[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
We believe differently. Do you think I’m wrong in my beliefs?

for me this isn't a question of wrong or right, but how coherent your philosophical model is. what you believe is totally up to you, i can not, and do not want to change that.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
wow, that's exactly the opposite of what i believe. though i'm not an atheist, i do consider myself an agnostic...

i wonder, how do you feel about memory and the whole "total recall" dilemma?

Cripes — you would have LOVED our Philosophy classes, PB, I wish you could have been there! A friend and wrote up an entire thesis (almost) about the errancy of remembering and the fallacy of human memory.

Speaking Philosophically, the premise was that we have no guarantee that anything we remember is true. It’s nothing earth-shattering, and we aren’t the first to express this idea — but it makes for good dinner conversation.

What “concrete” evidence do we have that we had a mother and father. That we exist? That’s not good enough. Because we can see them? Not good enough — because those are all memories our brain could be fabricating to cope with the world around us. You can take it to the minutia, and even as you sit across from someone, the only reason you think they are there is because your brain is process a memory that your eyes saw them a millisecond before.

Again, it makes for great conversation, but we should save it for another thread.

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
for me this isn't a question of wrong or right, but how coherent your philosophical model is. what you believe is totally up to you, i can not, and do not want to change that.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. But again, you may think my philosophical model is incoherent, and I may think yours is, too.

It’s these differences, all being equal and as Real to each of us, that makes this world such an interesting place, no?



Maury

[benign]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
:rolleyes:

...Do you down-talk Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus? Do you seek them out in these posts and try to show how much more astute and intelligent you must be simply because you see through the veil of Religion and Faith?...
Maury

Metaphysical tree or pyramid thought structures used by the theological
and the religious apologist philosophers is archaic and just antiquated
word games.

All religion, all redundant pseudo scientific sophistry that has served it's use
should be rejected - they were all man made and fallible - so instead of using
someone else's used toilet paper - be creative and make up new models for
a modern better society - one that accepts different sexual differences and
our better half's, ' women' as equals.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by benign:
Metaphysical tree or pyramid thought structures used by the theological
and the religious apologist philosophers is archaic and just antiquated
word games.

All religion, all redundant pseudo scientific sophistry that has served it's use
should be rejected - they were all man made and fallible - so instead of using
someone else's used toilet paper - be creative and make up new models for
a modern better society - one that accepts different sexual differences and
our better half's, ' women' as equals.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power
and divine nature, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God,
they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.

Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, "My lord, what shall be the end of these things?"

And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favor.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.


----------
I can play this silly game too. It ads nothing to the discussion though.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by benign:
Metaphysical tree or pyramid thought structures used by the theological
and the religious apologist philosophers is archaic and just antiquated
word games.

All religion, all redundant pseudo scientific sophistry that has served it's use
should be rejected - they were all man made and fallible - so instead of using
someone else's used toilet paper - be creative and make up new models for
a modern better society - one that accepts different sexual differences and
our better half's, ' women' as equals.

When are you going to stop confusing Fundamentalism with spirituality? I know it's all part of the "game" you play, but it really makes you look ridiculous.

If you had a basic understanding of those archetypal models, you'd know better.

[benign]

A miracle, god speaks though pancake to his chosen ones !
Look directly at the mouth of the pancake and hear his sweet,
juicy words. Like honey dripping...





Divided love - love everyone but love humor as well.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by benign:
...be creative and make up new models for
a modern better society - one that accepts different sexual differences and
our better half's, ' women' as equals.

Tsk tsk — if you were as “philosophical” as you’d have us believe, you’d first have to ask yourself this: why would a society have to accept “sexual differences,” our “better half’s” [sic], and “‘women as equals’” in order to be better?

Thinking outside the box means never letting the walls of said box prevent you from learning from others, grasshopper.

Maury

[benign]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Tsk tsk — if you were as “philosophical” as you’d have us believe, you’d first have to ask yourself this: why would a society have to accept “sexual differences,” our “better half’s” [sic], and “‘women as equals’” in order to be better?

Thinking outside the box means never letting the walls of said box prevent you from learning from others, grasshopper.

