| Author | Message | ||
     Neil Huizinga Unregistered guest |
The force that is in ALL living things,,, that which is the life force is what God means. Truth is God, the uncontrollable force of nature is God. A higher power is what God has always meant in it purity, of coarse people were miss led,, ignorant people. If you try to control God (nature) and step out of the wild garden you will be doomed, and as such we have done and as such we are doomed. The words of the bible are that we ate from the tree of good and evil. If you think about nature and what is good and evil in it you will see there is no such concept,,,nature is nature. The only way there can be "good" and "bad" is if one starts deciding what it is only in their best interest. "Good" and "bad" can only pertain to the individual in nature, thus it can only mean that we think only of ourselves, not the earth and thus we werent banished from the garden of eden, we banished ourselves. This much is certainly obvious though i leave it up to each person to attach their own conclusions and positive or negative emotions on "doomed". Basicaly, we take more than we give back to the earth and that is breaking the law of nature. Nothing but temptation of the black arts (ie. controlling and manipulating nature to fit our desires instead of needs) makes us live unlike natives in the wilderness, nothing. Freinds, brothers and sisters, like all civilizations in the past,, this one will fall. It breaks the law of nature, and thus the law of God. Everything our society attains, science, pleasures, arts, etc. is all in the name of sin. Sin in the pure sense that it is for our own personal desires and not the earth,,not what God gives us. | ||
| massofatoms Unregistered guest |
Satan, the devil, darkness. All can simply be described as lack of light, love, or God. They are the empty spaces in us that we try to fill, only we tend to do so using ego and negativity and darkness. Why is there empty spaces. Simply because we are not living in line with the law of nature/God. We are leaving nature aside for our own madening attempt to understand why we are here. Oh friends, so many times this mistake has been repeated. Each civilization starts with this intent and through its fall the survivors learn that God can only be experienced in the moment in nature, never can it be understood or given rational descriptions. The writing in the book of the bible attempted to avoid this mistake but allas we have had to make it again, and we will learn again, and possible form a new civilization in the future and it will break the law of nature and fall. This has been the human pattern for many millenia. Perhaps now we have gone to such a length and magnitude that it wont be forgotten again. | ||
| massofatoms Unregistered guest |
Christ is not the name of a person. Its the name given to a quality: he/she who is completely pure and thus in communion with the spirit-that-is-in-all-things. It is a level of human being that every human body has the tools to obtain. we now on average use 5 percent of our brains and mental capacity. think of someone who is completely pure and is in tune with all his/her abilities,, of coarse we cant think of it, we have to develop our awareness and sharpness of mind to experience it. This is what jesus did when he entered the wilderness for fourty days, was purified by nature and was given the name of christ. of coarse he was special in this way,, very special. Christ however is not a monolpoly of one person,,concentrate your mind, develop your awareness of yourself and your world and you will understand this. | ||
| massofatoms Unregistered guest |
Christ is not the name of a person. Its the name given to a quality: he/she who is completely pure and thus in communion with the spirit-that-is-in-all-things. It is a level of human being that every human body has the tools to obtain. we now on average use 5 percent of our brains and mental capacity. think of someone who is completely pure and is in tune with all his/her abilities,, of coarse we cant think of it, we have to develop our awareness and sharpness of mind to experience it. This is what jesus did when he entered the wilderness for fourty days, was purified by nature and was given the name of christ. of coarse he was special in this way,, very special. Christ however is not a monolpoly of one person,,concentrate your mind, develop your awareness of yourself and the world around you and come out of ignorance. | ||
| earthfirst Unregistered guest |
I agree. In this society we have built, there is no doubt to me that the law of nature and God has been overlooked or as you put it broken. This is not good, no good can come from this obviously. Nature cant be beaten and afterall why would we want to unless we were under the control of the darkness or Satan inside of us. | ||
| not important Unregistered guest |
In its simplest, the devil within is the result of giving in to temptation. And the birth of this devil and darkness within was when man/wowan left nature, tempted by desires aside from what nature provides,,,what God provides. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper  Username: adminPost Number: 414 Registered: 3-2003 |
Well, this thread isn't a reaction to material on this site. it is its own thing, a polemic on God as Nature. I will shortly move it to the Religion Topic where I think it belongs. But to the substance. God as Nature. Nature has no inconvenient moral expectations of you, because Nature does not and cannot care about you. If God = Nature, then you are just an accidental epiphenomenon of Natural processes, of no more moral worth than a bacterium. And of course, your god can be and will be completely destroyed, because the Universe and everything in it will come to an end, according to the best models of theoretical physics. I find the concept limiting and depressing. And humorous. If God = Nature, then every morning when I let my dogs out into my back yard, your god craps on its own face. Now, as a physicist I am profoundly amazed by Nature. But calling Nature God is mistaking the Creation for the Creator. It is like my dog when I point at a star: my dog looks only at my finger. If you ask Nature to be your god, then I believe that you ask for too little. Your vision is too narrow, your dreams are too small. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Stuart McDonald New member Username: slava29 Post Number: 9 Registered: 4-2005 |
Can you really choose what to believe in? I would honestly like to believe in God but it goes against what I believe to be true. I believe I am "just an accidental epiphenomenon of Natural processes, of no more moral worth than a bacterium." Can I just choose to believe in a God because I want more? How do I widen my vision? I do believe God=Nature no matter how absurd that sounds. | ||
| Neil Huizinga New member Username: not_important Post Number: 7 Registered: 4-2005 |
Mr Futterman. i appreciate your perspectives and beliefs. One must ask themselves what are beliefs? Surely there used to fill in the areas of life that we dont understand. "Belief" though has so much of attachment to it, and expectation that it is true. So often one closes the door on the evolution of what is possible and just stick to what they believed in the past. Beliefs in this seem to become real to the mind yet are just illusion. Posiblities are all one can think with regards to "unknowns", to believe what one thinks is possible is to cling to an answer for ones one sanity. Its a fear-based reaction however. One commonly fears only knowing what they've experienced as truth, and not believing in anything. No benefit comes from believing except for alleviating personal fears. Yet to alleviate personal fears is reacting to fear and thus making it more powerful. No benefit comes from belief, just illusion of the truth. This is of coarse in the example of belief given. One may have a different definition of what belief means to them. When it was said that God = Nature, it was based on the reality that one can only know what they experience. Perhaps a mistake on my part was not calling it God = Nature = Light = Love. Surely, God means more than just the wild forest, but the wild forest is a force that is goverened by a higher power, ie.God. The light is God, love is God, truth is God, nature is God, life itself is God. The underlying force that is in all living things, call it spirit or life force is what God meant to tribes and those that coined the word. Any higher power of force in this world was in ancient times refered to as God, as well as the force and light and love within ones self. It did not mean an outside, human-like God, the creator was how one refered to that presence. "The Creator" and "God" mean different things, or i should say they used to. As was stated, God meant higher power and the levels of power above us are seamingly infinite. Ones own relationship with God or the Creator is their truth, belief such things offer nothing but self deception and illlusion. To pray to a force one has never experienced is self-deception, it may have a positive effect in a psychological way but leads to dillusion of the truth. One must ask themselves why they feel they need to believe anything other than what they've experienced or continue to experience, why? Its possible if one does "believe" what is true, instead of basing truth on what they experience, that they will lead themselves in the completely opposite direction of truth. As was said, beliefs tend to "take on their own reality" and seem so real to a person after some time, yet when asked about them, they can offer no proof or elaborate on an experience of them. They just "believe". Surely there must be some reason why they believe, the only option is fear of the unknown. In such cases someone elses truth or ideas are adopted and "believed". If its someone elses truth they've adopted its most commonly out of fear. Yet so much as theres belief there is so little oporunity and "room" for ones one experience of God and sprirituality to mature. Everyone can experience the force and power of nature, both inside ourselves and outside, and yet the two are one in the same. When we disrespect the earth we feel "bad". Most are ignorant to the cause of the "bad" feeling but undoubtebly experience the effects. Its simply lack of Love/God that lead us to disrespect nature and the reality that it sustains our physical bodies. As jesus said, "man cannot live on bread alone," yet he does need it none the less to survive. Love/Light/God experienced within ones self is what jesus was eluding to man needing besides bread, yet man also needs bread to survive. Our society has seemingly taken his words ignorantly to mean that bread (the earth) means nothing, but this is not what he meant,,, it still is needed,,, along with the presence of LIGHT/LOVE/GOD within. When jesus said he was the "Son of God" its a possibility that he meant "Son of Truth" Mr. Futterman, nature has ultimate expectation of you, and myself and everyone alike. Its more than expectation, its law of nature that if you take more than you give back you will not survive. We experience this, our earth is changing dramaticaly. Except for those extremely ignorant can see that we are on a crash coarse with environmental fallout. It may be in 1 year of a thousand or more or less, but the coarse has been set (the coarse of taking more than we give back). Crap is a beautiful thing. Ever animal (except most humans) gives back that which it does not use, waste matter, which is great and essential for vegitative growth in the forest. Its the cycle of life. Your dog craping on the earth is a blessing to the earth. i dont mean God is only Nature, as in just plants and dirt, but the life and spirit behind such things. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 416 Registered: 3-2003 |
