

You betcha!

But the idea about humans, is that they are free and this is what creates all the problems. Otherwise sure it would be easy for God to prove himself, appear, fix everything and then dissapear, forbidding us from doing any wrong. But what fun would that be?

And as a parent (to keep the metaphor a little longer), I have to state that once in a while teaching something comes from merely allowing something to happen, whether good or bad. I'm not implying that I would leave my kid get burn or really hurt, but sometimes after a warning fails many times, you just have to leave it to happen and the kid will learn. It is a method of teaching that ;)

And besides, all the billyho about god and how perfect he is could merely do what most parents do,consciously  or unconsciously. try to convince the kids that they are perfect. zap me now, but that  appears to fit the pattern given in the bible. god may just be learning as we do, about being a good parent.

and god said:

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40894000/jpg/_40894026_africafamineap203.jpg)

If I interfer you won't learn anything?

God is really smart... If there's something bad it' s our fault. If something is good we must thank it for its benevolence.

Quote from: MrColossal on Tue 03/10/2006 23:18:36
and god said:

[image taken out. too disturbing]

If I interfer you won't learn anything?

Well then I suggest that YOU and ME start doing something and not wait for God to do it.

I agree with Nacho

Quote from: Helm on Tue 03/10/2006 20:37:59
For not dodging my point, you really are dodging my point! For the fifth time: What about when Jesus died for everybody's sins? Doesn't that mean everybody then (and presumably, everybody now) was forgiven whether they care to be forgiven or not and that if someone wants to follow in his example, he should love everybody unconditionally?

I will not ask you this again if you go blank on me, just know that I will no longer adress you in this topic, since if you say you do one thing (not dodge me) and do another (dodge me) there's not really any point to ask you for your opinions. There's worse fates than not being talked to by Helm on a subject, but I'll let you be the judge of how important all this is anyway.

I'm sorry if you think I have made no attempt to answer you, as I don't mean to do that. There's a lot going on in this thread, and it's not always easy to keep track of what I have responded to and what I haven't. In any case, no. Christ's death does not mean that everyone is forgiven regardless of whether they repent or not. And if you insist it does, you'll have to show me with the text of the Bible that this is so. However...

Jesus on forgiveness: "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him." (Luke 17:3-4)

More: "If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire." (Matthew 18:8-9)

More: "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)

Matthew 18 continues a few verses later with Jesus delivering a parable that clearly depicts a king's forgiveness being offered only after being begged for it.

Sounds here like some are condemned...

More words of Jesus: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life...He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." (From John 3)

I'm having trouble finding absolute unconditional forgiveness here...

More words of Jesus: "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats(!). And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. (Then he talks about how the King will bring those on his right hand into the kingdom) Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' (Then the goats complain a bit) And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (From Matthew 25)

This doesn't sound very unconditionally forgiving to me...

More words of Jesus: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves...(More of the same)...Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" (From Matthew 23)

More: "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind, which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (From Matthew 13)

Matthew 11:20-24 also describes condemnation based upon a neglect of repentance.

Matthew 7:21-23 is worth looking at, too.

You seem to equate unconditional love with unconditional forgiveness, but this is not accurate, as God is also just and insists upon justice being carried out. This was placed upon Jesus on the cross, but if mankind rejects this forgiveness, then they will still be held accountable for their sins. This is the message that the Bible sends, and clearly so.

As for "let him who is without sin cast the first stone," I think it's a stretch to call this an endorsement of unconditional forgiveness. Jesus certainly denounced hypocrisy, passing judgement when you yourself are subject to the same judgement, but there is a difference between not stoning a prostitute because your conscience weighs upon you and offering unconditional forgiveness to everyone regardless of what they did and whether they are repentant. I should point out that Jesus didn't do that with the Pharisees. Anyway, my argument is based in that Jesus explicitly endorsed forgiveness prompted by repentance, but I can't find where he explicitly endorsed forgiveness in spite of its absense. Sometimes he endorses forgiveness without saying one way or another what the terms are, but this certainly doesn't negate the other places where he does state the terms.

It's also important to note the end of the story where he tells the adulteress, "Go and sin no more." He doesn't simply dismiss her with no questions asked.

In any case, I don't know whether you will even consider this as a response to your point, but please understand that if I am leaving your points or questions untouched, it's not intentional. I am trying to respond here as best as I can.

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 04/10/2006 00:45:21

Well then I suggest that YOU and ME start doing something and not wait for God to do it.

I agree with Nacho

I agree with this, Nikolas, and would like to raise the question: What is the best way to go about 'doing something'? We know there's more to do than any of us can solve, thinking of MrColossal's picture, and being who we are. Even if each of us 'sold all his earthly possessions' and donated everything to charity, chances are our limited contribution would be swept away by the next african civil war. We know we can make limited donations to charity, try to influence politicians and public opinions, but are there any better ways of eliminating inhumane living conditions?

I'm posing this as an open question, since I think it's one of the great challenges of our time and something we should set a lot of brilliant minds to. How do we go about it?Ã, 

Fred,

For me this is a very difficult question to answer indeed.

A problem I have (theoritical cause mainly it is kinda bullshit, the answer is to just do the best you can), is to where to concetrate your will to help:

i. 3rd world countries? There people die by the thousands, if not millions
ii. What about enviromental problems, globabl warming effect etc...? Without that no earth no life -the end-
iii. Cancer? The words disease of our century probably. Chance are I will die of cancer, or if nyo me, my parents or something.
iv. ...
the list can go on for a long time.

I always keep in the back of my hand that the ultimate thing that one could do is to take their money and go themselves there to make sure nothing is wasted. Cause, ok, I value unicef and oxfam but I have a hunch that a lot is lost in the process. Mainly to do what Bob Geldof did. And while oxfam may compain that the stars are taking over and blah blah, still I think that this guy has done a lot. I would consider him as an example...

This is an interesting merging of two ongoing threads.  Strangely, I think it fits better in this one:

Amish say they "Forgive" School Shooter (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2523941&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

from the article:

Quote"If you have Jesus in your heart and he has forgiven you … [how] can you not forgive other people?" Rhoads said.

Discuss (because it entertains me and I'm not edumacated enough on the matter to discuss it myself).

A person that has lost a loved one to a random cruel act of violence and then can forgive has my outmost respect, be it because he feels "it is all in god's plan" or because of something less supernatural. It is the most difficult thing to do.

I want someone to explain me how Jesus can say:

"If you have sin in your eye, remove it, because it' s better to be in Heaven with an eye, that keep both in Hell"

If the message is that we are all forgiven...So, hell exists or not? So, we are forgiven but can we be unforgiven? So, which is the point of being forgiven? We do not longer have the original sin? I thought that Mary was the only who was born without the original sin...

Please answers...

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 04/10/2006 17:44:29
I want someone to explain me how Jesus can say:

"If you have sin in your eye, remove it, because it' s better to be in Heaven with an eye, that keep both in Hell"

If the message is that we are all forgiven...So, hell exists or not? So, we are forgiven but can we be unforgiven? So, which is the point of being forgiven? We do not longer have the original sin? I thought that Mary was the only who was born without the original sin...

Please answers...

I don't exactly know what you're asking, but I can try to answer this for you. Firstly, where did Jesus say that? It doesn't jump out at me as a passage I've heard before.

QuoteIf the message is that we are all forgiven...

We all have the opportunity to be forgiven.

QuoteSo hell exists or not? So, we are forgiven but can we be unforgiven?

Hell certainly exists. It is the place for the people who chose not to believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world. We can not be unforgiven, unless we truly have had a change of heart and sincerely desire to forsake God. (On the other hand, if you do the above, and repent again, God will erase your sin as if nothing happened.)

QuoteWe do not longer have the original sin? I thought Mary was the only one who was born with out the original sin...

Even once one is forgiven, they still continue to sin because of their (our) human nature. Even if we are without the original sin (which I am personally not sure about it, I should check that one out), we still continue to sin anyway.

Mary was still born with the original sin; she was a normal human being. Nowhere in the Bible does it say specifically that Mary was above normal humanity, enabling her to be Jesus' mother. She was, again, an everyday human just like you or I. The only difference is that she had a willing and servant heart to do whatever God asked of her. Jesus was the only one born without original sin-- backed up by the fact that since he was fully God at the same time, he can't be part of something that he abhors, dispises, use any word you want.

I hope that clears it up for you. :)

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 04/10/2006 17:44:29
"If you have sin in your eye, remove it, because it' s better to be in Heaven with an eye, that keep both in Hell"

"if you have sin your eye": if you are about to do something bad/sinful (and you might have done it before)
"remove it": you are better off avoiding "it", that which will make you sin, which could be anything, from a friend who has a bad influence on you to temptation, etc.
but I'm not sure in which context it is, i'll have to see the rest of the paragraph. I'm just guessing.  ;D I'm no expert on english nor religion.  ;)

QuoteHell certainly exists. It is the place for the people who chose not to believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world. We can not be unforgiven, unless we truly have had a change of heart and sincerely desire to forsake God. (On the other hand, if you do the above, and repent again, God will erase your sin as if nothing happened.)

Why? I never had a reason to believe this... I never asked him to remove my sins! How can i go to hell when i never asked to come to heaven?

So, to make a short brief:

The message of the New Gospel is that we are forgiven... or that we have the opportunity to be forgiven. If the message is that we are forgiven, then, there is no Hell, but if the message is that we have the opportunity to be forgiven, there is a Hell. But this Hell is also for those who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God who came here to redeem all our sins, but he did not very well because our sins are not totally forgiven, because we can go to Hell if we do not believe that what he did was real. So, heaven is just for believers, but also for those aborigens who have never heard of God, and sometimes you can reach heaven if your acts have been benevolent, no matter if you believe or not, but sometimes believing is the only key, but you can also believe in Zeus because he is also God, but only if you accept that Heracles and Jesus were brothers, because the key is that Jesus came here to suffer for all of us.

But don' t piss it off, because if not, you' ll go to Hell, unless you believe.

Thanks for the replies. This thread gave me a clear and complete vision of which is the message of Jesus.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 04/10/2006 23:01:50
but he did not very well because our sins are not totally forgiven

They are completely forgiven each time you ask for forgiveness.

Quote
and sometimes you can reach heaven if your acts have been benevolent, no matter if you believe or not, but sometimes believing is the only key

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes through the Father except through Me." --John 14:6

Quote
but you can also believe in Zeus because he is also God, but only if you accept that Heracles and Jesus were brothers

Where did this come from?

Read the entire thread. I am not using the source of the Bible, but what the believers replied to my questions here.

Nacho, if you really want to twist everyone's words together like that then you can, but you're only fooling yourself. No single person presented that incoherent jumble and don't pretend otherwise.

No? Read the thread again. When I said that the message of the new Gospel is that we must do to the others what we want the other do to us, you replied that I was confusing the new Gospel with Judaism, and that the message is that "We are all forgiven", which is basically uncoherent with the existence of Hell that some other believers deffend here. When I said that the existance of God is uncoherent because there have been more Gods in history, Babar replied that the Big Guy in every religion is the same. When I told that Chistianism is assuming too much because it only allows Christians to go heaven, some of you replied that God will judge depppending on your acts, not in your beliefs, but some others told me that "Believing in Jesus as the son of God, who came here to redeem our sins is the key". I don' t really think it' s me the one who is fooling myself...

Bible is so contradictory that believers just can' t do anything else that running from one side of the  town to another lighting fires off.

Nacho, I think you're missing SSH's point.  He said no single person put forward all of the ideas contained in your post.  Whilst I personally agree with you that Christianity (and when I say that, I really mean the text of the Bible) has some inherent inconsistencies, shoving several different individuals own opinions and beliefs together and saying "this is what all Christians believe!!" doesn't support your point...it just proves that different people believe different things, and the answer to that is "well duh". :P

I second that, Nacho.
Religious people seem to know all the answers because the answer keeps changing for every question.
If you try to prove God exists, you taunt God. If you try to prove God does not exists, you are a heretic and go to hell. If you are shown proof that there is no God, it's the work of the devil and a lie.
Yup, perfect clause, except there still is no proof God exists, which leads us back to the devil and a lie. Catch 22.

Actually, the existence of a God is impossible to prove or disprove, its a matter of faith. So I dunno what jet is on about.

Epistemologically, lack of proof constitutes disprooval until there's reason to believe otherwise. Therefore for those that enjoy rationality and things making sense, until the attributes of this god thing can be scrutinized and its premise tested, god is nothing more than a vague concept of antithetical terms like 'forever', 'all-powerful' and 'omniescent', not even a theory.

Having faith in something doesn't make it exist, it just makes you have faith in it. For example, I have faith that everything will work out okay, that people are gonna be good and that we'll all be smiling. I call this optimism. No gods required, none tested. If you have faith in a God, that doesn't mean you can say he exists. 'Existing' is a term we use for scrutable entities or concepts.

