Very few debates can have such a wide divide as that between atheists and Christians. The information, literature, and web sites concerning Christianity outnumber those for atheism by several orders of magnitude. Christians should have no excuse for not being able to support their arguments. Atheists do not have such a wealth of support and many atheists are not aware that support groups and meeting places are available where they can obtain help and be able to discuss their points of view. Many also feel they are on their own and are reluctant to admit to their position.

This topic introduces atheism and will hopefully help those who are unsure of their beliefs but do not know where to turn.

The following brief text has been taken from the web site http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism I encourage both atheists and Christians to read from this site. For atheists it is a wealth of perhaps new information for you, and should help you find support groups through the Atheist Alliance. For Christians you will find it useful to know the arguments that will be aimed at you and help you more clearly understand the position of the atheist.

In any battle it is important to know your opponent, be well equipped with the right weapons, and understand how to use those weapons. A primary weapon in our debate should be the use of rational argument. The site gives a lengthy dissusion on the use of forming such arguments. These rules and guidelines are equally suited to both sides.

This debate has been raging for many centuries so I doubt we will end it here. However, it is truth that we should be seeking and not just how well we argue for our side. Trying to understand the point of view of your opponent is very often not attempted or is very difficult. Be open minded if you can and always question yourself with 'could this argument I hear be true'.

"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position. Believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.

"What is agnosticism then?"

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists.

Since that time, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those that do not believe that the question is intrinsically unknowable, but instead believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on the original definition be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the second definition be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.

To continue with the introduction follow this link http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

I take the position of the strong atheist, also known as a critical atheist, or even anti-theist. I have participated in many debates with Christians, but always live debates where I am usually the only atheist. An online debate such as this is new to me. The live debates are usually polite, are often very heated, but personal abuse is extremely rare.

My viewpoint is simple - Christians claim that a God exists. They have not proved their case and I do not believe they can. If Christians wish others to believe in their cause then they must offer proof. In the same way as a scientist who claims to have made a new discovery, he is expected to prove his claim before gaining any acceptance. With such an important issue as the existence of a God it seems even more important for the claim to be proved. And it is not the duty of the audience to disprove the claim.

I also believe that the widespread introduction of Christianity over the centuries has caused and continues to cause serious harm to humanity, and that it is important for mankind to return to rationality.

Note: text edited to remove the period from the two hyperlinks - sorry.


[This message has been edited by Wizard (edited January 26, 2000).]

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Now there's a can of worms.

------------------
It's all very large.

Greetings and salutations.

________________________________________
My viewpoint is simple - Christians claim that a God exists. They have not proved their case and I do not believe they can. If Christians wish others to believe in their cause then they must offer proof. In the same way as a scientist who claims to have made a new discovery, he is expected to prove his claim before gaining any acceptance. With such an important issue as the existence of a God it seems even more important for the claim to be proved. And it is not the duty of the audience to disprove the claim.
_____________________________________


My viewpoint is simple - Atheists claim that God does not exist. They have not proved their case and I do not believe they can. If Atheists wish others to believe in their cause then they must offer proof. In the same way as a scientist who claims to have made a new discovery, he is expected to prove his claim before gaining any acceptance. With such an important issue as the existence of a God it seems even more important for the claim to be proved. And it is not the duty of the audience to disprove the claim.

_________________________________________
I also believe that the widespread introduction of Christianity over the centuries has caused and continues to cause serious harm to humanity, and that it is important for mankind to return to rationality.
_______________________________________

I also believe that the widespread introduction of Athiesm in today's society has caused and continues to cause serious harm to humanity, and that it is important for mankind to return to a Christ centered life.

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

I consider "atheism" an unfortunate term of ancient standard which fails to encompass the entirety of what modern atheism has come to be.

The very root of the word atheism suggests an opposition to gods. Yet I know no atheists who will not worship God if it can be conclusively demonstrated that there is a reason to do so. To the other, I know several religious people who take moral offense to the idea that they're closely related to chimpanzees and babboons. I rarely experience these processes, if ever, in reverse.

Atheism may currently suffer a difficulty I encountered upon leaving Christianity behind. The problem was that I didn't leave it far enough behind, and continued to seek alternatives in the context of one-upping Christianity. Modern circumstances have polarized atheists and Christians; it isn't that atheism believes in Islam and not Christianity, it's just that where religion crosses social boundaries, there is less public discourse in the United States regarding Hindu or Wicca than there is Christianity. So I think that atheism has come to be viewed largely as a movement in opposition to Christianity. This observation could be wrong, I admit.

But one aspect of this juxtaposition that holds true seems to be that atheism regards religion as limiting. Of my own religious experiences--even the best of them--I think this is true. Certainly, I might speak of various revelations that would not have come without my occult dabblings, or epiphanies that would not be without having played about in the Craft ... but I personally tended to drift too far into the imagery of the philosophy and stopped making the connections between faith and reality; thus, the harmony I sought was no longer a benefit of my pursuits.

Or, at least, that's one way to look at it.

For the record ... I have no idea what I would call myself--definitely not an atheist, though. But all of those words--monotheist, pantheist, atheist ... they separate people's ideas, and weigh them by the flaws of the idea without seeing the value. (Or, at least, this has been the result I'm most familiar with.)

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

Once again, someone has decided to hold court and make God the defendant.

Who is the jury? Adult humans? O.K. then. What type of case shall we make this? Criminal or civil? In accordance with criminal law, the jury needs to see the physical evidence and hear the testimonial evidence and, in general, come to a unanimous decision beyond all reasonable doubt. With respect to the existence of God, we already know that the decision is not going to be unanimous. So, unless you want to declare God a criminal, this is a mute point for purposes of this discussion.

So, let's be reasonable and look at this in the sense of a civil case where majority rules. In accordance with this civil law, the jury needs to come to a majority decision based on the "preponderance of the evidence." Does the evidence in such a case consist only of "physical" evidence? No, it does not. What else is presented which is considered reasonable and rational for human beings to ponder before rendering their decision in any case? It is the "testimony" of others. Why? Because adult human juries are thought to have the intelligence and life experience necessary to come to a reasonable decision based on "all" the facts, not just the physical evidence. Therefore, to exclude such evidence as suggested in the initial post, would be unreasonable.

Based on the preponderance of evidence which the majority of intelligent, reasonable and rational people in this world have seen, heard and experienced in their lives, the overwhelming majority has already come to the conclusion that God exists.

Atheists make up about 3.8% of the world population... that is within a reasonable margin for error, don't you think?

Case closed.

(If you are set on trying to convince the majority of the world otherwise, please try to remember that when you are dealing with reasonable people, you need to take into consideration "all" the evidence as described above).

The Case is closed? LMAO That's pretty amusing, I trust you weren't being entirely serious! :)

Let's put God up in front of Judge Judy. He could be the plaintiff if you like.

JMitch,

What I AM serious about is "reasonableness"...

It seems that our scientific friend wants to hold a court in which logic is "supposed" to prevail but in which physical evidence "only" is permitted (reasonable testimony is thereby excluded) with the intent of trying to prove/disprove the existence of God, a very supernatural (for the most part non-physical) entity.

Based on the fact that the author of the thread proposes discussing the existence of God, a most supernatural entity, while at the same time proposes that the argument be limited to "physical proof only," evidences inconsistent reasoning and sets up an illogical and contradictory environment for discussion in and of itself...

As far as I'm concerned, this thread's author closed this situation to reasonableness from the outset...

Judge Judy would only add to the chaos. :)



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 25, 2000).]