Stuart, It is logically inconsistent to believe that you (or anyone else) are of no more moral worth than a bacterium, and simultaneously that it matters how the prisoners in Guantanamo are treated. In other words, I don't believe that you really deep down believe that you are of no more moral worth than a bacterium. Part of you already knows that Nature is not enough. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 417 Registered: 3-2003 |
Neil, OK, for you there is a Force above Nature. For you Nature is not equal to God. Nature is less than God. But Nature is the highest expression of God to, for, and in us. So far, that is your experience, your truth. It amounts to a bland and mostly beneficial pantheism. I also believe that God is manifested in all of Nature, including in ourselves. It's just that I also believe that God has a few expectations of us as in "For what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Justice is more than (but includes) environmentalism. All of us interested in Jesus tend to distort him to suit their agendas, myself included, and perhaps you as well. I am currently reading John Meier's A Marginal Jew, a massive three-volume work of minutely detailed scholarship on the historical Jesus. I recommend it to anyone who would like to contemplate who the historical Jesus "really" was or what he "really" meant. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Neil Huizinga New member Username: not_important Post Number: 9 Registered: 4-2005 |
Belief, belief, belief. What do you believe? What does he believe? What does she believe? Friends, dear brothers and sisters,, when you use the word "believe",, for your own benefit ask yourselves why you need to believe something and not base yourself and life and reality on what you know. When someone says they believe (not in every case but most often) they dont realize their saying "i dont know but i'm going to accept this as the truth". We see so often someone arguing what they beleive in. "You should believe what I believe!" , "What I believe is right, and what you believe is wrong!" Pure madness this is. What this average ignorant person is saying is "I think with my best learned judgement that this is correct in theory, so if I convince you then it'll make me feel better and strengthen my belief in it". Madness my friends, madness. Understand that knowing and believing are poles apart, and believing can never become knowing unless its experienced,,, this is wisdom (the difference between knowing the path and walking the path is experience and thus wisdom). "Its logicaly inconsistent to BELIEVE that you (or anyone else) are of no more moral worth than bacterium, and simultaneously that it matters how the prisoners in Guantanamo are treated. In other words, I dont BELIEVE that you really deep down BELIEVE that you are of no more moral worth than bacterium. Part of you already KNOWS that Nature is not enough." It seems people these days generaly base more and discuss more of what they "believe" (and thus dont know) than what they've learned through experience. Discussing what one doesnt know }can certainly be very usefull and leads to understanding and sharing in a beautiful way, but so long as one thinks what they believe is truth, there is only ego and self-centerdness. i only write such things because the}re my truth of what i've experienced and i think these are possibly true, that is why i post them and see what feedback i get. Your perspectives (others in general) have always lead to my own personal growth,,, I accept your opinions whatever they are. i know that others can see things in me that i cant so i very much accept your opinions. } | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 418 Registered: 3-2003 |
Neil, Terms. Beliefs are just opinions. On the other hand, what can we really know? Two thousand years of epistemology have yet to resolve that question. I think it was Will Rogers who said something like "Ignorance doesn't hurt people as much as all the things they know that ain't so." I use the term "believe" when I talk about opinions I hold without sufficient evidence to prove them via classical logic. (All of us have such opinions and use them routinely to get through each day.) That is why I often say "I believe," rather than "I know." I reserve "I know" for what I can prove, or for what I think is self-evident. I use the term "faith" to mean a state of being concerned with or grasped by some higher good than ourselves. I follow Paul Tillich in calling the object of ultimate concern "God." Now, this conversation started out with the idea that Nature = God. Or, in Tillich's terminology, Nature is the object of our ultimate concern. The problem is that Nature as ultimate concern often leads to a bleak anti-humanism that can be (and some might argue has been) used to justify suicide, euthanasia, involuntary sterilization, genocide, etc. I feel that there is infinitely more to human nature than that, but cannot prove it logically, even though that is my personal experience/knowledge of being human and interacting with humans. My experience seems to correspond with yours in that I feel that I encounter God in other humans as welll as non-human Nature. But my experience is that God does not equal humanity or nature, but rather God transcends humanity and nature. Can I prove it? Absolutely not. Why should I? Perhaps that is something that we are each here to discover for ourselves. In other words, I think we are in pretty fair agreement with one another but may be confused on terms. In particular, I think all the statements made about God so far (God=Nature, God>Nature, etc.) are beliefs, i.e., opinions. Such opinions may be inferences drawn from personal experiences, but they are opinions nonetheless, because the processes of experience and inference are not necessarily error-free. If I have a transcendent experience, such that I infer that an entire Universe is contained in a single atom of my fingernail, the experience is there, but what I make of it may be a mistake. Thus, I feel free to challenge both the assertion "God=Nature" and what basis one may claim for it. I stand by my statement regarding my opinion of Stuart's beliefs. Nature is not enough. You know it, too. You have already said as much in your post number 7 above. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Neil Huizinga New member Username: not_important Post Number: 10 Registered: 4-2005 |
Mr. Futterman, Your words vibrate with wisdom and clarity, a pleasant gift. Yes, for me God is higher power, and ones relationship with higher powers is seemingly infinite. Nature may not be the ultimate concern, but if it is not given its due respect on this planet, the penalty is severe. If it is not placed before our desires and wants and ego and madening search for the meaning of life, such as now, there will be severe judgement. Not in the form of a man-like God judging us, but in the form of nature either becoming to chaotic and violent for society to live, or by resources running dry and toxic. My point is simply that nature is so overlooked, and not only outside nature, the nature of our own human bodies as well. Its interesting and perhaps theres a strong correlation between toxicity levels of the environment and the average human body. Ignorance is surely there, but there may be something more?? Truth. You bring up an interesting point Mr. Futterman. There is personal experience which is personal truth and there is truth, which is always there for any and everyone to experience. You gave referrence to a possible personal experience of the entire universe being in an atom of ones fingernail. i see your point. Surely we all have personal experiences every moment that others dont, this is our truth, our reality. Yet as we are all having our own personal truth unfold moment to moment, there are truths going on outside us that we can observe and experience, these are commonly referred to as "laws of nature". i'm sure you know, but just for clarification to anyone that doesnt this does not mean the forest or plants etc, but laws that exist outside us, and if they are broken there is a penalty that in non-negotiable. Mr. Futterman, being a physicist you could probably enlighten me on some of these laws and their complexities. This is my point in itself which like you mentioned we probably agree on. These "laws of nature" are truth, truth pertaining to the nature of the universe or more accurately our physical environment (atoms and thus sky included). As an example if you turn a cup of water upside down, the water falls to the ground. Gravity is truth in our physical environment (black holes and worm holes excluded Mr. Futterman, lol). If you cut all the trees down or contaminate all the water humans cant live would be another example. As far as ourselves, if we get angry there is increased heat on the body, law of nature. These are the truths i meant but perhaps did not describe, my appologies. These truths, these "laws of nature" it seems used to be referred to as God in Genesis. Nevertheless, i feel something inside that guides me and is undescribable. This is my relationship with higher power inside. The point is that for people to experience God and Light and Love in their own way, nature must be given respect and be a priority. It comes first because without it there is no us or us experiencing God in our own way. i see your point to on some going to far and becoming antihumanism, this surely happens. ive heard some come to the conclusion that humans dont matter and are simply a parasite. This is taking the truth and "laws of nature" to far, afterall we as humans are also nature. God = Nature. Nature does not just mean plants and dirt and oxygen. Nature is human nature also. The "Creator" and "God" do not necessarily mean the same thing. As in Genesis, "God" can be seen to describe nature (and this is only my interpretation and certainly is necessaritly truth). However, for me to have been more accurate the title of God = Nature = Truth = Love = Light. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 419 Registered: 3-2003 |
Neil, Thanks for the kind words. "God = Nature = Truth = Love = Light." Are you sure you mean that? For me, there are too many "=" signs. For instance, Nature does not equal Love. Very few species in Nature experience anything like Love. More to the point, natural catastrophes occur in a rather arbitrary way, regardless of how much the victims love Nature. Nature cannot love back. Perhaps you might mean "God = Nature + Truth + Love + Light?" Or even, "God > Nature + Truth + Love + Light?" (For the non-mathematically inclined, ">" means "is greater than.") Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Neil Huizinga Junior Member Username: not_important Post Number: 11 Registered: 4-2005 |