I am not a very rational person so I don't really contest god-talk so much, but just saying.

Quote from: Helm on Thu 05/10/2006 11:01:13
Epistemologically, lack of proof constitutes disprooval until there's reason to believe otherwise.

My personal relationship and experience of Jesus is my reason to belive otherwise.

Becky, I wrote a lot in this thread, so I understand that you' ve missed my point.

I am nott saying that there must be only a message in the whole Bible. Actually I think there are a lot  :)  All my cruzade to show all the contradictions of the Bible started when I said that the message was "Do to the others what you want to others do to you" and SSH's replied "The real message is that we are all forgiven" (And accused me of confusing Christianism with Judaism)

Then this "The real message is..." discussion started. But it's been crossed fire between believers, I was not in that shooting.  ;)

What I was really looking for in this thread was a believer writing something of the sort of:

"I can' t prove the supernatural stuff in the Bible, but I like to believe it, even having no proofs, because it works for me for being a better person"

As I finally got something simillar with SSH' s post, I think I am going to abandon this discussion now.

QuoteActually, the existence of a God is impossible to prove or disprove, its a matter of faith

This is great.

If you want to pretend to yourself that you got what you want and bow out becuase you know you can't get any better, then feel free  ;)

Quote from: SSH on Thu 05/10/2006 12:04:39

Quote from: Helm on Thu 05/10/2006 11:01:13
Epistemologically, lack of proof constitutes disprooval until there's reason to believe otherwise.

My personal relationship and experience of Jesus is my reason to belive otherwise.

That's awesome and I really have nothing discouraging to say on that. Just saying that your experience and your Jesus and your god really need not be discussed as if they're scrutable and fathomable by others. There should be no church built around these impossible to communicate concepts, nor should anyone be approached to be introduced into this church, even if they've had their own personal experiences with Jesus, because their Jesus is not your Jesus, their god is not your God. One person cannot communicate faith to another. What they do, and this is in my opinion 'wrong', is band together under the same-but-not-really-the-same Faith because that beats being alone, right?

I've had my share of personal experiences which I don't attribute to Jesus, probably because I never understood that concept. I attribute them to other things, and I go about my life with a morality probably in application pretty similar to yours, SSH. I think simpler is better in this case. I need no church, no god, and no faith to do good like the little automation I am.

Quote from: Helm on Thu 05/10/2006 11:01:13
Therefore for those that enjoy rationality and things making sense, until the attributes of this god thing can be scrutinized and its premise tested, god is nothing more than a vague concept of antithetical terms like 'forever', 'all-powerful' and 'omniescent', not even a theory.

Now there's a line! I should copy that and paste it into my next english essay and they'd give me a 10er. And I don't mean sarcastically.

Yeah, but make sure you spell epistemologically correctly, Tuomas ;)

Half the time Most of the time I don't even know who is defending what side. I know I joined this thread late (and don't have time to read all of it), but I don't understand how there can be so many inconsistencies (and spelling errors! >:() within the Bible. Perhaps half of the time people don't know what they are talking about. I know that nowhere in the Bible does it say we can get to heaven by works. So what's all the confusion? And what happened to the discussion that included White Magic (unless that ended... I hope I won't have opened a new can-o'-worms)

Quote from: SilverTrumpet on Thu 05/10/2006 13:47:44
Half the time Most of the time I don't even know who is defending what side. I know I joined this thread late (and don't have time to read all of it), but I don't understand how there can be so many inconsistencies (and spelling errors! >:() within the Bible. Perhaps half of the time people don't know what they are talking about.

that's religion my friend :D

hum I am no awesome speller, but I think 'Epistemologically' was correct, no?

SilverTrumpet:  Here is where the Bible says you can get to heaven by works.

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. -- Matthew 16.27

Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. -- Romans 2:6, 13

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. -- Revelation 20:12-13

So is it just by faith alone?  Or works?  Or a combination of both?  I don't particularly care, but as you can see from the various denominations, no one is united on what exactly you need to do to get into Heaven.

And in case you were wondering, here is a list of contradictions/inconsistencies in the Bible: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Quote from: Becky on Thu 05/10/2006 14:16:52
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. -- Matthew 16.27

This doesn't mention that that's how you get into heaven. One is rewarded for what they do after preaching God's message:
2 Tim. 4 7-8
"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that dayâ€"and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing."
Revelation 2:10
"Fear nothing in the things you're about to sufferâ€"but stay on guard! Fear nothing! The Devil is about to throw you in jail for a time of testingâ€"ten days. It won't last forever.
Don't quit, even if it costs you your life. Stay there believing. I have a Life-Crown sized and ready for you."
There are 3 such other crowns mentioned. Do you call such rewards 'rewards of works'? I would say that they are for believing and for living out God's purpose, which is different from just works.
James 2:18
"But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. "

Quote
Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. -- Romans 2:6, 13

I think that's a bit out of context:
Romans 2:5,6
"But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." (<--believed and lived it out vs. not believed)

Quote
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. -- Revelation 20:12-13

But how did those who were in heaven get into heaven?

I can't be bothered to go back and forth and quotemine the Bible because frankly it doesn't interest me.  But my point was that different denominations use different passages to reflect their particular set of doctrines because the Bible -is- so unclear/vague/inconsistent.  You can find Biblical quotes to support pretty much any type of view.  You can sit and argue justification by faith alone vs good works etc till the cows come home, but that wouldn't achieve anything beyond a lot of hot air.

I think God should include a manual in the Bible.

Quote
Posted by NewbieAngel_06 in 10/03/07 at 20:42h:

Dear God, Do you want some of the sinners to go to Hell?

Posted by God in 10/03/07 at 20:45h:

RTFM n00b!

Becky, indeed: Wesley and Whitfield, founders of Methodism disagreed about this point their whole lives. On the web you can find lists of alleged contradictions int he bible, and kudos to that skeptics' site, they link to rebuttals, too.

Having looked around, I guess that my beliefs might be classified as: Arminianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism). Do I now get permission to have some fellowship with like-minded Christians, Helm? The thing is, my belief includes the necessity to tell others about it. I've noticed that many in modern society seem to think "Belive what you like, as long as the belief doesn't involve trying to convert me".

And Helm, I wasn't trying to say that you spelt Epidiemiology wrong, just that its a hard word to spell right.

How would I know if it is allowed? But why should you NEED to tell others about it? I don't see why you should.

Also, if salvation can be lost, in any way, then the God in heaven continues to be a petty and vindictive god. If ONE person goes to a 'Hell' then this God is not just, by his own standards. Would you like to discuss this point of view (it has to do with free will) or should I just leave it at that?

When did I even quote such a word... bah, forget it.

If "Heaven" is being with God for eternity and "Hell" is not being with God for eternity, and God forces someone into being with him who doesn't want to be (say, for example, a Satanist) then is that just by God's standards, or anyone else's?

If God created us all to go to heaven, we would not have free will. Instead, we would be like robots, programmed to love and help everyone. Rather than this, because He is a loving God, He gave humans free will-- the choice to return to the ways of their maker or to continue down the path to destruction.

Quote from: SSH on Thu 05/10/2006 17:56:34
If "Heaven" is being with God for eternity and "Hell" is not being with God for eternity, and God forces someone into being with him who doesn't want to be (say, for example, a Satanist) then is that just by God's standards, or anyone else's?

if that is 'Hell' then awesome, SSH. No quarell there. Just nothingness in the absence of god, for those without faith suits me fine!

SilverTrumpet, your argumentation is very flawed, but I'll leave you to consider it on your own as I extended the question only to SSH because although he's a believer, I find him very open (as well as aware) to various religious implications and freewill scenarios. I will not even try to explain how 'free will' means nothing if the choices we make with that will are either destruction or faith.

@ Silver Trumpet:
In that case God has given us the Earth, losing all control over the things and beings over its surface (That' s free will, no? We can do everything we can, no? We can kill all the animals, or provoque an earthquake by bombing the San Andreas earthcrack (It's that the English name?)

Then... Why worshipping It? It has abandoned us, and we learned to spend a whole life without Its help. The only reason should be ensuring a place in Heaven, but logic dictates that if It is really fair, It should' t care about if we believe or not (Because then, It should be a fascist God which condemns 3 billion of humans of going to Hell...)

If you really think of it, the best moment in the life of the parents is when the kids, after growing, finally can manage to live alone, go away of home and get a family. If you think carefully, God, after settings the base of its religion with the old gospel, and changing the direction of the message by sending Its son, could be waiting for a third moment of the Religion, when the mankind finally can life without worshipping It.

That could be the only way to give any sense to an old Gospel full of wars, rage and big miracles. It needed to create the people, so, he helped the Jews, the Earth where Its seed was going to grow, and if a miraculous intervention by It was needed, who cares?. In the new Gospel there' s no need to be so though... No need to destroy the walls of Jericho, or opening the seas...

And now, after rewarding us with the knowleadge of that the earth is not flat, and that the Sun is in the middle of the system, he gives us the final reward... No need of It!

Cool, eh? The best of all is that, as the Bible is contradictory, vague, and full of different interpretations, nobody can tell me I am wrong! ^_^

Of course, Nacho and Helm, if God is omniscient, he probably has a much better idea of justice than you or I do. If Hell is simply Annihilation, then athiests are getting no less than they expected. And so far there's been no complaints from anyone who has been annihilated ;) And its not as if God hasn't left a bunch of people round trying to convert everyone.

But, as I said, I believe God is merciful, so my opinion of the "official" criteria, even if correct, may be overridden. And I don't pretend to know the nature of heaven or hell.

You don't pretend to know the nature of heaven and hell, but you have opinions on other such inscrutible matters as absolute justice, omniescence and generally the divine? What's the difference?

Quote from: SSH on Thu 05/10/2006 18:29:22And its not as if God hasn't left a bunch of people round trying to convert everyone.

These guys, for example. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/zawahiri.tape/)

And to think if they were born in Kentucky or something, they'd probably be christians.

Paradox... If the heaven is the place where everybody is forgiven, and Hell is the place where people go if they do not accept that... Then in heaven we can find all the criminals along the history, and in Hell those who do not like criminals?

Mmmmm... Curious... I' ve read a lot of theories saying that satanism is the correct decission... And not because they are a group of freaks who like gothic comics, but because they really think that Satan is the good guy, and that God was a hoax who conquered the minds of the people with a cool, but basically an empty, message.

I' ve never thought seriously in this till this thread... Thanks believers! I will worship Satan now. Satan is the person who allows the people to live in the way they want, but who will judge people after life and won' t allow sinners to enter in Its Kingdom, no Hitlers, no Torquemadas, no Jack the Ripper...

Good, we didn't want you in heaven anyway, Nacho  ;)

Is fifteen pages not enough?

It doesnt really seem like this argument is actually going anywhere, just raising new points and arguments.

Which is the force that moves people, after 15 pages of thread, to say that a thread is not interesting?

Is it God, or Satan?

Neither.

It's common sense.

~

Quote from: rmullen on Tue 10/10/2006 22:10:37
The truth is there, in the scriptures, and god has made sure that the bible has survived through the years and reached greater translation and distribution than any other book.

No... The cheap priests did that.. And the crusaders who killed extremely many people, directed by the bible!

~

I heard Satan made the people and that's why he was trown out of Heaven... :P

Quote from: rmullen on Tue 10/10/2006 23:39:47
Like i stated above, a Christian doesn't participate in physical warfare.  So any wars fought in the name of religion (including the crusades) were not approved by God or the Bible.

That's just rubbish. Have you READ the Old Testament?

Remember, God changed his mind on Testament ver 2.0!

God doesn't make mistakes!

You are all wrong. The bible is a big Roschard test.

~

I have a question: why did god change his methodology?

You always sound so miserably unhappy when you debate theology, Telemachus.

 :)

Ad hominem! Diverting from argument! bzzt bzzt!

I'm not unhappy, I'd say I'm pretty ok, it's just that God owes me money. YOU OWE ME MONEEEEY

Quote from: Helm on Thu 12/10/2006 12:35:40
Ad hominem! Diverting from argument! bzzt bzzt!

I'm not unhappy, I'd say I'm pretty ok, it's just that God owes me money. YOU OWE ME MONEEEEY

I'll remind him next time he comes over for lunch!

Since there seems to be so much interest on this topic, I'd recommend people check out http://religionfacts.com/. I stumbled upon it myself recently, and while I wouldn't take it as the final authority, it's definitely a nice reference. Not only will it give you a sense of all the different flavors of Christianity and various other religions, it'll help explain stuff like why belief in the resurrection of Jesus, instead of being some sort of cop-out, is central to the Christian faith.