Maury

If you are one of the hordes of christians, which ever
sect or splinter group that may be. You belong to an
antiquated male club, that shows you cannot think
outside the box you keep your fleshy sword in let alone
the ability to learn from anything outside of it -
Everything is law in the skewed Stagnate fairy tale you
live in - everything died in it two thousand years ago.
As soon as it hit the bowl.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by benign:
If you are one of the hordes of christians, which ever
sect or splinter group that may be. You belong to an
antiquated male club, that shows you cannot think
outside the box you keep your fleshy sword in let alone
the ability to learn from anything outside of it -
Everything is law in the skewed Stagnate fairy tale you
live in - everything died in it two thousand years ago.
As soon as it hit the bowl.

Thanks for proving my point to a tee.

Maury

[benign]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Thanks for proving my point to a tee.

Maury

... and mine.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by benign:
If you are one of the hordes of christians, which ever
sect or splinter group that may be. You belong to an
antiquated male club, that shows you cannot think
outside the box you keep your fleshy sword in let alone
the ability to learn from anything outside of it -
Everything is law in the skewed Stagnate fairy tale you
live in - everything died in it two thousand years ago.
As soon as it hit the bowl.

Of course, you don't know that most Orthodox Christian churches are Matriarchal in nature and have female ministers. Why are you so backwards in your beliefs?

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
19. There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21. And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23. And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28. For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

.....and a partidge in a pear tree!

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
As to how God can allow this, it�s quite simple: He has no choice.

Okay, the omnipotent and omnipresent God has no choice - his hands are tied. Gotcha.

He laid the ground work and the setup the rules � but we chose to break them. Wanting to keep us in a good relationship, God did whatever He could � while making sure to NOT trump our free will � to provide a means by which to maintain our relationship. Eventually, He decided that no matter how hard we tried, Man could not stay faithful using his own means, so God sent Jesus to be the one, final sacrifice. Now, it was up to Man to accept that this gift would suffice and restore our relationship with God. The ball was, and is, in our court � because God created us with free will to do whatever we choose.

Understood. The omniscient God didn't know when he wrote up his original plan that it wasn't going to work, so he had to revise it later.

While this is all very interesting, I'd like to invite you to come attend the Church of Magic Fall-Downiness. Because you should be open-minded, and allow yourself to explore other possibilities. Oh, and by the way, if you believe in gravity, you're going to Hell. Not that it's God's fault - he has no choice.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Okay, the omnipotent and omnipresent God has no choice - his hands are tied. Gotcha.

Understood. The omniscient God didn't know when he wrote up his original plan that it wasn't going to work, so he had to revise it later.

While this is all very interesting, I'd like to invite you to come attend the Church of Magic Fall-Downiness. Because you should be open-minded, and allow yourself to explore other possibilities. Oh, and by the way, if you believe in gravity, you're going to Hell. Not that it's God's fault - he has no choice.

You didn't read all of my post, apparently. The key to the whole thing is that man was created with FREE WILL. We are not God's chess pieces to move as *He* pleases, rather, we move ourselves. His hope is that we will move in accordance to His "plan," but if we don't, that's on us.

It's really rather simple.

Maury

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
.....and a partidge in a pear tree!

Ok, that was funny.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by benign:
... and mine.

Which was?

And please answer like a man.

You aren't the "People's poet"

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
You didn't read all of my post, apparently. The key to the whole thing is that man was created with FREE WILL. We are not God's chess pieces to move as *He* pleases, rather, we move ourselves. His hope is that we will move in accordance to His "plan," but if we don't, that's on us.

It's really rather simple.

Maury

He hopes? Isn't God supposed to know the past, present, and future? Hope shouldn't be a consideration here since he should KNOW everything that's going to happen.

I just don't understand how an omnipotent, omniscient God could have 'no choice' as to what to do, and I don't understand how he would suddenly realize that he needed a new testament at some point rather than realizing that from the beginning and getting it right the first time.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
He hopes? Isn't God supposed to know the past, present, and future? Hope shouldn't be a consideration here since he should KNOW everything that's going to happen.