I would like to repeat one of my previous post which I think is consistent to this topic.

You can hear very often from people who believes in certain believe system, that to become one of them you should take the whole their system as it is. If you have some problems with explanation any divergences to yourself you should pray more and believe that there is solution of your doubts somewhere – God knows where. And after you death, every such doubts will disappear in bright light of God.
What was happening during last 50 years that traditional believe systems lost their attractiveness to people?
I want to focus only on Christianity, because this is the main subject of our discussion.
We have to remember that the final shape of Christianity was established in about 3- 4 century (remember that it was established by PEOPLE who based on Jesus live). In my opinion it was significant development of men’s approach to other men and his live in those times. Maybe it was the reason of such quick increase of this religion.
During the time we noticed one significant change, when evangelic church came into existence as a successful attend to improve the system to the present (in those time) people mentality. But from 16 century till now we cannot find any other such changes in faith systems. In the other hand the mankind has reached from 16 century till now so great development in science, culture, relation between other people or nations which had never been reached before.
Should the faith system evolve in accordance with mankind culture or it should remain frozen?
I don’t know, who should answer to this question – maybe pope.
But in case, it remain frozen, the system become less compatible with people mentality and then people cannot receive the answers for most of their basic questions from the system. They have to believe in more range than before. We live in real world; we have to step on hard ground, so such approach become not acceptable to more and more people – what we have seen recently. People have to stay in front of dramatically choose: faith, but it brings divergences in their minds or live without God but it give a pain somewhere deep inside. Today people often choose the second solution and try to deaden that pain by amusements, music, movies, and etc., or try to find their own solution for relation with God.
I understand Christians. From their perspective both above decisions are wrong – first one is obvious, the second: they know that people mentality is generally lazy and people solutions (based mostly on mixture of exotic systems) are often conform with their wishes, not with requirements of transcendentality. Christians see the dangerous for non-believers souls and why they are so active (sometimes even aggressive) with promotion of Christianity.
I think that Christians have to understand that today the only faith is not enough for more and more people. I’m sure that such awareness would be helpful for their work effectiveness.

http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/ivan.gif

The Ravens Are Not What They Seem


------------------

I think the reason that there aren't more support groups for atheists is that we don't feel we need support. Truths tend to hold themselves up without needing to be propped up by support groups. They stand alone on facts. We don't need to meet to discuss those facts because they are common knowledge to us.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Truestory -

But even an eye witness can be mistaken - juries know that and keep that in mind. Cold hard physical evidence will overrun any spoken testimony (except in the OJ Simpson trial).

Agree with Oxygen, but I guess this person is appealing to insecure failed Christians who may need some moral and material support in their new found disbelief!
http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

Greetings ilgwamh,

I enjoyed your play on my words. Two things, firstly, atheists do not make the claim that God does not exist. Except for simple objects it is usually not possible to prove that something does not exist, one would have to check every corner of the universe to do so. An atheist is someone who has an absence of belief in the existence of God. Please see the website again for the full definition and a better explanation. Secondly Christianity is an evangelical religion, it actively attempts to convert others to its belief system. Atheism is not a belief system and does not have a cause. It seems reasonable to me that if you want me to believe in your cause then you must offer good reasons.

tiassa,

You sound a lot like me 10 years ago. Before that it took me some 20 years to fully escape the Christian turmoil in my head. For most of the past 30 years, since my teenage encounter with Christianity, I refused to accept a label and it is only recently that I accepted what I had become. The term atheism has a long history of negativity attached to it and a definite stigma. Many atheists will refuse the label and use other terms like freethinker, or simply state that they have no religious beliefs. Technically the term means 'without theism', where if we substitute 'belief in god' for theism then atheism becomes 'no belief in god'. In the end you are either one or the other. If you believe in a god then you are a theist, if you don't then you are an atheist, there is no middle ground.

I would indeed accept a god if there was some conclusive evidence. The possibility of an afterlife and eternal life would be foolsh things to decline. I think that the evangelical nature of Christianity naturally results in a defensive reaction by those who do not want to be converted. The effect we see is atheism opposing Christianity.

truestory

Many years ago millions of people believed that the world was flat and there was significant literature on the subject. The fact that most people believe in something offers no proof as to truth or falsehood. Truth is an absolute and cannot be reliably determined by a majority vote. Democracy does not always result in the best choice. The jury system also makes mistakes and the innocent can be wrongfully imprisoned and executed despite a preponderance of evidence.

Your court trial argument is invalid because the majority can be wrong.

However, can you tell me the source of the 3.8% value please?

In your second posting,

I have not introduced a court scenario, I have not mentioned the use of logic, I have not limited the type of evidence, and I am completely open to reasonable arguments.

Ivan Kruk,

Thankyou very much for your posting. I think I understand most of what you are saying and your conclusion makes sense.

There should be plenty of room in this debate for discussion of the early years of Christianity, especially the role of Paul, and I'd like to discuss evidence from the book of Q. But these can be future topics.

Oxygen,

I believe you are correct to some degree, but for those that are new to atheism then knowing they are not alone can be important. And support groups can be a source of information if only in the form of a newsletter. Secondly, Christianity has powerful political pressure groups. These groups appear to be trying very hard to have Christianity taught in our schools, to obtain government funding for Christian schools, and to increase the role of Christians in government. If you value your lifestyle then perhaps a completely passive role may not be the best. Something like the Atheist Alliance can organize political opposition where needed.

Mooncat - thanks.

tablariddim,

Quote
------------------------------------------------
Agree with Oxygen, but I guess this person is appealing to insecure failed Christians who may need some moral and material support in their new found disbelief!
------------------------------------------------

Yes very much.

Wizard,

You are not excluding testimonial evidence?

You are not holding court (so to speak)?

It seems that you are calling God's existence into question (which is fine). It seems that you are also asking for "proof" to be presented and have indicated that it must be presented in a manner akin to a "scientific" discovery - this certainly seems to exclude non-scientific testimony...? I presume that someone will be the "judge" of the adequacy of such "proof" in this debate?

I believe you indicated that you have been in such debates before and that you are usually the only atheist... Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that you have previously been offered what many others perceive to be valid evidence in the way of testimony concerning the existence of God... Given that, and your resulting strong atheism, it also seems reasonable to conclude that you have "judged" such testimony to be unacceptable to you.

Given the above, it seems reasonalbe to conclude that you have narrowed your reasoning ability in this matter to disregard testimonial evidence and to accept physical evidence only as proof... am I missing something?

What I would like to say here is that we, as humans, need to further exercise our reasoning ability in order to expand our ability to reason.

Here, I offer the following which I believe demonstrates the exercise of a keen and expanded ability to reason that which is not necessarily readily visible in a scientific manner:

"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history." - Isaac Newton

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and the comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God." - Isaac Newton

With respect to the figure concerning atheism and world population... I did a search of "atheism" and "world population" on the net... the following website contained the data which I referenced... www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html (http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html)

By the way, when attempting to access the websites which you posted at the beginning of this thread, the result was "Page not found" for both.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 26, 2000).]