I also recently read a good review of a book called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. A sort of "athiest's bible," I guess it argues against religion in all its forms - extremist and moderate. The review particularly recommended it for religious people to really test and question what it is they believe in. Looks like an interesting read, and I may pick it up when I have some time.

~

No.

Yeah, I allways thought the whole "God" makes little sense. Who cares? Why search for aswers no one can ever answer. Be good, live your life, and thats it. Stop thinking about death and start living.

Quote from: rmullen on Thu 12/10/2006 19:09:38
Don't you think it takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him?

I would highly recommend tossing out the pamphlet of cliched witnessing phrases.  It's a crutch you're better off without and makes the conversation far more interesting for those opposing your position.  To be specific, that particular phrase along with the simplified explanation of free will and humanity's evils seem to be used more than speaking from your personal faith and telling people about the parts that really matter to you. 

If you have a genuine relationship with your deity, then maybe you should ask it what to say instead of relying upon human intellect (as in reciting Pascal's Wager). I, for one, would fine the discussion more rewarding having learned more about a person and his experiences than hearing the SOS.

Quote from: rmullen on Thu 12/10/2006 19:09:38
Don't you think it takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him?

If I say yes, does that mean that I'm beating you in the faith race?

~

Quote from: rmullen on Sat 14/10/2006 07:47:31
Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

I'm afradi that I disagree (the loosing battle I mean), and further more you need to realise that not everyone thinks like you do, and believe what you do ;).

After that everything will be fine... :)

Quote from: rmullen on Sat 14/10/2006 07:47:31
sometimes things are repeated often because they are implicitly true.Ã,  You can cheapen the statement by calling it cliche, but i am afraid you cannot refute the logic.Ã,  Besides, being skeptical about the truth or refusing to believe it doesn't in any way diminish its truthfulness.Ã,  Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

Some centuries ago people like you was so sure about their beliefs that "people without faith" was burned in the city squares... Nowadays, churches are empty, and believers are a minority... As much the science advance, the most is religion seen as folklore. Nowadays the kids believe longer in Santa Claus than in God...

Yes... We are really loosing the battle...  ;D

Quote from: rmullen on Sat 14/10/2006 07:47:31
i am afraid you cannot refute the logic.

I'm afraid that there's no logic there to refute.  Please explain how logic can apply to such a statement about faith.  Aren't faith and logic kind of like college room mates who are both all clean and neat and looked like they'd get along well on paper, but once they move in together they can't stand to be in the presence of each other?  And furthermore, aren't I wonderful at metaphors?

Quote from: rmullen on Sat 14/10/2006 07:47:31
Besides, being skeptical about the truth or refusing to believe it doesn't in any way diminish its truthfulness.  Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

Actually, don't bother answering my question.  This is why it's poinless to have these countless threads about Christianity.  To you, it's a foregone conclusion that what you believe is the absolute capital-T Truth.  And any argument against your beliefs must be true because it's saying that the Truth is not true, and therefore must be a flawed argument. 

I'm not saying that the people on the other side of the argument are super flexible in their beliefs either, but some of us, myself included aren't sure about this whole god thing and are willing to listen to logical arguments from both sides.  But I'm certainly not willing to be talked down to, which is what you're doing.

Quote from: rmullen on Sat 14/10/2006 07:47:31
sometimes things are repeated often because they are implicitly true.  You can cheapen the statement by calling it cliche, but i am afraid you cannot refute the logic.  Besides, being skeptical about the truth or refusing to believe it doesn't in any way diminish its truthfulness.  Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

Perhaps you read a more condescending tone into that than was intended.  I can only speak for myself, but it would be far more interesting to hear about personal experiences or reasons why you (personally) believe what you do.  Not only would it make for more diverse discourse, but we'd actually learn a little bit about how someone else thinks instead of hearing over and over how Pascal or Dawkins put things.

In any case, the phrases are cliche because they've been used to the extent that they've lost their original purpose.  Now, I continually hear references to 'Free will' without any thought behind them as to what free will consists of.  Pascal's Wager is illogical from a perspective other than a believer's, its only use is in supporting a supposition that one already believes. 

Not to beat a dead horse (another over-used phrase, many apologies), but the 'Free will' you mention consists of a choice to do one thing or another.  However, if we choose the other, then we're tortured infernally.  Take this scenario: an armed man (analogy for omnipotence) threatens a couple, saying the husband must kill his wife or they both die.  The man commits the crime.  Is he guilty of murder? Yes.  Was it of his own free will? That's at least posing a subject for debate rather than just re-stating things and wishing they were true.

It's been stated by both the religious and non that religion is a matter of faith - not intellect.  Reason and logic don't really come into play.  If there were a logical, factual argument as to why people should believe in God X, it sort of negates the need for faith, doesn't it? 

As far as discussion goes, someone could just as readily state that a religious person is merely insane, but while there've been some statements that are obviously anti-religious, none have been as patronizingly dismissive as I've heard from the other camp on multiple occasions.  I was raised in the Christian church, went to a Christian school and heard all of the same unjustified arguments and axioms then as I do now.  They still mean as much.

(Edited for punctuation:P)

TheYak, I'd shake your hand if it weren't so far away from my own.

~

Quote from: rmullen on Sat 14/10/2006 21:13:55
As i said my only intention is to defend truth.

Do you have any idea how impossible that is? The world is not in binary code, or maths. :) What truth are you talking about?

Quote from: rmullen on Sat 14/10/2006 21:13:55
You have not seen the sun rise tomorrow, and yet you have no doubt in your mind that it will because it always has.

This isn't faith.  It has nothing to do with faith.  I don't believe in the sun rising tomorrow because it always has.  I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because of overwhelming scientific evidence that proves that the Earth, in orbit around the sun, is rotating around its axis and will turn to face the sun and then away from the sun at regular intervals.  This is science.  This is Truth.

Quote
Nowhere in the Bible is it suggested that you put faith in anything with no reason to do so.  In fact, the Bible contains many many examples of God's power.  Not just stories of miracles, but prophecies written hundreds, even thousands of years in advance that have come true.  One example of such power is enough to demonstrate Godship, but God went ahead and demonstrated His power this way hundreds of times just for good measure.

Please relate to us one such demonstration of capital-H His power that constitutes any sort of tangible evidence.  Just because it's written in a book, even a really old book (especially a really old book) doesn't make it Truth. 

And let's suppose for a moment that, as you suggest, faith and logic aren't warring room mates, but are, in fact, in bed together.

Since you feel that the examples of God's power in the bible are reason enough to put faith in the Christian God, why don't you have an equal amount of faith in (for example) the Islamic religion?  Both of these religions have books (really old books) that relate many examples of their respective God's power.  Since the evidence supporting Islam is of the same nature of the evidence supporting yours, what makes yours the "Truth?"  Aren't you being a little hypocritical if you claim that the bible is reason enough to believe in Christianity but the Koran isn't enough reason to believe in Islam?

Could it be because faith has little to do with evidence, proof and logic?

~

Prophecies are the proof? Any extense book with vague predictions will sooner or later predict facts correctly, specially if it does not give dates, having, therefore, all the future to score the goal. Nostradamus also "predicts" things, and there' s nothing to see with divinity there. Moby Dick predicted the death of Lady Diana if applied to the letters the correct mathematical formulas.

Sometimes things are repeated often because they need people to believe they are true (A lie told 1,000 times becomes a thruth -Joseph Goebbes) The bible is a repetition of cliches without any sustent of logic.  Besides, being skeptical about the truth or refusing to believe it doesn't in any way diminish its truthfulness.  Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

~

On the subject of faith, I disagree with your interpretation of faith.  The way I remember the verse is probably from the KJV, something along the lines of "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".  I interpret this to say that faith is independent of observable phenomena. (edit: Forgot to mention that faith is defined by belief without evidence by several dictionaries)

Can evidence support faith? Certainly.  However, I would argue the the test of profound faith is if one is capable of believing in something despite physical evidence to the contrary.  To believe something from the bible, even a simple statement like "God is love" isn't too impressive coming from a religious middle-class person who's heir to a trust fund.  If I heard the same statement from a homeless man dying from malnutrition, it would have far more impact.  Honestly, I'd probably thing he'd gone nuts more likely than hearing him out, but it would stick with me for the rest of my life. 

I agree in principle with your paragraph about discussions of faith, but the real reason there's no resolution is because nothing's been proven.  Even if one were to check your citations and references and see that they were attributed to established sources, there are glaring holes in this 'evidence'. 

Evidence is an iron-clad and powerful thing when it supports what you want it to. 

From my perspective, I'm wondering which of the following is more likely:

1) An omnipotent being informed a person about events that were to take place 200 years in the future.  As for the reason why, nobody can comprehend the mind of the omnipotent, but one could imagine that it was for purposes of establishing his omniscience as well as establishing this man as a person who spoke the truth.
--
2) Nearly any prophecy can come to pass in an infinite timespan. 
--
3) Prophecies have a tendency to be self-fulfilling.  An outcome of an event could be affected by known prophecy.  Additionally, knowing what was said, an event could be manipulated.  As for the name Cyrus, it's difficult to ascertain whether the name was common 2500 years ago.  One could easily imagine, however, that the name became more common as enmity for Babylon grew and more people heard about the prophecy.  Additionally, any individual could choose to be called by that name, particularly since record-keeping wasn't as thorough as it tends to be now.  It wasn't uncommon for people to change their names as well; according to the Bible, God renaming people (or people renaming themselves or others) wasn't infrequent.  The reason might be prior to execution of some great work, after a life-changing event, or to give people a certain idea when hearing that name. 

Imagine, for a moment, that somebody saw a method to lead an army to topple Babylon.  Wouldn't it be a strong psychological tactic to take the name of a prophesied conquerer? 
--
4) The records are false.  Whether through mistranslation, misinterpretation or human error, there could easily have been mistakes made.  Say, for instance, the date referred to for the publication of Isaiah's words was incorrect?  Having heard about the event, one imagines that it would be a simple thing to have told others about it , especially since news didn't travel as quickly in those days - he could've heard about events and counted upon people not having heard it yet. 

I admit, that last bit sounds like stretching the evidence to wrap around my beliefs.  Back to the beginning of this point - the bible was translated and distributed much more recently than the events you describe.  It's a simple trick to claim that a past event was prophesied before it happened.  I could claim now to have had a dream when I was 8 that I would be married by the age of 19.  It's still faith that would allow people to believe me, not evidence. 
----

I'm not specifically refuting your faith, just what you interpret it to mean.  It's your faith that allows you to believe my first point about the facts presented rather than being skeptical and reverting to one of the latter.  It's your faith that allows you to see bridges across gaps when others can't see the way from point a to point b.  It's a credit to faith that this is the case; it doesn't necessarily have to be supported by tangible evidence.

I believe, however, that the problem with religious discussion lies with both parties.  The opposing side behaves in much the way you describe, however you ignore the behavior of those defending it. People of faith have embraced evidence that supports their conclusions and rejected that which contradicts it.  Archaeologists are praised when supporting faith by their determination of dates, but rejected outright when claiming that something is too old (or young) to support the Bible's claims. 

If one were to believe that this prophecy actually occurred as your evidence claims, they still wouldn't necessarily have to draw the same conclusion.  This is equally specific support for Judaism or Islam, and generic support for belief in the supernatural.  We could attribute these events to the strength of faith in a metaphysical world, or as evidence in latent psychic abilities. 

It is both its most admirable quality as well as its most infuriating that faith is blind.

I read the prophecies that you spoke of.  Predicting the events of a battle that would take place 200 years after the writing of the passage would be incredibly impressive.  I'm an open minded person who is still unsure about what I believe God to be or not be, and such a persuasive argument might be hugely influential.  If it were substantiated by concrete evidence.

HOWEVER, for a prophecy to be a prophecy, to me, it needs to have three factors:

I) The written prophecy must be clear and unambiguous about what it is predicting.

Most of what you discuss would pass this point. 

II) The events predicted must happen in a way that can be verified by history (I.E. not verified by the same writing that the prophecy was made in).

And again, most of what you discuss is in the (non-religiously-biased) history books.

III) The prophecy must have been verifiably written before the events predicted.

And this is where your prophecies break down.

You can say that the book of Isaiah was finished by 732 B.C.E. but is it a solidly verified fact?  Absolutely not.

Many (I purposefully avoided the word "most" here because I wasn't able to take a poll) biblical scholars believe that the book Isaiah is the work of two or more writers.  These scholars (who are more well versed in the bible's history than me and likely more than you) believe, consequently, that the book was the product of an extensive editing process.  Specifically, they note a visible divide in writing styles after chapter 39, which is where the prophecies that you quote come from.  It is impossible to place a date on the actual writing of the verses that you quote.

