What is your belief regarding the existence of "God"?

[gmilam]

There is also a term - "Red lettered Christians" - that refers to a group that don't credit Paul with the same weight the Catholic church did. There are countless figures throughout the history of the church that have had specific beliefs which, while possibly the best guess at the time, are just as subject to the refinement of human knowledge as any other, Paul included.

Except, supposedly, Jesus appeared to Paul and gave him the go-ahead to spread the word to the gentile world. You would've thought that he would have given him a little understanding as to what the truth is.

Which leads us back to the question of where the analogy/mythology/allegory ends and actual truth begins. (I have no problems with it ALL being allegory, but that kind of does away with the "salvation", "eternal life" stuff and leaves us with philosophy.)

 

[NMSquirrel]

No, I am not kidding - please do address ideas rather than insult members. I'm not sure that is even allowed in the policies of the forum.

it is in the policies and guidelines..but it tends to not be enforced

 

[NMSquirrel]

Consider what the theistic convictions of people in earlier times could have been like, given that they (at least the more educated ones) spoke the original biblical languages and were able to read and study the Bible in the original.

could you go back in time and understand wht they were saying if they all spoke thick king james version?

 

[NMSquirrel]

i think it funny that atheist are quick to cite religion as being a means to control the masses and at the same time insists that the bible is the WORD of god....

and
god can know what choices we are going to make without interfering with those choice..

 

[gmilam]

Actually, it's the religious who proclaim the Bible to be the word of god. And there are a fair number of them that want their literal interpretion of it taught in the science classrooms of the public school systems.

But face it, if it's not the word of god, then what's the big deal? Why would you model your life after a piece of fiction?

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Do you believe in other species outside of earth, aliens etc ? ”

I believe that they are highly likely - to the point that it would be silly to think they don't exist.

Just wanted to see you view on how special mankind is to god. IOW were we the only ones.

In that event, if there are other advanced species out there and man was made in god's image, would all others be the same ?

If not, does that mean there are other gods ?

I think that over time, "religion" got in the way of the scriptures, and people started (as they still do) stamping their own beliefs onto what was ACTUALLY said, and the message got (as it still doest) warped.

Agreed. Which is why you can have such radicals. But then again there are places in there to run with LOL.

It's limited by lanquage to some degree, but not having any of our pre-history understanding is suspect. There is nothing in there about us evolving from lower species and oh the little blip of time of the dinosaurs.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Why do you the believer need to change the book to fit our current understanding ? ”

Because the book (or to be more precise, the books) were always written at a specific point in time, with full limitation of our knowledge at that point in time. Language has evolved to incorporate new ideas and findings - to expect the original authors to use the terms muon and quark when we didn't have any concept of those is ridiculous. The same thing applies to concepts in natural sciences, cosmology, etc.

So challenging question.

Can you not see in the above the possibility, I would say likelihood of it being reversed.

That the reason the lanquage and the stories were so simplistic and naive was due to their lack of understanding. That the ignorance led them to create explanations for things they could not explain and thus they were foolish quesses.

Do you not see in your very statement:

"Because the book (or to be more precise, the books) were always written at a specific point in time, with full limitation of our knowledge at that point in time"

That they could have been wrong.

Perhaps God Himself evolved from some lesser being, and man was created to follow the same process, and that's what was really meant.

That's interesting. How could god evolve from a lesser being ?

Are you suggesting that we be considered gods if we can create AI or a living organism.

Fear of the church. Same reason Gallileo was persecuted, Christopher Columbus was ridiculed, etc. Man constantly gets stuck in his own ideas and preconceptions, and - just as we see run rampant even on this site - has serious difficulty accepting that which challenges them.

Fear of the church. I think it was fear of having their beliefs questioned and because it didn't fit with their religion.

Now, some like you are trying to make it fit. Which can only be done but removing all that has been declared over a thousand years before you.

Do you think that the pious of a thousand years ago did not believe that god created man in his image and did so including the earth and stars over a period of 6-7 days. I think it was a clear cut separation which evolution had no place.

