May I ask one thing when Jesus was praying who was he praying to? I mean if he is God why would he pray to himself when he could just heal with a mere thought.

These prayer passages are some of the basis of "trinitarian" theology. Scripturally, Jesus is affirmed as God - i.e. "one with the Father." But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (choose to?) exist in a relationship with one another. Thus, they can speak to one another.

In these cases, it was Son speaking with Father. Some have suggested that Jesus, having a human brain, thus limited his divine omniscience (this jives with him saying he didn't know when he would return, but the Father did). In which case, Jesus would desire to have things happen (healings, miracles, etc.), but he demonstrated submitting his desires to the perfect knowledge and will of God. This also jives with him saying, "Not my will, Father, but thine be done." In other words, Jesus' human nature desired things, but his divine nature would only make them happen if he submitted to the Father's will/plan. Thus, he would pray.

In another case (John 11), he said point blank, "I know you hear me, Father, but I pray for the benefit of those who overhear." Some simply explain this by saying Jesus was setting an example by praying.

Either explanation works for me.

So why do you refer to Jesus as God in human form? DId God say thou shall not worship any man or god before me. And you just said Jesus was a human.... explain please.

I realise that Hell is technically "absence of god" which stands to reason that we may indeed be living in hell at this very moment. If God is nothing more than an invisible man and we have to "guess" he is doing stuff, I think it can be argued that he ain't around here.

However, if *hell* is pleasurable to any degree, then I see no issue at all with any of this. Don't believe: Laugh with the sinners. Believe: cry with the saints. You just took away one of Christianities main weapons.

Infinite number of realities (something I am a big fan of) still doesn't mean that God doesn't simultaneously understand all 'sideways eights' of them. Omniscience means All Knowing. God is a very good multitasker (unlike windows). To me, and I know mileage varies on this, either God is all knowing or he isn't. The bible says he is. If he is, Earth is really just an enormous pain simulation that he is allowing to occur and he knows each and every gory line of code and the results that it will produce. If that is true, seems to me that he could have had me worshipping him in a lot easier fashion.

Selling your game in a Jesus thread. Marc, you just might burn..., I mean, you just might find yourself in partial pleasure for that. :)

One other thing, before I head to bed. All this talk of free will. According to the bible, the plan was for Jesus to DIE for our sins. That means that somebody had to KILL him. Killing breaks a commandment. God needed somebody to break a commandment in order for this all to come true. Somebody had to be *coerced* beyond the norm for this to happen as planned, meaning that free-will would not have been allowed in this case.

Imagine if this supposed free will would have kicked in and the Romans had refused to crucify christ or Jesus would have fled instead of allowing himself to be captured (he should have had free will as well), ad infinitum. Wouldn't this have put a wrinkle in things?

Thank God that didnt happen..

-Aes-

What you're asking for is an explanation of the Trinity. Or at least, the Incarnation. The simplest analogy I've heard is this:

Sunlight: is it electromagnetically charges particles? Or light? Or heat? The answer is yes. All three. Seperately. And the same. None exist without the other without ceasing to be sunlight.

Likewise, God the Eternal Father, Incarnated Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the same. Seperate. But the same. God would not be God without one of the beings. Yet he is fully all three. They're not puzzle pieces. He's like sunlight.

Now, if Jesus IS God, then worshipping him is not worshipping someone "before God," it's simply worshipping God.

*****

And as for all this free will/omniscience/predestination stuff, the existence of knowledge does not eliminate the freedom of choice. Neither does choice rule out divine planning. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Why not? Because Christianity understands (though it is difficult to wrap a finite mind around) that God is timeless. He exists outside of time. Today is no different from yesterday or tomorrow to Him. Therefore, he can know yesterday what you will do tomorrow, because he lives in all three at once. It has been a foolish debate within Christianity to pit free will and sovereignty against one another as opposites. Sorry we have confused the rest of the world.

Couldn't one say that in the above posts that Marc is actually pounding out moral code?

From the Simpsons:

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it.

Now there's a question:D

Or perhaps there is no such thing as good or evil and its all about perception?

Another thing I would like to point out. There are a billion budhists who disagree with christians, so are they condemned to hell?

Are the Jews destined to goto hell?

Hindu's?

It just seems very narrowminded to only believe what you are taught and not take other religions and/or philosophies in life into consideration....

One last post of the night on this topic.

One of underlying reasons that Pagans, Atheists and Agnostics are always "attacking", "questioning" or "defending" is the intollerence that other religions or beliefs show to us. The only way for us to try and explain to you why we think the way we do is to point out flaws in every religion to try and get people to think about it from another perspective other then the one they were blindly taught to follow from a young age.

I really don't care if someone believes in god. In fact my beliefs are hard to swallow and take a strong person to have. It's not as scary to think about dying, if you know by accepting Jesus Christ as your savior you have a ticket to heaven and enternal bliss.

But, what I do have issues with are christians that think I'm not fit to be around them, if I don't believe. I do have issues with people judging me or condeming me based on my ability to have independent thought. Its a natural human reaction for me to at times to attack, at other times question or simply laugh at it all and poke fun.

Don't get me wrong these same flaws can be found in every religion, maybe some have more then others.

I'll sum it up this way for you all. I try and lead a good life. I respect and honor my friends and family. I would help someone in a life threatening sittuation even if I put myself a risk. I can say this because, I was once in this situation and reacted in a way in which I endangered my life to help a complete stranger. I was more surprised ay myself than you can imagine.

I believe that everyone is inately good and evil, we are what we are. Everyone knows certain universal truths. I mean do we assume the indians of north america were all evil because they weren't exposed to Christ?

This below is said with the assumption that I may be wrong.... I don't think I am, but who knows

Anyway, if there is a god as described in the bible and I am wrong about all this and If I live a good life and try to do the right thing and he still doesn't except me into heaven, then that is on him not me. God gave me independent thought, he gave me the ability to question and not blindly obey. If he still wants to send me to hell, then I don't want to goto heaven, because that isn't any kind of god I want to be around.

God or as I call it the constant, wouldnt' have all these human emotions put to him. I don't think god is so insecure that he would want us to worship him....

The thing is if there was no ther choice besides good because God killed evil then why would we have freedom of choice?