So, if we go by TheYak's system of choosing which scenario seems the most likely, I'm going to go with:

5) The prophecies were actually written after the events which you claim that they predict.

It is a logical conclusion, or at least a logical possibility.

So again, I can't describe this as "evidence."  But this is where I would enter faith into the equation.  At least my definition and TheYak's definition and Mirriam-Webster's definition of "faith."  You have faith that these are true prophecies made by Isaiah.  That is to say that you believe that they are true despite not having concrete evidence.

~

I fail to see how the dead sea scrolls, which were written between 150 B.C.E. and 50 B.C.E. could possibly be evidence that the book of Isaiah was not added to or edited by a third party after 539 B.C.E.  That's 400 years unaccounted for. 

If there were proof behind your claims, surely there wouldn't be so many men and women, better versed in the bible than you or I, who are skeptical of the document's authorship.

Well, if there were changes made to them over time, then it would be liekly that differing versions would be extant. The differences in known copies are generally somewhat minor enough to be manual copying errors.

The "believers" like to say "Wow! The prophecy worked 200-300... 1,000 years after the prediction! That' s impressive! How long the time to the prophecy to become true can be! These are LONG TERM PROPHECIES! Woah!" And they assume that, the more time happens till the prophecy becomes true, the better. That' s uncorrect. As much time happens, the most plausible a vague prophecy becomes.

For instance.

"A person coming from the sun rise will attack the leader, and a war will start, and the fidels will get closer between they each other, and they will prevail. Jerusalen will burn when the moon shines"

In less than 500 something simillar will happen... Am I a Prophet?

Quote from: rmullen on Sun 15/10/2006 10:25:10The vast majority of prophecy found in the Hebrew scriptures (commonly called the Old Testament) was concerning the life of Jesus and therefore reveals that the Bible supports Christianity.

The Messianic prophecies are about The Messiah, whom the Christians acknowledge to be Jesus whereas the Jews believe he hasn't come yet. There were loads of people around that time claiming/claimed to be the Messiah and Jesus was just the most succesful. If any of the prophecies happen to match part of Jesus' life, keep in mind that he himself had studied the Messianic prophecies.

~

Were you there to confirm that Ieoshua Bar Iosef was born in Belen? Because many people claim that he was born in Nazareth, and the birth was after placed in Belen to make it "match" with the prophecies. Actually, I think that even the gospels don' t agree in how Ieoshua bar Iosef reached Belen, if he previously lived there, or if Iosef' s family went there to record Iosef' s name into it' s birthday place log, Belen, according to a rule of Herodes.

And can you explain me how can Ieoshua bar Iosef descendant of King David if Mary never had contact with Iosef, who was the one with the blood of King David? Mmmm...

Quote from: rmullen on Sun 15/10/2006 20:00:59This is the same rebellion against God that was started back in the Garden of Eden.

I'm just going to take this sentence out of context to ask you something: Most of the christians I've discussed christianity with, claims that alot of the content in the old testament(Garden of Eden, Noah's ark etc) is symbolic. What's your stand on this?

Quote from: SSH on Sun 15/10/2006 12:18:45
Well, if there were changes made to them over time, then it would be liekly that differing versions would be extant. The differences in known copies are generally somewhat minor enough to be manual copying errors.

If the currently accepted version of the book of Isaiah or any other book closely resembles the version found in the dead sea scrolls (which I'm not sure they do... but I didn't look very hard, so feel free to educate me), that suggests that no major changes were made after 100 B.C.E.  However, it would not prove that the book was not altered over the four hundred years previous.

The Messianic Prophecies are similarly plagued by problems.  Each one is either A) not a prophecy or not meant by the author to be a prophecy, B) Not-verifiably fufilled (the new testament is not a verifiable source), or C) So vague that it's application to Jesus is unconvincing.

Of course I take a skeptical approach to any supposed prophecy.  If you're looking to believe, there are more than enough stories in the bible to put your faith behind.  But faith, in the sense that it is belief in something without evidence, is required to plug the holes in the arguments.

Quote from: rmullen on Sun 15/10/2006 20:00:59
Those who follow Jesus command to love their neighbors, to love their enemies, and therefore do not participate in war of any kind.

If you really are teaching love, an all inclusive love, including homosexuals, foreigners, Muslims, atheists, and everyone else with a view of the world that differs from your own, then I wish you all the best.  Some people don't know how to do this instinctively and need some direction to help them accept people different from themselves.

Do you love me?

I wasn't going to reply since rmullen had stated that he'd said his 'peace' (sorry for the grammatical fun-poking).  However, it's my turn to virtually shake Vince's hand as I absolutely agree.  I am completely for anyone abiding by a religion that loves people as people, regardless of their faith, race, sexuality, etc., and wish rmullen all the best if this is the case. 

I don't want to divert the already-diverted thread any more, but I've had a difficult time convincing Christians to abide by a hate-the-sin/love-the-sinner message that Jesus preached. Between my parents & peers and living in the San Francisco area, the issue of homosexuality is one plagued by fear and hatred rather than simple compassion and understanding.  If I've come across my first Christian that attempts to abide by the doctrine I was taught that the religion was all about, then I'm certainly more open to an exchange of discourse than I was.

Wow I go to a comics festival for 4 days and this is what you do behind my back.

Lots of slabs of interesting, thanks for posting, Yak, Vince. I'd like our current resident christian apologist to reply to my original question:

why did God change his methods after the events of the old testament? What could this change signify? Remember, God knows all, sees all, makes no mistakes. Please answer this succintly if possible. I aim to destroy your faith. Thank you.

Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 16/10/2006 02:32:08
If the currently accepted version of the book of Isaiah or any other book closely resembles the version found in the dead sea scrolls (which I'm not sure they do... but I didn't look very hard, so feel free to educate me), that suggests that no major changes were made after 100 B.C.E.  However, it would not prove that the book was not altered over the four hundred years previous.

Well of course, there is no proof unless you have the absolute original, but then how do you prove that is authentic? Rather, when it comes to authenticating ancient documents you have to go by indications and evidence rather than absolute proof. Remember, too, that if there were edits made to the book, it would be unlikely that the edits would be able to be made to absolutely every copy of the book available. We're talking ancient tech not wikipedia, here, so for someone to decide to edit what is in the book of Isiah they'd have to ride a horse round ancient palestine with the new approved copies, get hold of the old ones if they were able to wrench them from their keepers and replace them with the new copy. It seems unlikely that such a process would be entirely successful. And those copies would be copied down the years and some of them would survive to today in some form. And thus there would be greater differences between our current versions than there are.

Quote from: Helm on Mon 16/10/2006 12:16:01
why did God change his methods after the events of the old testament? What could this change signify? Remember, God knows all, sees all, makes no mistakes. Please answer this succintly if possible. I aim to destroy your faith. Thank you.

I know you were going at rmullen, Helm, but one point is, if God says "here are some laws, stick to them" and then immediately says "Nah, you'll never manage it, I know I'll have to do something else in the end..." then it would hardly seem fair. Part of the Old Testament's purpose is as a "testament" of the fallibility of human nature.

Quote from: SSH on Mon 16/10/2006 12:28:15
I know you were going at rmullen, Helm, but one point is, if God says "here are some laws, stick to them" and then immediately says "Nah, you'll never manage it, I know I'll have to do something else in the end..." then it would hardly seem fair. Part of the Old Testament's purpose is as a "testament" of the fallibility of human nature.

You are a smart man, SSH. It won't take you more than a few seconds of further pondering to realize the unfairness of 'testing' that which you know fully well will fail.

I'd be very glad to discuss this further with you if you want, down the linear path towards the model of the cruel god playing with the will-less toys that are men, but also I'd like to see what our resident apologist has to say on the subject, so lets not scare him off.

Quote from: Helm on Mon 16/10/2006 12:35:39
You are a smart man, SSH. It won't take you more than a few seconds of further pondering to realize the unfairness of 'testing' that which you know fully well will fail.

Isn't it also unfair to NOT test someone without even giving them the chance to prove themselves, even if you're sure they will fail? I mean, I think that people have free will, so therefore there are not 100% certain to fail. And after all God already provided some provision for forgiveness in the Old Testament too.

No concept of 'fairness' enters the picture when a machine does as it is ment to do. When you use your toaster, you are not conducting an ethical experiment, you are making toast. This is scary because then you start to consider what our purpose is as machines. Are we here to keep this god of yours company? To feed is ego with our adoration? Are we just a passing plaything?

There is no free will when God knows all, has designed all, knows past, present and future down to the fucking bitter end of the apocalypse (there's no Free Will sans god of course, but that's a different discussion). The difference is that god made us little machines with self-awareness and the capability to SUFFER and then he punishes us for doing as we're ment to do. THAT is unfair by my petty human standard, and I spit at him and curse him, as he has designed me to do. Your God is a cruel master.

Are couples who have children feeding their egos with their child's adoration?

What if God is omniscient of the future in the sense that he can "calculate" what will happen in any given situation, perhaps by some mechanism similar to running a simulation. Now, if he is to do that, any consequences of that simualtion although they don't happen to us happen to the equivalent of us in the simualtion, which some philosophers is exactly the same from the point of view of the "other us". So, perhaps God doesn't do this simulation exercise on things unless he needs to, So its more a case of God being potentially omnipotent than actually knowing everything ever at once... it's like Schrodinger's cat in some ways. Perhaps quantum mechanics is God's way of letting us understand his omniscience to a degree?

But then, God has any power over us, or the things around us? Because if he has, no free will... If he hasn' t, why worshipping him any longer than just the gratitude to something he did 20,000,000,000 years ago?

It' s great to respect the craddle where you've been breed. But it finally reaches the time to abandon the craddle, no?

QuoteAre couples who have children feeding their egos with their child's adoration?

Partly. I don't know if you know, but people are not perfect, nor do they claim to be. They fail all the time. GOD DOESN'T HAVE FAILINGS. GOD IS PERFECT. GOD IS FOREVER. Please understand what I am saying, I can't make it any plainer.

QuoteSo, perhaps God doesn't do this simulation exercise on things unless he needs to,

what is this strange limitation of need you place on your God here? This is such a stupid cop-out. It's like answering 'He doesn't create it 'cause he doesn't feel like it' to the God-destroying question :" can your all-powerful god create a stone he cannot lift?". Potential omnipotence? What the hell are you talking about? Either god KNOWS ALL, or he doesn't. No middle ground, no gray area. We are talking about the ultimate being. If you're so willing to cut down on his 'potential' ultimate skillsets then present me a modest god, that is failable, not all-powerful, not existing before time, not forever, and I will tell you, that's a god more likely to exist.

Quote from: rmullen on Sun 15/10/2006 20:00:59The truth is not complicated.  God has made it available and easy to understand.  It is not my responsibility to establish truth, simply to offer it to others.

Do you know something? I'd be much more inclined to listen to the theories of religious people if they didn't keep on dealing with absolutes, and simply voiced their opinions as a possible explanation which they choose to believe. Saying "the truth this..." and "the truth that..." from my cynical standpoint just sounds like a ploy to get idiots to believe you - "Oh, it's the truth is it? Well it must be right then"

Heh.It's religion! It's a belief! It wouldn't mean the slightest if you said "Y'know, I'm sure you enjoy rape, pillage and burning*, but y'know, there might be this God guy who....might not like it. Watch out!".

I believe what I believe because it's the truth. You might not agree with me on that point. Too bad.

There is an attitude towards "religiousness" that I find very scary. A person is religious, so he must obviously be close-minded. He's probably stupid as well. If they start quoting scripture, there is obviously something wrong with them. Hey, them religious people are only in it because they fear death.
A person wears a hijab. Oh dear, she's either backward, or being surpressed.
A person is a catholic priest. Oh dear, he's evil because he condemns contraception. He probably enjoys playing with little children too.
A person is very religious muslim. Oh dear, he's obviously a terrorist.

For example, I drew a person's face. It got somewhat messed up, so I covered it with a beard and sunglasses. I thought "Hey, might as well complete this", so I added a skullcap. I showed it to a friend, and what did she say? "Heeheehee, terrorist!".
Yeah.

* I'm going to be accused of saying that all non-religious people enjoy rape, pillage and burning now  ::)

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 13:17:57
all non-religious people enjoy rape, pillage and burning

Why do you think athiesm is so popular these days?

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 13:17:57
I believe what I believe because it's the truth. You might not agree with me on that point. Too bad.

But this is my point. A truth is a statement that has been verified - a fact. The Earth rotates once every day is the truth. The moon orbits the Earth is truth. Truth is absolute and can't be subject to opinion by definition.

Therefore, you believe what you believe because you believe it to be true. But if it were actually the truth, then it would have had to have been verified, the existence of God undeniable, and there wouldn't be loads of religions and atheists.