That's easy - it all stemmed from noticing the discrepancy in case in the KJV translation. It pointed out to me the possibility that the same word may have meant to different things in the two different places, which made me ponder what else it (and other words) may have actually meant. Coupling this with modern cosmology led to an updated interpretation of Genesis that fits perfectly with modern observations. This is the same thing we do with scientific theories.

Can you not see that you did everything in reverse.

You are not finding that which we have learned supported by the bible.

You are radically interpreting the bible to fit what we have learned.

There is a huge difference here and one of those questions that might best be reconsidered.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,

What I showed is that the ideas were unique to each locale. Which is not what we would see if the original idea was spread. It would be more specific and if we look at christianity, certainly would not entail the worship of only animal or nature gods. But I am done if you are.

Yeah; I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the children's whisper game is evidence enough to think that unique ideas to each locale would still spring up even after a single original idea that spread from a single point, but if you disagree I don't really have anything else to say.

Good because if it is omnipotent it doesn't

Agreed.

But we can't know god. Are you claiming that by studying something that is unknown and can not be known is going to advance our understanding about something that can't be known, by definition god can not be known.

It is the premise of each faith that there is an understanding of God that has been revealed to one or more individuals. These people claim specific insight into the nature of God, and if one is to ascribe to a particular faith, they are saying that they believe that person or those people when they say that have divine insight. Once that faith is exercised, then studying those messages would be part of better knowing the God that is being claimed. For you to claim we cannot know God, you are saying that you do not believe any of the faiths to date are correct in their claims. That is of course your own prerogative, but it is my belief that the God outlined in the Bible is "The God" and as such I can better know that God by studying The Bible and practicing its tenets.

No, no, no. Your bible is the word of god. It per the men who are making the claim, is the word of god and explains how we came to be and what it is we are to do or ELSE.

You're going to have to back this statement up with some verses. There is nothing in the Bible that claims to explain "how" we came to be, the references to scripture being the "word of God" is subject to textual analysis - nothing suggests that God spoke while a human transcribed - but yes, is does provide some blueprints to finding "the kingdom of God" and Christ did claim that his message was the only way to find the Kingdom of God. Of course, I think it is a legitimate argument to say that his message too was time-based, and may no longer be the ONLY way... but I haven't heard anyone make a claim yet that I would consider to be a legitimate alternative.

Science has never made such claims without supporting evidence and in many cases can only make best guesses. It is not in the business of making claims when it can not. It is not in the business of making stories.

A specific religion is making the claim that they KNOW how it happened precisely.

I don't see how the Bible claims to know HOW anything happened at all. It makes claims about WHAT happened, but the scientific mechanics are not described.

As for "Science" making claims... The first steps of the scientific method are indeed to form a hypothesis to exlain observations - no evidence necessary. Unless you count the observations themselves ... but again, that is a macro that the scientific method then goes about refining. Just as should be the approach for theism. I'm really not sure what you are objecting to on this one.

The two are completely different in that respect. Which is why religions still struggle with evolution. They just didn't see that one coming.

Here you are simply confusing religion with theology. I've already presented an interpretation of Genesis that works just fine with what we know about evolution. Are you rejecting it simply because it doesn't fit your argument? Or was there something to it that you found fault with?

What's hypocritical is changing or interpreting the so called words of god. Do you believe in God ? or do you only believe in the god of your religion ?

How is it hypocritical to interpret scriptures that you believe to be inspired by God? How else are we to understand the message, except through interpretation? Do you seriously expect me to pretend language hasn't changed at all in 5,000 years?

Science by design is to change. There is nothing hypocritical about changes in the world of science.

I agree, but it is hypocritical to allow "science" to change but deny that to theology.

Why not ?

Because a creator must exist before its creation does, and if the creator exists before its creation, then it exists "somewhere". It's creation then exists "somewhere else". I'm not sure how I can be more plain about this one. Give me an example of the contrary and I may better understand what you are thinking.

So again, do we make the choice, which affects things down the line aside from God's input ?

From our perspective, yes.

Or do we only have the illusion of making the choice, IOW god makes the choice for us but allows us to believe we are making the choice and thus we can have no affect on our future by our own choice ?

I can't keep saying the same thing. God doesn't make choices because choice implies time reference, which doesn't apply to God. This is like asking me if the color red is wet or dry. The very function of choice is only valid given our inability to see the future. If you are asking me if our future is already written, then yes. Does that impact our ability to choose? No.