I just don't understand how an omnipotent, omniscient God could have 'no choice' as to what to do, and I don't understand how he would suddenly realize that he needed a new testament at some point rather than realizing that from the beginning and getting it right the first time.

I'm simply writing this as a gut reaction, not as some proof, rebuttal, or argument...

The image some require of an anthropomorphic God image would not preclude an entirely different deity's existence. And the willingness of a God to accept the misguided praise and devotion some have toward a warped image of Him only highlights all the concepts of love discussed in holy texts around the world: patience, compassion, etc.

I must remind myself of these things constantly when faced with the fearless ignorance of the passionate conformist. People who must find an idea to cling to instead of seeking to understand many diverse ideas. Misguided zealots exist in every ideological framework, but the fundamentalist atheists are by far the worst hypocrites of the bunch. They break any laws of logic and judge evidence before they even investigate it -- anything to deny the existence of a being they've already decided does not exist. It would be very funny if it wasn't so horrifying.

The bottom line for me is this: If one can imagine a God who could exist despite the senses which deny direct proof, then one must accept that possibility that such a being might exist. And if a person cannot imagine an imperceptible God, then it is most likely one's own psychological limitations which require a godless reality. (or just a really poor imagination)

Once a person is willing to stop beating on the unsatisfactory ideas that other people have of God, and start coming up with his or her own, that person will understand the necessity of humility and an open mind. But these are the things which are most fearful to an egotist who requires their 5 senses to define reality.


wolfen

And I can't believe we're having this discussion. I think this topic is proof of reincarnation. Discuss.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by wolfen:
I'm simply writing this as a gut reaction, not as some proof, rebuttal, or argument...

The image some require of an anthropomorphic God image would not preclude an entirely different deity's existence. And the willingness of a God to accept the misguided praise and devotion some have toward a warped image of Him only highlights all the concepts of love discussed in holy texts around the world: patience, compassion, etc.

I must remind myself of these things constantly when faced with the fearless ignorance of the passionate conformist. People who must find an idea to cling to instead of seeking to understand many diverse ideas. Misguided zealots exist in every ideological framework, but the fundamentalist atheists are by far the worst hypocrites of the bunch. They break any laws of logic and judge evidence before they even investigate it -- anything to deny the existence of a being they've already decided does not exist. It would be very funny if it wasn't so horrifying.

The bottom line for me is this: If one can imagine a God who could exist despite the senses which deny direct proof, then one must accept that possibility that such a being might exist. And if a person cannot imagine an imperceptible God, then it is most likely one's own psychological limitations which require a godless reality. (or just a really poor imagination)

Once a person is willing to stop beating on the unsatisfactory ideas that other people have of God, and start coming up with his or her own, that person will understand the necessity of humility and an open mind. But these are the things which are most fearful to an egotist who requires their 5 senses to define reality.


wolfen

And I can't believe we're having this discussion. I think this topic is proof of reincarnation. Discuss.

Spot-on daddy-o.


I've told people in the past that I can prove to them the existence of divinity, they simply have to give me 18 months of their life and a willingness to study. A few have taken me up on that offer.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I've told people in the past that I can prove to them the existence of divinity, they simply have to give me 18 months of their life and a willingness to study. A few have taken me up on that offer.

Interesting you should say that. I've got a course outline in my head for something along those lines. The course is titled "Building a God." It's not meant to convince people to become theists, though. It's more like an exercise to understand how a rational human being can connect with such an irrational concept.

Needless to say I've taken the course and was very impressed. Still have the certificate somewhere...

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Spot-on daddy-o.


I've told people in the past that I can prove to them the existence of divinity, they simply have to give me 18 months of their life and a willingness to study. A few have taken me up on that offer.

Do you start at year one, or go back 3 or 4 thousand years?

You know, discuss all the religious leaders who were born of virgin births, healed the sick, walked on water, were nailed to something, then rose from the dead a few days later.

Or do you just stick to your belief system?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by wolfen:
Interesting you should say that. I've got a course outline in my head for something along those lines. The course is titled "Building a God." It's not meant to convince people to become theists, though. It's more like an exercise to understand how a rational human being can connect with such an irrational concept.