As soon as anybody claims anything unverified as the truth, regardless of what it is - religion, evolution, global warming, whatever - then I switch off because it's not the truth. It's an opinion which they believe. Talk to me in these terms and I will listen to your opinion. I'm fairly open-minded.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 13:24:52

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 13:17:57
all non-religious people enjoy rape, pillage and burning

Why do you think athiesm is so popular these days?

(http://www.greyfriars51.fsnet.co.uk/templar%20battle.jpg)

Yeah, when Christianism was popular things were better, hehe...

Yeah, they don't make such good movies anymore

Nice to see our resident apologist avoiding me.

Quote from: CaptainBinky on Tue 17/10/2006 13:40:31
But this is my point. A truth is a statement that has been verified - a fact. The Earth rotates once every day is the truth. The moon orbits the Earth is truth. Truth is absolute and can't be subject to opinion by definition.

Therefore, you believe what you believe because you believe it to be true. But if it were actually the truth, then it would have had to have been verified, the existence of God undeniable, and there wouldn't be loads of religions and atheists.

Ummm, that's a rather strange definition of the truth. Are you saying that the theory of relativity, for example, was not true until  it was proved? So presumably relativitsic effects didn't happen ebfore teh early 20th century...?

Anyway, Time Cube theory says that the earth rotates 4 times a day ;)

Helm, you're imposing your demand of there being a dilemma upon the nature of God's omniscience (or omnipotence). Why should there by necessaity be no grey areas?

As for the omnipotence paradox, my favourite answer is to look at the question as "Is the total lack of disability itself a disability?" to which the answer is obviously "No".

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 14:46:46
Ummm, that's a rather strange definition of the truth.

What, that something which is true is a fact that can be verified? I don't see anything weird about that.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 14:46:46
Are you saying that the theory of relativity, for example, was not true until  it was proved? So presumably relativitsic effects didn't happen before the early 20th century...?

Well, that's why it's a theory. I don't see how what I've said would lead you to that point... It is possible for something to be the case without man knowing that it's the case. Gravity still existed before Newton "discovered" it.

CaptainBinky, the scientific definition of theory is as close as it gets to being the "truth" as it were.  Theories explain and interpret "facts" or "truths".  Please don't dismiss any scientific theory as "only a theory!!".

Anyway, being a history student - there is no truth!  Just a bunch of stuff people disagree about.

Quote from: Becky on Tue 17/10/2006 15:45:09
Please don't dismiss any scientific theory as "only a theory!!".

Sorry, I didn't intend to sound like I was belittleing theories. I don't think I actually said *only* a theory, did I? All I meant was that a theory isn't hard and fast. It does the best job with the best available information, but as with any theory it is open to change or abandonment when or if new information becomes available.

QuoteHelm, you're imposing your demand of there being a dilemma upon the nature of God's omniscience (or omnipotence). Why should there by necessaity be no grey areas?

Because there are no gray areas in all-powerfulness.

QuoteAs for the omnipotence paradox, my favourite answer is to look at the question as "Is the total lack of disability itself a disability?" to which the answer is obviously "No".

Take your obviousness to Godel for discussion.

QuoteAll I meant was that a theory isn't hard and fast. It does the best job with the best available information, but as with any theory it is open to change or abandonment when or if new information becomes available.

But then how can we ever be sure that any of what we know is the truth, if it is constantly changing/being updated/refined?

How indeed! That's a question for the philosophers, I think ;D

And now we're back to beliefs. Believe them to be true.

Quote from: Becky on Tue 17/10/2006 15:54:38
But then how can we ever be sure that any of what we know is the truth, if it is constantly changing/being updated/refined?

Anyways, as far as I know a theory cannot be accepted on it's own, unless it is backed up by experimental proof. anything Einstein came up (for example the fact that light has weight), he has also prooven with experiements, and this is why his theories are accepted.

Even the most logical theory cannot be held as...the truth... as long as it cannot be proven further with experimental tools. This is where religious fails for most of us... It's this proof that maybe we're looking for.

There is no universal truth, except the very obvious and clear. Earth is round... We really have no proof, but indeed it does appear to be... unless there is a huge consipracy going on.

But since I've seen my wife grow and grow, and giving birht (in front of my eyse), to my sons, and actualyl touching her and touching my sons 1 minute after birth, has given me enough proof that my sons do exist and that my wife indeed was pregnant and indeed was carying her babies inside her. That's the plain truth here. Can anyone say the above statement isn't true?

QuoteAnyways, as far as I know a theory cannot be accepted on it's own, unless it is backed up by experimental proof. anything Einstein came up (for example the fact that light has weight), he has also prooven with experiements, and this is why his theories are accepted.

Yes yes, that's all part of how a scientific hypothesis becomes a theory.  A theory in the scientific sense is a collection of all previous observable eveidence and is predictive, logical and testable. 

If there wasn't any evidence for them, they wouldn't -be- theories :P

ooops (I think).

That's what you get when you're not british (plus the awful spelling :S).

Ok we agree then... just failed on the actually word naming... :p

Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 17/10/2006 16:02:46
But since I've seen my wife grow and grow, and giving birht (in front of my eyse), to my sons, and actualyl touching her and touching my sons 1 minute after birth, has given me enough proof that my sons do exist and that my wife indeed was pregnant and indeed was carying her babies inside her. That's the plain truth here. Can anyone say the above statement isn't true?

Yes. Here are other possible explanations:

1. Your children (and wife) are merely your hallucinations
2. You want to beleive you have a wife and children and have decived yourself into thinking they exist
3. You are lying to everyone here about whether you have a wife, or kids, or witnessed any birth
4. They're not your kids
5. A moderator edited the post after you wrote it and turned off the edit notice
6. The whole of AGS and its forum is a figment of my own hallucination
7. We are all characters in a story where the author wants things to seem like you have kids.
etc.

If you really want to get down to it, nothing is provable. So proof of God is as unattainable as proof of your own existence.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 16:21:35
If you really want to get down to it, nothing is provable. So proof of God is as unattainable as proof of your own existence.

True, except that I've seen Nikolas, but haven't seen God (except in South Park)

Quote from: CaptainBinky on Tue 17/10/2006 16:24:16
True, except that I've seen Nikolas, but haven't seen God (except in South Park)

That wasn't Nikolas, that was a hallucination.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 16:25:42
That wasn't Nikolas, that was a hallucination.

;D Well he was very tall... so you might be right!

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 16:21:35If you really want to get down to it, nothing is provable.

Of course. But some things are alot more probable than others.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 16:21:35
Yes. Here are other possible explanations:

1. Your children (and wife) are merely your hallucinations
2. You want to beleive you have a wife and children and have decived yourself into thinking they exist
3. You are lying to everyone here about whether you have a wife, or kids, or witnessed any birth
4. They're not your kids
5. A moderator edited the post after you wrote it and turned off the edit notice
6. The whole of AGS and its forum is a figment of my own hallucination
7. We are all characters in a story where the author wants things to seem like you have kids.
etc.

If you really want to get down to it, nothing is provable. So proof of God is as unattainable as proof of your own existence.

1. No cause I can feel them, clean up dippers and feed them.
2. No, cause I've met her family and my family hangs around with hers
3. Could be. It's up to you to believe that part... ;)
4. Hmmm... with that nose? I think they are ;)
5. Mods can't do that. Admins may but indeed I don't think CJ would bother...
6. Then we share the same halucination.
7. Prove it. (the easiest answer and the fastest one to com eto mind is almost always the correct one ;))

OF course if we take that road, we will never reach an agreement. But generally I would think that only a fool would doubt my having children (even if you haven't met me inperson... where binky has... (without children, though). But "the ultiamte truth" is kinda problematic.

either way, I can certianly accept that people believe to something I maybe have trouble believeing in, and even more accept that they think it's the truth (which is a big possiblity to me). What  Ican accept is someone preaching over hte internet about that truth, being the only one!

And I am very tall!

Let me make it simpler then, I take back what I said. I am what I am/do what I do because I KNOW it to be (at least part of) the truth.

I think SSH has a point, Cap'n Binky. Being true does not necessarily mean it is verifiable. The truth was the truth even before it became verifiable. You agree to that fact. The earth has always been round, gravity has been around long before Isaac Newton said anything, etc. You don't see where this is going?

You will not listen to anyone talk about the truth of their religion until what? They invent the God-detector and it beeps green? You will not listen to anyone who talks about Jesus as the truth until what? They.....(I can't even think of an answer to this...A Jesus-Detector?). Most of the arguments have been laid on the table, and have been there for thousands of years. The "Documents" for and against, the "artifacts". The rest is just verbal calisthenics.

Now let me expand on the "KNOW". For myself, I've seen enough "proof" to accept what I've accepted, in the same way I accept the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity. If someone came up with something that showed that gravity is not how I think it is, or relativity just scratched the surface, I'd happily listen, and the same with my understanding of religion and God.

I don't know if you can clasify things in the "undenyiable truths", and the "shaky ground truths" really...

But if I wat to do that I would place the Earth being round in the first truth (and the fact that I personally have children), and the there is god in the second. Personally.

But either way I see little point in discussing about the truth. The truth is something for people to dissagree on...

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 16:41:03
I think SSH has a point, Cap'n Binky. Being true does not necessarily mean it is verifiable. The truth was the truth even before it became verifiable.

In other words, up until the point they realised they were wrong, it was utterly true that the world was flat? You can't say that that statement is "true" just because it's what everybody believed. What you can say, is that they believed it to be true.

I am holding a pen in my hand right now. Is that the truth? Well how can you possibly say. You can believe me, or you can disbelieve me, but you can't be absolute one way or the other simply because you have absolutely no way of knowing.

As it happens, I was lying.

Or was I?

Such is the big problem with life. You have no way of knowing, and because it's therefore utterly meaningless you probably don't care a great deal. Which funnily enough, is exactly how I feel about whether or not there's a God.

Quote from: CaptainBinky on Tue 17/10/2006 16:53:43

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 16:41:03
I think SSH has a point, Cap'n Binky. Being true does not necessarily mean it is verifiable. The truth was the truth even before it became verifiable.

In other words, up until the point they realised they were wrong, it was utterly true that the world was flat? You can't say that that statement is "true" just because it's what everybody believed. What you can say, is that they believed it to be true.

That's not what he said at all. The fact that the world is round was true before it was verificable, i.e. before mankind had the ability to deduce it. You said things are only true if they are verifiable, Binky. Relativity was a bad example.

As for meaninglessness, don't you think avoiding eternal torment is important?

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 17:02:02
That's not what he said at all. The fact that the world is round was true before it was verificable

Yes, but until it's verified I don't know whether it's true or not and neither does anyone else.

So the only difference between the statements:

"The world is round"
and
"The world is flat"

is that we now know that the world is round so we can say that the first statement is true and the second false. But until we verified it, they were both just opinions regardless of the fact that with hindsight, one can be said to be correct.

Explain me something... Are you deffending the existence of God, denying the existence of "Truths", or "realities"?

I don' t know how this debate started, by, you, believers, what are basically saying is "We can' t be sure if the Earth rotates once a day... But God exist, that' s true"?

Don' t you see how contradictory that is?

-We can' t be sure if Nikolas exist... he might be an hallucination... But God is real. Maybe nothing exists... Then the evidences we staled about the existence of God are allucinations as well... But God is real.

You, believers, must put eveything in doubt because the "existence of God" is a knowleadge that is in the same bag as "The World is flat" and "The Earth is in the middle of the Universe". You must put in doubt that the earth rotates, because, otherwise, God will go to the bin with this ancient theories. This one has lasted more just because it' s basically nice. Be nice and go to Heaven, you are forgiven, blah, blah...

Anyway, still, a silly argument, because if nothing exists, God either, IMO.

PS after seeing a reply: Nice coincidence you mentioned "Thw world is flat" Blinky. Ã, :D

EDIT: What SSH said.

EDIT: To what Binky said.

Binky, if a person said that the world was round when most people thought it was flat, would that person be telling the truth? If a person KNEW that the world was round when most people thought it was flat, would that person be telling the truth?

It's all good. You say something that has not been proved by consensus is opinion and not the truth. I say otherwise.


SSH:
Damn you and your weird powers, SSH! Everytime I make a post I have this weird déjà  vu of you posting a little ditty witty right after it!

Nicholas, I'm surprised that you put such a personally unverifiable truth as the Earth being round as your "first truth" ;) .

EDIT: LET ME GET A WORD IN!

Farl, what's going on right now is a whole lot of "what ifs" and "I don't believe because I can't sees" and "lets play games with ideas" because nothing fruitful can come from such an odd discussion.

BTW, you are all fools (http://www.amazon.com/World-Flat-History-Twenty-first-Century/dp/0374292795/sr=8-1/qid=1161101558/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8747431-1948967?ie=UTF8)

But, when asked for evidences, believers can' t do anything else than taking the debate to odd fields like "faith", "miracles", "prophecies" and "visions"... So, I think that this is much illustrative...