Nicely put druez. You've summed up a lot of my feelings on the subject.

A few things....


I will never think I am too good for you... I may be saved from sin but I myself and still a sinner just like you.

Two...Even Christians should believe everyone is good and evil. We were modeled after God but we also have sinned and fall to temptation making us evil.

Three...God wants us to worship him, not because he is insecure but in doing so we may experience even the fraction of the joy He does.


Thats all I have at the moment.

this has been a great read and i've enjoyed it and learned a lot. This has been a great change of pace from the way these threads usually end up. I really agree with what Subby had to say earlier in the thread and what druez just said. And i find the comments by HPF and QuikSand hit home. Jesus said "Love Everyone" and that's what a lot of it boils down to for me.

On a lighter note not to be confused with baiting anyone:

Can God make a stone so big that he would not be able to move it? :)

Jokingly, This is why he made Jesus because he is God yet he could not move the stone, but God in the omnicent form could. :p

Good night all.

:D

PS. What do you think I'm doing up online at mid-night UK time .... ;)

The idea is that God is still very much with us through the Holy Spirit, however whether you have a relationship with him is entirely up to the individual.

Please bear in mind that I don't think there are any 'weapons' in the Christian faith, indeed if hell is pleasurable to an extent then fine - however compared to enternal communion with a loving God it is indeed "Hell".

I'm not trying to convert people just give rational answers (as I see them) for the questions posed, each person individually must come to their own conclusions about religion and their place in the world.

Marc,

If you would like to help me see the light. Do this! Create an American Football Game. If god does indeed exist and love all of his children he would use devine inspiration to have you and your boys create an American Football Game for us over here in the states. That is all I want for proof!

Come on NFG and EHM FE.

That is all, now let us pray.

LOL I completely agree. I've never tried the CM games because I'm not a soccer fan but from what I understand, they're the best text sims out there. I will cry hallelujah and praise any god if we can get an American football sim from the masters. :)

Some of you may be interested in this:

http://www.killingthebuddha.com/manifesto.htm


Here is a link to the main page...

http://www.killingthebuddha.com/index.htm

I would like to second this motion. Maybe you can be the guy that makes Jim step up his game. :D

:)

noop

There was no coersion involved. The fall of Man includes the temptation of evil no matter what kind or degree of evil. It is mankind's perogative to destroy rather than create. I don't think that requires any form of faith to realize this is inherently true.

Christ knew his destiny and why He was brought to this Earth. He came to give mankind atonement through the ultimate sacrifice and to teach the most fundamental joy of humanity which is to love. When He was well on his way to dying He asked God to intervene "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" God could have easily done so, but that would have done nothing except strengthen the idea of fearing Him.

The concept of a Creator is a hard one to grasp and one I struggle with to this day. We try to put 3 dimensions to it, but in my opinion it is like trying to draw a sketch of an infinitely dimensional being. We are just not given the tools to draw it. ;)

As far as myself, I enjoy and listen to people of all faiths or lack thereof. It does not make them a better or worse person than myself because in the end we are all on the same boat.

Kudos to everyone no matter your thoughts on this matter for not making this thread sink into what it usually does.

I must think on this

druez, thank you for the heart-felt, thoughtful post I quote below. I appreciate the greater level of vulnerability, and I hope to handle it with respect. Because you put so much thought into it, I'd like to respond, though I don't want to rehash what nfg22 said.

I've seen several things said in this thread and the other one that are quite similar to this, and I just want to point something out. I have never in my life known a single person who blindly followed a religious belief. This is not to say that it doesn't happen. Of course it does. But to state this likes it's commonplace seems quite a narrow view in my opinion. Every person of faith that I've ever known has contemplated deeply over many years, questioned every aspect of the Lord, and arrived at their own conclusions based upon their own logical analysis, many struggling with the questions for years and through very painful circumstances. It may be difficult for a person who doesn't have faith in God to understand, but I just think it should be pointed out that belief in God is rarely a blind pursuit in my experience.

Marc's ruminations on free will and foreknowledge (and reconciling the two) is interesting to me. It's a topic that I find endlessly interesting. Here is another coherent argument on the same topic that is not, at least by my rekoning, inherently religious.

Q: How can you reconcile a belief in "free will" with the notion that God, or anyone for that matter, can "know" things that are yet to come? If we have will to make decisions on our own, how can the future already be knowable?

A: We think of time as simply flowing, in order, one moment to the next. This moment happens now, another moment will happen later, and another moment will happen later still.

Perhaps time does not function this way. Perhaps all the infinite different moments in time all exist at once (this requires you to bend your idea of time a bit)-- they are not actually "happening" in any kind of sequence at all.

Imagine this very moment of your life. You saw what just happened a moment ago, and you see the things that happen right now as a conqesuence. At htis moment, you have memories of the things that happened just a moment ago, as well as all the other moments that happened "before" this one. But another explanation might be that all these moments just exist, all at the same time -- and that the presence of the cause-and-effect and memory connections just serve to give us a sense of order. In reality, we might not actually be living our lives from start to finish, and making choices as we go -- but rather the whole of our lives are already laid out and we simultaneously experience them without knowing it. At any given moment, from that point of view we know what we see as having has already happened, but we don't know what we see as yet to come... but in reality it's already "done."

Long-winded, and perhaps incoherent... but there's nothing in what we see or experience that refutes this concept. And if that were a fairer explanation of how time actually works... then there's nothing at all inconsistent with a higher power of some sort, who has better "access" to the whole array of these seemingly sequential moments in time, to have knowledge of the things that from our perspective are yet to come.

Good point. I, for one, although I grew up going to church virtually every Sunday, was pretty skeptical about it all as a youngster. As a late teen, I questioned, studied and checked into things, and as a result, became convinced that Jesus was real, and that his claims about himself as presented in scripture are true.

To comment on one other thing, revrew makes a great point about God sometimes taking a bit of time to flush tendencies out of His followers. A common (and understandable) mistake would be to judge Jesus by those who purport to follow him.