Wizard,

Nevertheless my poor English, if you treat such sociological occurrence as atheism, disconnected with the past, I think you make a mistake.
To be honest – The whole discussion on the subject: Can Christians proof the existence of God? and therefore Do atheists have a right with their believing God doesn't exist – is simply say - out of sense.
The biggest fault of Christians is that they treat Bible as a source of any proof for every what they claim. They declare that God is out of our perception – He exists in other reality, which is unable to be experienced by our limited 5 senses. In the other hand, they declared: Hey, you can find the proof of God existence in the BOOK – Bible. Those book which was prepared by people - for people, which is common with our limited perception. It’s pure rubbish!
Then, the discussion with such augments looks for me like the shutting at fly with a cannon. But, much worse is to jump into conclusion, that If I can proof to myself that they (Christians) are wrong, that means: God doesn’t exist!
I believe that Christians has a right with two things: God exists, He is out of our perception. Because of the second sentence I don’t try to understand what is His nature, where He is, What are His skills – it’s out of sense for me.
If you believe that God doesn't exist or believe that He is real – it’s only your matter. I don’t think that it can be a subject of serious discussion.

http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/ivan.gif

The Ravens Are Not What They Seem


------------------

Ivan,

Your English is fine... You expression is perfectly understandable and welcomed. :)

Truestory--

Regarding your two Newton quotes: Strong words from a strong mind. They are a beautiful summation of the faith of a very bright man. He also got the closest to identifying that force which unites all of nature, and therefore may be a direct symptom of God: gravity.

I wanted to advise you of two other quotes. The second one, I must admit, is of dubious citation; it was quoted in a book separate from its origin.

"Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy." (Benjamin Franklin)

"Malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man." (Ambrose Bierce; quoted by P. J. O'Rourke)

On the other hand, I thought you didn't like looking to old, dead people who are not Christ for advisement regarding Christ. Are we now allowed to consider history in this sad theatre of theological cacophony? That's a promising second act.

thanx,
Tiassa


------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

tiassa,

We both sound like broken records...

...atmosphere of respect conducive to a free exchange of ideas...

Ha!! I think old Benjie is a member of my family!!!

Thanks truestory for pointing out the problems with the hyperlinks. There was a period included at the end of each. They should work fine now.

Sorry about that.

Is that philosophy getting in the way of technology or is it the other way round?

Truestory--

Well, in the spirit of open communication, I want to make sure that I'm hearing you right. After all, I would hate to offend you by phrasing a question badly.

For the record, so you don't have to waste a post, this is considered wording a question badly:

"So, uh ... how dumb are you?"

I mean, given the crap you fling when people dredge up historical figures in Christianity, it seems a fair question to ask if you've suddenly realized the value of considering the past.

In that sense, it doesn't sound like a broken record, though. It has the possibility of going on to a new song ... but that's up to you.

Otherwise, the only conclusion that I can draw is that you're narrowminded enough to accept history only when it's complimentary to your current beliefs.

Thus, the actual question: When is history relevant? ("When it doesn't offend Truestory," is NOT an answer here. Well, it is an answer, but a damn feeble one at that.)

So what's it gonna be, True? Step up and join the twenty-first century? Or mire yourself in post-Victorian denial that should have been left in the nineteenth?

Step up and take a swing. Or at least let everyone know the name of the game you're playing. I've heard Seinfeld jokes more original than your complex, individual faith.

--Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

Truestory,
:)
Thank you.
It was nice of you.

<HR>
http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/ivan.gif

The Ravens Are Not What They Seem


------------------


[This message has been edited by Ivan Kruk (edited January 26, 2000).]

the most unfortunate thing about this debate is that no one is willing to listen to the other side. each side, athiests and christians, start with the assumption that they are right and then try to formulate the arguements.

this can be described using an analogy. let's say you wanted to go somewhere. you would pull out a map and find the roads to lead to your destination. regardless of the quality of roads, you are determined to reach that destination. but there will always be roads, no matter how bad, and you will always be able to reach the destination you choose. in this case, i think it is fairly obvious that the "roads" leading to both "destinations" are terrible. no offense to anyone involved, but the arguements on both sides here are very weak. everyone here has only whined like small children about how it is the other person's responsibility to prove them wrong.

for athiests, your burden can never be reached. even if you find the most solid, most irrefutable arguement ever that conclusively proves that there is no god, there can still be an all powerful god which created that proof.

for christians, you proof simply never has. you claim that we should start with the assumption that there is a god because many have always assumed he has existed. throughtout all these years he aparently has existed, but whoops! he forgot to give you any shred of evidense. it's hard to remember little things like that when you are all-powerful and all-knowing.

but most importantly, you are all misinterpreting the term "believe." to believe does NOT mean to know. in fact, religion requires faith, belief WITHOUT knowing. when the bible asks you to believe in god, this doesn't mean to know he exists. this means to trust in his message and follow the path that he outlines, such as the ten commandments. he doesn't want you to acknowledge that those are the message of god and then ignore them, he just wants you to follow them.

from my experience, most religious people believe what they want and then pretend that it fits within the word of god. if i were god, that would piss me off a lot more than someone who wasn't sure i existed.

samus

Samus--

I am not sarcastic in saying,

"Amen".

I'm also inclined to ask your opinion regarding those who feel pigeonholed into their labels? After all, some choose their labels, and some have their labels chosen for them. But, in the end, isn't the goal to throw out the labels?

Or ... what happens to the diversity in any situation when we divide according to such terms as "Christian" and "Atheist". I'm quite sure a number of people stand in between the faith of their birth and the firm knowledge that there is no god or, at least, no need to worship. To attempt a sad play on your analogy: what are the implications when someone decides both roads suck and books an airline ticket?

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

tissa,

I don't get to come here often. Some of your posts make coming to this site a very unpleasant experience. Thank God for the civilized people who post here.


TS,

My advice to you is to ignore him/her.


Wizard,

I'll read the information you posted when I get some more time and I'll get back to you.

Thanks and God Bless.

Tiassa,
Ganja Air?
http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

______________________________________
but most importantly, you are all misinterpreting the term "believe." to believe does NOT mean to know. in fact, religion requires faith, belief WITHOUT knowing. when the bible asks you to believe in god, this doesn't mean to know he exists. this means to trust in his message and follow the path that he outlines, such as the ten commandments. he doesn't want you to acknowledge that those are the message of god and then ignore them, he just wants you to follow them.
_________________________________

Hey samus, I think your the one misinterpreting what words like 'faith' and 'belief' actually mean. The New Testament defines faith as belief and action based on established facts.

I have faith that california exists even though I have never 'seen' it. I have faith in the existence of a fundamental particle called a neutrino even though I have never 'seen' one. I also have faith in God even though I have never 'seen' Him. I have faith that california, neutrinos, and God all exist because there is a lot of hard evidence confirming these 'beliefs' of mine. Your definition of 'faith' is inaccurate.

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Tab--

I'm not as thinked as you stone I am. :cool:

--Tiassa


------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

Vinnie-

Here's how Websters NewWorld Dictionary defines "believe" and "faith":

"believe

-vt
1. to take as true, real, etc.
2. to have confidence in a statement or pormise of (another person)
3. to suppose or think
-vi
1. to have trust or confidence (in) as being true, real, good, etc.
2. to have religious faith
3. to suppose or think"

"faith
-n
1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
2. unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc.
3. a religion or system of religious beliefs
4. aything believed
5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance
6. allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty
SYN-see belief"

So it seems to me that the dictionary is more or less agreeing with samus. You "suppose or think" God exists. You "take as true" that He is there. But you don't have proof, at least none that can be verified. I'm glad you have faith that California exists, but keep in mind, our ancestors also had a lot of faith in the "fact" that the world is flat.

Belief in something and the actual state of something aren't exclusive, but that doesn't mean the belief is accurate or true. You might believe that all women love little children, but that doesn't change the fact that some women can't stand kids.