Ha ha ha, thats beautiful Mr. Futterman. i like your approach, direct and honest, and with very little, if any self-deception. You appear to be a person of whom truth matters more than your own ego. But no. i truly mean God = Nature = Truth = Love = Light = EVERYTHING i can see or experience. Life and its unfolding for me is God. Perhaps i should have described more accurately and clearly that God for me is not the creator. They are perhaps one in the same, however i have never experienced the creator, only the "lower levels" of such a thing which i refer to as God. God for me means the will of the universe, i'm either with it or against it, on many levels and aspects of physical, mental, and spiritual life. As i experience God in these infinitely vast ways i reach higher and higher levels of God, meaning for me higher power. The highest power is quite possibly the creator and when and if i ever experience such a power, God and Creator will be the same thing. Until then though God will mean all things in my life that i dont control, which is everything, even myself. Nature always loves back, its conditional love though,, nature surely is righteous, although its not an entity in itself, its a self perpetuating system made from Love. It is the product of Love, how else could it survive. A native living in Nature would surely have a different view of what Love is. Just look into the eyes of an Inuit (whom has the least of comfort and distraction), all that stares back is Love, and Purity. Ojibwa the same, laughing, smiling, Love, and egolessness (certainly not all natives living in the wild are peaceful, because they are governed by fear or the "devil"). With an ego (whether we give it absolute power over us or not) our view of Love and Nature is poles apart from someone that lives without ego and wants outside of what Nature wants. They live in Nature and are at every moment reminded of its power and direction. We live outside Nature (for the most part) and easily forget that one can only be "with it" or against it. But i may be getting slightly off topic. Our definitions or what we call God seem different, yet underneath all this we seem to have a similar perspective. To clarify, for me Creator = Nature + Truth + Love + Light + Everything. God for me is Nature, it is Truth, it is Love, it is Light, it is everything that leads me to the Creator. i never get into such explanation so i am greatful you asked, for i now rationaly understand myself more, i objectively thank you Mr. Futterman. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 421 Registered: 3-2003 |
Neil, You're welcome! It seems to me that your next to last sentence implies Nature + Truth + Love + Light -> God where "->" is an arrow, meaning "points toward" or "leads toward." If that is the case, I quite agree. I encourage you to continue your journey. I also encourage you to continue exploring the normative traditions of the world's great religions. After all, you are not the first such seeker, and there seems little point in discarding the insights of all who trod the path before you during the last 4000 years or so. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Eric Foster Junior Member Username: moondog Post Number: 14 Registered: 4-2005 |
God = Nature if and only if Nature -> Cookies 'n Cream Ice Cream Genesis 2:26 Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground." Basically, God gives us dominion over everything. Unfortunately, this was before we had eaten from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Perhaps we were only to have dominion if we were ignorant of how to hurt people, so we would all work towards the betterment of the world. But in any case, God created Nature, and I don't believe God *is* Nature. This is our world, and with the free will that God blessed us with, we have a choice in how the future comes to be. We can disobey God's commandments and hurt ourselves, or we can follow His laws and heal others in the process. Like St. Francis said: "Spread the gospel where ever you go, and use words only when necessary." | ||
| Neil Huizinga Junior Member Username: not_important Post Number: 19 Registered: 4-2005 |
Eric, are you basing everything on what you have read in a book that has been used through the ages for conquest and power. Or are you basing everything on what you experience and have experienced in your life. What is it that makes the bible a credible source of anything, let alone who or what "God" is. LOOK to history and other writing for a cross-reference at least. For example, the story of a man with all the qualities of jesus was present long before 2000 years ago, its ancient in origin and unknown if such a man ever existed. Try researching the history of the bible. One important point is that the bible is the only place one will find reference to a man called Jesus. Of all the writers (and there were many) at the time jesus supposedly lived, there is no documentation of the man except for in the bible. If you truly research and put your belief in the bible to the test it will become clear that it is a re-hash of many stories throught the ages and that jesus is also a recreation and formation of other myths (which may have truth at some time in history). | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 428 Registered: 3-2003 |
Neil, The Bible is not the only written reference to Jesus. Josephus mentions Jesus and John the Baptist in his writings, which date from the 2nd half of the first century (that is, they predate the New Testament). Also, a 1st century ossuary (bone box) bearing the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" has been found. If you truly research the Bible (I recommend A Marginal Jew by John P. Meier) you will find that Jesus's message of the Kingdom of God is truly unique and original at his time and in his culture. Neil, if you put your anti-Biblical belief to the test, I think you will find that you have spoken from prejudice, rather than from the historical record. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Michael Ray New member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 1 Registered: 5-2005 |
Ill disagree with your analogies here Neil Huizinga As long as the sun shines there will always be life on this earth, it might not support human or animal life but there always will be life. This was realised by the early believers looking for an explanation for their existence. Yes they use to have a sun god and even today some believers believe that the sun is were god resides. I personally do not believe in a biblical god, actually I don’t believe in much except it all came about by chance. And our lives are only significant to us and our families for they accept us and us them for whom they/we are. I as a human being do not see the purpose of trying to burden our lives with fiction and then trying to comply with its standards. Logically speaking our love as mortals could not be measured compared to god, yet not one of us would consider murdering our children, our creation, but god has according to the OT. Any normal person with sound mind would never bring the atrocities God brought down on his creations. This sort of acts are only practised by cults these days and we don’t think much of them do we? In my personal opinion the god in the bible is not the god I would like to bow down to out of love only fear. So my point is clear the god in the bible cannot be real but an evolution of human wisdom. Cheers | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 210 Registered: 3-2003 |
Michael, The rise of "Historical consciousness" in Western scholarship and culture has challenged the idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (all of the O.T.) is also the God of the Nicene Creed (Medieval Christianity) as well as the God of any contemporary faith. An important theological response to this has been made by Paul Tillich and Gordon Kaufman, who acknowledge the historical and partial nature of every claim about God, but who nevertheless attempt to demonstrate the significance of God for the modern world. God is in fact a symbol, according to these theologians, and like all symbols, the symbol "God" changes over time. God is not merely a symbol, however. As a symbol, God is also real, with the power to transform human life. This obviously goes beyond our rationale and will take on something deeper – a perspective, borne not of exclusivity, but one that not all will have. It's expression is found through a dimension of faith. The Bible, as human wisdom, simply does not reach the reality of God. There can only be a radical limitation on what it means to speak of God’s reality; there needs to be acknowledged the historical and partial nature of every claim about God – including the God of the O.T. Tillich writes that theologians who base their systems on the existence of God set themselves up as authorities for a special knowledge unavailable to other people. This ties in also with the controlling and manipulative behaviour some people exude, often within religious systems but certainly not exclusively so. | ||
| Seeker New member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 3 Registered: 5-2005 |
Michael Ray.......You say, "As long as the sun shines there will always be life on this earth, it might not support human or animal life but there always will be life." Ummm, what other "life" could there be besides human/animal? [Discounting "plants," of course....although in theory I suppose one could have a world where there was only plant life.] The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Seeker New member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 5 Registered: 5-2005 |
Richard....The "God" of the Nicene Creed may not even exist. The Creed is based on the trinitarian doctrine, a doctrine which did not exist prior to the argument between Athanasius and Arius in the late 3rd/early 4th century. The argument was decided by Constantine in Athanasius' favor [not surprising, since Athanasius was a favorite of Constantine's], and ratified by the Nicene Council of 325 AD. The Bible text(s) were altered thereafter to support this new doctrine; Matthew 28:19, 1st John 5:7, are completely spurious verses, and the first Chapter of John was rewritten to make it appear that Jesus "existed" from the "beginning." (The doctrine of Jesus' pre-existence is a fabricated doctrine as well, but I won't go into that here.) The "Biblical God" is monotheistic, not tritheistic....I do not believe the "God" of the Nicene Creed exists}. The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 211 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, I haven't argued for the existence of any "God"; the symbolism as contained within the Nicene Creed is surely a man-made attempt with the best of medieval prose on offer. Belief is always in the eye of the beholder - for you, me and many others those symbols no longer speak. I take John non-literally (i.e. mystically)- but literally, there is a part of us all that has existed since the "big-bang". Our consciousness of it is only just beginning. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 434 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, The Kingdoms of Life are Monera (prokaryotic cells without nuclei and membrane-bound organelles, e.g. bacteria), Protista (eukaryotic single-celled organisms with nuclei and membrane-bound organeles), Fungi, Plants, and Amimals. If the animals went away, there would still be plenty of life left. With regard to your bald assertion that Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 are "completely spurious," and that John 1 is purely a product of the post-Nicene church, can you back that up with scholarly references? I am aware of several "strata" in the traditions that are recorded and redacted in the Gospel and NT material, but I have yet to come across references to material from so late in Church history. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Michael Ray New member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 3 Registered: 5-2005 |
Michael Ray.......You say, "As long as the sun shines there will always be life on this earth, it might not support human or animal life but there always will be life." Ummm, what other "life" could there be besides human/animal? [Discounting "plants," of course....although in theory I suppose one could have a world where there was only plant life.] ============== Seeker There is no theory to plant life it has a reproductive system, genetics and life. It seems that you associate life only with legs…hehehehe! good way to be cheers | ||
| Seeker New member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 6 Registered: 5-2005 |