To Quik: that isn't incoherent. Our minds, which think in finite terms, naturally have a difficult (impossible?) time truly comprehending the infinite--such as the number of moments in time. I read or heard somewhere (not in any sort of religious text....for some reason I'm thinking that it was perhaps said in the novel Jurassic Park by the Ian Malcolm character) the philosophy is time is merely nature's (God's?) way of making sure everything doesn't happen to us at once. Interesting thought.

I hate to bring this up again, but it seems time to repost this thought I had.

A quick thought on what defines a god and how they are created:

At least my take on how gods were created throughout history. In saying all this, I still do believe there is a constant or universal law that does not sit in judgement.

The gods are not so different then us mortals, they love, they fight, they envy, they destroy. Gods are made and Gods are destroyed. Though they may live forever and by our standards, I suppose that makes them gods? But, lets imagine a second that they can die, does this mean they were never gods? If their existence is simply removed by a more powerful being, or perhaps a constant that makes everything equal in the end. This must mean that in the end everyone "mortal and immortal" is really equal. Which leads back to the constant.

Hmm, maybe gods are ideas simply created out of mortal thought. The more you talk about the thought, the more it becomes part of you. So more people around you start to feel it and it becomes more real to them. All those thoughts woven together of like-minded individuals could make the being or entity seem real in a persons mind. The more you talk about the thought, idea etc. the more it becomes part of you. So more people around you start to feel it and it becomes more real to them. Can you see how this pattern could convince you that is indeed real and not something you created in your own mind and in actuality really control.

It still goes back to where you are raised and how you are brought up. In the middle east, you have their beliefs. In asia you have their beliefs. In Europe you have their beliefs. Granted religions do cross those boundries, but many times it is spread through war and hatred. The spanish conquiestors and their spread of christianity through the new world. The crusades to retake the holy lands.

I'll site my area in Houston Texas for example. I live in an upper middle class neighborhood. My neighbors for the most part are quite religious. They don't really like to associate with me and my family.

I heard the lady next door say to my wife, well I don't know how I could be the mother I am without god. This is the same lady who smacks her kids and they run around like heathens hitting other kids, throwing temper tantrums and at the same time building a ladder to go see Jesus.

Now my wife and I are raising our daughter of a little over 2 years of age, without hitting as a form of disiplin, we let her watch christian video's, we talk to her about god, buddha, mother nature and a variety of things we have learned about and believe i.e. karma, balanced spirituality. We explain to her our belief about the circle of life and the constant and try the best we can. We will take her to a variety of churches when she gets older and let her make her own descisions. I was raised catholic and the last day I went to church was in 8th grade at my confirmation.

My daughter may turn out to be devout christian, but it will be bacause she looked at everything we could possibly show her and allowed her to make her own desicsions not something we forced her into.

The message above I addressed some of these issues, but many children are raised in all area of the worlds to blindly follow a faith. Look at the muslims if you don't want me to single out christianity. Many children are not presented with options but are simply told what to believe by their parents church and beliefs.

This explanation actually complies with what we're learning about the physics of the universe on the quantum level. It helps if you buy into String Theory, though. :)

It's quotes like the one aboove in the midst of a serious theological discussion that make me really appreciate this board. :)

Great discussion guys. Hopefully I will have something more substantive to add when I get home this evening.

You seem to be confusing the concept of exposing a child to a particular belief and indoctrinating them with nothing else. I don't know what may or may not occur in the Muslim faith. I only pointed out that in my experience, I have never known anyone who blindly followed what their parents happened to believe. In fact, again from my experience, it's typically quite the opposite, and I think that should be pointed out because many seem to believe as you do and it's erroneous in my opinion.

Not 15 minutes ago I was reading about this very thing. I was honestly going to answer with the same thoughts. (Though I'm unsure of what String Theory is...I was reading more about the Ithacan conclusions...)

The idea of free will and foreknowledge are NOT incompatible. If God exists outside of time, he can know at all times what all people have, are, or will choose, because time is irrelevant.

I've got no problem accepting your theories on how differernt cultures have created their gods. Makes reasonable sense.

But it does leave open the "what if" questions. For example...What if there really was a God who was tired of people inventing all the false gods? What if out of benevolence he knew their manufactured gods would do them more harm (see child sacrifice, etc.) that knowing Himself? How would the one true God make himself known? What would he have to do to prove He was the one true God?

Would plagues and thunders and splitting the Red Sea do the trick? Would showing mastery over nations and governments be enough? Would proven foreknowledge of the future be convincing? And if He decided to manifest Himself as a man, would that be helpful? What miracles, healings, or wisdom would convince a person that this man-god was really the God? How about dying, and then coming back to life? What would it take? Amid all the other manmade gods, how could God prove He was who He was?

This is the premise of the Bible. God is...God made every effort to demonstrate He is...now, He'd like you to know. What will it take?

Perhaps it will take time. Perhaps it will take a bunch of guys on a computer message board. Or perhaps it will take someone close to you demonstrating for real the transforming power of God's love.

Since I, for one, believe in the sovereignty of God, I'm willing to let God take as much time with you as you need. I'm not going to shove threats of hell or insults to your intelligence down your throat. If you must question and doubt, then do so. Do so hard. Don't stop. The only real enemy to faith is apathy, not doubt. Bang the doors of heaven until you get your answers. Ask, seek, knock. The rewards are too rich not to.

If god wanted everyone to know. I think a simple hello would suffice.

I don't think he needed to split the red sea. Or take all the first born. I don't think he needed to smite saddam and gamora.

I think a simple hello tommorrow. A speach of sorts. Hi I am god. Yes I'm here and I watch over you. Now will you jackasses start acting like you are supposed to.

All that would work.

But instead, he speaks to one person every 2000 years and we have to accept that this person is speaking the truth and it isn't some kind of conspircy or made up story. Or it isn't someone who had a bad acid trip. Or it isn't a way for a repressed people to feel good about themselves again.

What proof would it take?

Or getting the SI Games guys to make an American Football game :) that might work.

Just something I think everyone can relate to, A good old fashioned Hello How are you doing.....

Whats the first thing you do when you meet someone or want someone to know you.... Introduce yourself!

I don't always agree, theologically, with everything you say, Rev, but that was a great summary.

Maybe we aren't quite understanding each other. As a child, I know I was only exposed to Christianity.