Ilgwamh--

Just to be fair, I have a difficult time believing California exists. And I was just there. ;)

Go figure, 'cause I can't.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

Heck, I was BORN here and I'm still not sure...

Samus was speaking of faith in God. The Christian God. Once again, the New Testament defines faith as belief and action based on established facts.

You say the dictionary agrees with samus. I say you are inaccurate just as his definition of faith was innacurate. Samus' definition of faith was being applied to the Christian God. Christians do not have faith in God according to the first definition of faith that you gave or samus' definition. At least they shouldn't. Some Christians think of faith being equal to no evidence because they think there isn't any way to prove or disprove God's existence but this is also inaccurate.

I'll say it once again, samus' definition of faith is inaccurate. Mainly because of the context that it was used in. His definition of faith does not apply to God (with a capital G) because of the defition of faith given by the New Testament. I hope this clears things up.

_____________________________
You "suppose or think" God exists.
_______________________________

Actually your a little off there. I "know" God exists. Its a fact of life, an absolute truth in our universe that God exists.

________________________________
But you don't have proof, at least none that can be verified.
___________________________________

I have plenty of proof including some of which can be verified.

I may seem very egotistical in saying that I have proof and God's existence is a fact. But Am I just as egotistical as a person that says they have evidence and proof that Martin Luther King JR existed? Am I just as egotistical as a person that says they have proof and evidence that Bill Clinton exists?

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Jesus loves you.

[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited January 27, 2000).]

Christian--

I might advise you to review some other posts, like the ones Lori deletes after cussing people out (so I guess you can't review those). Or perhaps you might want to review the history Truestory and I have at this forum.

In that sense, you might see a few things. Namely, over the MONTHS of our disagreements, things have steadily grown more acrimonious. This is unfortunate, but a natural condition of failed communication.

If what you've seen between Truestory and I is unpleasant ... well, you're in for a rocky ride here. Unlike some (this does not point at Truestory) I can be ... "unpleasant" as such ... without cussing people out in the name of Jesus. Yes, it gets pretty hairy here, but once upon a time, I, too, found people's invective unpleasant.

Would you like the summary, or would you like to read through months of posts? I'll be happy to discuss this feeling of "unpleasantness" you have ... but in the meantime, I would ask you to either give me an example of what makes your experience so unpleasant so that we can discuss how this "unpleasantness" came to be, or else please drop it.

After all, we can thank God for many of the uncivilized people here, too.

Shall we sit around and point fingers? I can work with that standard, if you wish.

I will give you a clue, though, to what's going on between Truestory and I in the specific topic in which you're complaining to me--she quoted Newton.

This is, of itself, a wonderful thing to do. Except she has denied others' citations for a number of reasons: he's not Christian; Truestory's not of the church and so these things don't apply to her, which she finds offensive (though, if she's not part of that number, why does she assume she's included?); she has argued to the effect that history is irrelevant by insisting that the negative aspects of Christian history have no bearing on modern faith .... But if other notions of Christian history are irrelevant or invalid, then she shouldn't be quoting Newton. That's the catalyst in this topic, but it goes back a long way.

Open up your discussion list to the last 100 days and go through some of the threads. You'll find that this unpleasant exchange has a long history for True and me.

Lastly, and I do hope this is a truly last resort ... if you find me unpleasant, then take your own advice and ignore me. In that sense, I am given to wonder why you directed any words at me in the first place ... that you did hints that you're not set in that opinion.

So, since you haven't been here long .... Sure, I'll work with you on this ... ask away and let's see if we can't track down where this unpleasantness comes from.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

side note: i don't capitalize anything. it is merely a coincidence that i don't capitalize "god" or "him" in my references, not that it is any sign of disrespect. we can get into a linguistical debate here, but noam chompsky and i will bury you. save yourself the embarrassment.

first of all, the last post by vinnie is EXACTLY what i am talking about at the end of my first post. god did not tell vinnie how to define "faith." he interpreted the word as he saw fit and claimed it as the word of god. i want verses here, vinnie, not what you think it says. unabridged, direct quotes.

second, i am right about the definition. i don't imagine you know a whole lot about language, so let me give you a little crash course. languages are human inventions, and thus are defined by humans. we speak one of the romantic languages. that means that it used to be latin, but changed over time just as you see english in america slowly growing away from the way it is spoken in england. you may notice that there is no word "faith" in latin. what you now rely on as your source for that definition was written before the word "faith" even existed. if we were to retain the original texts in their written language, you would not be able to read them. what you now know as the bible is simply the words that man has replaced the original text with using the definitions that mooncat and i point out. the bible doesn't help you understand the definitions of words, these definitions help you understand the bible.

third, think about what you are saying. if bill clinton showed you a new law to vote for and asked you to have faith in him, he is asking you vote for it. if he were to recieve a phone call from someone saying "i believe you exist," he would think that person was an idiot. the bible outlines what god wants you to do and not do, the ways he wants you to act, and shows you heaven waiting as your reward. when he asks you to have faith in him, he isn't looking for your personal vote of encouragement. he's god. he doesn't need your seal of approval to make him feel like a better all-powerful being. he is asking you to trust in his path and follow.

fourth, you have proof? well, let's hear it buddy. i have to admit, i am a little skeptical, but i'll play along. all this time you have been whining about how it is the atheists' responsibility to prove that god doesn't exist and you were sitting on this winning lottery ticket?

christians seem to think that non-christians have simply blown god off. it isn't that we know the way to eternal salvation and choose to ignore because we think hell will be nice. it's that we haven't seen proof to indicate that god does exist. i've seen a lot of proof that california exists and so i believe it exists. i've heard about four foot wide spiders that the military are holding in a secret base, but i haven't seen any proof, so i don't believe it. i haven't seen any proof that there is a god, but if you have some, i need to know about it. if someone can demonstrate for me that a god does in fact exist, i'm ready to do what it takes (another side note: i am already "doing what it takes" better than 99% of christians). eternal salvation sounds good to me.

and lastly, why do you place such importance on insisting that others believe in god? he certainly never asked you to defend his honor. he's all powerful. if he wanted something done about it, he could do it himself. and by your combative, condescending tone, i doubt you are truly concerned for our souls. tell me, why does our disbelief anger you so?


samus

[This message has been edited by samus (edited January 28, 2000).]

tiassa,

Christian's curious comment can be explained if you consider the possibility that T and C are the same person.

Yeah, Wizard! Anything's possible... :rolleyes:

Your curious comment might even be considered in the "Conspiracies and Paranoia" thread.

I'm wrong, I apologize. Your defintion is true according to the dictionary quoted. But you still can't apply that definition of faith to Christians.

__________________________________
i want verses here, vinnie, not what you think it says. unabridged, direct quotes.
_________________________________

You can start by getting a concordance and looking at all the verses that have the word faith in them. That might take you a long time so I'd start with Hebrews chaper 11 verse 1 if I were you.

Here is Hebrews 11:1 in its entirety. Taken from the New International Version of the Bible. It is complete, uncut and unabridged.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

Faith also means trust.

________________________________
the bible outlines what god wants you to do and not do, the ways he wants you to act, and shows you heaven waiting as your reward. when he asks you to have faith in him, he isn't looking for your personal vote of encouragement. he's god. he doesn't need your seal of approval to make him feel like a better all-powerful being. he is asking you to trust in his path and follow.
____________________________________

Yes that is true but how can you trust someone if you are not even certain that they exist? Do you think abraham was about to sacrifice His son without any good reason? He knew God existed and He trusted the Lord. He had faith in Him that He would not lead Him the wrong way. All the time this faith was based upon the fact that He Knew for certian God existed. You said that "when the bible asks you to believe in god, this doesn't mean to know he exists." The Bible tells us to have faith in God, to trust Him. This assumes His existence. How can you trust God if He does not exist? You can't trust or not trust a being that doesn't exist.