Needless to say I've taken the course and was very impressed. Still have the certificate somewhere...

Building a god isn't too difficult, lots of blueprints lying around.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
He hopes? Isn't God supposed to know the past, present, and future? Hope shouldn't be a consideration here since he should KNOW everything that's going to happen.

I just don't understand how an omnipotent, omniscient God could have 'no choice' as to what to do, and I don't understand how he would suddenly realize that he needed a new testament at some point rather than realizing that from the beginning and getting it right the first time.

No, God doesn't know the future. Re-read the definition of omnipotent and read my post again.

Maury

[Zimphire]

God doesn't know the future?

How did he show Paul what was to come?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
God doesn't know the future?

How did he show Paul what was to come?

What passage of scripture are you referring to? Also, God doesn't necessarily know the future as it will pan-out, but He knows how He would like it to. Omnipotence isn't foreseeing the future, it's having the power and authority to "make due" in any circumstance to the end of the one omnipotent (God — all things happen for the glory of God, etc.).

Maury (who's going to bed now....)

[Zimphire]

For example. The visions in Revelations.

How did God show them if he didn't know what was going on?

I am not disagreeing with you. I am just curious myself. If he didn't know the future, there is a lot of things in the Bible that just would't make sense.

He knew what would happen to Jesus as well.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by xenu:
Do you start at year one, or go back 3 or 4 thousand years?

You know, discuss all the religious leaders who were born of virgin births, healed the sick, walked on water, were nailed to something, then rose from the dead a few days later.

Or do you just stick to your belief system?

Not really even close. Although all those beliefs have some merit, the truth for you revolves around who you are, or more precisely what you can be. Embracing a particular religion is enough for some, but for others something on a more personal and direct level is required.

I personally confronted "God" and dared "him" to make me believe. In some ways that was a mistake, but it worked. If I'd had more wisdom I would have accepted some things on faith, but I was one of those types who needed to be hit with a sledgehammer of sorts.

Every day, it seems, I run into people who don't believe and I listen to their doubts. How they believe that there is no "God". At some point in their life though, the truth about it will hit them... I see it all the time. Just listening to them makes me grin.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
What passage of scripture are you referring to? Also, God doesn't necessarily know the future as it will pan-out, but He knows how He would like it to. Omnipotence isn't foreseeing the future, it's having the power and authority to "make due" in any circumstance to the end of the one omnipotent (God — all things happen for the glory of God, etc.).

Maury (who's going to bed now....)

The way I see it, "God" sees all probability in all directions. Everything running from a singularity while simultaneously running back to it. "God" is "All knowing" in that all possible ways are known. The "course" is set, but the paths we choose are completely up to us.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
The way I see it, "God" sees all probability in all directions. Everything running from a singularity while simultaneously running back to it. "God" is "All knowing" in that all possible ways are known. The "course" is set, but the paths we choose are completely up to us.

Sounds like a decent explanation. Pretty much my belief as well.

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Not really even close. Although all those beliefs have some merit, the truth for you revolves around who you are, or more precisely what you can be. Embracing a particular religion is enough for some, but for others something on a more personal and direct level is required.

I personally confronted "God" and dared "him" to make me believe. In some ways that was a mistake, but it worked. If I'd had more wisdom I would have accepted some things on faith, but I was one of those types who needed to be hit with a sledgehammer of sorts.

Every day, it seems, I run into people who don't believe and I listen to their doubts. How they believe that there is no "God". At some point in their life though, the truth about it will hit them... I see it all the time. Just listening to them makes me grin.

So you don't care that the jesus myth was all made up?
That he only became a god well after he died, by his followers taking the good bits from older religions?

You are easly pleased.

[Link]

The best part is, I don't believe almost anything at all said in this thead, seldom anything said on this forum. I'll make my own decisions and believe what I want to believe and that will be that

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
No, God doesn't know the future. Re-read the definition of omnipotent and read my post again.

Maury

Omnipotent isn't the key word here. Omniscient is.

And I get a pretty clear idea that God is supposed to know the future from reading the Bible, what with all the prophecies that are in it...