I am atheist/agnostic. I don't believe but I can't know. For me to believe I would need the type of evidence to believe such a claim. I have yet to see anything that would convince me.

Which, to some degree, makes it impossible for you to be a Christian. Christianity requies a leap of faith that you are are not willing to take. And there is nothing in the Bible to indicate God would provide such evidence to you.

 

[SolusCado]

Except, supposedly, Jesus appeared to Paul and gave him the go-ahead to spread the word to the gentile world. You would've thought that he would have given him a little understanding as to what the truth is.

Yes, supposedly. Then again, perhaps God gave Paul as much understanding as was necessary at that point in time.

Which leads us back to the question of where the analogy/mythology/allegory ends and actual truth begins. (I have no problems with it ALL being allegory, but that kind of does away with the "salvation", "eternal life" stuff and leaves us with philosophy.)

Lines that should be perpetually questioned and redrawn as necessary.

 

[jpappl]

i think it funny that atheist are quick to cite religion as being a means to control the masses and at the same time insists that the bible is the WORD of god....

and
god can know what choices we are going to make without interfering with those choice..

Comedy NM.

If an atheist truly believes the bible is the word of god then he is not an atheist.

Take it up with Pat Robertson.

 

[gmilam]

Yes, supposedly. Then again, perhaps God gave Paul as much understanding as was necessary at that point in time.

Lines that should be perpetually questioned and redrawn as necessary.

I guess god didn't have the foresight to see that these inconsistencies would become stumbling blocks for future humans. That would explain why he didn't see the "rebellion" in the Garden of Eden coming. That would also explain why he decided to start over with the whole Noah fiasco. It would also explain why he didn't see that the whole flood thingy wouldn't solve anything.

Which sounds more logical to you. That god has a plan for our salvation, but he keeps messing it up and needing to amend it? Or maybe some bronze age shepherds just made up a bunch of stories to tell around the campfire and other people took them a little too seriously?

 

[SolusCado]

Religion makes us feel guilty then offers the cure. What a fraud.

You need look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt to see that there are biological causes for guilt; it isn't simply the result of religion.

 

[SolusCado]

I don't think this is so important.
What I find of greater importance is the concept of eternal damnation and religious monopoly/exclusivism - the ethical issues.

Note how the notion of eternal damnation is likely due to a poor translation(see here, at 4.2).

Excellent points.

 

[spidergoat]

Sure, there are perfectly reasonable sources of guilt, and reasonable sources of transcendence of guilt (time, apologia, maturity), but also unreasonable sources of guilt which religion creates (like original sin).

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,

Just wanted to see you view on how special mankind is to god. IOW were we the only ones.

In that event, if there are other advanced species out there and man was made in god's image, would all others be the same ?

If not, does that mean there are other gods ?

I think few would argue that "God's image" refers to our physical appearance. I've heard many speculations on what exactly WAS meant, but nothing that ever stood out moreso than any other. So, sure - why not?

Agreed. Which is why you can have such radicals. But then again there are places in there to run with LOL.

True.

It's limited by lanquage to some degree, but not having any of our pre-history understanding is suspect. There is nothing in there about us evolving from lower species and oh the little blip of time of the dinosaurs.

Evolution was completely unknown to the authors of the scriptures. There also isn't anything in the Bible about computers. Or planes. Or cell phones. As for dinosaurs, I think that was covered in the fifth epoch, as animals of all kinds spread across the planet.

So challenging question.

Can you not see in the above the possibility, I would say likelihood of it being reversed.

That the reason the lanquage and the stories were so simplistic and naive was due to their lack of understanding. That the ignorance led them to create explanations for things they could not explain and thus they were foolish quesses.

Do you not see in your very statement:

"Because the book (or to be more precise, the books) were always written at a specific point in time, with full limitation of our knowledge at that point in time"

That they could have been wrong.

Oh, of course I can see. It's just not what I believe. Just as I can see how there might not be a God at all. But there might be. And that is what I choose to believe.

That's interesting. How could god evolve from a lesser being ?