___________________________________
christians seem to think that non-christians have simply blown god off. it isn't that we know the way to eternal salvation and choose to ignore because we think hell will be nice. it's that we haven't seen proof to indicate that god does exist.
____________________________________

That is true for some and not true for others. I have posted a topic in this forum that asked what the non christians would do if they found out all of christianity were true, that God exists and Jesus died for their sins etc etc. All of the responses said basically that they wouldn't put their faith in God or have a relationship with Him with the exception of one that said pretty much the same thing but that they would put a lot of thought into the issue. The topic was called "To all the people going to hell in a hand basket." That thread got rather large and there was a continuation of that topic in another thread with a similar name. They should be no problem for you to find.

___________________________________
and lastly, why do you place such importance on insisting that others believe in god?
_______________________________________

Because I do not want you to experience eternal death in Hell

_______________________________________
he certainly never asked you to defend his honor.
__________________________________

The Great commision says I am to preach the gospel and I'm supposed to have a defense for my faith. This all comes from the Bible.


______________________________
he's all powerful. if he wanted something done about it, he could do it himself.
______________________________________

He does want something done about it. He told all of His followers to preach the Gospel. This is His way of getting it done.

____________________________________
and by your combative, condescending tone, i doubt you are truly concerned for our souls.
________________________________________

I am concerned for everyone. I wish everyone felt the joy that I have in my heart.

______________________________________
tell me, why does our disbelief anger you so?
____________________________________

It doesn't anger me, it saddens me. I don't get angry over it, just a little frustrated sometimes.

_____________________________________
fourth, you have proof? well, let's hear it buddy. i have to admit, i am a little skeptical, but i'll play along. all this time you have been whining about how it is the atheists' responsibility to prove that god doesn't exist and you were sitting on this winning lottery ticket?
___________________________________

My proof is, well look around. Did the universe create itself? This doesn't prove my God I know that. The proof that I have comes from the Bible. Scripture is what I base my epistemology on. What do you base yours on? My proof is that God broke into our history and told us He exists. He gave us a manual that tells us the dos and don'ts, the rights and wrongs, and it also tells us our purpose, what we are supposed to do and tells us what happens when we die etc etc. Now I suppose I need proof that this book is really from God. Well, it doesn't have any errors. It talks about many things and all books agree with one another and do not contradict. It was written by over 40 authors. Some with totaly different backgrounds. The books were written under different social conditions. Yet they are all unanomous in their testimony. They fit together perfectly like the pieces of the puzzle, from the creation account in Genesis to the end times in the book of revelations. I could also appeal to biblical phrophecy and archealogical finds which give credibility to the bible. etc etc etc.

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

To live is Christ, to die is gain.


[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited January 28, 2000).]

Wizard--

Though I have to admit I hadn't thought of that :D .... (frankly, I don't really know why the possibility hadn't occurred to me)

On one hand it fits well with a couple of other goofy things I thought she might be doing in her posts in order to be more effective. To the other, those conclusions took a tremendous amount of assumption, and could be explained by observable human processes (Piaget--assimilation and accomodation of stimulus/information; though I've heard Piaget recanted much of his own work before he died). But it also requires me to assume that Truestory's a two-dimensional, sitcom-crafted, All-American idiot.

(Okay, this part's more for True's benefit, but ...)

Whatever else I might think of Truestory's posts--no matter how many observable methods of deception I think I observe (including those which I've encountered unfailingly throughout my Christian experience)--I don't actually think Truestory's an idiot. Idiot is a word I try to reserve--in the case of other people--to behavior I can observe in the flesh.

As for Christian ... this office has no comment at this time. :cool:

But I prattle on ... I'm so sorry to ramble on at you :o

But you did both, put a huge smile on my face, and gave me a perspective to consider regarding what I perceive in--well, in this case, Truestory's behavior. I wanted to thank you for that smile :D

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

vinnie,

i actually have to apologize for the overly sarcastic tone of my last post. when i wrote it i was pretty tired and frustrated that you had not listened to me the first time, but i do have to give you credit for not taking it personally. you could have easily degraded this to a less than professional discussion, but you didn't.

to begin, your quote is from the "new international version of the bible"? has god been giving these people updates? kind of off the point, but refer to the end of my first post. the word of god is changed to fit the message desired. why do you think we have so many denominations? they all claim that they have the true message of god, however all but one of them MUST be wrong (if not all). do you know why catholics can't eat meat on certain days? what's more, do you know why fish is the exception? once upon a time, a certain pope was best friends with a certain head of the fishing industry, and so he wrote it into the religion. his profit making scam now dictates who goes to hell?

on to the quote. please reread the second section in my last post. originally, the bible DID NOT say that. the bible was written in another language and those words (NONE of which even existed at the time) were LATER placed there by someone who was interpreting both the bible and the english language. at this point, i think we are both repeating ourselves with no new substantive arguements. i believe that both sides are on the table for all to see, and further bickering is pointless.

to your next point, i actually do follow the message of christianity (more or less, obviously i don't go to church, confess my sins, etc.). i don't do it because i am afraid of god and i think i have to, but because i think it is a good way to be. let me ask you, is believing in god the most important thing? i see so many hardcore christian people that are full of hatred and violence. none of these people care to "love thy neighbor," they only care to "hate thy non-christian." let me ask you, vinnie, does there presence on sunday insure that they are going to heaven, regardless of other acts? does my doubt insure my spot in hell regardless of my good nature?

your next response does surprise me. on this one, i think we are in agreement. i have to seriously question the intelligence of someone who pits themself against an all-powerful being. i simply don't know that that all-powerful being exists, and what's more i do not pit myself against him regardless. can we agree that, generally, christianity outlines the ways you should act, regardless of the existence of god? i hate to think that the only reason people aren't killing each other is not because they care for fellow man, but because they selfishly fear for their own soul.

off subject, this brings me to a philosophical question. let's say there were 20 people condemned to hell because satan had tricked them. would you sacrifice your soul to save theirs? keep in mind, these are generally good people, but they got caught up in a holy technicality so to speak. would you spend eternity in hell so that they might go to heaven?

you last paragraph actually made me laugh out loud. please refer to the post "obviously FUNNY contradictions of the bible." there is just a sample of what the bible is like. also, consider what i told you above. why are there different versions of the bible? why are there different denominations? let me go over the four most important things to remember when studying the bible:

first, the bible is figurative, not literal. begin with the first sentence in genesis. when it says "light," do you think it is really refering to the rays of energy that scientists argue whether it is a particle or a wave? of course not. this is refering to an essence which our finite minds are incapable of understanding. many even believe that this may be refering to the big bang.

second, it has been translated from hebrew to greek to latin to english. in many instances, the original meaning was lost. for instance the term "using the lord's name in vain" is possibly the most common misconception. taken literally in english, this is refering to when someone says something such as "god damn it." if you had just stubbed your toe on a chair, obviously you don't seriously want god to damn the chair, and obviously he won't. thus you are saying it "in vain." but the original essence was more focused on the "using the lord's name" rather than the "in vain." originally, this was refering to saying something was the word of god when it wasn't. such as (ironically) a sign that i see around phoenix a lot which says "stop using my name in vain or i will make rush hour longer. -god." obviously, god didn't say that. they are "using the lord's name in vain." the problem here is that there really isn't any better way to say it in english than that.