I still haven't received a satisfactory response to my question: If God is perfect, omniscient, etc., why would he give one testament, and then change his mind and decide he needed a different one, because the first one wasn't working?

[phoenixboy]

i think one of the core problems of this discussion is that, even though everybody here seems to have a vague concept of what or who god is (by virtue of growing up in a culture where this is considered common knowledge), there is no "real" definition.

another problem is the limitation language itself imposes on certain concepts (anybody who has read works by derrida or roland barthes certainly knows what i am talking about here). i would have to agree with those who say that if anybody was ever able to prove the existence of god, he would have to do it through math (too bad i always really sucked at math )

i find it fascinating that each cultural perception of religion or divinity reflects the "realpolitik" of a given society in a VERY SPECIFIC WAY. coincidence? - i think not! i also find it quite interesting that the method by which it is "decided" whether a person's soul goes to heaven or hell looks very much like a court trial in "the real world". coincidence? i think not. judeo-christian god, a father figure in a predominantly patriarchic society etc.

i have read quite a few books that do an excellent job at deconstructing the "way religion works" (some of the best written by claude levi-strauss, imho) and what it's implications are on society and the individual psyche. freud and jung do a pretty good job as well, but fail miserably, when one takes a closer look at how, for example, the aborigine's "psyche" worked(s). there are quite a few other tribal cultures where freud is at "wit's end". same with jung and his "archetypes".

i was raised protestant, and had "religious education" in school for about 12 years ;-). in my mid teens i moved away from the christian "faith", when i realized what a negative effect it had on quite a few people in my circle of friends and acquaintances (though i do have to mention here that some of the nicest and kindest people i have ever met were devout christians). i noticed very quickly though, that it wasn't for me.

i entered college as a "theist" and left an agnostic (primarily due to the film-studies classes which i took and not the philosophy or anthropology classes). since then i have read a lot on evolutionary theory (gould and dawkins) and zen (buddhist) philosophy...i always try to be as honest as possible in terms of what i believe...so as it stands now i am an agnostic in religious terms, believe in zen philo/spirituality (if you want to call it that), and politically i'm an anarchist. i guess that means i'm going to hell...that's okay...i like interesting company!

[edit] and i guess it goes without saying that i am a strong "believer" in evolution and evolutionary theory. up until know BY FAR the best model of "how things work" that we have. HOW everything started has absolutely no bearing on my life! i have read about the "big bang" theory...but i realize it has a lot of problems. maybe one day there'll be a better explanation.

[phoenixboy]

i can vaguely remember reading about a philosophy that had as it's premise that we, as individuals, are all part of somebody else's dream...

i can't remeber the name of it though...it's been a few years.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
For example. The visions in Revelations.

How did God show them if he didn't know what was going on?

I am not disagreeing with you. I am just curious myself. If he didn't know the future, there is a lot of things in the Bible that just would't make sense.

He knew what would happen to Jesus as well.

Cripes, I just woke up so until I get my coffee, I'm going to have to say that MacNStein pretty much stated the explanation i would give. From His perspective (being the Creator and all), what would be the purpose of giving us free will — yet already knowing what we'd do anyway? There'd be no point, so we may as well not have free will to begin with.

Maury (still sleepy...)

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Omnipotent isn't the key word here. Omniscient is.

And I get a pretty clear idea that God is supposed to know the future from reading the Bible, what with all the prophecies that are in it...

I still haven't received a satisfactory response to my question: If God is perfect, omniscient, etc., why would he give one testament, and then change his mind and decide he needed a different one, because the first one wasn't working?

OK, omniscient: having total knowledge. That's *not* seeing the future.

My answer was given: we were created with FREE WILL and God made us so that we could do whatever we wanted in hopes that we would find our way back to Him. The changes in the "testaments" — if read them — took place because God set up "rules" by which Man was to live so that Man would be in a close relationship with God.

We couldn't live up to the standard. In laymen's terms, God made the 10 Commandments, but that wasn't specific enough for us so he gave us The Book of the Law — but that wasn't good enough, and so on and so forth.

Eventually, and I can't blame Him, He said forget it — you're never going to get it right so I'll take the pressure off of you. If you want a restored relationship with Me, I'll provide the "final sacrifice" for your atonement: Jesus.