I know a good many people who were only exposed to christianity as a child. Let me take that a step further, they were only exposed to being Catholic, or Methodist etc....

Of course as adults or mid to late teens we can rebal and choose to look at other things, but some do and some don't. Some stay with what is comfortable, some rebal. Some really go on the quest for answers. But, come live in a southern baptist neighborhood with fire and brimestone as your answer if you think of something else. Then come tell me that isn't brainwashing......

Your answer is very well thought out and doesn't really need to be repeated, and I've read a lot of scientific journals dealing with the same ideas it laid out (funny, since I've hated every science class I've ever had but find it fascinating).

Anyway, I think the common "answer" to reconciling free will and God's omniscience (word?) is that the whole idea of God being infinite makes the point moot. To be infinite correlates to existing without time. For God, time doesn't exist. It's not just irrelevant, it literally does not exist. Everything has happened that ever will happen, while at the same time it hasn't. Imagine sitting outside of time, would you know if anything actually occured when time did exist, because it wouldn't even be an instant to you. Now I haven't even tried to think about how he would insert Jesus at just the right time (nor do I necesarilly agree with this "answer") or how he would interact with time if indeed he has, but thats the answer I've most often seen.

Otherwise, the other answer I've often heard is that God has a plan, but its not a point to point thing. Not everything every person does is planned, but the whole leads to the end. So people are free to do what they want, but in the end everything will end in the exact same way.

I think we are understanding each other. I'm just saying that what you're asserting doesn't happen as much as you think, at least through my experience it is very, very rare. Like I said, I've never seen it. Every person I know who has a deep faith in Christianity has in fact questioned it, many times with some, explored other faiths, and educated themselves quite thoroughly before making up their minds. That kind of pursuit, in my experience, is common in devout Christians because coming to faith in Jesus is not something done lightly.

I have, in fact, lived in a southern Baptist neighborhood, and I can most decidedly say that it is not brainwashing. Again, this is the case at least from my experience and everyone I've ever met contrary to what television and the movies may have you believe. It is inevitable, of course, that children will grow up in Christian households and be exposed to a number of beliefs that their parents hold dear. This does not mean, though, that they will "blindly" accept those views and hold them as their own. In fact, my point was that it is more often the case that the opposite occurs, rebelling as you call it, especially in households where religious beliefs are deep and strict.

My only point in all of this was to answer a comment you made that I have seen others make on this board and elsewhere that it is common for people to be brainwashed or indoctrinated or flooded so completely with a particular religious belief that they simply and "blindly" follow that doctrine. As I said before, I have never seen that to occur, although I'm sure that it has. The frequency of it, however, is in my mind so slight as to warrant a comment to those who repeatedly assert its prevalence.

God uses irony, since it was HE who created it. And the greatest example of irony are all the many nonbelievers in God who think that becoming a Christian is submitting to some kind of brainwashing. In fact, all evidence I ever see shows the exact opposite...that those who wish to NOT believe need to by necessity allow themselves to be 'brainwashed' and 'indocrinated' into unrealistic views of an UnGodly nature (evolution, for instance). The fastest 'kneejerk reaction' you will ever get to anything is to bring up God in a situation is which some atheist feels that mentioning same in 'innappropriate" and is 'offensive' to those who do not believe (taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, for expample because it 'offends' the minority of folks who wish to not believe in ANY higher power). That kind of conditioning is real 'brainwashing!"

Actually most atheists don't care about whats in the pledge. And Christians never find anything offensive and then blame it on the "liberal atheists"?

Now back to real discussion instead of name calling. I don't think anyone is brainwashed, you believe whatever is most natural and comfortable for you. If you're comfortable with believing that there is a higher power and feel strongly that there is, then to you there is no other answer. If you're comfortable in believing there is no higher power and feel strongly that you don't, then to you there is no other answer. Then for some, we look for an answer however we can, that makes us neither weak nor brainwashed, naive nor more intelligent... it makes us who we are.

And re-read Genesis, it pretty clearly spells out evolution.

You do a really good job of destroying any good work revrew or ngf22 attempted to do in this thread. It is attitudes like yours which completely turn people off to Christianity...

Ok, I can't speak for anyone but myself...so I will point off that it turns ME off.

LOL!!!
wow, Evolution has been proved in many experiements. Evolution is a fact of life. The reason people don't believe in evolution is because they think that it disproves God's exstience. Its that kind of backward thinking that turns people off to religion in the first place.

Don't back me up Bubba. :)

I agree with Easy Mac's middle paragraph there. There is very little brainwashing going on for either side of a religious debate. Some children are raised in religious households while others are raised in non-religious ones. Eventually, we all must decide what we believe, and although that may be influenced, very highly at times, by what our parents may or may not have believed, in the end it all comes down to the answers we find within ourselves. I wouldn't have much respect for anyone who did otherwise.

I have to second Subby on Bubba Wheels. Even if people would concede that Bubba's perspective is the truth, his message could be communicated in a less condescending, more humble and loving manner. Revrew and ng have communicated in exactly that manner. They have demonstrated that the truth and arrogance do not necessarily have to go together. I would encourage Bubba to follow their sound apologetic style.

Well said

Yup. I prefer the purely theoretical argument, though, without mention of the fact that there might actually be some evidence that this is how things actually work.

I buy this, too.

I wonder what share of adult Americans have chosen to adopt the same faith that their parents held? I don't think I'm out on a limb in suggesting that it's much, much higher than anything consistent with the notion of "the answers we find within ourselves."

So, where does that leave them (the many, many people who have clearly just accepted the faith principles of their parents) in terms of your respect?

If we presume that there is truth to the notion that most regions of the world have been fairly consistent in the predominant religion going back centuries of time (notwithstanding certain political events that specifically change the cultural landscape like the splitting of Hindus and Muslims into India and Pakistan), then there seem to be 2 main conclusions one could draw:

- Whether through overt pressure or more subtle forms such as familiarity and proximity, the predominant religion of one's family/community/culture does have a strong influence on the religious choices we make;

- People in other parts of the world that follow different religions really are coerced and pressured into believing religions Y & Z, whereas people in my part of the world make up our own minds and come to the one true religion X

My point being, if this contention about the relative static nature of the religious composition of different countries/geographic parts of the world is true (and I suspect numbers would support this contention), there are differing ways one could interpret that information depending on the mindset one has.