I did not mean to imply "plant life" was a theory....I may be dense at times, but I'm not THAT dense!  J. Futterman: Just a couple quick references: Matthew 28:19 http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/mat2819.html http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm http://www.abcog.org/nh/trinity.htm 1st John 5:7 http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1jo05v07.htm http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html http://www.answers.com/topic/an-historical-account-of-two-notable-corruptions-of -scripture The textual problem with John, Chapter 1 is the centered around the word "Word," capitalized as it is in the KJV for example. The Greek is "logos." The usual interpretation of "Word" makes it synonymous with "Jesus," whereas the literal interpretation would more accurately be "God's spoken word," or if it was to be equated with anything it should be the "spirit," not Jesus. (Genesis 1:2 - "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.") It was the "spirit" that did the creating at the direction of God, according to Genesis....not Jesus. The entire first chapter of John appears to have been translated in the 4th century Greek with an eye to Roman Church doctrine equating Jesus with God (as part of the emerging trinity doctrine)....so as to provide a foundation for Jesus' "pre-existence." [You'll have to search for this on the Net, I don't have my notes on this anymore...thanks to Hurricane Ivan all was lost.] As I recall, the earlier manuscripts (Syriac, Old Latin) from the mid-2nd century read differently and do not lend themselves to the "interpretation" that Jesus pre-existed or was equal to God. [See: URL's below.] The whole issue of the "trinity," as well as the "pre-existence of Jesus," and his supposed "equality with God," leads one off into a seemingly never ending research path, and what the "church" is currently teaching seems to be pretty much divorced from Biblical/historical fact....but that is nothing new, churches have been modifying their doctrines for centuries. http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/jesus_sayings.htm http://www.cdelph.org/jesus.html Also, I was lumping in bacteria, etc., with "animals," generalizing, reducing earth life to "animal/plant." Probably shouldn't have done that!  The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 213 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, I think you are perhaps more of a scholar than has been assumed. John 14:9 Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life. John 8:12 I am the light of the world. John 8:58 Before Abraham was, I am. John 10:7 I am the door of the sheep. John 11:25 I am the resurrection, and the life. John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life. John 15:1 I am the true vine. All of these statements lack any sagacity if taken literally – they need a differing level of interpretation - e.g., "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." The many people who saw Jesus, on the physical level, certainly didn’t recognise him as anything other than a man – it is a profoundly “spiritual” statement, as with all of the other statements. Each are spoken metaphorically, the same ‘tool’ as used by many of the O.T. prophets. Those same statements will apply to any believer “in Christ” who then becomes the “I am” or has the "Courage to Be" as given by the Existentialist theologian Paul Tillich. His (Jesus’) disciples were taught the ability to make this recognition – i.e. it was neither apparent nor obvious. From this teaching came a system of belief, which has adopted the many old supernaturalisms many today find so antiquated. The spirit of this belief, however, remains within the modern mind where the need for each individual is to confront his existence alone, in the inwardness of his soul. Christian Fundamentalism which platforms itself on Orthodox Christianity, fails to confront the modern psyche, merely literalising the word to make well the meaning of “..Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth.” Those who literalise the Qur'an do no better. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 435 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, Thanks for the clarification. I was aware that the notion of the Trinity originated not with Jesus, but with the early Church. This alone does not make the doctrine false, but it does make it optional for Christianity, or at least subject to restatement, which I have attempted on several occasions. On the other hand, your final reference is to a Muslim website, which only indicates that the Trinity is a concept that does not always play well outside the culture of its origin. I must say, though, that I am surprised at the few liberties that the Church has taken with its sacred text in both the late Roman period and the late Middle Ages. But in any case, we are getting off-topic (Nature = God). Perhaps I should create a new "Holy Trinity" thread and move the last few posts there? [I try to keep discussions on topic in order to help people find the discussions they want to read or participate in.] Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 436 Registered: 3-2003 |
Richard, I agree with you, but have one quibble. Fundamentalism is not Orthodox. It only thinks it is. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 214 Registered: 3-2003 |
John, If I might rephrase it, Fundamentalism relies on Christian orthodoxy whereas Orthodoxy requires accepting doctrine and collecting evidence to support it (apologetics). Fundamentalists believe that orthodoxy provides special insight. Secular scholarship, on the other hand, avoids doctrine, relying on heterodox methods (Heterodox - from Greek heterodoxos, "of another opinion," from hetero-, "other" + doxa, "opinion," from dokein, "to believe."). Science incorporates enlightenment heterodoxy and is built a body of scholarship and a set of culturally independent methods which have shed light on the natural world. "Fundamentalism" is rendered in Greek as "foundationalism" (fundamentum =themelion [ or "foundation" ]); we can simultaneously mean, by fundamentalism, a simple adherence to the "foundations" of faith, or of an ideology, etc., deliberated by the standard of genuineness and authenticity; or, again, witless conservatism and unhealthy zeal; or, more specifically, an aggressive and dangerous, if not at times unchecked, expression of conservatism or zeal in the form of extreme fanaticism and a relentless hatred for those of different belief (or opinion). One must therefore remember, the line between Christian orthodoxy and Christian Fundamentalism is often a very thin one. But I believe you are right John, a correct distinction must still be made. | ||
| Michael Ray New member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 4 Registered: 5-2005 |
Lets take a different view of the good old OT. The OT was never suppose to or expected to become a book. It was scripture. Meaning scripts reflecting events only binding to the Israelites, scripts of hope, scripts of promise and scripts of reward for all believing in the same thing (one thing) believing together. For those choosing a different path and not acknowledging one God (union) was another set of scripts banishing them from the Kingdom. Considering they where gypsies, farmers following their herds all over the lands wherever there was green pastures, they also where a very intelligent race. After all they had a God that could not be desecrated during wars, unlike the big statues that the enemies where carting around. This invisible God always stood tall and proud, even in defeat. God then in any form represented what the flag does today, (union of one people one nation.) As they professed and progressed and seemed invincible so did their God. They started telling great stories with a purpose to morally weaken the enemies. Stories of this Gods great power, capable of moving mountains parting seas and in control of everything including nature. As time passed on and the original intent lost threw great story telling, God became a living entity. You all might not believe my theology but at least I’m good for a laugh. Cheers | ||
| Seeker Junior Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 20 Registered: 5-2005 |
J. Futterman: The Muslim website was given to provide a view from "outside" the Christian/Biblical ethos.....sometimes it helps to take a look at how others perceive something. As for "liberties taken with the text," the process of text revision has been going on literally since day one for both the O.T. and N.T. [The Massorah clearly indicates the Hebrew scribes regularly revised the O.T. text, for example, to prevent embarrasment of the patriarchs....Lot is an example. The Biblical text in the KJV reads that Lot knew NOT when his daughetrs came unto him, and knew NOT when they left. The Massorah shows the scribes changed the original text which read that Lot DID KNOW when they left. Companion Bible, Appendix 30, and Margin notes for Genesis 19:31-38] R. Adler: "All of these statements lack any sagacity if taken literally – they need a differing level of interpretation - e.g., "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." The many people who saw Jesus, on the physical level, certainly didn’t recognise him as anything other than a man – it is a profoundly “spiritual” statement, as with all of the other statements. Each are spoken metaphorically, the same ‘tool’ as used by many of the O.T. prophets." ///// Without getting into the problem of what actually constitutes an "accurate text [if such a thing even exists]," yes, one of the huge problems with the Bible/Christianity is "interpretation." Literal, allegorical, metaphorical, philosophical, etc. (What you are saying, I believe, goes to philosophy, not actually to "religion," but I could be incorrect.) At any rate, yes, the statements you refer to in John cannot be "literally true." (In fact, if they were literally true they would be in direct contradiction with other verses.) This is the problem with any number of verses, passages, stories, events in the Bible...there are directly contradicting verses, passages, stories, events (though the Christians, of course claim these "aren't really" contradictions/discrepancies). The "David/Goliath" story is an example: There are THREE versions of the story in the Bible, all different, and in one of them it isn't even David that Kills Goliath....obviously all three stories cannot be true....and it may well be that NONE of them are true, and the entire "story" is simply a fiction designed to illustrate a point. The period following Jesus' birth is another example....Matthew/Luke give completely different stories and both cannot be true, and it may well be that NEITHER are true.....who knows? At this point, I wouldn't bet a dime on the "theology" of the Bible, as this theology depends entirely on who is doing the "interpreting," and it is likely all "man-made theology" in the first place.....is there actually a "God" called Yahweh? Who knows? Given all the conflicting evidence, did "Jesus" even exist, or is he a mythological creation? Who knows? Outside of the Biblical texts, to the best of my knowledge NO contemporary writings confirm the existence of Jesus, which is exactly why this controversy exists over his existence in the first place. It is assumed by many that Josephus confirms Jesus' existence, but this is not necessarily the case (link below). http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html An objective look at all sources of information leads me to the conclusion that the greatest likelihood is that later Christian writers have tampered with, and rewritten parts of these earlier texts (such as Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews)...and given the PROVEN instances where this has occurred, I do not find it any great leap to believe they did it to other texts as well. Did Jesus really exist? Like I said, who knows? One could even ask, HOW could "God" exist? By definition, God is a "spirit," having no substance, and yet is supposed to have intelligence and be able to interact with physical objects. In our universe, to merely "exist" requires SUBSTANCE (mass), and to exhibit intelligence there must be some form of "brain" to process information (again requiring substance/structure), and without some form of physical existence, there could be no "interaction" with ANYTHING in our universe. It would seem that by definition "God" cannot exist. [And this omniscient God apparently couldn't even find Adam/Eve in the Garden...Genesis 3:8] As for the "resurrection," this, too, is a physical/biological impossibility. The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 437 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, See my post of May 07 above re Josephus and the ossuary of James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. Those who postulate that Jesus never existed as a historical person do so out of wishful thinking, in my opinion. Most Jews of his time and place left no trace at all of their existence. That we have so many independent witnesses to the existence of the historical Jesus (Mark, Q, M, L, and John, as well as Josephus and the ossuary), the weight of the evidence favors the existence of Jesus as an eschatological prophet during the first third of the first century A.D. The alphabet soup in my parenthetic remark is my way of indicating to you that disciplined form- and text-critical technique can tease out the various layers of the NT traditions and enable one to determine with reasonable probability which parts trace back to the historical Jesus. That is to say, even though the text does not report exact unaltered impressions from the life of Jesus, one need not throw up one's hand in despair of extracting anything reliable. Unless, of course, you need to throw up your hands in order to support your desire to dismiss Jesus as a person in order to dismiss Jesus as God. Please, if you must dismiss Jesus as God, just do so. That is merely heresy to a Christian. But to dismiss him as a person compounds the injustice he suffered in the manner of his death (which remained an embarassment for the early Church until a century after the Roman Empire stopped the practice of crucifixion). As for the Resurrection of Jesus being a physical and biological impossibility: Indeed! and Amen! I think it was precisely that impossibility that energized the primitive Church and made Christianity into such a force that it shapes the world (in part) to this day. And finally to your point that God cannot exist because God lacks physicality. This is right up there with Monty Python's idea that the existence of the Babel Fish caused God to vanish in a puff of Logic. I am a physicist. I have spent a lifetime studying physicality. I am as certain of the following statement as I can be of any statement: We humans don't know what, precisely, physicality is. Our very concept of physicality has undergone tremendous change in the last five years, with the discovery of dark matter and dark energy (which apparently make up 75% of the stuff in the universe, and we didn't even know they were there). Thus, I seek not to convince you of anything, but merely to sow the seed of doubt in your own position as regards to physicality. Besides, God is supposed to be the Author of physicality. Why should the Author of physicality be bound by physicality? Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Seeker Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 21 Registered: 5-2005 |
The alleged ossuary of James has been proven to be a hoax. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ossu.htm [Just one of many sites exposing the hoax.] Many sources provide evidence that Josephus' writings were altered. See below: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/extern3.html ------------------------------------------- Regarding Jesus' existence....Perhaps he did exist, perhaps not...I, personally have my doubts, but even if he did exist that doesn't mean automatically that he was the "messiah," or that he was "divine," or that he was "resurrected." [Wouldn't automatically mean he WASN'T the messiah, divine, or resurrected, either.] Jesus may well have existed as a PERSON, born of Mary/Joseph, or Mary/Roman Soldier(Pantera), and he may even have been a "local preacher," but I personally do not believe he was conceived by "the holy spirit," or that he was the messiah, etc. -------------------------------------------- I must concede your comment regarding "physicality" is correct....it remains a thorny subject as to precisely what constitutes "physical existence." I would think that if God existed, he would be bound by his own laws, yes....but that is just my opinion. 1. I, personally, no longer believe that "God," as defined by Christianity, exists. 2. I, personally, no longer believe that "Jesus," if he existed at all, was conceived of Mary by the "holy spirit" [if any such thing exists], nor do I believe Jesus was divine, the messiah, or that he was resurrected from the dead. 3. I, personally, believe, based on evidence and proof that I have read, do not believe the "Bible" is either inerrant, or that it is 100% accurate, nor do I believe it does not contain a plethora of contridictions/discrepancies which cannot simply be cast aside and ignored. There is simply too much evidence the text has been deliberately manipulated for centuries upon century. 4. I reject "Christianity," and the concept that "Jesus was/is God." There MAY BE some form of "god" that exists (intelligent designer, creator, whatever), but I do not believe he exists as defined by Christianity, I do not believe Jesis is God, period, but this is just my personal opinion. -------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is from http://praxeology.net/unblog02-04.htm Why Jesus Is Not God Was Jesus God incarnate? There’s a popular argument floating around the web these days that purports to prove that he must have been – an argument that unfortunately seems to have originated with C. S. Lewis, a theologian for whose philosophical abilities I ordinarily have a great deal of respect. There are different versions of the argument, but they all run more or less as follows: 1. Jesus claimed to be God. 2. Anyone who claims to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God. 3. Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. 4. Therefore, Jesus is God. Let’s consider this argument premise by premise. Did Jesus claim to be God? Of course Jesus left no writings of his own, so even if the Gospels did portray Jesus as making this claim, we’d have to wonder whether enthusiastic disciples had retroactively upgraded his status – something that often befalls religious leaders. (There have been, for example, sects that attributed divine or near-divine status to Confucius, Buddha, or Muhammad, three leaders who clearly would have vehemently disclaimed the “honour.”) But in fact I cannot find this claim attributed to Jesus anywhere in the Gospels. Indeed he seems at pains to stress his difference from and inferiority to God, as when he says “If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me” (John 8:54) or “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God” (Matthew 19:17). Clearly Jesus would regard any attempt to identify him with God as shocking blasphemy. Jesus does admit, grudgingly, to being the Son of God, but were it not for the theological dogma of God as three-in-one (a doctrine likewise absent from the Gospels), this would naturally be taken as counting against, not for, the claim that Jesus is God. If I claimed to be the son of Pericles, who would infer that I was Pericles? Again, in the garden of Gethsemane Jesus is reported (though by whom is not clear, as all the disciples are said to have been asleep) as praying, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (Matthew 26:39) Would God pray to himself or ask favours from himself? Or even if we read trinitarianism into the Gospels, does it make sense for one person of the Godhead to pray to another person of the Godhead, or to suggest that the wills of these persons could differ? Jesus is reported to have said “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” and “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” (John 14:9-10); but in the same passage he shortly goes on to add: “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20) Again, while Jesus does proclaim “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), he also prays for his followers, “that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” (John 17:21) Whatever the nature of the “oneness” Jesus is claiming exists between God and himself, it is apparently something that is supposed to hold between God and all Christians – in which case it can hardly be the relation of numerical identity. Likewise, in the two New Testament passages where Jesus is said to have regarded himself as “equal with God” – John 5:18 and Philippians 2:6 – the Greek word translated “equal” is isos, which means “on the same level” or “of the same rank,” never “identical.” The claim that Jesus was God did not become Christian orthodoxy until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The orthodox reading of these passages seems natural today only because they are read through the lens of what “everybody knows” about Jesus’ claims to divinity; few would find incarnationism in the texts unless they first brought it there. An objector may point to the opening lines of the Gospel of John, which apparently identify the “Logos” with God (John 1:1) and the “Logos made flesh” with Jesus (John 1:14). Of course these lines were not spoken by Jesus, and so do not show that Jesus himself claimed to be God; but in any case, what exactly are they saying? The relation between God and the Logos seems to fall short of strict identity; the Greek, literally translated, says something like “the Logos was with the God, and God is what the Logos was” – an awkward construction clearly trying to express a subtler relation than identity. The term “Logos” is borrowed from Greek philosophy, where it means a thing’s abstract rational nature; the Logos that is “with” God and is what God is, is not God but God’s nature. To say that Jesus is the Logos made flesh, then, is simply to say that he is a physical embodiment of God’s nature. This hardly makes him identical with God, since all human beings are supposed to be created from God’s spirit (Genesis 2:7) and in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). Indeed the New Testament authors clearly understand Jesus as offering everyone the opportunity to be sons (and daughters) of God and to partake of God’s nature: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13) “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ... And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.” (Romans 8:14-17) “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him.” (1 John 3:2) As the New Testament authors understand Jesus’ message, being the “Son of God” is evidently not a status that Jesus claims for himself alone, but one that is open to all Christians; a fortiori it is not a way of being identical with God. Jesus puts himself forward, not as God, but as the first man to have succeeding in manifesting the divine nature that is open to all; anyone who follows his example, who “believes” in him – “trusts” or “accepts” would be a better translation – will himself become a “Logos made flesh.” Hence those who receive the Logos are even described as “gods.” (John 10:35) Had Jesus thought he was God, he would hardly have said, “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.” (John 14:12) No one could be expected to do greater works than God. But if instead Jesus thought of himself merely as a trailblazer, one who showed by his example the path others should follow, the prophecy makes perfect sense. There are, of course, ways of interpreting all these passages so as to make them consistent with orthodox trinitarian and incarnationist theology. My point, once again, is that the orthodox readings, while possible, are not the most obvious or natural readings, and were by no means universally accepted by the early Church; they seem obvious and natural nowadays only because people are begging the question by reading the passages through the lens of an already-assumed orthodox interpretation. I’ve argued that there’s