It wasn't so much that He didn't know the future — rather, this shows He is all powerful in that he was able to take what we were incapable of upon Himself and provide us with salvation.

Maury (still sleepy...)

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
My answer was given: we were created with FREE WILL and God made us so that we could do whatever we wanted in hopes that we would find our way back to Him.

that's interesting. i always though that free will was our "burdon" for "rebelling against god" in the garden eden?! before that, we were doing god's will...damn, i guess those 12 years were wasted on me!

[amsalpemkcus]

humans God

[wolfen]

Regarding free will:

You can never be certain that anything you do is a product of free will. The concept has little or no utility.

How would you go about proving that you did something without it being programmed, instigated, etc...by something unseen? A warp in time? A potassium ion going astray in the frontal lobe? An electromagnetic field? The first-cause of a conscious thought is one of the greatest mysteries of human existence.

Biblically speaking:

You will read in the Bible the phrase "God hardened his heart" (Pharoah) or how God made Nebuchadnezzar insane for a while. Ther are many cases of God seeming to manufacture human experience. On the other hand you will read how Moses brought the message "Choose Life" --> which would have no significance whatsoever if there was no choice to be made. So there are cases in the Bible where free will meant little -- God was gonna have his way because "it's good to be the king." There are others where it seems the world is our oyster if we pick and choose wisely.

For me personally, I accept that man (especially during canonization) knew little of time-space or the potential for interdimensional miscommunication. Read Revelation and you quickly realize that Angels have little concept of time as we experience it. It's like reading "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" listening to those guys talk about the past, present, and future as if they've all going-to-have-happened...

I believe the Bible is a sincere work, but I do not believe the men who wrote it were perfect or that they were channeling perfectly the words of God. There is no indication of this. Revelation indicates no jot or tittle should be changed, but that regarded only that book -- and the english version is technically corrupt with uninspired punctuation. And there are hundreds or thousands of works kept by the Vatican that were not canonized. I do not for a moment believe those works were filtered specifically by the hand of god -- IF YOU DO THEN WHERE WAS THE FREE WILL OF THE GUYS WHO PUT THE BOOK TOGETHER?

Let go of free will -- that's a burden you don't need. You don't understand time, and you don't know the origins of your next thought. You can only analyze it afterward and deduce a logical answer. You can regurgitate text book theories and neural action potentials -- none of which will absolutely (or even adequately) explain the spontaneous thought: "I think I'll call my sister."

You get to experience the feeling of a free-will action -- that should be good enough. Anyway, it has to be. It's all you got.


wolfen

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xenu:
So you don't care that the jesus myth was all made up?
That he only became a god well after he died, by his followers taking the good bits from older religions?

You are easly pleased.

Go look at other historical documents about Jesus that weren't in the Bible.

SURPRISE.. they match up.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Omnipotent isn't the key word here. Omniscient is.

And I get a pretty clear idea that God is supposed to know the future from reading the Bible, what with all the prophecies that are in it...

I still haven't received a satisfactory response to my question: If God is perfect, omniscient, etc., why would he give one testament, and then change his mind and decide he needed a different one, because the first one wasn't working?

That isn't what happened. If you read the OT, there was talk of the Messiah. It was part of the plan.

God didn't "Change his mind"

The only thing that Jesus did, was replace the sacrificial and dietary laws. The moral laws in the OT are still valid.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Go look at other historical documents about Jesus that weren't in the Bible.

SURPRISE.. they match up.

Any examples? (said without sarcasm).

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by wolfen:
Regarding free will:

You can never be certain that anything you do is a product of free will. The concept has little or no utility.

How would you go about proving that you did something without it being programmed, instigated, etc...by something unseen? A warp in time? A potassium ion going astray in the frontal lobe? An electromagnetic field? The first-cause of a conscious thought is one of the greatest mysteries of human existence.

Biblically speaking:

You will read in the Bible the phrase "God hardened his heart" (Pharoah) or how God made Nebuchadnezzar insane for a while. Ther are many cases of God seeming to manufacture human experience. On the other hand you will read how Moses brought the message "Choose Life" --> which would have no significance whatsoever if there was no choice to be made. So there are cases in the Bible where free will meant little -- God was gonna have his way because "it's good to be the king." There are others where it seems the world is our oyster if we pick and choose wisely.