I can't answer your question QS as I disagree tremendously with your assumption. As I've said in my previous posts, I am quite sure that there are many instances of people accepting their parents beliefs, religious or not, without giving the matter its due respect. I have never known a deeply religious person, however, who has reached their faith in that way. You say that "many, many people" have "just accepted the faith principles of their parents." If you're referring to people accepting those beliefs without considering the matter in all its complexities, I can only reiterate that if it's such a large number of people, it seems incredibly strange to me that I've never met one. Granted, my experience in the world is perhaps not as great as others, and it is conceivable that there are many out there like this. My gut tells me, though, that it's simply not the case. If you're simply saying that, after considering all the options and questions, a person returns to beliefs similar to those held by the parents or persons of influence, I would, in fact, have respect for that person.

It is the concept of blind faith that I just don't buy despite seeing it asserted by a number of people on occasion. My point was: Not only do I not buy it, but if it does occur, then I simply wouldn't have a lot of respect for that person.

Bubba's turn!

Evolution has NEVER been proven, its actually more theory than creation is: no 'species link' has EVER been found to demonstrate one species becoming another (although I concede that natural selection does operate).

Creation, however, is almost ALWAYS mischaracterized by the ignorant in superior and condencending tones (why its not even allowed to be brought up in public schools these days!) Genesis , when read properly and with original texts looked up, talks about the RECREATION and REPOPULATION of the earth after some calamity/series of calamities have occurred prior. (won't go into them, many fine works and studies available to those who really want to know what's going on.)

Finally, finding GOD is a HEART condition (heart in the Biblical sense, meaning the 'inner-man', the 'spirtual' part of man that lives forever) and not a purely intellectual one. I believe pure reason CAN and WILL point to the Creator, but the Bible tells us that the intellect is the Battle-Ground between good and evil "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he" and this is the part that Satan also attacks ('Satan reveals himself an angel of light.)

Takes effort to find God, He sacraficed His ALL for us, don't think that He will just drop it all in your lap without you even seeking Him or asking Him for help to find Him "Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be open unto you." "God is SPIRIT and desires to be worshipped in SPIRIT and in TRUTH.)

Can I get an AMEN!

On a serious note, what did god sacrifice? His son? Come on now. Jesus knew he was going to heaven when he died. So it really isn't that big of a deal that he died now is it?

If you know what heaven is like and you know that you are guaranted to go there if you do a,b,c get tortured then killed etc.... I'm pretty sure 99.999999999999 % of us would be ok with it.

So now tell me what did he sacrafice again?

Are you serious druez? Come on now. If we assume that God is all-loving, which Christians do, then what kind of a sacrifice is it to give your Son to the cruelest and jealous rebukes of mankind? For people who believe strongly in Christ, it is only part of the equation to consider the physical torture that Jesus endured. The burden of carrying mankind's sins on his shoulders would've far outweighed any lash or beating.

I would submit that the reason Jesus sweated 'drops of blood' in the Garden the night before His arrest is because He knew, for the first time in Eternity, that Jesus would be SEPERATED from the Father "Every Good and Perfect Gift comes from the Father" "Why Have YOu Forsaken Me?" and the experience of Spiritual death to the Creator and Son of God for our sins must have been beyond horrific.

How do you know you have never met one? That seems like an awfully broad statement.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a lot of adults I know walking around with ash on their foreheads, signifying their religion. And what do you know, the overwhelming majority of them were named Hogan and McCoy and Dougherty and Fantozzi... and their parents, too, were walking around with ash on their foreheads.

I don't claim to know a lot of detail about how these many people came to adopt their religious faiths. I certainly can't tell you that they definitely did or did not consider anything in particular before adopting their faiths. (Though you seem to claim this kind of knowledge, since you assert that you have never met a single person who adopted a strong faith based on that of his parents)

What I do know is that there are an awful lot of people who are very religous, very spiritual, and who happen to be following the same faith that their parents did. Can I prove that they never gave a fair shake to other faiths and principles? Of course not. Does it stand to reason that many, many - if not most - of these people simply didn't invest much effort into this, and instead just opted to stick with the familiar path that offers least resistance? Of course it does.

If nearly everyone gained a completely even-handed understanding of every major faith, and was brought up without social context pulling them toward one over others, we'd almost certainly see a natural diaspora of faiths among any given culture - people would just adopt things that made the most sense for them. (And, I suspect, would be a lot less likely to adopt an off-the-rack faith at all) However, given the praqcticalities of role models and peer pressure and societal context... it's obvious that most people... nearly all people... are simply unable to reach any degree of "search" of this kind. Maybe they attend a service or two of a different faith, or read a book or two, or talk to a man of the cloth here or there... but all told, there's a lifetime of deep-seated influence telling us to just do what mom and dad did... and many, many of us basically decide between a) doing that or b) doing nothing.

So, am I accusing people of (to use your words) "accepting those beliefs without considering the matter in all its complexities" here? Damn straight.

I don't know. If you know that you will be given eternal salvation. I mean know it as truth. To live a life of eternal happiness and bliss, where is the sacrafice?

If Jesus was given to the human race to die and never goto heaven that is indeed a sacrafice. But, Jesus didn't even live life as a typical man. He never married or slept with a woman. He never found his soulmate.

I suppose, we will never see eye to eye on these things, but thats ok. I wish you all the best!

It is an awfully broad statement. I was assuming that readers of my statement would realize that I was speaking of people that I knew closely, not people that I happen to pass on the streets or meet in casual circumstances. Perhaps that was a faulty assumption on my part.

For people who have spent a significant time in religious environments, at least to my experience, there is a great deal of community involved in which people discuss their spritual feelings and the grounds for their faith. During my life, I have probably had discussions of these types with thousands of people, and that is not an overstatement. In those discussions, I have only encountered deeply religious people who absolutely did not simply accept blindly the views of their parents.