I couldn't begin to speculate. But the idea of God, as an entity that exists outside our universe, may indeed be an entity among others - one of a species, or any number of wild and speculative ideas. There is all kinds of science fiction that plays with some of these ideas.

Are you suggesting that we be considered gods if we can create AI or a living organism.

To truly emulate the construct of God for other organisms, we would have to create their entire reality - something far more realistic in the concept of an AI than another biological organism.

Fear of the church. I think it was fear of having their beliefs questioned and because it didn't fit with their religion.

Yes, that is what the church feared. Or, more accurately, they feared losing control (and the associated wealth) of the people because of those things. It is my opinion (and that of MANY other Christians) that it is these deviations from the actual teachings of Christ that has resulted in the corruption of such entities.

Now, some like you are trying to make it fit. Which can only be done but removing all that has been declared over a thousand years before you.

True, though again - we see the same thing happen in science all the time. Einstein's theories of relativity required rethinking laws of physics that had been accepted for hundreds of years before.

Do you think that the pious of a thousand years ago did not believe that god created man in his image and did so including the earth and stars over a period of 6-7 days. I think it was a clear cut separation which evolution had no place.

Probably, because given the scientific understanding of the day that was the best explanation for the scriptures at hand.

Can you not see that you did everything in reverse.

You are not finding that which we have learned supported by the bible.

You are radically interpreting the bible to fit what we have learned.

There is a huge difference here and one of those questions that might best be reconsidered.

You only call it radical because it is different from everything else you have ever heard. I never said that the [scientific] things we have learned is supported by the Bible. I said the things I have learned in the Bible are supported by the scientific things we know. Again, I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, or change anyone's mind. I am instead defending my ability to have religious beliefs without contradicting scientific knowledge.

 

[SolusCado]

Sure, there are perfectly reasonable sources of guilt, and reasonable sources of transcendence of guilt (time, apologia, maturity), but also unreasonable sources of guilt which religion creates (like original sin).

I am skeptical that you have been reading my other posts; else you would have seen that my view of "original sin" is that it is simply mankind's ability to recognize its natural behavior - no religion need be invoked by that understanding.

 

[SolusCado]

I guess god didn't have the foresight to see that these inconsistencies would become stumbling blocks for future humans. That would explain why he didn't see the "rebellion" in the Garden of Eden coming. That would also explain why he decided to start over with the whole Noah fiasco. It would also explain why he didn't see that the whole flood thingy wouldn't solve anything.

Which sounds more logical to you. That god has a plan for our salvation, but he keeps messing it up and needing to amend it? Or maybe some bronze age shepherds just made up a bunch of stories to tell around the campfire and other people took them a little too seriously?

Who's to say that the stumbling blocks aren't precisely God's intention? Nowhere in the Bible does it say God was surprised by or didn't see coming either the sins in the Garden of Eden or the Rebellion of Lucifer in Heaven. Or the floods of Noah.

What sounds more logical to me is that everything that occurs happens according to God's intention. What you see as "amendments" were God's plan all along.

 

[Trooper]

I am instead defending my ability to have religious beliefs without contradicting scientific knowledge.

Good luck with that...

 

[SolusCado]

Good luck with that...

This coming from the guy that has contributed nothing to this thread beyond trite insults. Grow up, or move on.

 

[Trooper]

Not to worry...:mufc: No sweat, but what have you read to educate yourself?

Origins of Species?
Darwin's Black Box?
The God Delusion?
Breaking the Spell?
God is not Great?
Letter to a Christian Nation?
Why I am not Christian?

or just the bible?

There is a conflict between science and religion. Science and religion are not, nor will they ever be compatible.

BTW, I'm not a guy and I have grown up. When you finally do and you come to accept the truth of atheism, and once you realize that religious ideas and beliefs are illogical, you wonder, how can anyone persist in such nonsense, but people do. People like you. Why don't you grow up and let go of your childish ideas?

 

[spidergoat]

I am skeptical that you have been reading my other posts; else you would have seen that my view of "original sin" is that it is simply mankind's ability to recognize its natural behavior - no religion need be invoked by that understanding.

And yet we are to believe that nailing a Jew to a cross somehow makes up for our natural behavior?