no good reason to suppose that Jesus ever claimed to be God; hence I reject premise 1. But suppose Jesus had claimed to be God. Would the argument be sound in that case? To answer this, we must consider premise 2. Must anyone who claims to be God be either a liar, a lunatic, or God? This is much less obvious to me than it is to Lewis and his epigoni. Consider the case of Tenzin Gyatso, the current Dalai Lama, who considers himself to be the 14th incarnation of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. This claim is accepted by no one outside the Buddhist community (I assume), and by few within it (I suspect). Yet the Dalai Lama’s sincerity and sanity are seldom questioned; on the contrary, he is one of the world’s most respected religious figures, and clearly (I infer from his writings) an intelligent and thoughtful man. And indeed, given the Dalai Lama’s upbringing and cultural milieu, I see nothing terribly surprising in his coming to believe what he believes, though I am not in the least inclined to follow him in this belief. Is believing oneself to be Jehovah incarnate that much more fantastic than believing oneself to be Avalokiteshvara incarnate? What about premise 3? I think premise 3 is true. But I also think its truth depends crucially on the falsity of premises 1 and 2. It’s highly implausible that Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic. But it’s also highly implausible that Jesus was God. If one accepts premises 1 and 2, then one is committed to the conclusion that something highly implausible is nevertheless true. Hence we must choose among implausibles. However unlikely it may seem that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, all the same we have never met him, and must perforce rely on others’ impressions of him; and we all know that liars have sometimes been taken for honest men, and madmen for sane. On the other hand the claim that a human being of flesh and bone was God himself seems simply unintelligible; it’s like claiming to have the number 7 in one’s pocket. Hence if one had to choose among these implausible claims (and I’ve argued that we don’t have to), the claim that Jesus was God is obviously the one most deserving of rejection. ----------------------------------------------- As noted, it is my personal opinion that, as defined by Christianity, "God doesn't exist," and I also believe that "Jesus was/is not God." The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Efrem Senior Member  Username: efremPost Number: 129 Registered: 2-2003 |
Seeker, I understand all of your points quite well and don't dispute or agree with any of them. Long ago, I decided something about the existence of God and that is that if He/She/It does indeed exist and is as omnipetent, all pervasive, all knowing and is as simultaneously as small (think less than a Quark) and as huge (think of a size beyond the limits of a limitless Universe) as He/She/It is described then it makes no difference what I think because my 'true' thoughts are known to the Entitiy before they're known to me. I can't bulls**t something that big/small. If It doesn't exist, it makes no difference anyway. Conversations like this are only to entertain ourselves. LOve, Jenn (Message edited by efrem on May 28, 2005) | ||
| Seeker Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 23 Registered: 5-2005 |
Efrem:  Yup.... I just wanna know one thing.....what did the puppies look like? The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Seeker Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 24 Registered: 5-2005 |
Forgot a link on the James' ossuary hoax: Sorry about that.http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/ The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Seeker Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 25 Registered: 5-2005 |
J. Futterman..... Hmmm...upon reflection, perhaps I'd better modify my statement above. If one assumed "God" existed, and dwelt in an alternative universe, I can see where he might not be bound by the laws of this (our) universe. The theory that "alternative universes" exist is one that must be taken seriously, and so I have to consider that. When a subatomic particle mysteriously pops into existence in our universe it obviously must have come from "somewhere," and so there must be a "somewhere" other than our own universe. [A faster-than-light particle which has lost velocity and is therefore now visible in our universe?] I find the concept that OUR entire universe (in the form of the big bang) may have popped into existence from "somewhere else" to be a bit over my head, but I suppose it is theoretically possible. http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/carroll.htm At any rate, I must modify my statement and concede that "God" may NOT be bound by the laws of our universe. The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 218 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, You ask many of the questions I’ve asked myself and still continue to, at times, to ponder on – but one thing I always bear in mind, no matter my conclusion it comes only from within my own finite resources of reason and interpretation, i.e. my own limited perception. As Efrem has inferred, we write here only for enjoyment in sounding off our opinions. Yes, I often quite like my own opinion as many of us do but are wary of the delusion in believing ‘my take’ as being absolute. “What you are saying, I believe, goes to philosophy, not actually to "religion," but I could be incorrect.” – You are in fact quite correct, Theology is basically religious philosophy. I have my favourite theologians, they may not be yours – perhaps you hate or are disinterested in theology, but, as with any art, it often takes appreciation – like a good wine. You ask, “Is there actually a "God" called Yahweh?” For those who believed it, there was. For you (and me) Yahweh is irrelevant. “..did "Jesus" even exist, or is he a mythological creation?” I’ve read a fair amount of stuff on this including Earl Doherty and his “mythical Christ” – his arguments appear quite plausible but I take in all the arguments and find it more a question of probability. The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics – there are many who therefore do assert this belief, secular or otherwise. The choice is yours in choosing your own assertion. "As for the "resurrection," this, too, is a physical/biological impossibility." You answer your own question a little later on I guess. It is an impossibility – in our dimension or universe. Its occurrence doesn’t frame its reference on our space or time. | ||
| Michael Ray New member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 8 Registered: 5-2005 |
Richard Adler… just referring to you view. I like most of your views even though my thoughts are not on the same path, I don’t know if that makes sens or not. I’m beginning to understand the expression ,“truth is nothing but an illusion” Not counting other religions, there are over 3200 variations of Christian faith and all claim to be the only path because of some gimmick found in the bible. I personally would never dismiss intellectuality of our ancient ancestors. They have left allot of evidence supporting their intellectuality from art to engineering. Even with today’s technology we are left with no answers. So who is to say any of this needs yet another interpretation. Lets look at John 14:9 Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. It makes sense to me. For I am very much like my father even though I try not to be, I have adopted some of his looks and some of his characteristics What I don’t understand is, how nobody ever talks about the Ten Gurus, after all God suppose to have left the original plan with them. Cheers | ||
| Seeker Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 26 Registered: 5-2005 |
R. Adler...... "Probability" of Jesus existence (as Messiah/God)...I'd have to go along with that. You're right, it is a question of "probability." The greatest likelihood is that there WAS an historical PERSON...I think there is a pretty fair amount of evidence for that. The question is, "Was that person [a] Messiah, and Divine?" From what I have read, my take is that the greatest probability is "no." I would also have to concede the point that no one is likely to "prove" the existence/nonexistence of "God" (whether as defined by the Christians or anyone else). I suppose what irks me the most is the "mindlessness" of the Fundamentalist Christians, and to a lesser degree "all Christians." I think I am giving a realistic assessment when I say that merely to BE a "Fundamentalist" (or Christian in general) one must: 1. Divorce oneself from reality and completely ignore the fact that far from being "the 100% inerrant, infallible and accurate Word of God," the Bible has undergone virtually constant redaction and manipulation for millenia (continuing today, in fact). 2. Totally ignore all the very real contradictions and discrepancies contained in the Bible, and ignore the fact that where more than one version of any story or event is given, these versions rarely agree with one another and it would be an utter impossibility for all versions to be true/correct. 3. Completely ignore the fact that several major doctrines/dogmas rely on verses that were not even part of the original text, and have been proven to be deliberate later additions to the text. 4. Totally ignore the fact that OBJECTIVE textual criticism has proven over and over that the books of the Bible in their present form are the product of many writers, not the "sole authors" claimed. 5. Completely ignore the fact that the doctrines/dogmas that emerged from the 4th century Roman Church were much, much different than the doctrines/dogmas held by Christianity for the first three centuries. It just boggles my mind that anyone of reasonable intelligence and education could "believe" once they actually researched. I am an ex-Christian, and the reason I am an "EX-Christian" is that after my retirement I began STUDYING/RESEARCHING, instead of just sitting in the pews taking the "church's word" for everything. I can understand why/how someone who, like me, just sat in the pews and accepted the church's word would believe it.....but once one begins studying/researching and looking at all sides, rather than just the "church's side," I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone could REMAIN a "Christian!" The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 438 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, Well, I'm glad you cleared that up. We both agree that most likely there was an historical person called Jesus. I felt moved to argue that point, to defend Jesus as man. Strange to say, I do not feel moved to defend Jesus as Lord. For one thing, that is a proposition that properly understood, is not accessible to historical research. But mostly, I feel that God can defend Himself to whomever he so chooses. To me Christianity is not a matter of research and data: I can get that out of science. To me Christianity is a matter of faith, based on personal experience. If you have absolutely no experience of the Risen Christ in your life, then perhaps you are not called to be a Christian. Perhaps you are called to some other path. Maybe you are called by God to be an atheist, which is all that is left of the prophetic tradition of calling the church on its ••••••••• I am an ex-atheist. When I realized that, logically speaking, atheism is a religious belief in not-God, my mind was opened to the possibility that there are "more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy," as William Shakespeare put it. For the rest of that story see On Becoming a Christian. On the other hand, you seem to have a very circumscribed view of the universe, Scripture, and what one must believe to be a Christian. It makes me wonder if you were a Christian Fundamentalist, and have now become an anti-Christian Fundamentalist. That is to say, I wonder if you have not shaken off one set of chains for another. Your five points seem to indicate to me that you have experienced abuse of dogma, or rather the use of dogma to abuse people. But each of them is itself subject to debate, or at least qualification. I am a Christian. Here are just some of my thoughts regarding your five points. 