You come across as quite consdescending in your analysis of the knowledge that I'm "claiming," yet you turn around and do the exact same thing. The truth is that neither of us can know for sure. You say that it obviously stands to reason that people stick to the "path of least resistance." I say that based on my experience this is undoubtedly not the case. So, which of us is right? Neither one or both. I simply wanted to make the point to druez and to others that buy into this "blind following" of religious people that I have never seen such a case, and that if it is so common as many would have us believe, it seems strange that I have never encountered it amongst the deeply religious people I know well.


Again, the best I can do is disagree with you assumption based on my experience. As someone else pointed out, faith is not about an intellectual sampling of what you like and what you don't like about particular religions. Not to be condescending myself, but that sounds to me like a statement that someone who doesn't have faith would make. This thread began with a number of people who do not believe in Christ asking questions to better understand those that do. Therefore, to provide information to someone who has never experienced the faith that I feel, I pointed out that faith is not something done blindly. Nor, in my opinion, is it about sampling religion like a buffet line. It's spiritual. It's emotional. And it takes a great deal of though, reflection, and doubt before one reaches a point where they believe with all of their soul in something.


Do I still disagree with your premise and that of others who subscribe to the theory that refuses to give a person of faith any credit for their decision to believe? Well, you know the rest... ;)

I do understand your point, and I didn't mean to imply that I didn't. My only point was that knowing you're going to Heaven doesn't erase the knowledge of the suffering that must occur for that to happen.

And I wish you the best as well. I thoroughly enjoy the discussions when they're civil as this one has been for the most part.

DOLA

I just realized QS, the difference that we may be having. What I'm referring to is the notion of faith, not the notion of religion. When a person finds faith, it typically has little to do with learning every aspect of all the world's religions. It has nothing to do with what church they go to. What you seem to be speaking of is a choice of religion, not faith, and that delineation needs to be made. There are a lot of people who go to church but don't have faith, and there are a lot of people who have faith and do not go to church. My comments regard that acquisition of faith, and I assert strongly that it has nothing to do with the beliefs of one's parents. In my humble opinion, it is absolutely impossible to "hand down" faith.

Now, if you're speaking about matters of denomination or sect or religious affiliation, I would agree with your assessment. The difference between the two, however, needs to be noted.

Cuckoo, here's something for you to consider:

It seems as though in most countries around the world, the predominant religion has remained static over a long period of time. For example, Christianity has been the primary religion in the North American countries, Western Europe and Australia. Islam has been the primary religion in most middle eastern countries, many African countries and parts of Asia. Buddhism has remained strong in many parts of Asia. The Indian subcontinent has been primarily Hindu and Muslim for a long time, with the split of those two groups into India and Pakistan with the independence of India from British rule. Some countries found their predominant religious ideas subverted by political means, notably Eastern Orthodox Catholicism in Soviet Russian and Buddhist, Taoist and other Eastern religions/philosophies in Communist China. Judaism has remained a strong sub-culture within the predominant Christian cultures in America and Western Europe and among predominantly Muslim cultures in the Middle East.

As Quik pointed out, if most people arrived at their religion of choice purely from their own independent investigations and choices, without outside influence from family, community and culture one would expect to find a more even distribution of the world's primary religions as opposed to the pattern one sees currently.

This is why it is suggested that whether through subtle or more overt means, the mores of a particular community seem to have an influence over the religious choices the members of that community make. I have no doubt you've observed people come to a decision on their beliefs through thorough examination of all the possible choices, but do you presume this is the case in a majority of situations? If so, how do you reconcile this with the observation of religions tending to be lumped by historical precedence based on location and culture?

Dawg, see my DOLA post. I was never speaking about choices of religion. I was speaking about arriving at faith, and I do think there is a tremendous difference between the two.

Edited to add: I've realized after reading over my previous posts that I have not done a very good job of articulating my point which initially was a simple one - to defend the notion of faith as a process and not something taken lightly or done blindly by those that I know. I write a post, think I've expressed myself fairly well, then realize that there are a number of different ways to read it. For that, I apologize, and it's the reason I often stay out of debates like this because it's much clearer in my mind than I can transfer it to the written word. I hope my clarifications cleared up any confusions as to what I am asserting.

Most people want to be accepted and fit in regardless of the price, so even if there is a 'true' faith (just making a point, don't lose your wireframes!) most folks will reject it out of hand because it would reguire too much sacrafice on their part.

why chew bubble gum if you are christian? or, why give to the needy if they are saved? it's a powerful thing to grasp the statement by Jesus that "the Kingdom of God is here", at the very least it could mean that the Holy Spirit is always present. Thus, how much more could heaven be, if what we are living in now is filled with the presence of God. Paul saw this problem of abandoning this life for the eternal and warned against it.
Finally, giving a nod to brother gibson, the allowing of the suffering of Christ by God seems to be more the point than Jesus not suffering because he lacked existential angst.

I think the difference you are making between "faith" and "religion" might go a long way toward explaining the differences that we have expressed.

I still might be inclined to lose respect for people who are willing to entertain "religion" simply based on the rituals performed by family members (what does that say about the value of the religion?)... but I can see how "faith" (a more enigmatic concept) can be a bit more slippery.

An interesting distinction, and one I don't necessarily disagree with. What I will say though is that those who arrive at faith as you put it I would think are a significantly smaller subset of those who identify with a particular religion, no?

There are those that will say that the U.S. is something like 70% Christian, and while there may be that many who when asked would identify themselves as such, the percentage who are really true believers I would suggest is a much smaller percentage.


I agree. I recall reading an article a few years back that was calling Catholicism the fastest-growing religion in the world, and no it wasn't because they were reproducing more than others :)

When interviewed, one of the common themes for many who had converted to Catholicism was the attraction of joining a community of people with a long history of traditions and customs. For many of these people, the attraction was as much about feeling like they belonged as it was a deeper spiritual belief in the principles of Catholicism.

I would also suggest that it is likely difficult, if one lives in a region where a particular faith is the primary cultural influence, to buck that trend and publicly proclaim a belief in a different faith. I would expect many in that situation either keep their own belief quiet, or move to a place more accepting of different beliefs.

Agreed with you and dawgfan. I think there are significantly fewer people that consider themselves to have faith than simply those who identify with a certain religion. And I also agree that people who simply entertain religion because of a familial tradition are all too common, and I do find it regrettable.