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 17:19:27
Binky, if a person said that the world was round when most people thought it was flat, would that person be telling the truth?

I wouldn't know. I could ask him why he thinks that then either believe him or not.

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 17:19:27
If a person KNEW that the world was round when most people thought it was flat, would that person be telling the truth?

As above. If it turned out that it could be proved that the Earth was round, then with hindsight we could say that he was telling the truth, and all the people who believed him would smile smugly.

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 17:19:27
It's all good. You say something that has not been proved by consensus is opinion and not the truth. I say otherwise.

So if I tell you that God doesn't exist, is that the truth? Or is it my opinion?

Quote from: CaptainBinky on Tue 17/10/2006 17:42:36
So if I tell you that God doesn't exist, is that the truth? Or is it my opinion?

I don't know. I say God exists, and that's the truth. Nyaah! (This could go on forever)

Farl, my proof is not your proof. Go look for your own proof! Oh, you don't want to? Ok.

If I said why I think that people don't think God exists, they'd think I was insulting them, so it's safer for me to be quiet. This is an Adventure Game Studio forum, and I'm here because I play/make adventure games. Besides, I am not another person, so I can never be sure WHAT exactly they are thinking.

Babar, you say "A person knows the Truth... Maybe it' s the only in the World who knows it... He is right, the others are wrong". I basically agree here. That can happen. One person can be the only who owns the truth in the world. It actually happened before, when someone said something newthat finally was real.

And then, your stalement fails... you say that the "believers" are an example of that... You can' t know that. You examine yourself and tell "This belief is so strong, that I can' t be wrong" False... Strenght of beliefs do not determine the truth. You can find very amart people who are socialists... You can find very smart people who are conservative.

What about if you find someone who has the same certain of the opposite? If you find someone who is so sure about the innexistence of God will your beliefs rumble? Because that God does not exist is probably the thing I am more sure about.

No... Strong beliefs do not make a belief true. Only truth makes believe be true.

You can' t prove God exists. I can' t prove It doesn' t... But I can tell there are no evidences, at least. You can' t say there are.

I can say that believing in God is comfortable and that' s probably the psicologycal reason of why so many adult, inteligent people do. You can' t say that being skeptical is comfortable.

I can say that, historically, promising a paradise to those who follow the variable ideas of the Church has been a tool for the Church which has given it a surprising amount of power. You can say "The missuse of the idea of God by the church does not mean it does not exist...", but you can' t refutate the previous idea.

So... We have logical againt faith. I don' t need it. If someones need it, I won' t be the one telling them they must reject the faith... But please, don' t try to make me belief in fairy tales because you need them.

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 18:01:59
I don't know. I say God exists, and that's the truth. Nyaah! (This could go on forever)

Yes, but the problem lies that Nikolas, Farl and Binky are not trying to convince anyone about the truth (which neither are you, but rmullen is), but most importanly we are not even claiming to know the turth. You are ;)

To be honest Nikolas, believers and skeptical fall, probably without intending so, I must say, into telling the other what to believe or not... I want to apology if I made that...  :)

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 17/10/2006 18:04:01
You can' t prove God exists. I can' t prove It doesn' t... But I can tell there are no evidences, at least. You can' t say there are.

Of course there is evidence. The Bible is evidence, the number of believers is evidence. It is not enough evidence to prove, true, but you can't say that that isn't evidence.

Farl, Indeed...

I do apologise as well...

SSH: yes, ok but the bible for me is a shaky evidence (a simple book writtng by meer humans), and the number of believers would mostly signify the existance of Budha, or the Indian theology rather than chirstian god ;)

Andrew, Mein Kampf was a book, and it had a lot of believers. I am not saying that the bible says the same, and that the Christians are Nazis, but I mean "There are some books that can be seen as sacred, and a doctrine can have a lot of followers" That does not imply that what is said in the book is the truth and that the followers are right. That' s not a fact, that' s a...  a something... which does not imply anything.

Nacho, I did not say (specifically) that believers were an example of that.

Once again, I'll say that I have my proofs, and I have no evidence to the contrary. My proof, however, is not your proof. It wouldn't work for you. Also, if someone can prove to me the inexistence of God, I'll accept that. Although, as you said, it's not possible. If someone does not believe in God, there will be little that can prove the existence of God to them. I find it very, very, very unlikely that someone will come up with an equation and say "Therefore God exists!" and everyone will accept.

It's not at all a question of Logic vs. Faith. Once someone knows that God exists, or is willing to accept the existence of God, Logic supports them. But not before.

That bit about being comfortable vs. skeptical is another thing that scares me concerning general views towards "religiousness": Oh, he's just religious because he's more comfortable accepting all than questioning anything.

That's not how I work. Show me something contradicting God's existence, and I'll drop it like it's hot.  If I see something contradicting it, I'll drop it like it's hot. And no, I'm not wilfully closing my eyes to any of it. Show me.

Nicholas: No, I AM trying to convince you of the truth. I'm just trying to convince you to look for it yourself. I can't relate to you to be able to have you understand what I see as the "Truth".

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 18:16:44

Of course there is evidence. The Bible is evidence, the number of believers is evidence. It is not enough evidence to prove, true, but you can't say that that isn't evidence.

Logical Fallacy

Appeal to Common Belief
This fallacy is the argument that a claim must be true because many people believe it. It ignores the possibility, demonstrated frequently throughout history, that the majority can be completely wrong. The popularity of an idea or claim is often based upon features other than logic or evidence.

Believers aren't evidence, sorry.

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 18:24:39
Once again, I'll say that I have my proofs, and I have no evidence to the contrary. My proof, however, is not your proof. It wouldn't work for you. Also, if someone can prove to me the inexistence of God, I'll accept that. Although, as you said, it's not possible. If someone does not believe in God, there will be little that can prove the existence of God to them. I find it very, very, very unlikely that someone will come up with an equation and say "Therefore God exists!" and everyone will accept.

I find this interesting. To me, the possible existence of some God who created the Universe, the Earth, and everything seems unlikely. I'm not sure why I feel this way, I certainly can't put my finger on an exact time and place where I figured that religion wasn't for me. So this puts me at the opposite side of the fence to you. I need evidence of God (which like you say - an equation that proves it is unlikely) to believe it. Whereas you say you need evidence of his non-existence to believe that. I wonder if you, like me, cannot put your finger on exactly when and where your belief originated.

If you can rationalise why you believe what you do, then in many ways you're in a better position than me because you it means you have beliefs that you can explain and make sense in your life. Me, I just have a nagging suspicion that what I see around me is a product of chance but I couldn't tell someone what lead me to this belief.

What I would like to know though, from someone who is religious... To me, since everything is a product of chance - that a person exists or a tree, or a frog, or a blade of grass is all equally amazing. And therefore everything, rocks, trees, animals are equally "sacred" for lack of a better word. I've always had a problem in that the Creationist angle seems to place humans on a pedestal - God created man in his own image etc. I don't know that this is the case, or it's just my ignorance of religion, but I'd like to know. Also - do dogs go to Heaven?

edit: I'm not taking the piss there in that last bit - I do actually want to know.

I agree entirely with what Binky is saying, and I think this whole "truth/nontruth" thing very interesting though I would take this to further. The idea that the world being round being truth before it was proven that it is true, I guess comes down to your definition of truth.

To take an extreme example, I can say I'm holding a pen in my hand and know this is truth. But then... what if I'm wired up into some computer simulation somewhere,? and I'm in fact not holding a pen at all? If that was the case, then I just *believe* I'm holding a pen.

If something as fundemental as this could be argued as being a belief, as unlikely scenario as it may seem (tho much more likely in my mind than some elements of major religions), then how can anyone truly label anything as absolute truth?

In my mind the only way God could be considered an absolute truth would be if Imet God youself, had a conversation with God, and was told without any shadow of a doubt that God does exist. But then maybe I've just gone crazy and imagined the whole thing? I'm sure this is what many others would believe to be the truth.

I find it hard to label anything as cold hard truth, even these things which have been proven. The Earth is round? Well I'm pretty damn sure it is, I'd say it's as near a certainty as anything... but all the information I've got to go off is that other people have been to space and seen it, other people have travelled around the world and ended up at the same place, and I've seen photographs of a spherical object in space that I'm told is called Earth. Having not travelled around the Earth, or being blasted into space to look down on the Earth myself, I can only truly say I believe the Earth is round. The only difference is that since I trust greatly in the reason for this belief, and those who have provided me with the evidence I've based this belief off, I attribute 'truth' to it... and I'd be VERY surprised if it ever turned out the Earth was indeed flat.

In my mind this is the same reason people believe in God, Christians or otherwise. They trust in the priests, parents, and the holy books themselves, or they trust in their inability to attribute random chance to the wonders of creation, that they attribute truth to it. But in my mind, as paradoxal as it is, the only real truth is that there is no such thing as truth -- only belief.

Though, not to knock those who believe in it, I'd take the evidence surrounding the shape of the Earth as more indication of truth than an ancient  book written by many people, where the main proviso seems to be that you should believe because there's no evidence.

The bible isn't evidence either, if you're using the word 'evidence' formally.

in fact, i'll rather not get involved.   ;)

I hope you're joking, Mordalles.

There is a movie I thought was really interesting that sorta goes with this thread.

- Exorcism of Emily Rose -

The meaning behind the girl's posession is that people do not believe in God anymore. So through her posession of six demons (including lucifer) it would show people that the devil (and demons) exist and prooving then that God also exists.

It is aparrently based on a true story. (I've done no research on this, just thought it went with the thread).

delete this post.

Calacver:

The character of Emily Rose (a fictitious name) is based on the true story of Anneliese Michel, a young German Christian woman who died in 1976 after unsuccessful attempts to cure her from the alleged state of demonic possession with the means of psychotropic drugs. The court accepted the version according to which she was epileptic, refusing to accept the idea of supernatural involvement in this case. Two priests involved in the exorcism on her, as well as her parents, were found guilty of manslaughter resulting from negligence and received sentences, generating controversy. The girl's grave is still a place of pilgrimage for many Christians.

A sick person is killed by ignorant people.

You just read through this too.

http://www.fotofetch.com/

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 17/10/2006 18:22:21
That' s not a fact, that' s a...  a something... which does not imply anything.

It is EVIDENCE. I never said it was a fact. Stop throwing straw men at me. It is "an outward sign", an "indication". In a court, if there are 10 people saying X happened and 1 sayign Y, then the court will tend to side with the 10. It would be a logical fallacy to say that it was PROOF, but then I DID NOT SAY THAT. Strawmen are a logical fallacy, too, btw.

There is a german book that is very accurate about describing the life of gnomes and trolls... Is that book an evidence that these creatures exist?

The God that makes a young girl suffer six demons inside her just so that can show the world EEEEVIIIIIL (a Godly creation, since god created everything, right?) and therefore God exists is truly a colossal asshole.

Yea I've seen the movie, yea God offers her a 'choice' in the matter. I've said before there are no choices when god makes us toasters do what toasters do.

Quote from: Helm on Tue 17/10/2006 23:41:49
colossal asshole.

I take offense to that!

Oh I forgot, where you come from I'd get keelhauled if I called someone 'colasshole' :) :) :(

Quote from: Helm on Tue 17/10/2006 21:16:02
The bible isn't evidence either, if you're using the word 'evidence' formally.

Actually helm, the bible is evidence because it says it is. If a rational human being were presented with any other "proof" of this nature for a different case they would not accept it.

Binky, if someone absolutely DOES NOT ACCEPT the existence of God, no amount of "evidence" will prove it. The Bible is just a book by ancient men, Christians are christians because they fear, the entire universe came about by chance, and the God guy you met was just a magician.

Even if you met God face to face, how would that prove anything?
Skeptic: "God, make me blue"
God: "Ok"       *POOF*
Skeptic: "That's no proof! You used drugs! Make this room and everything in it upside down"
God: "Ok"       *POOF*
Skeptic: "What happened? You didn't do anything. Everything is still straight"
God: "No, you are upside-down as well. So the room appears the right way for you"
Skeptic: "That's just a cop-out!"

If you are going to believe that the existence of God is a logical impossibility, you can make any "evidence" to the contrary. And I wasn't specifically referring to books and numbers of believers

I don't know about Creationist angles and Man in God's image, because I don't follow the Bible. If you want dogs in heaven, I'm sure they'll be there.

Babar, what you seem to be suggesting is closer to you being some sort of panetheistic solipsist where what you desire happens and you are your own god, than anything christian-like. I makes me happy to know that the christians burned people like you at the stake a few years ago.