1. The doctrine of inerrancy is bibliolatry - the idolatrous worship of the Bible instead of seeking encounter with God. 2. The very real contradictions and discrepancies are there to serve as means to prove that inerrancy is idolatry. 3. Religious people have always been tempted to drag things into the center of their faith that are not actually central. This is yet another form of idolatry. Christians are no exception to this. However there is no disagreement in the New Testament texts as to what is essential. It is that which animated the primitive church, and that which the Apostles taught. It is the 'idiotic" assertion that Jesus rose from the dead. 4. The traditional attribution of authors to the various books of the Bible does not meet post-Enlightenment standards of authorship. The original manuscripts were compiled by anonymous authors (most likely disciples of the Apostles) and circulated in the Apostles' names. They reflect five independent traditions: material that is found only in Mark (Mark), material that is found only in Matthew (M), material that is found only in Luke (L), material that is found in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark (Q), and the Gospel of John (John). Textual criticism can and does shed light on what of those traditions probably derives from the historical Jesus ( the man accessible to the methods of historians, not the Jesus knowable only by faith). Moreover, there are a number of letters in the New Testament that scholarly consensus agrees were actually written or dictated by the Apostle Paul. 5. The doctrines/dogmas that emerged from the 4th century Roman church would have surprised the historical (and therefore pre-Resurrection) Jesus. On the other hand, it is possible to find statements that probably were uttered by Jesus (although the reconstruction of the original Aramaic must remain hypothetical). The most convincing of these (to me) are those that scholars think read like "translation Greek." That is they are of construction that is peculiar in Greek, but not so peculiar in Aramaic. That is to say, to a surprising extent we can determine what the historical Jesus said and taught (and therefore presumably believed). The post-Resurrection Jesus is not accessible to the methods of historians (why not - show me the body), and as a result of Resurrection, his beliefs and teachings may have taken on a more Christological tone than they had before. Now I think that these difficulties would shake the faith of a Fundamentalist Christian. But, since I have never been a Fundamentalist Christian, these points present no difficulty to me as a Christian. What you cannot understand, it seems to me, is that there are alternatives to Fundamentalism within Christianity. There are also alternatives to the Trinity in modern Christian apologetics, as well as alternatives to the Apostolic doctrine of substitutionary sacrifice (Christ died for our sins). See That Old Time Religion. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Michael Ray New member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 9 Registered: 5-2005 |
Here are some sites you guys might have seen already, I thought it might be of interest anyways since the topic is “God=nature” Transitional Fossils http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/transfos.htm Peculiar Bible verses http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/pecular.htm FALSE ARGUMENTS http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/falsarg.htm cheers | ||
| Seeker Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 28 Registered: 5-2005 |
J. Futterman...... "It is the 'idiotic" assertion that Jesus rose from the dead." This is an area where "faith" overrides "reason." Or, as my grandfather used to say, "Show me someone that gets up and walks away after being three days dead, and I'll show you a tree that has $100 bills for leaves." It didn't happen, isn't gonna happen, can't happen. One does not violate the laws of biology, chemistry in such a manner. When you're dead, it's over......once your brain dies and ceases to function, there is no more "you" and there is nothing to resurrect: "YOU" don't exist anymore...there is no "YOU" to resurrect. I would agree there is a growing movement toward "liberal Christianity," but this still does not obviate the irrationality of their beliefs. As for determining what Jesus may or may not have said, there is simply no way to do that. There are no extant "original manuscripts," and the earliest complete manuscript copies date from the 4th century ...to think that someone in the 4th century could give conversations of Jesus literally word-for-word is, I believe, ludicrous, but that is just my personal opinion. You say, "not the Jesus knowable only by faith," and what you have done here is to (whether deliberately or inadvertantly) adopt the position that something known by faith needs no proof and can be taken as correct "just because someone says so." (By faith, one could believe anything at all...and there is no way to argue he/she is incorrect, as they require no proof...indeed there IS NO proof possible....they are "correct" merely because they say so! I don't buy that at all.) It is entirely possible, and I think some scholars have stated this, that the N. T. was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, and this is why all the thought patterns, idioms, etc., are "Hebrew." I seem to recall reading somewhere that a copy of Matthew in Hebrew had been found, but I don't know off-hand when it was found (or even if it is true that it WAS found)....let me hop around here a minute.... http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_199809/ai_n8816221 http://www.irr.org/English-JW/tetra5.pdf http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/hebrewgospel.htm .... ok, looks like there actually is one, but the dating might be a little shakey. http://www.messiahtruth.com/prophets.html Well, my time on the computer is running out...will have to get back to this later. Be glad when I get back to my own computer!!  }The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Seeker Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 29 Registered: 5-2005 |
J. Futterman..... Quickly...... "Ex-Fundamentalist," yes. "Anti-Christian Fundamentalist," no.....just anti-Christian. I just no longer buy "Christianity" as being valid. I suppose at present I'd be classified as an "agnostic;" there may well be a "supreme intelligence" running the universe.....I just don't believe that supreme intelligence is "God" as defined by Christianity. (Message edited by seekeraftertruth on May 30, 2005) The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Eric Foster Junior Member Username: moondog Post Number: 17 Registered: 4-2005 |
Seeker's funny.  Anyhow, some of the words you've put in JAH's mouth clearly aren't his own. To be honest, he's not attacking you, he's just trying to work out what the freak you're saying! X) In any case, welcome! (I was raised Catholic, so take what I say with a grain of salt.) Okay, now, the facts you've brought up, I'm not going to debate them, not only because I will most likely be wrong, but because... I'm kinda lazy. =) What I would like to point out is that even if the Bible isn't 100% "authentic" (which, I take it, means to you that Matthew sat down one day and handed in all his writings to John, and they all had a huge bachelor's party and composed the Bible), that doesn't mean that what the Bible is telling us, the lessons it teaches, are incorrect. I am a Christian because I feel a closeness to that philosophy (partly because of the way I was raised, but I was an atheist when I was in the "I know everything" stage of life, so I bounced back). I remain a Christian not because of my "hardheadedness", as you might see it, but because of an underlying spirituality... I feel connected to God. The thing is you will probably never see that anymore. And it's kinda sad. You will live your life seeing the faithful as people who believe without proof. But that's not who we are. We're people who trust, without reservation. It's a completely different mindset, and having come from being an atheist, I look at my past self with pity, and I'm glad God forgives me for who I was. I'm not here to judge. Personally, I believe that you're a fundamentally good person Seeker, and if you live a good life, and help others and all that jazz, I don't think the Almighty is going to get too upset with you for using your mind. =) Anyhow, ciao! Outta here. Kind regards, Moondog | ||
| Seeker Intermediate Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 31 Registered: 5-2005 |
Funny? Funny? OK, time out, everyone repeat after me: Fooo gass baa muh wupseee...  Eric: You say you are a Christian because you feel closer "to that PHILOSOPHY." You imply that it is required for one to be a Christian to have such a "philosophy." Not true. Philosophy and religion are two different things. The PHILOSOPHY contained in the Bible was around long before there WAS a Bible......the moral/ethical values that most people call "Christian," are only Christian because Christianity ADOPTED the philosophies. Oh crap, gotta go to another med appointment....be back later!  The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Eric Foster Junior Member Username: moondog Post Number: 18 Registered: 4-2005 |
"You say you are a Christian because you feel closer "to that PHILOSOPHY." You imply that it is required for one to be a Christian to have such a "philosophy." Not true. Philosophy and religion are two different things." -Seeker Erhm, actually I was hoping to imply the exact opposite. Yes, philosophy and religion are two distinct things. You are, by your own words, "anti-Christian" (though, I think it's kinda sad. =( You don't need to fight against us just because you disagree) and an "ex-Christian". People who are raised Christian have a certain set of moral values that remain, even if you do not believe in the God. Even if one is anti-Christian, I believe that to some extent you still honor the basic philosophy (philosophy, in this case, defined as "a system of values by which one lives") that is proposed by Jesus Christ. (Additionally, my philosophy is based on Jesus Christ, not the Old Testament. So I cannot claim to be very well versed in OT texts without a *lot* of intellectual dishonesty.) This does not include the radical elements that may have been centralized by some of our more zealous bretheren, but the belief that we should love each other, etc. I hope I'm making myself clear.  Kind regards, Moondog | ||
| Seeker Intermediate Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 32 Registered: 5-2005 |