I tend to agree, but I've been digging into this material way too deeply of late. The novel I'm working on at the moment deals very closely with these themes and the eruptions of the sacred into the technological multiverse.

Not to mention, I really see the multi-dimensional nature of theoretical String descriptions as the model for networked data storage in the future (i.e. if multiple shadow universes exist, as String theory postulates, it would be fairly easy--at least mathematically--to shunt computation off into an alternate dimension using loaded Shroedinger waveforms to predict calculation results, thus potentially delivering not just instantaneous results, but in theory, results that actually precede the initiation of the computation itself. That is to say that you'd have the results of your script before the script actually ran in the universe you actually inhabit. That should speed up computers a bit. But more importantly, if information is just signal--just ones and zeroes--that data could be structured and stored in Shroedinger "frozen" waveforms for access in any place at any time in this universe provided you have the devices to retrieve it. Of course, a bunch of this is still wildly hypothetical. :) )

Yeah, but how does the 'Flux Capacitor" work? :D

Drake, if there are any fairly approachable sources that you might be willing to share (links, biblio references, that sort of thing), I'd be very interested in understanding more about your subject here. Sounds really fascinating.

Any of you see Event Horizon. Where the Universe would fold to allow travel between two spots. But, when you crossed through that place you went to hell. It was crazy but interesting.

Here are some quick solid resources on an introductory level:

http://superstringtheory.com/
-- nice general site for getting the basics down. Has some pretty pictures.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
-- this is a link to the extra material from their nifty episode "The Elegant Universe". If you can track this down on video or something, Brian Greene is brilliant at taking hard material and making it accessible to non-scientists (like me).

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/refs.htm
-- A good starting place also, with links to resources around the web.

http://theory.tifr.res.in/~mukhi/Physics/string2.html
-- Solid explanation of basic concepts, accessible to laymen.

For more intense research:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9411028
-- longish

http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/...stringrev.html
-- papers, papers, papers


I'm not finding links to some of the more complex research I tracked down. (I tend to search for scientific papers and print them off University web sites, so I don't save the links.) When I get home, I'll take a look at my file folders and see what else I can find.

Drake...are you smoking weed or something? That idea sounds WAY messed up...and *pushes up hornrimmed glasses* highly illogical

I'm by no means a math/science wiz, but which direction would you point the radar dish in order to send information into that other dimension?

I've done some rough experiments with a pie-tin (washed), paper-clips, alligator clips (red plastic, NOT yellow), my walkman, tape, and an oscillating fan ...but so far the results have been hampered by the fact that my fan only moves from side to side, and not from dimension to dimension.

That is one of the most intriguing things I've read in a long time. WOW, I didn't understand it all and I'll have to reread a good bit of it. But, that is some powerful stuff.

Yes. Bizzare movie, but I too thought it was interesting.



Here is something that I was thinking about on the way to work, and an I wanted to throw it out and see what everyone thought...

Religion can be used as a justification for racism. Does anyone else think that if some effort were diverted to teaching about other religions as well as your own it could lead to more harmony between the different belief systems of the world?

Not so fast, sachmo71. We're talking about dimensions here. Far more interesting than religious stuff :)

Yes I do, I posted something very similiar to that a while back on another message board. I was crusified for it, but I agree. The way religion is taught now it promotes just another form of racisim or eliteism or some other kind of ism...... :) But, yes I think it would be a great idea to teach people about all the various religions.

Now, where would they be taught it? Good question there. Can't have religion in school. Not sure why not? I mean religion is just another social science, I think it would be a great idea to have a teacher who was well versed on many religions to educated students about all the different paths in life. We both know that would never happen, because religion is based on we are right and everyone else is wrong.... :(

I'm sad to see that the human race will stay on this lower level of development, untill we do away with our petty superstituions....

As Niche said, "i'm paraphrasing here" We will look at ourselves as monkies, as we now look at monkies. As we develop into the uberman or overman what we do now will seem like monkies. If someone wants to paraphrase better they can, but I get his point.

That's why I write science fiction as opposed to just science. :)

Seriously, the advantage of SF is that I can look at bleeding edge research, make some extrapolations, assume that someone will devise the technological tool to implement the raw science, and then build a plot around it as a given. The actual technical details can be (and probably should be) fuzzed. How this all actually works in the novel is really just background for the important bits. The point is that the whole of human space has become massively virtually networked to such an extent that most people spend their time viewing the world and interacting with people through the internet (which they call simply "the String") rather than living and interacting in their actual physical environments. Virtual life has become more meaningful than physical life...except, of course, for my protagonist, who is an old-school command line network hacker. The religious bits follow accordingly from this mind/body dichotomy. To get the picture of where I'm going, google "the singularity" (in quotes) or "Vernor Vinge".

For the record: in this novel, the technology that makes multiverse waveform storage and access possible was developed by porn consortiums. Porn has done more to advance end-user accessible technology in the last one hundred years than all of the governments, wars and universities put together. (I keed, I keed...maybe.)

For the record #2: My protag lives in a high rise apartment building in the section of his fictional city known as Quiksand. Yes, I stole the name. I needed one and it seemed perfect. I'm horrible at creating names.

But think of it as an homage. ;)

drake do you have any books we can read? I read about 2 novels a week. Sci-Fi, or old school Sci-Fi. Like Wheel of Time etc...

Anyway, did you ever read those books by CS Friedman forgot the damn name of the series.

Anyway, this colonoy ship is forced to land on this planet. When it lands there, the laws of Earth don't apply. So Science and Technology starts to fail. Dreams come to live and gods are born based on worship. Magic becomes real. One part of the world decides to believe in the Earths Old One God. And there science works fine. Its most interesting to read. I'll give you the name tonight when I get home, its a 3 part series.

Whatever happened to "suspension of disbelief?" I always thought that a good science fiction novel was fiction, yes, but at least plausable enough to allow the reader to think "well, maybe it's possible," and then focus on the real issues of the story.

It also sounds to me like technology is playing the role of the antagonist. In other words, technology itself is a main character in your novel. I certainly hope it's a believable character :)

Also...I just thought of this. How do you "store" information into the Schroedinger Equation? That sounds very interesting to me.

You've tickled my intrigue bone.

Isn't "we are right and everyone else is wrong" inherent for faith to work? So wouldn't that make it impossible to allow someone of one sect to accept the right of another as human equals?
Most of my thinking was inspired by the situation in the Middle East. The Islamic extremist groups have a religious duty to kill the Jews. The Jews have to defend themselves, and in many areas treat the Islamic groups as subhuman. Will there religious beliefs be an insurmountable obsticle to them ever accepting one another as equals? Does the faith that they devote their lives to make both parties racist in the extreme? Would education about one another as a people help quell the violence, and maybe bring some common sense to the region?

"The Islamic groups have a religious duty to kill the Jews."


That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That's like saying Christians have a duty to kill abortion doctors.

Just because some extremists use religious justifications for violence doesn't mean that is a fundamental tenet of their faith.

No offense, just pointing out bad logic this morning. You have been warned. :)

When using the term "Islamic groups", I was inferring extremist groups. Sorry for not being clear.

Thank you for clearing that up.

The science *is* (distantly) plausible, but I choose not to dwell on the technical details. It's a novel, not a technical manual. Hell, it's a great deal more plausible than FTL travel, but writers get away with that one all the time.

I didn't intend to play up the technology as antagonist angle so much. It's an antagonist to the same extent that the moor in Wuthering Heights can be said to be an antagonist...which is to say, not really at all, but it is essential to understanding the motivations that drive some of the characters. The cultural, political and technological environment is important in SF, and how you draw those lines helps to say meaningful things about the human condition or the theme you're working with, but the environment itself doesn't really qualify as a character.

Hope that clarifies for you a bit.

The answer to your first question is no. There are universalist faiths, relativist faiths, and faiths of various sundry names that take up the position that "all paths lead to God."

Now, the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths do imply possession of the truth and other forms of worship as either distortions or absence of truth. I will speak only of Christianity, where the god-figure said, "no one comes to the Father (i.e. salvation, eternal life, paradise, heaven, the truth, etc.) but by me." Thus the notion that there is only one Truth is inherent in the Christian faith.

HOWEVER, this does not naturally lead to the second question or conclusion. The Christian faith also teaches us to "consider others BETTER than yourselves;" "this is my command, that you LOVE one another;" "no greater love has a man, than he lay down his life," etc.

Some could say, "But these teachings are only for how Christians treat one another." I suppose that's a valid textual interpretation, but to then conclude Christians have permission to treat others like crap, as inferior, in condescention, etc. doesn't jive with with other key teachings, namely "You're attitude should be the same as Christ..." "....God is love..." "...who humbled himself and made himself a servant."

In fact, the idea that Christians are being transformed into the character of God is foundational to the teaching. And there are only a very few passages that say point blank what God IS:

"I am...what I am"
"I am...the way, the truth, and the life."
"The Word was God." (complex theology, but I include it here just to try to fairly list all the instances I can think of)
"God is...love."

It is entirely possible, even commanded, for the people of faith to know the one Truth and still hold others in equal or even greater regard.

You can find out about my novel via my website: www.darrenrhawkins.com (or, you could click the link in my sig to go straight to my publisher's website...)

Re: CS Friedman - Are you thinking of The Coldfire Trilogy? I haven't read it, but I've had it recommended to me a few times. May have to check that out.

While I used to beleive this Theory although not all that together. Most of what you just said was made up in a book. The book is called Timeline by Micheal Crichton. The whole storing computer data in frozen waves is obsurd if you think about it scientifically. Also The deal with the infinite universes then Acually finding a way to defy the laws of this universe and getting there instatanously is going to be impossible.

Not an expert in this field but this is my opinion.

"gravitons"

:(

Thanks Rev. Looks like Christians are off the hook.

Yes I am sure they would work in real life and Micheal never said anything because he didnt want to be in the world spotlight.

The bible is all about interpritation...

Anyway, while based on what Rev says. You should love your fellow heathens, you are still condeming them to hell because they don't accept your beliefs are you not?

Any religion based on love "CAN NOT HAVE THE END RESULT BE HELL/DAMNATION IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE" that is 100% completely contradictory.....

I haven't read Timeline. Maybe I should check it out.

Sure, storing data in waveforms doesn't make any sense. I've always been suspicious of those fiber optic cables that govern my T1 connection to the internet. In fact, I've pretty much decided that the line is likely full of little demons passing the packets back and forth. I knew computers were evil.

;)

The Bible interprets itself, you can take any ONE word (such as Truth) in the Bible and do an entire and complete study on it (hint: it always comes back to GOD being the eternal source for everything.)

To answer the second part, since it was brought up, a Loving and JUST God MUST judge sin and punish it, else there is NO accountability and no JUST God who DID love people would ever allow that. But even though GOD in His loving Mercy DID make a way out for ALL of us to avoid the consequences of our sins, that is the part you (as most) seem to have the most problem with. (Which just proves again, your real problem is with GOD, not me!) ;)

Point A: I don't condemn to hell, people choose it.

Point B: I would ammend the capped and boldened section to say the following: Any all-powerful God of love CAN NOT ALLOW THOSE HE LOVES TO BE MURDERED, RAPED, AND TERRORIZED WITHOUT SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES...that is 100% completely contradictory. Those consequences are hell, the kind of place Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin...and I...deserve.

Beyond that, the docrtine of hell is not an easy pill for anyone (even me) to swallow. I too wish God would just make a public appearance every couple of years, smash some mountains up and raise some dead people to prove he was God and not some nut, and then everyone could believe and we all could be saved. Except he did that already (with the Israelites of the Old Test.), and they still rejected him. They thought the gods of the harvest and the gods of sex were a lot more fun than this one, holy God guy. But back to the hell question...I consider it a mystery, yet I "make sense" of the mystery this way: there are those that chose/choose/will chose (to God, time is irrelevant) Him, and those that will choose hell. If he snuffed out the world right now, he'd be condemning some of those that WOULD choose Him to hell because he didn't wait for them to be born. Now how loving would that be?

The opposite of love is not hell. The opposite of love is apathy toward those who have suffered and been slaughtered.

But why would a God that is all just and loving allow suffering and evil? If satan causes so much trouble why cant God simply kill him?