For me personally, I accept that man (especially during canonization) knew little of time-space or the potential for interdimensional miscommunication. Read Revelation and you quickly realize that Angels have little concept of time as we experience it. It's like reading "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" listening to those guys talk about the past, present, and future as if they've all going-to-have-happened...

I believe the Bible is a sincere work, but I do not believe the men who wrote it were perfect or that they were channeling perfectly the words of God. There is no indication of this. Revelation indicates no jot or tittle should be changed, but that regarded only that book -- and the english version is technically corrupt with uninspired punctuation. And there are hundreds or thousands of works kept by the Vatican that were not canonized. I do not for a moment believe those works were filtered specifically by the hand of god -- IF YOU DO THEN WHERE WAS THE FREE WILL OF THE GUYS WHO PUT THE BOOK TOGETHER?

Let go of free will -- that's a burden you don't need. You don't understand time, and you don't know the origins of your next thought. You can only analyze it afterward and deduce a logical answer. You can regurgitate text book theories and neural action potentials -- none of which will absolutely (or even adequately) explain the spontaneous thought: "I think I'll call my sister."

You get to experience the feeling of a free-will action -- that should be good enough. Anyway, it has to be. It's all you got.


wolfen

This answer is simple to those of faith: some items are pre-ordained, or ordained by God to transpire to prove His points. These no way that the entirety of Scripture can be read without understanding that Man made his own choices, and those choices were not the choices God would have had Man make.

Maury

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
Any examples? (said without sarcasm).

"The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody."

Christ __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(krst)
n.
The Messiah, as foretold by the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
This answer is simple to those of faith: some items are pre-ordained, or ordained by God to transpire to prove His points.

God must be larger than christianity. Therefore, any theories contrived to prop up the religion may simultaneously limit one's concept of God.

For example, I don't believe when a sheepherder 6000 years ago said "Choose life" he was saying "the universe is a complex structure incorporating statistically uncertain events in a framework of preordained eventualities. In negotiating one's own role in the universe, God recommends you focus less on the foreordained bits and keep your mind firmly on the events which one seems to exert some influence or control."

And if he wasn't addressing the fabric of the universe, then we should not feel compelled to place his message in such a context at all. If the message has value and meaning without requiring the christian to create a model for reality, then imposing a model is not a work of faith, it is quite the opposite.

There are all kinds of models for reality which would satisfy the boundaries the Bible seems to acknowledge. But most importantly, the work is about negotiating spiritual, psychological, and interpersonal boundaries -- not about coming up with Faithful Physics. I get all grossed out just thinking about a "Physics for the Faithful" pamphlet. Eeewwwwwwww!

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
"The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody."

Christ __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(krst)
n.
The Messiah, as foretold by the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I understand now, It would be silly to say that Jesus never existed, its just all the loaves and fishes, walking on water stuff that people have problems with.

I personally think it strange that people treat second and third hand information as first hand information. Why not explain your own experiences instead of quoting other peoples. A judge would never take information presented in this manner seriously.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
I understand now, It would be silly to say that Jesus never existed, its just all the loaves and fishes, walking on water stuff that people have problems with.

There are still some people that claim he never existed. And there are text other than the Bible that talks about his great miracles and his resurrection.

I personally think it strange that people treat second and third hand information as first hand information. Why not explain your own experiences instead of quoting other peoples. A judge would never take information presented in this manner seriously.

There are text written from first hand info I believe. The call Jesus a great man that performed great miracles.

Believe it or not. That is up to you.

Jesus himself knew this would happen.

2 Pet 3:3-4 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

Jn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

1 Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Jesus himself knew this would happen.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

2 Pet 3:3-4 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

Jn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

1 Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. [/B]

That's just covering their back isn't it? Its like saying "People will approach you asking for proof, cover you ears and hum until they go away".

Oh, and by the way, anyone who asks you for proof is the antichrist.

You can see through this right?