Quote from: Babar on Wed 18/10/2006 03:09:05
Binky, if someone absolutely DOES NOT ACCEPT the existence of God, no amount of "evidence" will prove it. The Bible is just a book by ancient men, Christians are christians because they fear, the entire universe came about by chance, and the God guy you met was just a magician.

Well I don't absolutely not accept the exisitence of God. Like I said earlier, I'm fairly open-minded. I just don't see any overwhelming evidence to support the idea. A religious friend of mine once said "but everything around you is evidence" to which I replied "but you could use that argument for any idea. I could say everything around us is evidence that aliens seeded the Earth with a Genesis device"

Quote from: Babar on Wed 18/10/2006 03:09:05
I don't know about Creationist angles and Man in God's image, because I don't follow the Bible. If you want dogs in heaven, I'm sure they'll be there.

Smashing. Dogs go to heaven then (and cats go to hell).

Does God exist? (http://www.doesgodexist.org/)
Is There a God? (http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html)

Just feuling this even more. I'm not an out and out christian, the only reason I most likely have a belief in GOD is because it was drilled into me from tender age by my parents forcing me to church every sunday. So I'm not really on a side here.

And I also think debating about religion on the internet is stupid, since most 'smart-mouths' here do not have any knowledge of what they speak. They simply rip christianity and god without knowing what it is, as the thread prooves over 20 pages. That is how christianity has been dealt with over the centuries by non-believers and those that lacks knowledge of what is it. As you all are extremely confused and really knows nothing. I myself do not know enough and am definitely not knowlegdable person on the subject, hence I will not give an opinion. The best any of you can do is go and talk to a priest, or at least someone that has the knowledge and passion to explain it. Not debate with other internet geeks.  :D

Thanks for the links, I laughed a lot...

you undersmart-mouth you, Nacho!!

It' s true... Some of the arguments made me laugh. "God exists because Earth is a perfect circumference..."

Two lies in a sentence... that' s a record.

Hahahaha...it makes you happy? Does it make you happy that "christians" burnt people like YOU a few years ago (A few years ago? How old are you, Helm?)?

I'm not really a christian, so I don't care. People like me were generally very far from christians who burnt people at the stake a few years ago.

Interesting analysis of me, though. I can understand people thinking I have solipsistic tendencies, but....pantheistic? Where did that come from?

Then what are you all fighting about in this thread if it's Christians, Spiritualists and White Magicians only?

Quote from: Babar on Wed 18/10/2006 15:47:55
Hahahaha...it makes you happy? Does it make you happy that "christians" burnt people like YOU a few years ago (A few years ago? How old are you, Helm?)?

At least we were burned for being hardcore awesome atheists, not slightly-different-yet-the-same theists. And I've been around for 3 years now.

QuoteInteresting analysis of me, though. I can understand people thinking I have solipsistic tendencies, but....pantheistic? Where did that come from?

From the 'what you desire to be deified happens. Natural consequence that everything is partly godly.

Hoy, I got my holy wafer blessed by the Pope himself! I bet that's enough for me to be admitted in here.

Helm, I didn't say that 'whatever you desire to be deified happens'. Assuming you're talking about what I'm talking about, I just said that the desire for knowing teh Truth all comes from the same Source.

Quote from: calacver on Wed 18/10/2006 13:22:32
Does God exist? (http://www.doesgodexist.org/)
Is There a God? (http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html)
Just feuling this even more. I'm not an out and out christian, the only reason I most likely have a belief in GOD is because it was drilled into me from tender age by my parents forcing me to church every sunday. So I'm not really on a side here.

This post seemed less inspired and more judgmental than most of the less reluctant Christians' replies had.  That's quite the assumption that nobody debating theology in the thread has any clue what they're talking about.  I also had it drilled into me from a young age (not quite the right term, since it was less forced than there simply being no alternative to the perceived truth), but somehow managed to make the leap outside of the mental box I'd been occupying.  I've got a definite anti-religious bias, particularly when it comes to Christianity, but I strive to at least understand the perspective of its believers and probably have at least some inkling having had significant exposure to it. 

The links had to be quoted in case anybody missed them before.  As I'd mentioned, it's the same trivial nonsense that's been used for self-justification since I was a wee lad.  Not only are they unfounded and occasionally ridiculous assertions (Must be a god because the planet's perfect for life and with any deviation of X life wouldn't be possible -- this totally ignores the obvious), but they also make no better argument for a divine creator than they do extra-terrestrial life, let alone being proof of a Christian Yahweh cum Jesus combo.

I'm quite certain that most posters here realize the idiocy of internet-based religious debate (or the same debate in any form, for that matter), but that doesn't stop it from being an interesting exercise that does prove to be a learning experience (even if only about semi-anonymous internet personalities), even if nobody's faith is shaken, renewed or inspired. 

Once again Yak, thank you for posting.

not worth it.

Quote from: calacver on Thu 19/10/2006 20:54:45
Hmm, what a load of crap. Interesting? Kiddies = internet. The kiddies of AGS think, hmm, helm is sooo cool, he uses such big words and is so rude and posts in every thread he doesn't know a  diddly squat about, he quotes big sentences from other people and run them through Word and ups the words even more, he is my hero, and others follow in his extremely aggressive posting regime. So when I grow up I wanna be a Helm, I'll be just like him, I'll think I'm smarter than just about everybody that exists.

Deary, it's church time. F** you mom, I'm not going to church cause helm says God doesn't exist and he is a God.

You are preaching for the devil and recruiting a whole new generation of demonic little kiddies who will burn down schools and swear at their mothers. Well done.

Goodbye AGS.

It's a good thing I'm not religous.

I would like to thank the above poster for sharing with us the deleted post by calcaver.

buh

Bye Calacver! Take care!  :)

Quoteif someone can prove to me the inexistence of God, I'll accept that.

An interesting idea. I wonder what exactly it would take to accomplish this? I also wonder who the burden of proof would fall on (the provers or disprovers)? I imagine one's stance on this would depend on how religious one is.

Maybe both sides can take comfort(?) in the fact that establishing proof in the real world is nigh impossible. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, even our scientific theories are "just" theories that have so far been supported by experimental evidence.

Seeing as a theory must provide testable predictions, I wonder how someone would even go about testing the existence of God? What kind of experiment would support the existence (or nonexistence) of God? But certainly the existence of a god must have some observable impact on the nature of reality?

Or I suppose we could look at it the way I saw it cleverly put in an investment book I recently read:

1. God doesn't exist.
2. God exists.

Suppose you're wrong. In the 1st case, you'll end up spending an eternity in hell. In the 2nd case, you've needlessly tried to live a good, ethical life. Which is worse?

I don't get those that only feel the need to be good because otherwise god would punish them. How about being good because it works? For the community and for the individual.

Quote from: EagerMind on Fri 20/10/2006 01:30:19
1. God doesn't exist.
2. God exists.

Suppose you're wrong. In the 1st case, you'll end up spending an eternity in hell. In the 2nd case, you've needlessly tried to live a good, ethical life. Which is worse?

meanwhile I've wasted half my life in church/praying/reading the bible/fearing for my friends and family who are going to hell/worry if I'm going to hell/worrying if I'm leading a godly life/etc

Believing in a god "Just in case" is one of the stupidest reasons to believe in a god.

also, one can test the claims made of believers in god. Prayer affects the real world in some way, test it.

Of course, it's important to distinguish between the specific beliefs held by individuals and the matter of God's existence. It's very easy to find theists with frighteningly poorly thought out worldviews to demolish.

Quote from: Helm on Fri 20/10/2006 02:16:39I don't get those that only feel the need to be good because otherwise god would punish them. How about being good because it works? For the community and for the individual.

No disagreements here.

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 20/10/2006 02:27:53Believing in a god "Just in case" is one of the stupidest reasons to believe in a god.

I wasn't making a case one way or another. I did say I got the passage from an investment book; I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. But what is a good reason to belive in a god? To go to heaven? Certainly that's the promise of belief, but is that any better of a reason?

Quotealso, one can test the claims made of believers in god. Prayer affects the real world in some way, test it.

For example? I wasn't trying to belittle anyone's religion or deny the existence of God. I was merely hypothesizing that if god exists, then he's a part of our physical reality, and thus there should be evidence of his existence. Certainly that's a reasonable argument? If you know of some experimental evidence that I'm not aware of, please clue me in!

Quote from: Erenan on Fri 20/10/2006 04:51:42Of course, it's important to distinguish between the specific beliefs held by individuals and the matter of God's existence.

True, but establishing the facts behind the matter can help clear up a lot of argument. I can claim that I believe the world is flat - after all, despite what everyone says, it still looks flat to me, and I haven't circled it either - but I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It'd be nice if we could do the same thing with all the fundamentalists who engage in terrorism, violence, discrimination, and countless other atrocities in the name of god. Probably wouldn't stop them from acting out, but at least they wouldn't be able to justify it with religion anymore.

Establishing the facts about people's beliefs? Well, of course. I'm not debating that. All I'm saying is that while you may be able to demonstrate that specific beliefs about God are flawed, that's a far cry from demonstrating that God himself doesn't exist.

Quote from: Helm on Fri 20/10/2006 02:16:39
I don't get those that only feel the need to be good because otherwise god would punish them. How about being good because it works? For the community and for the individual.

I agree with this as well. In fact, I'd say that we call things good because they work for the benefit of the community and the individual, so it's tied in with the word itself.

Quote from: EagerMind on Fri 20/10/2006 05:42:55I wasn't making a case one way or another. I did say I got the passage from an investment book; I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. But what is a good reason to belive in a god? To go to heaven? Certainly that's the promise of belief, but is that any better of a reason?

I'd say that's the same reason MrColossal was criticizing. Anyway, I think a good reason to believe in God would be the straightforward one: Your first-hand experiences and observations suggest to you that God exists. On a personal level, I think people usually want God to exist because they want to know that there is some objective meaning to their lives, and God's existence guarantees that there is some purpose, some end bigger than people. And if people can be swept up in that greater end, then it feels good. It feels reassuring. It feels romantic and adventurous.

On the other hand, many people believe in God simply because they've been raised to believe in God, and they're simply afraid of the idea that what they've always clung to is wrong, wrong, wrong. Along the same lines, many people are afraid that abandoning such a belief in God would cause emotional distress for their family or friends.

What sort of experience could it be that would seem to directly suggest that such a huge deal such as an omnipotent, eternal and all-powerful creator exists, I don't know what it could be.

I am not a huge fan of Occamizing everything, but when you have an experience, you first try to see how it would be explainable in some simpler means than just inventing a huge whole theology about it.

Even if I saw god in my dreams and he told me 'Helm, you undersmart heretic, you're creating a demon child army with which to attack south africa, please stop that or I will have to punish you, naughty boy!' I'd first think this is a psychological manifestation of some sort, due to emotional pressure because calacver doesn't like me before I'd say 'but of course! God exists!'.

Seriously, even if god split the skies and stared me right in the face, I'd sooner think I have unwittingly digested psychotropic drugs than that an omnipotent, all-powerful being with a kickass beard has just presented itself to me.

Erenan, take yourself out of the social context in which you were born and raised in, and put yourself in the jungle, little jungle boy. Now repeat that scenario that made you go 'yes, God exists', while having no knowledge of that this god concept is, and tell me if you theoretically would still arrive at the same conclusion. Of course, this type of ignorance would also mean that if you saw thunder strike you wouldn't think 'electrical discharge' you'd think 'holy fuck!' but let's not put the two in the same bag: God doesn't require any sort of indoctorination to believe in him. does he?

You'd be such a downer to take psychotropic drugs with.

"That tree's not breathing, it's just the effects of Psilocybin manifesting in visual hallucinations."

Have a little imagination. If God really created everything, including sex, emotions, and humor, he wouldn't be the dreary, austere Deity you envision.

You say you're unable to accept the existence of God regardless of personal experience, yet you mock those who won't accept the non-existence of a god, no matter the rhetorical proof?

And yes, personal experience is the least expandable proof, but isn't it the most powerful for you individually, as you inhabit a single consciousness?

EDIT: A better phrase for "non-existence" would be "lack of".
By "mock" I mean "belittle". You're right; I can't tell if you're really laughing over the internet. Apologies for my poor word choice.

I don't really know what to reply to you with. Where's my imagination? Where's my sense of sportmanship, where's my joy of living, where's my spunky disposition? We're discussing God here and you sound like a self-help tape.

QuoteYou say you're unable to accept the existence of God regardless of personal experience, yet you mock those who won't accept the non-existance of a god, no matter the rhetorical proof?

I'd like it to be noted that I didn't mock anyone's faith. I might not believe in the same things a theist does, and I might find their belief aburd in cases, but I'm not pointing and laughing here.

Also, I didn't say I'm unable to accept something. I said if some phenomenae occured, I'd first look at more probable reasons for their existence before jumping to, oh manufacturing of a freakin' Deity and a whole system of faith around it! Check your double-negations at 'won't accept the non-existence' and all you're left with it 'accept the existence' and that is a matter of burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the one that claims this 'god' thing exists. You meet me on the street and you say 'hello'. 'Hello mr Big Brother'. 'Today I realized Zoothoole exists!' I don't know what this is. I've never encountered this Zoothoole concept before, I am unaware of its various attributes. Please explain to me what this concept is, and why it might exist, and what its existence explains that is inexplicable otherwise with far tidier answers, even the dreaded oh the most dreaded 'I don't know'. 

Quote from: Helm on Fri 20/10/2006 07:47:11
What sort of experience could it be that would seem to directly suggest that such a huge deal such as an omnipotent, eternal and all-powerful creator exists, I don't know what it could be.

Well, damn. Hell if I know. I haven't experienced one. I actually wasn't talking about myself on that point.

Quote from: Helm on Fri 20/10/2006 07:47:11Erenan, take yourself out of the social context in which you were born and raised in, and put yourself in the jungle, little jungle boy. Now repeat that scenario that made you go 'yes, God exists', while having no knowledge of that this god concept is, and tell me if you theoretically would still arrive at the same conclusion. Of course, this type of ignorance would also mean that if you saw thunder strike you wouldn't think 'electrical discharge' you'd think 'holy fuck!' but let's not put the two in the same bag: God doesn't require any sort of indoctorination to believe in him. does he?

I don't remember a scenario, dramatic or otherwise, that made me believe in God, so it's difficult for me to do what you ask. It's also difficult to do what you ask because I find it difficult to forget everything I've been taught about God. I'd like to do that some day, but I don't have the time right at this moment to go hide somewhere and ponder deeply about this. But I'm curious... Are you suggesting I do this because you have an interest in my personal beliefs? Or is it in the interest of the discussion in this thread? And I'm asking you this honestly, because at this point I'm not sure where to go except to talk about myself, and not even about why I believe in God, as I don't even consider myself a theist any longer.

Erenan, I was making a general point for the purposes of this thread, that there really isn't much that can happen to you out of the blue that - what the majority of people-  would consider the logical approach would then entail the inventing of a Deity and system of faith to explain it. This goes to say that people don't believe in God because evidence is there.

This does not mean your personal experiences aren't of probable interest to me, and others participating in this thread. The point of view of what obviously is a bright person, who seems to be going from a theist background to... something else, is very interesting. I'd say go right ahead.

I stopped pretending. For a long time, I held the belief that God was listening to me and that he would sometimes speak to me if I concentrated hard enough on his voice and focused my concern as purely as possible on adoring God and on what he wanted for my life, leaving my own desires not just on the backburner, but off the stove entirely. In retrospect, it comes as no surprise that frustration followed when I found that the closest things I ever experienced to hearing God's voice were subtle and extremely vague emotional impressions and what felt like my own thoughts. I pretended that this was acceptable to me. Eventually, the frustration built up so much that I stopped praying entirely. If I was made for a relationship with God, then why would it be so incredibly vague and unclear? Emotionally, I felt as though I had no relationship at all. Rationally, I had to come to that conclusion as well. So I started thinking... God isn't talking to me. I don't even know if he can hear me at all. When I talk with my friends, we discuss things that are relevant to us. They relate to me in all the ways that I am an individual. They recognize my artistry, my personhood, my ideas. I can't think of a time when God clearly spoke to me concerning myself as a person. So where's the relationship? I stopped praying. It was like trying to woo a girl who was unwilling or incapable of recognizing that I exist at all. Now I'm floating within worldview-in-fluxus. I lack an active belief in God, but at the same time I do not presume to know that there is nothing spiritually Romantic or Fantastic to the universe. And this is the dichotomy of my mind at the present moment. I am torn between giving myself over to Materialism and what I might call the General Fiction life and holding onto a Romantic hope that there is some greater dramatic goings-on that I might become involved in, so that reality might become Fantasy, and everything be proven poetry. But how to search for ancient secrets? Where to begin? And how on earth could I do so whilst pursuing a career and a marriage? I don't know. So I sit and compose music, write stories, and develop computer games about the things that I want to find in life and fear that I never shall.

I don't know. I hope this provokes some thoughts in somebody.

As far as a different person in another part of the world can relate:

After losing (or never having, as in my case) your faith, you endorse wildly positivistic beliefs for a while. THINGS ARE UNDERSTANDABLE IF YOU STUDY THEM and so on. Those lead to the eventual experience that we aren't really capable of studying ourselves (questions of epistemology, what is knowledge, so on) and that looking inside and trying to make sense is like biting your own teeth. The words 'spirit', or 'free will', start to become as meaningless as 'god'. To degrees, the word 'I' also.

I'm sure these concepts are not new to you, just as that there's atheists around the world wasn't new to you before. But it's one thing to be vaguely aware of a concept (like someone pointing at a map and telling you 'there's china'), and another to experience it to degrees inside yourself (going to china). I believe that such a thing will happen to you, maybe soon maybe not. When this happens, your positivistic beliefs and your relation to clean causality will come in friction with that things are infinitely more complex than our consciousness can hope to understand. This will end that period more or less, and you'll be left as close to a solipsist as you'll ever be. There's a wonderful existential crisis in there for you, completely alone against the realization that you cannot know nothing dependably. Out of this epistemological dispondency, your system will reconfigure itself to survive. And it will probably base itself on keeping you happy.

Finally you'll do the things that keep you happy, without excess theological baggage or existential wondering. Perhaps after this stage -where I am at- there's more peril awaiting, that's all I know this far.

(http://64.246.11.82/images/u/UP_Derailed_Train_in_Barstow.jpg.71051.jpg)

Was that really necessary, obi?

Yes, yes it was. It made me feel better at this time of great sadness.

I am not a christian but I think white magic and dark magic exist in a way that they come from inside you and it is only 'dark' if you are.

Why?

Quote from: Erenan on Sat 21/10/2006 19:33:45I lack an active belief in God, but at the same time I do not presume to know that there is nothing spiritually Romantic or Fantastic to the universe.

Well here's the thing, I don't believe in the existence of God (at least not in the religious sense), but I would regard myself as quite spiritual. I think there's enough mystery and wonder in the universe to get romantic about without religion. Who knows what happens when you die? No-one knows obviously. For all I know, each and every creature on earth (and beyond) is part of a 6th dimensional being that we cannot perceive. We are merely representations of its component parts as visible in a 4 dimensional universe. Much like a single tree is to an orchard or a single coral to a reef. Perhaps all our consciousnesses are bound in this way and so when our physical bodies die our "souls" would then effectively live on. Who knows? There's about a bazillion theories you could come up with which are all fascinating in their own way. It doesn't have to be all gloomy just because you don't believe in God. :) So it becomes the sort of thing that comes up in conversations in the pub once in a while, but I can't say I *need* to find out all the answers. Does it really matter? Live a good life, be good to your friends and family, be happy, and you'll find all the answers eventually.

Quote from: Erenan on Sat 21/10/2006 19:33:45
I don't know. I hope this provokes some thoughts in somebody.

It did. :)

Cap'n Binky

For the record, I am happy and don't consider the world completely gloomy.

Quote from: CaptainBinky on Mon 23/10/2006 17:15:11I think there's enough mystery and wonder in the universe to get romantic about without religion. Who knows what happens when you die? No-one knows obviously.

I somewhat recently had this put to me in a way I had never thought of before. If the law of conservation of energy is correct (energy is neither created nor destroyed, only altered in form), than something must happen to us - or at least to our energy - when we die. Hopefully we don't just dissipate as heat as a result of some sort of cosmic/spiritual "friction". :)

Actually, second law of thermodynamics. From hot to cold, never the other way around. Entropy gradually increasing in a closed system. It makes perfect sense for the human system to shut down and completely fade away after death.

Ah yes, and so goes the universe. But if the universe is an isolated system, what set things in motion to begin with? Will it happen again? If the universe isn't an isolated system, then what is it reaching equilibrium with? Does the universe even obey the second law of thermodynamics? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_and_cosmology) And what are the implications for smaller systems like us?

Anyway, aren't biological organisms open systems, feeding from the environment and dumping waste into it? If I can keep extracting useful energy from the environment in exchange for my entropy, then why should I ever have to die? Interesting that science doesn't really have an answer either. And if people are just simple thermodynamic systems, then why are they saddled with these inefficient, irrational conscious - in effect, what makes us who we are?

The ironic thing is that once you reach the conclusion that nothing is knowable, science and reason - those tools so fervently brandished to argue against the existence of god - are suddenly no better than religion. In fact, would it be wrong to say that faith is required for science and reason be conducted in a meaningful way? After all, how do you know that this is reality, that this isn't a figment of your imagination, that you're not hooked up to the matrix? You don't take it on ... faith ... do you?

Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 25/10/2006 01:47:00
Ah yes, and so goes the universe. But if the universe is an isolated system, what set things in motion to begin with?

I don't know.

QuoteWill it happen again?

I don't know.

QuoteIf the universe isn't an isolated system, then what is it reaching equilibrium with?

I don't know. What I know is what I got time for: I hold no epistemological belief. Every theory is a theory and some results are trustworthy because they work thus far. Maybe tomorrow they'll stop working. This means I take everything with a grain of salt. It's called humor, the thing big brother said I was bereft of? I lack faith, but I have humor. I can laugh at the senselessness of it all, and I'm just fine not knowing all the answers.

I'll go with what seems to be occuring, not a strong belief, but it seems more likely to me that when we die, we rot and we deposit our prime material back into the soil. Maybe a small miracle happens inside each and every one of us when we die, perhaps we go to heaven. I don't know, you don't know, I'll just take the odds, man.

I put one foot after the other, thusly I walk. Now, there's no epistemological certainty that walking will work this way the next step I take. Yet I take my chances, 'cause I got places to be, fun to have. Otherwise I ponder and I remain motionless. And that's just positively entropic now, isn't it?

QuoteDoes the universe even obey the second law of thermodynamics? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_and_cosmology) And what are the implications for smaller systems like us?

I'm no scientist, so I don't know what a 'smaller system' is, as the way I see it - it's called holistic viewpoint - everything is connected, everything interfaces with everything else. There is no closed system. There's only one whole. I enjoy spitting in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, let's say it has a face, right? I enjoy that, I enjoy the magic, and I like knowing that I don't know much. I hold no truths. You're debating this with the wrong person, if you want to get down to it. However, I find... ontological persuits, about the very beginning of reality, the metaphysics and all that, to be a waste of my time. So I'll just go with the odds on this one.

QuoteAnyway, aren't biological organisms open systems, feeding from the environment and dumping waste into it?

As I explain, we're all one huge system. The concept of a closed system is only a theoretical one.

QuoteIf I can keep extracting useful energy from the environment in exchange for my entropy, then why should I ever have to die?

That's a wonderful question. If you can keep sustaining the mechanism that uses energy, your whole body going, or at least the relevant parts, you won't have to die ever! Get to it.

QuoteInteresting that science doesn't really have an answer either. And if people are just simple thermodynamic systems, then why are they saddled with these inefficient, irrational conscious - in effect, what makes us who we are?

I don't know. I think the ghost of consciousness is an evolutionary sidestep arising from a very complex self-programming system that finds systematic use of its own recursiveness. Does that make sense? The Consciousness is a very small part of our brainpower. Abstract thinking, disparate connections... we have a lot of tools that we keep refining because they work. We're still around, so they work. I don't see anything unnatural about us being here and being relatively at the top of the food chain.

QuoteThe ironic thing is that once you reach the conclusion that nothing is knowable, science and reason - those tools so fervently brandished to argue against the existence of god - are suddenly no better than religion.

I have absolutely no problem with this concept. I just think critical analysis, as faulty as it is, words, as wrong as they are, all these things you pit against faith, they have the odds going for them. We're still around, and it ain't because of faith. These things are not reliable, but they work for the here and now. I don't ask you - I don't ask from myself - an enduring faith in logic. I just gamble that it works, and as long as it does, I'm a happy camper. I don't want to be montionless pondering everything. It's not very fun.

QuoteIn fact, would it be wrong to say that faith is required for science and reason be conducted in a meaningful way?

What is required, is faith, yes. Faith that playful gamble that the world will still be working tomorrow as it is working today. So we can explore it, make good of our time and generally be restless as life is before it's extinguished to feed new life. That's so much more conductive, for me, than talking to a manufactured deity that creates more issues than he solves. No problem with faith in walking.

QuoteAfter all, how do you know that this is reality, that this isn't a figment of your imagination, that you're not hooked up to the matrix? You don't take it on ... faith ... do you?

I don't know, man.