Eric....Yes, I would say I retain the moral/ethical philosophy....it's the system of "religion," or perhaps more accurately, "blind faith" that I now don't go along with. The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 439 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, One tendency I have noticed in Fundamentalists is an "all or nothing" attitude. Their faith is all of one piece, and if any one part of it can be proven wrong, then the walls of their belief system come tumbling down. The psychological term for it is "splitting," if you care to peruse that literature. It is characterized by a low tolerance for ambiguity. Things must be all good or all bad, all right or all wrong. Why would God, and God's Word (the Bible) be ambiguous? Why the charade? Why not just lay it out for us? I think that is because this is the Universe that God loans to us to grow up in. We are free to do whatever we want, within the limits of physical law (the school of hard knocks), without reference or deference to God. Just like your child needs to grow up and stand on its own before it can really know you, so we need to do the same with reference to God. [A tensive symbol, means many things, cannot be nailed down precisely.] Are there the occasional in-breakings of God in the form of miracles? I think the wish that miracles occur comes from the same place in the soul as the wish they they don't occur. We want things the way we want them. I think there are three miracles: (1) Anything at all exists, as opposed to nothing. (2) The Universe appears to be comprehensible to us. (3) Jesus arose from the dead. He may have been as surprised at this as everyone else. The first two make me a scientist, the third makes me a Christian. I'm not bothered by the fact that the Bible did not come together the way the Fundamentalists say it did. I think the Bible is a library of different traditions that are the record of the Israelites' attempt to be the People of God. It records their failures as well as their triumphs. And while religion and philosophy are different now, it was not always so in the predecessors to Western Culture. For the contributions of the Bible to philosophy I refer you to Cahill's book Gifts of the Jews. And while you use existence of text and form criticism of the Bible to search for what is inauthentic, I use them to search for what is authentic (to some reasonable degree of certainty). It is amazing to me that in some instances the Bible does appear to preserve direct (albeit translated) quotes of Jesus. I refer you to the massive work A Marginal Jew by John P. Meier. Now in Science, I do not accept anything as true without objective proof. But you can prove that you can't prove everything. See Science and Faith, which begins with a discussion of Goedel's Theorem. That is to say, the domain of Science does not include everything. The assumption that it does is essentially a religious belief, and one that appears to me to be provably false. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Michael Ray New member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 10 Registered: 5-2005 |
So what happened to Mary ? Isn’t it funny that mother of God does not get mentioned after Jesus gets crucified. She would have been the holiest flesh on this earth after his departure. One would assume she would have died a rich woman, with hundreds of servants and a house fit for a queen. I know that’s how my mother would live out her last days, if I was God and honoured they mother and they father. Cheers | ||
| Seeker Intermediate Member Username: seekeraftertruth Post Number: 33 Registered: 5-2005 |
J. Futterman....You said, "The first two make me a scientist, the third makes me a Christian." It is that "third" that I would disagree with. To me, and this is just my own opinion, I think it stretches credulity a bit far to believe in a resurrection. [Especially when there are so many contradictions and discrepancies in the "resurrection story."] Other than that, I don't have any real problem with what you are saying [and yes, there are two ways to view textual criticism...kind of like asking if the glass is half full or half empty]. M. Ray: Interesting point....what DID happen to Mary? Strange that her story abruptly ends with her being handed over to John (or the visit to the tomb on Sunday morning....I've never been quite clear if SHE was that "Mary," or not)...one would think she'd have been mentioned as one of the staunchest early Christians (after all, it was her son that was supposedly resurrected). (Message edited by seekeraftertruth on June 01, 2005) The more I learn, the more I find I do not know. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 440 Registered: 3-2003 |
Seeker, If you have an experience of the Risen Christ then you're stuck with it. Short of that, I agree with the Revolutionary War patriot Tom Paine that you are not obligated to believe anything based on hearsay. Be that as it may, it strains credulity to think that the early Church could have thrived after the Crucifixion without the Resurrection. That is to say, the most parsimonious explanation to me is that the Resurrection actually happened. Or at least, the Apostles and many others experienced the Resurrection of Jesus. However, there is a separate thread on that subject in this Forum. See Can anyone prove the Resurrection really happened? As for Mary, well women didn't get to lead much in first century Palestinian Jewish society. The Gnostics thought that Mary Magdalene took over the primary leadership of the "true" Church. See the The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of the Egyptians, Pistis Sophia, and the Gospel of Thomas in Nag Hammadi Library in English, James M. Robinson, ed., Harper & Row, 1988. On the other hand, the Gnostic material comes from a syncretism of Christianity and Graeco-Roman pagan mysticism, which occurred later than the writing of the Gospels, and to some extent, depends on them. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Judson Heartsill Intermediate Member Username: judd Post Number: 35 Registered: 8-2002 |
John, Although you are correct in the context of your discussion here, I would point out that in other contexts, the doctrine of inerrancy is not idolatry. In other words, people have concocted explicit statements of the bible's reliability, using the term "inerrancy", which do not purport to ascribe authority to the bible in areas which it, itself, does not claim authority. This self-attesting view basically represents just a highly worshipful attitude toward the apparently exceptional way in which God moved in people in order to preserve an astounding body of revelation. Of course, the term itself has plenty of problems, and is weakened by having to be so highly qualified. However, I think the most egregious errors (6,000 year old earth, etc.) are mainly avoided by the different formulations of "inerrancy" which I'm familiar with. Just a side note. However, as you said, you are completely correct in asserting that reliance on the "written word" sometimes easily supplants a reliance in the Word made flesh. I've uttered my own imprecations against this, but all in all I find it one of the more understandable mess-ups of Christianity. It takes a fairly high-minded person to sift out all those epistemological issues, and God apparently is in the business of saving lots of low-minded people. Your reductionist approach (the only centrality of faith is the resurrection) is a good one, with biblical warrant, I think. (Which, oddly enough, is an argument for inerrancy.) | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 451 Registered: 3-2003 |
Judson, Sorry about taking so long to respond. First of all, Thanks, I needed that. Second of all, my more considered thoughts about inerrancy are in the FAQ. Basically, I think the Bible is as God intended for us to receive, with all its redactions, inconsistencies, errors, etc. It is a puzzle to stimulate us to seek its Source. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Michael Ray Advanced Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 72 Registered: 5-2005 |
To me the doctrine of inerrancy fails in trinity. Scripturally we can accept Lucifer as one of god’s sons that turned bed but we cannot accept Jesus as one of god’s suns because he turned good. The bible itself does not link nor mention the trinity and somehow Christianity has linked it. How is this possible? | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 244 Registered: 3-2003 |
"The bible itself does not link nor mention the trinity and somehow Christianity has linked it. How is this possible?" It is possible because 'biblical authority' is somehow placed above any 'doctrinal authority' - both are in fact quite similar. Fundamentalists, however, will draw a sharp distinction. | ||
| Beelzebub Member Username: beelzebub Post Number: 24 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hmmm. God = Nature. Nature = God. God & Nature are an old married couple who never talk anymore, whose children never visit, and who only do it on their anniversary (and then they need the assistance of a back brace, handlebars and a good pair of boots!) Hmmmm. ciao! Beelzy | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 98 Registered: 5-2005 |
Written by Darkpath E-coli cells used as cloning vectors for Allele 666. Scientists at the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom) have discovered a gene that may contribute to the acceptance of Christianity. Examination of loci 777 has identified an aberrant allele (allele 666) that is found in 99.8% of Christians. Non believers, pagans, witches, infidels and the Chinese do not have this allele. It is currently unclear how this gene functions but genetic expression appears to manifest itself as an increased ability to blindly accept literary contradiction. Dr Sword explains: “once we identified allele 666 we ran a series of psychology tests where the Christian phenotype was compared with a random sample of non-believers”. In all cases the Christians were able to accept higher levels of ambiguity”. One of the most striking illustrations of DR Sword’s work was elucidated in answer to the following question: In the old testament god sanctions murder, revenge (an eye for an eye), incest (Lot was good…at getting it on with his daughter) and multiple wives (Solomon had 600 wives). In the new testament god changes his tune and advises you to “turn the other cheek”, stop Scre*ing and killing animals in sacrifice. Do you have any problem with the fact that an all knowing and all seeing god should be able to get it right first time without exhibiting this type of dichotomy? a. NO, to question is to invite Satan in to your life. b. Yes, people should question everything. Logic is the only way to overcome ignorance. The results were as follows: Christian Phenotype Yes 0% No 100% Normal Phenotype Yes 96% No 4% Further testing of individuals showed that subjects that did not have the Christian phenotype were 80% more likely to answer NO to this question if their IQ was less than 80 points. This has been dubbed the “Gump” effect Similar results were achieved when Christians were asked if it was suitable to kill all non-believers in accordance with Christian law. Only 2% of individuals displaying the Christian phenotype were able to admit that a Muslim may have some redeeming qualities. Dr WarMule, editor of Nature magazine was quick to highlight the importance of these discoveries: “clearly understanding of the Christian affliction is the first step toward potential treatment. Introduction and subsequent expression of the normal gene into the believer phenotype could lead to an improvement in their capacity for logic”. In time religious fervour and god sanctioned violence might be a thing of the past”. what do you think? | ||
| Beelzebub Intermediate Member  Username: beelzebubPost Number: 47 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hi Michael Ray! I think that Darkpath A) doesn't understand either Christianity or mainstream christians and B) didn't understand the movie Forrest Gump. ciao! Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 99 Registered: 5-2005 |
I’m always looking outside the square for the truth. This probably is a joke but not impossible. A lot of things are attached to out DNA, like anger, love. Abuse, alcoholism, sexuality and so forth. I always look at yesterday’s fantasies becoming to days realities. What was yesterday extraordinary, today is ordinary. Cheers | ||
| Beelzebub Advanced Member Username: beelzebubPost Number: 52 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hi Michael Ray! I will admit it was funny, though! Might have been more apropos if it had said the Fundamentalist phenotype, instead of the Christian phenotype, but I'm probably splitting hairs. ciao! Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD |
