New Orleans Modern Day version of "Sodom and Gomorrah"

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think this starts to cross a line where non-believers would say, "this is just too convoluted a rule system."

At this point, you can't have it both ways. Either your God works in mysterious ways and prayer is irrelevant. Or your God answers prayer, and if he helps a non-believer instead of your son, you have a right to question that belief.

In many ways, it's far less painful to be an atheist. I don't question the motivation of hurricanes, I just want to get out of the damned way, so to speak.

But Jim, it doesn't work that way. Faith isn't a system where either you get what you want or you take your ball and go home. If it was everyone would believe in God and we would live in paradise because everyone would just pray for what they want and get it and be happy.

I believe that God is in charge - that I have free will to make decisions on this planet but that there are things out of my control. How do you see that? Do you have control over everything that happens? Does someone at least have control?

If I stopped being faithful because God didn't give me something I prayed for I would have been done long, long ago. If I pray for something and my prayer is not answered its obviously not meant to be that way. I believe prayer has the power to change SOME things but not all. Think of it like coaching a football game - you can call the play but whether or not it is successful is not up to you. If the play doesn't work do you quit coaching or do you accept the result - however bad it may be - and call a new play to try and move forward again? The game will continue whether you call in plays or not - its just a matter of whether or not you are hoping to have any say in what happens out there.

[Gary Gorski]

BTW I just want to add in that I too am impressed with everyone's ability to gain control of this thread and guide it to civil ground. There really are some facinating opinions here and I for one always like to hear an other points of view on things like this.

[RendeR]

After pondering this thread a bit I sort of formulated something...I'm jsut going to throw it out there, raw and uncut, please don't take offense, its just the summnation I came to just now based on what we're all discussing.


Faith, belief that GOD exists, belief that GOD has a plan for everything, all really comes down to being a coping mechanism. Believers have faith to fall back on when life gets rough or when things just don't go their way, its also a nice anecdote when things are going well, someone to thank for making everything grande.

I can grasp it at this level, life is tough. Everyone has to go through life and deal with what it hands them. I suppose this attitude is far better than many options out there. It just seems too easy to me. Life's trials help us grow and if we fall back on coping mechanisms that take the responsibility for our life out of our hands, what do we learn? how can we grow? it seems to stagnate.

anyway...just another tangent my mind took on the whole subject.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by sabotai

A - theism. The prefix A- means "lack". Lack of theism doesn't mean rejection.

What you are descirbing are people who are called "Strong Atheists". They reject the idea that dieties exist. "God does not exist"

Then there are "Weak Atheists", which is what Jim and I are. "I do not beleive in God". But that doesn't mean we beleive God doesn't exist.

The modern definition for agnostism is someone who is not sure if God exists or not (essentially a weak atheist). I don't even know how it came to be defined as that, but that really wasn't the original definition of agnostism. It originally meant beleiving the true nature of God could not be known.

But, as I said, the term has (like many other words over time) gone through redefinition through modern use and now basically means a Weak Atheist. A lot of people who are weak atheist call themselves agnostic mainly because most people think of Strong Atheism when they think of the word "atheist".

And then there are people who are agnostic that are really close to beleiving in God, but just need one final push to fully beleive (for whatever reason, when I think agnostic, I think of those people, not people who are "fully" weak atheist)

Thats why I said my definition. I may not be able to spell, but I did learn prefixes in 5th grade.

I think there needs to be a special category for those that are truly antitheism. To be even in the same wording as those that simply don't have a theistic belief seem insufficient.


Personally, on God's recruit screen I would be:
Tigercat 1,512,123,543 5'9 177 not contacted

Don't let the red fool you, one phone call through the burning bush and I will probably accept his invitation.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

BTW I just want to add in that I too am impressed with everyone's ability to gain control of this thread and guide it to civil ground. There really are some facinating opinions here and I for one always like to hear an other points of view on things like this.

Agreed. Definitely The Comeback Thread Of The Year.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

No, I quite firmly believe God doesn't exist. I'm most definitely a strong atheist.

My mistake.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Thats why I said my definition.

I don't understand...are you saying you admit your definition of an atheist and the actual definition of an atheist are different?

I wonder how far someone could take this...I think I'll just start redefining words and trying to tell everyone what they are based on my definitions instead of the actual definitions.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Agreed. Definitely The Comeback Thread Of The Year.

I predict a new golden era of FOFC. Of love and discussion, where we share our varied views without hate or personal attacks.


Naaaaaaaa! It would be nice, though. Everybody that disagrees with me is too stupid to allow it to happen.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Faith, belief that GOD exists, belief that GOD has a plan for everything, all really comes down to being a coping mechanism. Believers have faith to fall back on when life gets rough or when things just don't go their way, its also a nice anecdote when things are going well, someone to thank for making everything grande.

I can grasp it at this level, life is tough. Everyone has to go through life and deal with what it hands them. I suppose this attitude is far better than many options out there. It just seems too easy to me. Life's trials help us grow and if we fall back on coping mechanisms that take the responsibility for our life out of our hands, what do we learn? how can we grow? it seems to stagnate.

anyway...just another tangent my mind took on the whole subject.

It's so much more than a coping mechanism though - sure you can fall back on it in bad times but its really a gateway to eternity. For those who don't believe in God I can see why you look at a bad situation and ask how God could let something like that happen - but for those with faith death is not the end game. Our life on earth isn't supposed to be perfect. Bad things are supposed to happen culminating in our death when THEN we get the chance to go to place where things are perfect in Heaven.

If you don't believe in a God or an afterlife I can understand why you would be angry that God, if He exists, lets bad things happen - its taking a chunk out of the time you are given in the world or ends it. But believing in God I know that this life is like the pre-season. It's my chance to work out the kinks and handle the difficulties that I am tested with - hopefully with God's help I pass and will get to Heaven in the end.

You don't need faith to be a good person nor does having faith alone make you a good person but you do need faith to believe that there is more to life than the time you are given on Earth. Why does an innocent, good person die? Maybe its really a reward for them although painful for us since I believe that eternity lasts alot longer than however long I'm going to be given here.

[Toddiec]

Originally Posted by RendeR

you just restated your belief, I want to know WHY you believe it. What reasoning brought you to that belief?

Well, I have been viewing this thread with some interest since yesterday and this is one item I think I can put my two cents in on.

I was raised a Catholic and when I went away to college I didn't have to go to church anymore so I didn't. I rapidly began to believe that God did not exist and that everything was driven by fate. This lasted until I graduated when I met my soon to be wife. She is the daughter of a Baptist pastor and believes 100% in the existence of God. She and I had many debates on the subject and it finally came down to me thinking "if this girl I love believes it so much, maybe there is something to it". That was the first step. I started going with her to church. At no time was it forced apon me in any way. I just went and listened and then talked to my wife about it. After about a year and a half it was like a light switch just clicked one day and I gave my life to God (I was actually in the shower, which is another story all together).

Now, looking back I look at my beliefs in college and the bad things that happened to me as lessons from God trying to point out that there was a better future out there if I would just open my eyes to him. Now, that is just me, so I don't want to say anyone who has not found him better shape up. This is just my example.

So, to answer your question as to why I believe it, I believe it because I opened my mind to it. I started to believe it at the time because the most important person in my life planted the seed of belief and God did the rest. I believe it now because in my heart I know its 100% true.

Anyway, I don't want to ramble. I agree with the prior posters when they say that all we can do is lead our lives in a Godly way and hopefully someone will look at me the way I looked at my wife and say "heh, maybe there is something to this".

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I don't understand...are you saying you admit your definition of an atheist and the actual definition of an atheist are different?

I wonder how far someone could take this...I think I'll just start redefining words and trying to tell everyone what they are based on my definitions instead of the actual definitions.

You can't, I already took that job. You can be my assistant if you want though.

(The word usage I picked up from the religious studies departments at three major universities, LSU, Texas, and Kentucky. So I can hardly take credit for the job. If thats the way professional theologians are using the words in modern contexts, I'm not going to rock the boat. And as stated, in the absense of something stronger than atheism, it makes sense to me.)

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I think this relates back to the Fiath or Science debate earlier on, its not so much that the ONLY way to prove something is through science, but that using science we can build a superior case for defining our universe than FAITH can ever attempt to offer. So when people look at both options and want to follow one or the other, Science at least has supporting evidence to correlate its position, Faith does not, it brings nothing but a requirement that you trust what you are told. Therein lies one of my biggest problems. I can't trust people's word, because people lie, people cheat, and people take advantage of others. So weighing the two sides I am forced to go with the mundane rather than the ordained.

I'll agree with you to the point that science can build a superior case for defining our universe by the criteria it has established to come up with the definition. I'll agree with you that science has some supporting evidence to establish its position (the tangible, experimental). On the flip side, faith has a superior case for defining our universe by the criteria it has established to come up with the definition. I'll also suggest that faith has some supporting evidence to support its position (the philosophical, propositional). So that's why it seems so important to me to establish what evidence/criteria counts. For me, the questions become, what counts as evidence, what evidence do I choose to accept and how do I come to accept that as evidence? It doesn't seem like I can tell the theist or the scientist that there isn't evidence to believe their claims as both offer legitimate, to my mind, but different notions of acceptable evidence.

BTW, I have also appreciated the conversation and the civility with which people are bringing their ideas forward.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

God gave us free choice right? I doubt he would want faith entered blindly. True faith should be blind once its achieved, but faith entered blindly, before realizing what is at stake, is nothing at all.

It seems to me that if you never fully question the aspects of the beliefs upon which faith is built you are not giving yourself up to God, but rather the circumstances of your socialization and birth. Unfortunately, I think that is quite often what people do.....

that's all i'm willing to do at this point. for the record, when St. Peter is going over my Heaven credentials, he'll see that on top of all the sinning i've done - i've said my prayers every nite.

bottom line is this - i'm a good person. not a saint, but a good person. i don't need to believe in a hocus pocus grand wizard of Oz to be good - i do it of my own accord. now, if or when there's a judgement day, whether i believe in God or not the records will show i've spread more positivity than negativity (outside of FOFC). what's the difference between me being educated on God, not believing in Him but still living my life as a "good person" or someone in a tribe in the Congo, who's never heard of God, thus doesn't believe in Him, worships a different deity but lives his life as a "good person"? religion should be about getting you to act as that "good person". belief in people who return from the dead or Gardens of Eden or talking serpents or talking burning bushes - isn't that all secondary?

religion would be more credible if it was just about the most important part - getting its members to act as honorable, good people. it shouldn't be about "my religion is more credible than your religion" or "my God is better than your God" or "the reason why this bad thing happened to you is because you reject my God".

if you're telling me that me saying my prayers every nite, being a good person and honoring my wife but not "giving myself up to God" is the same as commiting murder according to God then i'm adamant about not concerning myself in that nonsense. basically i fall in the middle - i'm not a blind believer, i'm not an atheist (yet) who sins, i'm someone who lives as best i can and if there is a God He can't say i wasn't a good person and if there isn't a God then hey, at least people can't ever say Anthony Casso was a fucking prick while he was alive.

i'll take that.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

You can't, I already took that job. You can be my assistant if you want though.

Damn...well, a job's a job. Might I suggest our first words we try to redefine be the words "rat" and "dog" so that for now on, Chihuahuas will be by definition considered rats and not dogs.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Toddiec

Well, I have been viewing this thread with some interest since yesterday and this is one item I think I can put my two cents in on.

I was raised a Catholic and when I went away to college I didn't have to go to church anymore so I didn't. I rapidly began to believe that God did not exist and that everything was driven by fate. This lasted until I graduated when I met my soon to be wife. She is the daughter of a Baptist pastor and believes 100% in the existence of God. She and I had many debates on the subject and it finally came down to me thinking "if this girl I love believes it so much, maybe there is something to it". That was the first step. I started going with her to church. At no time was it forced apon me in any way. I just went and listened and then talked to my wife about it. After about a year and a half it was like a light switch just clicked one day and I gave my life to God (I was actually in the shower, which is another story all together).

Now, looking back I look at my beliefs in college and the bad things that happened to me as lessons from God trying to point out that there was a better future out there if I would just open my eyes to him. Now, that is just me, so I don't want to say anyone who has not found him better shape up. This is just my example.

So, to answer your question as to why I believe it, I believe it because I opened my mind to it. I started to believe it at the time because the most important person in my life planted the seed of belief and God did the rest. I believe it now because in my heart I know its 100% true.

Anyway, I don't want to ramble. I agree with the prior posters when they say that all we can do is lead our lives in a Godly way and hopefully someone will look at me the way I looked at my wife and say "heh, maybe there is something to this".

Interesting post, Todd (and I don't mean the shower bit). It's funny, but it appears that our lives (on this topic at least) were parallel right up to a certain point: when we met our soon to be wives. I was raised Catholic. Did the whole thing all the way up confirmation. Still went to church when I was in highschool, but once I got to college I sort of thought of myself as more spiritual than religious. Still believed in god, but without all that Catholic stuff going on, but didn't really think too much of it.

Then I met Lady H_B, who had done some soul searching and sort of recently became an athiest. We talked about it at length and she pressed me on why I believed in god, Jesus, all that stuff. It wasn't anything forceful or agressive by any means, she was just curious about my beliefs and about her soon to be husband. Also, lived a 3,400 miles apart during the first year of our relationship so there were a TON of long-distance phone call (expensive to boot). Eventually, after talking with her and reading books (like the one I quoted earlier), articles, and what not, I decided that she was right. She (and the over whelming evidence and pure logic) convinced me that I didn't really believe in god. I think I'm a better person for it. (note: That last sentence is purely personal, it's not at all intended to imply anything other than how I feel about who I am. Just to be clear.)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

that's all i'm willing to do at this point. for the record, when St. Peter is going over my Heaven credentials, he'll see that on top of all the sinning i've done - i've said my prayers every nite.

bottom line is this - i'm a good person. not a saint, but a good person. i don't need to believe in a hocus pocus grand wizard of Oz to be good - i do it of my own accord. now, if or when there's a judgement day, whether i believe in God or not the records will show i've spread more positivity than negativity (outside of FOFC). what's the difference between me being educated on God, not believing in Him but still living my life as a "good person" or someone in a tribe in the Congo, who's never heard of God, thus doesn't believe in Him, worships a different deity but lives his life as a "good person"? religion should be about getting you to act as that "good person". belief in people who return from the dead or Gardens of Eden or talking serpents or talking burning bushes - isn't that all secondary?

religion would be more credible if it was just about the most important part - getting its members to act as honorable, good people. it shouldn't be about "my religion is more credible than your religion" or "my God is better than your God" or "the reason why this bad thing happened to you is because you reject my God".

if you're telling me that me saying my prayers every nite, being a good person and honoring my wife but not "giving myself up to God" is the same as commiting murder according to God then i'm adamant about not concerning myself in that nonsense. basically i fall in the middle - i'm not a blind believer, i'm not an atheist (yet) who sins, i'm someone who lives as best i can and if there is a God He can't say i wasn't a good person and if there isn't a God then hey, at least people can't ever say Anthony Casso was a fucking prick while he was alive.

i'll take that.

I must say, HA, you've been the bomb in this thread from the crazy-ass begining parts to the end. Good stuff.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'll agree with you to the point that science can build a superior case for defining our universe by the criteria it has established to come up with the definition. I'll agree with you that science has some supporting evidence to establish its position (the tangible, experimental).

Ok

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

On the flip side, faith has a superior case for defining our universe by the criteria it has established to come up with the definition. I'll also suggest that faith has some supporting evidence to support its position (the philosophical, propositional).

This is where I have to stop you, philosophical? propositional? thats not evidence, that purely conjecture. This is why I look at a religious belief system and say "WTF? Religion argues that science is wrong and that god created everything and in the face of physical, mathmatical, and more evidence which pokes holes throughout the creationist standpoint" Conjecture cannot prove anything, unlike scientific theories, you can't experiment with conjecture and prove anything. There is no case to support a religious faith based belief, beyond..."I believe" and thats just not good enough for me.

Can you show me what "evidence" the theists have shared with you? because in 37 years I haven't seen a single thing that would make a case.

[Anthony]

this thread is working, and has been for the last 5 or so pages, because no one here is trying to get anyone to convert, and no one is trying to get the believers to abandon their God. debates on religion always go south because people think that someone can wake up in the morning, log on to FOFC and read a compelling post and change their life thereafter. no, not gonna happen. this discussion worked because all we're doing is giving the reason why we believe (or not). the preaching stopped. i might take part in more of these discussions if this was the case, but sadly this thread is the exception to the norm.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by RendeR

This is where I have to stop you, philosophical? propositional? thats not evidence, that purely conjecture. This is why I look at a religious belief system and say "WTF? Religion argues that science is wrong and that god created everything and in the face of physical, mathmatical, and more evidence which pokes holes throughout the creationist standpoint" Conjecture cannot prove anything, unlike scientific theories, you can't experiment with conjecture and prove anything. There is no case to support a religious faith based belief, beyond..."I believe" and thats just not good enough for me.

Can you show me what "evidence" the theists have shared with you? because in 37 years I haven't seen a single thing that would make a case.

I figured that's where you would stop me. :-) Again, I appreciate the thoughts. Let's bracket the creation/science debate as it's not worth getting into here.

In some respects, this post demonstrates the evidence point I'm trying to make. It seems that you don't want to accept anything other than the tangible and physical as evidence (please don't read this sentence as accusatory, just trying to make a conclusion about what you believe from what's above). Anything based on other than the tangible and the physical is purely conjecture and one cannot experiment with conjecture. Am I understanding you correctly? If I'm reading this right, I could give you some propositional/philosophical evidence (as some others have tried to do in the thread), but it wouldn't count as evidence for you. By a scientific, tangible, physical standard of evidence, I would agree that there might not be a case for religious belief.

I'm not trying to bash science in any way, but it does seem that science is based on a proposition that can't be proven by science--the proposition that truth can only be discovered tangibly and physically through the senses. Scientists simply accept this as true, in philosophical terms, as properly basic. No experiments have been performed to test this assertion (where would you start in coming up with an experiment to test this assertion and how could it be done?). Lots of experiments have been done in working from the assertion, but I don't know of any that have been done to prove it. Heck, no scientist really thinks about it though. They just accept the idea as intuitively true without doing any experiments to prove its validity. It just makes sense to do things this way.

Why can't the religious work the same way in accepting the existence of God as intuitively true without doing any experiments to prove the validity of the assertion? Why does the theist need scientific evidence for their founding belief when scientists don't need it for theirs? No matter what system, science or faith, one adopts or adopts in combination, it seems like we would need to be consistent about how we evaluate both.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Really...see I BELIEVE that all those things are part of what you must find as an individual in this life, in society, to be happy. Persuit of happiness, life, love, liberty, security. These are all tangible things that one works for in life.

You mean I can just believe in GOD and *pift* I get all that?


*sorry, not trying to be snarky there, just typed up that way*

(still catching up on what happened while I was gone)

Yes.

Keep in mind, changing one's beliefs is not, strictly speaking, something you can do voluntarily. Normally it has to happen to you; the best you can do is prepare the way.

[st.cronin]

Dola

To expand: The belief system you (whoever you are) is categorically NOT a choice. If you don't believe me, try believing that the Earth is flat. It can't be done, even though there's no sensory evidence to prevent you from believing.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Dola

To expand: The belief system you (whoever you are) is categorically NOT a choice. If you don't believe me, try believing that the Earth is flat. It can't be done, even though there's no sensory evidence to prevent you from believing.

So then how can a god punish you for not believing in him/it? If whether or not you believe is NOT a choice, then you can't be held responsible for what you believe.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'm not trying to bash science in any way, but it does seem that science is based on a proposition that can't be proven by science--the proposition that truth can only be discovered tangibly and physically through the senses. Scientists simply accept this as true, in philosophical terms, as properly basic.

You are incorrect in your characterization of science. Science is based on the ability to predict future events if you know the starting parameters. Knowing that, you can work backwards to explain past events. And science has a pretty good track record in that respect, especially when compared to religion. Nearly every time religious dogma and science collide, it is science that comes out on top.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Telle

So then how can a god punish you for not believing in him/it? If whether or not you believe is NOT a choice, then you can't be held responsible for what you believe.

I think 'punish' is the wrong verb, since we are told that God is infinitely sadder than we are when we are separated from Him. That's the most basic definition of Hell, 'separation from God.' There is nothing more painful.

Still, your point is a fair one, but it goes back to one's sense of justice. You seem to be implying that you believe the way you believe because to believe otherwise would be to offend your sense of justice. I think that's a nonsensical position to take.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think 'punish' is the wrong verb, since we are told that God is infinitely sadder than we are when we are separated from Him. That's the most basic definition of Hell, 'separation from God.' There is nothing more painful.

Still, your point is a fair one, but it goes back to one's sense of justice. You seem to be implying that you believe the way you believe because to believe otherwise would be to offend your sense of justice. I think that's a nonsensical position to take.

If you're referrring to the "sense of justice" discussion that came up earlier in this thread, you have me confused me with someone else.

I've always liked the "separation from God" explanation of hell. Plus you gotta figure that if someone doesn't believe in God, then being separated from Him isn't going to be a big deal to that person.

I was just saying that if you pair your "you don't choose what you believe" idea with the "if you don't believe in God and Jesus you're gonna spend all of eternity in a pit of fire" idea, it doesn't work out too well now does it (actually, isn't that a Calvanist thing? pre-determination and all that..)

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Telle

If you're referrring to the "sense of justice" discussion that came up earlier in this thread, you have me confused me with someone else.

I've always liked the "separation from God" explanation of hell. Plus you gotta figure that if someone doesn't believe in God, then being separated from Him isn't going to be a big deal to that person.

I was just saying that if you pair your "you don't choose what you believe" idea with the "if you don't believe in God and Jesus you're gonna spend all of eternity in a pit of fire" idea, it doesn't work out too well now does it (actually, isn't that a Calvanist thing? pre-determination and all that..)

The fight between free will and pre-determination is a very long one, with pretty much every great thinker weighing in at some point. I believe in free will, but I also believe free will is HARD. It's extremely difficult to choose to do anything.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You are incorrect in your characterization of science. Science is based on the ability to predict future events if you know the starting parameters. Knowing that, you can work backwards to explain past events. And science has a pretty good track record in that respect, especially when compared to religion. Nearly every time religious dogma and science collide, it is science that comes out on top.

Wouldn't we say that the ability to predict future events comes from the establishment of starting parameters that have themselves been derived from the assertion, "we can only know the truth through empirical, tangible and physical evidence"?

My apologies if I'm mischaracterizing science as I'm willing to hear other ideas about the baseline of scientific inquiry.
However, this is what I've understood to be the key idea behind the scientific project.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You are incorrect in your characterization of science. Science is based on the ability to predict future events if you know the starting parameters. Knowing that, you can work backwards to explain past events. And science has a pretty good track record in that respect, especially when compared to religion. Nearly every time religious dogma and science collide, it is science that comes out on top.

I just want to point out that the word 'dogma' comes from a greek word which means 'opinion,' although it has a somewhat stronger sense than our current use of the word.

[RendeR]

I think that when th two dogmas of religion and science collide in items such as creation/evolution being taught in schools we hit the real problem with the two sides.

This is where science has the empirical evidence and background to at least supports its theory, where the creationist side simply says "GOd did it" and when it comes to a public school system and multiple children from multiple ways of life are being taught things, one cannot teach something with no valid support under it.

It would be like me teaching a class in high school called "NFL 101" and teaching that ONLY the Bengals are worthy of being supported, its a personal choiuce issue that we can't just blatantly push out onto the young.

sorry if I'm a bit out of the convo atm, cooking dinner

[Groundhog]

My number one biggest problem with Christianity\Islam\et al is that, fine, it's been around for quite a long time in a particular region of the world (in comparison with recorded history, anyway), but what about the places it didn't reach for some 1500+ years until after Christ was put on the cross? Did God consider the people of South America & Japan (for just two examples) savages not worthy of hearing His word until the enlightened Europeans stumbled their way around the globe, bringing their religion and, usually, bloodshed with them? I just don't get that. Buddhism has a long history too, so why is Buddhism "wrong" and Christianity\Islam "right"?

When I've asked this question to other Christian people, people who have actually researched the other religions a little, they often scoff at how metaphysical and strange Buddhism is. Sure, I reply, but didn't you catch that chapter about that Noah dude building a boat to hold a pair of every animal and, presumably, insect? Not to mention the flood that covered the entire planet, which is interesting considering that even if the north and south poles melted away entirely we still wouldn't be looking at Kevin Costner's Water World; not by a long shot. To someone like me, I don't see the stories in the Christian bible as being any more or less strange than any other religion.

It's definitely no coincidence that religion was apart of every society, no matter how remote those societies may have been from one another. It appeared because people needed to find some kind of explanation for everything; that's just human nature. If you can't explain it logically, you attribute it to some kind of awesome higher power.

It would be nice to have some great power looking over us and guiding us, but when it comes down to it, Earth (and hence, humanity) are just a fantastically tiny and insignificant part of a much large picture. I don't normally look to Will Smith movies for philosophy, but at the end of Men in Black, when the camera pans out and reveals our entire universe to be a tiny little marble, well, maybe that's not so far from the truth? And would it really be such a big deal? I don't think so. It wouldn't make my life, my feelings or my actions any less meaningful or insignificant.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The world around is is clearly governed by causality (hence, the need and use for SCIENCE ); the primary cause, having no cause itself, must then be fundamentally different from the world we observe, and therefore UNKOWABLE by science.

I don't really have a problem with naming the unmoved mover god, but then it seems this whole thing is a quibble about semantics. Anyone who believes in a causal universe is probably willing to accept that there is some sort of unmoved mover, but that concept, without more, is as remote from traditional notions of god as atheism is from Christianity. It is as easy to imagine it as an anomaly of physics as a supreme being. If you want to tag that event with the label God, then I don't have a problem with that and you can count me as a believer. But I really don't think that's the God that Gary and others are talking about. In a sense you define god out of existence.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I think that when th two dogmas of religion and science collide in items such as creation/evolution being taught in schools we hit the real problem with the two sides.

This is where science has the empirical evidence and background to at least supports its theory, where the creationist side simply says "GOd did it" and when it comes to a public school system and multiple children from multiple ways of life are being taught things, one cannot teach something with no valid support under it.

It would be like me teaching a class in high school called "NFL 101" and teaching that ONLY the Bengals are worthy of being supported, its a personal choiuce issue that we can't just blatantly push out onto the young.

sorry if I'm a bit out of the convo atm, cooking dinner

I'll agree with you on this one. Because of the two different kinds of evidence accepted by faith and science, I have a more difficult time supporting the teaching of creationism in a science classroom. Of course if the creationists should be able to come up with scientific evidence, I would have to change my position.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I don't really have a problem with naming the unmoved mover god, but then it seems this whole thing is a quibble about semantics. Anyone who believes in a causal universe is probably willing to accept that there is some sort of unmoved mover, but that concept, without more, is as remote from traditional notions of god as atheism is from Christianity. It is as easy to imagine it as an anomaly of physics as a supreme being. If you want to tag that event with the label God, then I don't have a problem with that and you can count me as a believer. But I really don't think that's the God that Gary and others are talking about. In a sense you define god out of existence.

It's actually also a debate about SENTIENCE. I don't subscribe to a clockwork universe; the unmoved mover has will.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

BTW I just want to add in that I too am impressed with everyone's ability to gain control of this thread and guide it to civil ground. There really are some facinating opinions here and I for one always like to hear an other points of view on things like this.

Agreed with this and a couple of others who have posted the same. This thread went from going down the road of the Katrina thread to one of the more indepth threads out there where people just go point/counterpoint but there's no real malice outside of "I agree/disagree completely and here's why" which is how something like this should be.

SI

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It's actually also a debate about SENTIENCE. I don't subscribe to a clockwork universe; the unmoved mover has will.

But if you subscribe to a causal universe, then you do believe in a clockwork universe. I think what you mean is that the pre-universe (ignoring any time-space implications of that term) was not clock-work? What you're describing (a causal universe created by some being who has not otherwise interfered) sounds remarkably like deism.

I find it interesting, however, that your intitial premise is that we can never know what the prime mover is, as it, being outside the realm of causality, is outside the reach of science. Yet you're willing to make assertions about the nature of the prime mover. Why? Is that not fundamentally irrational? How can the starting premise that we can't know anything about it end up at the conclusion that you do know something about it?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

But if you subscribe to a causal universe, then you do believe in a clockwork universe. I think what you mean is that the pre-universe (ignoring any time-space implications of that term) was not clock-work? What you're describing (a causal universe created by some being who has not otherwise interfered) sounds remarkably like deism.

I find it interesting, however, that your intitial premise is that we can never know what the prime mover is, as it, being outside the realm of causality, is outside the reach of science. Yet you're willing to make assertions about the nature of the prime mover. Why? Is that not fundamentally irrational? How can the starting premise that we can't know anything about it end up at the conclusion that you do know something about it?

I do not believe that the prime mover has not interfered post-creation. I know people who have that belief, but I don't share it.

I think in a sense any assertions about the origins of the universe, whether scientific or theological, are inherently meta-rational.

My beliefs about the nature of the universe and God are most closely approximated in the Bhagavad-Gita; God pervades everything and is the cause of everything. You can turn that around and that what makes everything real and causes everything to happen is what I call God.

[Loren]

Originally Posted by Subby

I give this thread 5 stars.

ohhmyGosh i give it 10 stars

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

you're not even cute annoying where you could be quasi-tolerated,

tell me, me and MY emoties hold THIS title come onnnnn??
i got a new job and get to miss all the fun now soo carry on, no way in hell im entering a "religious" thread

[Solecismic]

I just wanted to point out that the latest tracks have Rita headed straight over Tyler, Texas.

I wonder what Pastor Bennett has to say right now? And if he'll apologize to the citizens of Tyler for judging lest he not be judged himself.

Originally Posted by hukarez

I don't mean to put out yet another New Orleans related thread, but I came across this on the Daily Foo:

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp...2&nav=1TjDeGmD
A confrontation this morning between an East Texas church and an evacuee from New Orleans. It centers around a sign out front of Woodland Hills Baptist Church on Old Jacksonville Road in Tyler, about a mile inside the loop. Some say the message is offensive.

"I drove by that sign and was just horrified when I saw that," says Kelly Jackman who now lives in Tyler but used to live in New Orleans.

That sign at Woodland Hills Baptist Church reads ,"The big easy is the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah."

Kelly along with her sister Robin Lafont, an evacuee from New Orleans, showed up this morning at the church to talk to the man who put it up, Pastor Wiley Bennett.

During a heated discussion, Robin asked, "What's the point of the sign out there?" Pastor Bennett replied, "The point of the sign is New Orleans, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and New York City are some of the most wicked cities in America."

Robin, who still has family members unaccounted for in New Orleans, is offended by the sign. "I'm telling you. This hurts. Why would you want to put more hurt, more salt in my wounds and why would you want to do this to me?"

Kelly adds, "And to go by and see this church saying that God did this to destroy these people and basically they're celebrating that by putting that sign up there saying look at what God has done. He has destroyed the city of New Orleans because it is evil."

Pastor Bennett says, "Anybody that's ever visited New Orleans, the very name its self - Big Easy - denotes that it's easy to find sin there."

Pastor Bennett says the sign, is a sign of the times. "The purpose of the sign is to wake American up to the fact that America is going away from God. New York City's 9/11 was a call of judgment and New Orlean's horrible incident was judgment on a wicked city."

Pastor Bennett was quick to point out that the church has helped evacuees by donating clothing, food and lodging, but their good will seems to be overshadowed by the sign.

"I'm not saying that you were evil and didn't have good intentions but it is hurtful. It's extremely hurt full. That's all I'm saying. I'm asking you to take it down," pleaded Robin.

"If I was doing it to hurt people I would take it down, but I'm not doing it to hurt people. I'm doing it to point out the sins of America," said Bennett.

Even after the sisters left the church, the confrontation continued in the parking lot. Kelly said, "That sign also says a lot about your character and your integrity and it's nothing good I assure you."

"They both called me an ungodly person with bad character and all that, and that's their right, but I have people that would say differently," Bennett told us.

Finally, the confrontation came to an end, but with no resolution. Robin tried one last time, "I'm asking you to take it down." Bennett said, "We can not go any further so we may as well go." Robin said, "That's fine. I need to go."

Robin and Kelly say they are going to spread the word of opposition to the sign and encourage people to contact the church. They hope the church will eventually take it down.

Since the sign went up, many KLTV viewers have e-mailed us with their comments. Wednesday night, a viewer named Tammy told us:

"Encouragement is needed, not more salt in the wounds... How could anyone see that sign as appropriate or bearing witness for Christ?"

We were at Woodland Hills as they prepared for Wednesday Night services.

They say earlier in the day, they were deluged with phone calls from people urging them to take the sign down.

But they say after our report, the response has been 100 percent positive. They began their service with a prayer for the people of New Orleans and Mississippi, and we spoke with many members including these who say they support the message on the sign.

Betty George has been a member for 23 years.

"Our pastor has a strong stand on the Bible and he preaches God's word, and he has compassion for America and the souls of America."

Randy Hays joined Woodland Hills in 1999.

"All our pastor was trying to say is that America is pulling away from God, and He wants America to realize that."

Pastor Bennett told us once again he has no plans to take down the sign right now, despite outcry from the community.

...On a side note, I didn't pay much attention during my private school days about Sodom and Gomorrah, so I'm a little in the gray area regarding specifics. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I just wanted to point out that the latest tracks have Rita headed straight over Tyler, Texas.

I wonder what Pastor Bennett has to say right now? And if he'll apologize to the citizens of Tyler for judging lest he not be judged himself.

*chuckles quietly to self*

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I just wanted to point out that the latest tracks have Rita headed straight over Tyler, Texas.

I wonder what Pastor Bennett has to say right now? And if he'll apologize to the citizens of Tyler for judging lest he not be judged himself.

As of now, I am SO rooting for this to happen.

[Easy Mac]

Isn't rooting for his come-uppence no different than what he said. He basically said NO got what it deserves, and you're doing the same thing. so may a hurricane strike you all

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Isn't rooting for his come-uppence no different than what he said. He basically said NO got what it deserves, and you're doing the same thing. so may a hurricane strike you all

Hey it's OK for me to judge him. He's an asshat.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Isn't rooting for his come-uppence no different than what he said. He basically said NO got what it deserves, and you're doing the same thing. so may a hurricane strike you all

But if that were to happen, we would have weather more powerful than we could ever imagine.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Isn't rooting for his come-uppence no different than what he said. He basically said NO got what it deserves, and you're doing the same thing. so may a hurricane strike you all

You know, the quick-to-prepare food item has a point.

SI

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You know, the quick-to-prepare food item has a point.

SI

4 minutes or less!!!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

But if that were to happen, we would have weather more powerful than we could ever imagine.

Nicely played

SI

[sterlingice]

I've figured it out! Rita was sent to Houston because they took in the New Orleans evacuees!

SI