third, the bible has been rewritten as seen fit by various people throughout time. the obvious result is the several versions of the bible and multiple denominations. but to take another example, let's look at the stories of adam and eve. "adam" is actually the hebrew word for men, plural, and "eve" is actually the hebrew word for women, plural. because of the significance of these peoples, originally the terms were never translated, they were never actually names of people. but it then became rewritten and retold as the entertaining stories about the first couple. if these stories are translated back into hebrew, many of them don't even make sense.

lastly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, humans wrote the bible, NOT god. humans are finite beings who are prone to screwing up (in fact, likely to do so). the assumption that the bible is perfect sadly is not correct. for this, i will refer to the noah's ark story. we will ignore the fact that we still currently have yet to construct a vessel even close to the size of the one required, and pretend that noah did have the several lifetimes required to complete such a task (by himself, no less). we will also pretend that all of these animals gathered themselves (if he were to do so, he would still be trying now), and assume that they found some way to all reach the same continent (not to mention get back), and ask why? why does a god that christians are so quick to label all-loving kill off the entire population of the world, including innocent children?

why?

follow the path of truth, not the destination you think to be right.

samus

[This message has been edited by samus (edited January 28, 2000).]

The Nobel Prize winner Elie Weisel had lived only for God during his childhood in Hungary; his life had been shaped by the disciplines of the Talmud and he had hoped one day to be initiated into the mysteries of Kabbalah. As a boy, he was taken to Auschwitz and later to Buchenwald. During his first night in the death camp, watching the black smoke coiling to the sky from the crematorium where the bodies of his mother and sister were to be thrown, he knew that the flames had consumed his faith for ever. He was in a world which was the objective correlative of the Godless world imagined by Nietzsche. 'Never should I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live', he wrote years later. 'Never shall I forget these moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust.

One day the Gestapo hanged a child. Even the SS were disturbed by the prospect of hanging a young boy in front of thousands of spectators. The child who, Weisel recalled, had the face of a 'sad-eyed angel', was silent, lividly pale and almost calm as he ascended the gallows. Behind Weisel, one of the other prisoners asked: 'Where is God? Where is He? It took the child half an hour to die, while the prisoners were forced to look him in the face. The same man asked again: 'Where is God now?' And Weisel heard a voice within him make this answer: 'Where is He? Here He is - He is hanging here on this gallows.'

If this God is omnipotent, he could have prevented the Holocaust. If he was unable to stop it, he is impotent and useless; if he could have stopped it and chose not to, he is a monster. Jews are not the only people who believe that the Holocaust put an end to conventional theology.

And where does that leave us? In the biggest wild goose chase in history - the quest for God.

ILGWAMH,


Here is Hebrews 11:1 in its entirety. Taken from the New International Version of the Bible. It is complete, uncut and unabridged.

But you frogot to mention reworded to make it easyer for people to swallow! Yes it makes all the difference in the world. You can reword Hitler' final solution, but it is still the final solution!



I have plenty of proof including some of which can be verified.

I may seem very egotistical in saying that I have proof and God's existence is a fact. But Am I just as egotistical as a person that says they have evidence and proof that Martin Luther King JR existed? Am I just as egotistical as a person that says they have proof and evidence that Bill Clinton exists?

So wares the proof!? kinda sounds like, wares the beef? :)



------------------
My life could have been black and white, but I had to color it.

tiassa,

Excuse me I thought it was tissa.

The unpleasantness doesn't look like it's between you and anyone. The unpleasantness is coming from you through ridicule - insinuating that someone is numb, ignorant, an idiot, stupid, dumber than a rusty nail. It comes from you calling someone narrowminded. It comes from you asking someone how dumb they are. It comes from you suggesting that they stand up and take a swing.

No such ridicule or name-calling or fighting words were directed at you from what I could see.

You sound like a mean-spirited unpleasant and uncivilized bar-room brawler.

I respectfully decline your invitation to explor anything further. No thank you. I stopped hanging out in bars decades ago.

Christian--

I'm perfectly fine with that. And I'll hold you to it.

Really, it's too bad you couldn't do the simple courtesy of offering an example. Quite a shame, that.

--Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 29, 2000).]

Wizard,

That was uncalled for.

tiassa,

I gave you much more than simple courtesy.

I gave you eight specific examples not to mention the constant ridicule.

It's a shame you can't face it.



[This message has been edited by Christian (edited January 29, 2000).]

Christian,

I'm sure you mean well. Thanks... and please, forget about it. It's not worth getting into it.. I'm sure you know what I mean.

Peace.

Christian,


Originally posted by Christian:
Wizard,

That was uncalled for.

You may well be correct, but then you did add a little more fuel to the fire in what looked like a private argument. So maybe we are even, but how about a truce anyway? You must also give me a little credit. You and TS do seem to have identical views and literary styles, and always seem to support each other in nearly every topic where you both participate. And remember that all our usernames are anonymous and it is quite common to find multiplicity in such an arena. As a freindly gesture may I suggest that you and TS consider exchanging email addresses somehow? Please enjoy the real debate if you can.




[This message has been edited by Wizard (edited January 29, 2000).]

Wizard,

Would you knock it off, please?

It's seems that both you and Christian are relatively new here. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't remember being particularly supportive of Christian...? Try not to let your imagination get the best of you, O.K.?

Chrisian--

Would you be so kind as to advise me where you put your eight specific examples?

It's more a shame that I can't FIND it. :rolleyes:

--Tiassa


------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

____________________________________
to begin, your quote is from the "new international version of the bible"?
___________________________________

Yes it is from the NIV. One of the three most accurate translations that we have today.

___________________________________
the word of god is changed to fit the message desired.
______________________________

Some people change the message to fit their doctrine. I take the message at face value. Some verses can have 2 different meanings, both being literally read. It has to do with the size of the language and words having more than one meaning. The word erets in hebrew is one example. It doesn't only mean the entire world. Hence, the reason their is a controversy regarding the extent of the Genesis flood.

________________________________
why do you think we have so many denominations?
_________________________________

Satan, ignorance, taking scripture out of context, selfish ambitions, greed (theres a lot of false preachers who want money and stuff) etc etc ec.

___________________________
they all claim that they have the true message of god, however all but one of them MUST be wrong (if not all).
______________________________

All denominations agree on lots of things. Just certian areas of scripture are interpreted differently. Like what the bible says about women in ministry. Taken at face value in a current translation we can't have women ministers or pastors. But if you look at the context of these verses its easy to tell this is not the case. Plus if you were well read you would know of other areas in the bible where women taught and preached and stuff. I'm sure people who felt men were better than women have tried to use these verse to support their claims but that doesn't make them right. We can use logic and common sense to determine which translation is right or whether such and such is taken out of context or not

_________________________________
do you know why catholics can't eat meat on certain days? what's more, do you know why fish is the exception? once upon a time, a certain pope was best friends with a certain head of the fishing industry, and so he wrote it into the religion.
___________________________________

Regardless of its origin I see no problem with a bunch of people sacrificing meat once a week. Yes, there will always be people with bad motives but just makes the external appearance of Christianity look bad. It doesn't change much about its internal side.

___________________________________
his profit making scam now dictates who goes to hell?
__________________________________

Why don't you show me the verse in scripture that says if you eat meat on friday you will go to hell.

____________________________________
on to the quote. please reread the second section in my last post. originally, the bible DID NOT say that. the bible was written in another language and those words (NONE of which even existed at the time) were LATER placed there by someone who was interpreting both the bible and the english language. at this point, i think we are both repeating ourselves with no new substantive arguements. i believe that both sides are on the table for all to see, and further bickering is pointless.
___________________________________

In the case of the NIV version of the bible it was not someone but over 90 scholars. It doesn't matter if the words existed at the time. There must be a word in hebrew that means the same thing as the fiath in renglish or it must be very similar to it because thats the word chosen. Are you implying a person can't understand both greek and english at the same time? That is pretty absurd. I never said the niv was perfect just that it is an accurate translation.

________________________________
to your next point, i actually do follow the message of christianity (more or less, obviously i don't go to church, confess my sins, etc.). i don't do it because i am afraid of god and i think i have to, but because i think it is a good way to be.
______________________________

On what do you base your moral values? Emotianally its obvious to most of us that it is wrong to put babies in the microwave and other such things. But from logic its very hard to believe in absolute rights and wrongs without God, or some overlying truth that tells us ewhat is right and wrong. The problem is that a lot of atheists will say there is no absolute right and wrong but the actions in their lives contradict their beliefs. Let an athiest define evil and tell if there is a real right and wrong and why evil is bad or why its wrong to kill babies. You'll get a bad definition of evil and/or a bunch of hogwash and/or stuff that contradicts our everyday experiences. That worldview doesn't seem to be too consistent.

________________________________
let me ask you, is believing in god the most important thing?
_______________________________

No. Satan believes God exists. So do all the other fallen demons. Does that make them good or saved? No, of course not.Trusting God is very important. The whole Christian thing is basically admitting that your a sinner and stuff and that Jesus died for your sins. The Bible says we are accountable to what we know. Its like the question that is always asked "What about those who have never heard?" Well, the bible has answers to this question. Their own conscience will judge them etc etc. The more you know about Jesus the more is expected from you. I'm more accountable to preach the gospel than a native in okewokchewaba whose never heard of the new testament or the old or Jesus Christ for that matter. This is hard to understand but we will be judged on what we know. Thats why we can't logically say all mormons will go to hell or all Jehova's witnesses will go to hell for not believing Jesus is the son of God. By defintion, if these people were truly mormons in the fullest sense that they understood everything and still rejected Jesus then yes they are condemned. But these people don't understand everything. The point is that God sees our inner selves. I'm not saying its ok to not believe in Jesus. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm saying that God doesn't only see the external choices and actions of us. He can see things like how much of what we have done is because of our heredity and how much because of a good upbringing etc etc. But the bible is clear that the only way to the father is through the Son. But those who don't fully know or have never heard of the Son may still be saved through Him.

______________________________
i see so many hardcore christian people that are full of hatred and violence. none of these people care to "love thy neighbor," they only care to "hate thy non-christian." let me ask you, vinnie, does there presence on sunday insure that they are going to heaven, regardless of other acts? does my doubt insure my spot in hell regardless of my good nature?
____________________________________

See my previous paragraph. I cannot judge who is going to heaven and who isn't. That is God's job. We know of how we are to be saved and we know the only way we can be saved (through Jeus) but we are accountable for what we know. God sees our hearts, I cannot say who is or who isn't going to heaven. Just because you might have eaten meat last friday you not excuded from heaven. That is very irrational and absurd for someone to preach something like that or teach something like that. Blashemying continously against the holy spirit is what gets you sent to hell. And again, you are held acountable for what you know. Being sincere does not get you a ticket into heaven either though.

_________________________________
your next response does surprise me. on this one, i think we are in agreement.
__________________________________

It surprised me a little but not too much. The responses I got were kind of what scripture has been saying all along.

_______________________________
i have to seriously question the intelligence of someone who pits themself against an all-powerful being.
___________________________

I agree, its very illogical. If this God does exist then he is the one who gives you your reasoning power. To try and use this reasoning against Him is pretty illogical saying He is wrong or something like that. Disagreeing with an all knowing being takes a lot of pride. I know, I've been there.

__________________________________
i simply don't know that that all-powerful being exists, and what's more i do not pit myself against him regardless.
____________________________________

Again, we are held accountable to what we know. I'm not saying your saved or your not. I don't know how much you know and I can't see your hear and thoughts. The best advice I could give is to keep searching for the truth. Also asking God if He exists can help. Say, "God if you exist, please show yourself to me that I may know you and my purpose here." etc etc. I'm sure you can think of what to say. Don't order God to show himself to you or try to bargain. If your sinserely searching for the truth you'll find it. Maybe more later than sooner but one day the door will be opened. Just keep knocking.

___________________________________
can we agree that, generally, christianity outlines the ways you should act, regardless of the existence of god?
_____________________________________

No we can't say that. We have nothing to base our epistemolgy upon if God did not exist. Christianity only outlines the way to live if God is real, which means he would be the all knowing source that we get our knowledge and stuff from. Otherwise we seem to be left with moral relativism and there aren't any real rights and wrongs. Our consciences are ony from our surrondings and other nonsense like that which contradicts our everyday experiences.

______________________________
i hate to think that the only reason people aren't killing each other is not because they care for fellow man, but because they selfishly fear for their own soul.
___________________________

The reason, as the bible states, is that God's laws our written on our hearts. But since we live in a sinfilled world without scripture our inner feelings just give us a distorted view of the truth. Christians obey God out of love. We love Him and want to do good rather than evil. Besisdes, the bible is very clear that, not killing people, and giving all your money to charity will not get you into heaven. Its that whole faith/works thing which is the reason Martin Luther did what he did in breaking away from the church.

________________________________
off subject, this brings me to a philosophical question. let's say there were 20 people condemned to hell because satan had tricked them. would you sacrifice your soul to save theirs? keep in mind, these are generally good people, but they got caught up in a holy technicality so to speak. would you spend eternity in hell so that they might go to heaven?
________________________________

First, people don't get condemned to hell because they were tricked by satan on some holy technicality. Second, I can't sacrifice my soul to save these people. Its impossible. Third, there are no good people. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Some are generally bettr than others but we all deserve eternal death in hell. Fouth, according to some opinions regarding hell the people going there would rather be there than in heaven. It would be a much worse fate to send them to heaven to be with God in all of His glory than to hell. Thats an opinion though. I'll tell you where its an opinion and where its scripture. Thats just a belief (the fourth reason I gave).

________________________________
you last paragraph actually made me laugh out loud. please refer to the post "obviously FUNNY contradictions of the bible." there is just a sample of what the bible is like
______________________________

Generally, bringing a smile to a persons face is a good thing but this is not the case this time I guess. I've seen that thread. I still maintain that the bible is inerrant. Most of those alleged contradictions come form misinterpreting scripture, taking things out of contxt, etc etc.

_____________________________
why are there different versions of the bible? why are there different denominations?
_____________________________

Ever look through different versions of the bible? They all have the same message. Thats a point people seem to miss a lot. Some bibles are interpretive and are for new christians. The living translation is one such example. The niv and the amplified bible are probably two of the most accurate on the market. There are different ways to say the same thing that why certian words will be different from translation to translation but the same message is given. Obviously there are things like sayings at the time which are harder to understand but thats why you can read entire books written about each book in the bible. Your claim that we can't accurately translate the bible from its original language to english is pretty illogical. I never said the translation was perfect but all bibles have the same meassge and the entire bible itslef has the same message. These facts cannot be disputed regardless of a few translation errors. The trinity is hard to understand. There isn't just one verse describing this, there is about a hundred. If there was only one then you could make an argument against it I guess, saying this could mean that or this. You would have to show why in the original language you think otherwise, not just saying it may be different or it was changed to fit doctrine. Form what I've seen the niv doesn't take a religious stance in its translation. I can tell by the text notes in Genesis. They let it be know that Genesis does not say the earth was definately created in 6 days. I fact, it tells how the word (yom) translated as day has a few different menings. Faith in the bible is mentioned tons of times. Regardless of whether the english language existed at this time they had a word that meant pretty much the same thing faith does in english today. Just like amigo means friend. Lets be realistic. All the verses I've read that have faith assume God's existence as being true. There is not one verse saying this but an entire bible. If you don't want to read the translated versions of the bible then learn hebrew and greek. Why do you think we have concordances and stuff?

I think I answered your question on why there are differnt denominations up above somewhere in a previous paragraph.

______________________________
first, the bible is figurative, not literal. begin with the first sentence in genesis. when it says "light," do you think it is really refering to the rays of energy that scientists argue whether it is a particle or a wave?
_____________________________

The bible is literal not figurative. This is a very important point that needs to be known when reading the bible. You must also look at the context that things are said in though. Yes Genesis is literal too. The first verse in Genesis is not the one where God created light. Genesis goes as follows:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 3 is where the light comes in. But this is not light as in energy and photons and stuuf. You, like a lot of others do, missed a crucial shift that is neccesary to properly understand Genesis. Our perspective Changed. Our reference frame is on earth (verse two). Light appeared on earth. Not that this is the first time light existed in our universe. Also if you view this as moses or whovever you believe wrote Genesis describing a vision revealed to Him from God it is much easier to see. Moses was seeing a vision from a reference frame on the earth. He saw the sky light up. Our atmosphere did go from opaque to transparent at one time in the past. This is most likely what the author of Genesis is describing.

___________________________
many even believe that this may be refering to the big bang.
____________________________

I see a direct corrolation between Genesis 1 and the big bang. The Genesis account of Creation is the only one that is in accord with the findings of current cosmolgy. Other religions stories of creation don't even come close or even remotely compare to the accuracy that Genesis has.

_____________________________
second, it has been translated from hebrew to greek to latin to english. in many instances, the original meaning was lost
______________________________________

Call me stupid if you must but why can't we translate the bible from hebrew straight to english or from greek straight to english. The ot was written in hebrew and the nt in greek. We don't need to go from hebrew to greek to latin then to english do we? Not as much is lost as you seem to think.

____________________________
third, the bible has been rewritten as seen fit by various people throughout time. the obvious result is the several versions of the bible and multiple denominations.
_____________________________

False. The bible has remained pretty much the same over the years. People seem to envision these zealous monks changing all sorts of verses to fit their doctrine or something. I don't understand. The dead sea scrolls and other documents show that the bible we have today is the same as the one they had a long time ago. I covered different versions of the bible and multiple denominations up above.

__________________________________
let's look at the stories of adam and eve. "adam" is actually the hebrew word for men, plural, and "eve" is actually the hebrew word for women, plural. because of the significance of these peoples, originally the terms were never translated, they were never actually names of people. but it then became rewritten and retold as the entertaining stories about the first couple. if these stories are translated back into hebrew, many of them don't even make sense.
______________________________

Just using common sense and a knowledge of the bible, what you are saying isn't really true. Why did isaac get the name isaac? Because it meant laughter and thats what abraham's wife did when she heard she would be pregnant. Where did abraham get his name from? It just seems fitting that if two people were to be where all of the others came from that their name would be 'adam' and 'eve'. I haven't studued what you said but it just seems logical. Its in line with other scripture. It seems to follow a logical pattern, or rather it starts one. I'd be willing to discuss it further though.

________________________________
lastly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, humans wrote the bible, NOT god. humans are finite beings who are prone to screwing up (in fact, likely to do so). the assumption that the bible is perfect sadly is not correct.
___________________

Humans wrote the bible. That is a misleading statement with a little truth to it. God wrote the bible is also a misleading
statement with a little truth to it. God wrote the bible through humans is an accurate statement. The holy spirit guided the biblical authors is an even more accurate statement. The bible is inerrant. There aren't any contradictions. At least I haven't seen any that can't be explained.


___________________________________
we will ignore the fact that we still currently have yet to construct a vessel even close to the size of the one required, and pretend that noah did have the several lifetimes required to complete such a task (by himself, no less). we will also pretend that all of these animals gathered themselves (if he were to do so, he would still be trying now), and assume that they found some way to all reach the same continent (not to mention get back), and ask why?
____________________________

First of all there are two different translations of the noahs ark account. Both are literal and the most logical one is the least popular. The word erets is translated as the entire earth, This word much like the word yom has a few different meanings. Hebrew is a very small language compared to english. The word erets can refer to the entire earth or just a small portion where humans live or a small portion of land. Something like that anyways. You can look it up to find an exact defintion. With that being said, the flood did not cover the entire earth according to one literal translation. Thus there werent any koala bears or polar bears on the ark. Just local animals. Suddenly the account beigns to get more reasonable. Plus I'm sure you've heard of other cultures and their flood accounts. Lets look to geology. What does the geological data tell us about massive floods in the earth's history? The evidence shows that the only place in the world where massive flooding has occurred since the advent of modern man is the region of Mesopotamia. Oddly enough, just what a literal interpretation of the bible says. And like I said, the view that the flodd didn't cover the entire earth is a lot more logical than the other one.

_______________________________
why does a god that christians are so quick to label all-loving kill off the entire population of the world, including innocent children?

why?
_________________________________


Good question. Why does a police man arrest people? Why are people sent to jail? Why are some exocuted? God punishes sin.

Gen 6:5-7

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."

Every inclination of man's thoughts was towards evil. Thats the reason God killed the entire human population. All were evil. Why did the children have to suffer? Well, most christians will tell you that when Children die they go to heaven. So they are in a better place.

I can't explain all the reasons God has done certain things. He is beyond me. I guess he felt the evil was too great on the earth and wanted to start over or something. I trust God and have faith (trust) in His decisions. If he felt he needed to kill everything on the earth then who am I to argue? I can't disagree with someone like God and keep my intellectual integrity.

Plus the question you asked "why does a god that christians are so quick to label all-loving kill off the entire population of the world, including innocent children?" assumes that if you kill something you can't be all loving. You might be interested in a previous thread called killing vs murdering to see what some Christians feel about the issue. Is killing in war, self defence, or in the case of capital punishment the same as killing your neighbor because his dog keeps using the bathroom in your yard? I personally doubt it and the Bible talks a little bit about this too. Anyways, you can check out the thread if you like.

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!



[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited January 30, 2000).]

ilgwamh,

I should have done this long ago. Thank You for your faithful service to God.

Your Brother In Christ,
ISDAMan

Wizard,

I want to say something about the Holocaust.
You said:

<HR>
“God could have prevented the Holocaust. If he was unable to stop it, he is impotent and useless; if he could have stopped it and chose not to, he is a monster. Jews are not the only people who believe that the Holocaust put an end to conventional theology.”
<HR>

I understand that Holocaust can be a reason for rejection of God existence for many people. Maybe it sounds terrible, but I see that event in quite different way.

First: What was such extraordinary with Holocaust, what might forced God to personally stop the massacre? If God exists, he see the world totally. Not only Jews, but also Indians, Negroes and Asiatic. He see every nation and every race in the same way, without any exceptions. I ask again: <U>What was such extraordinary with Holocaust, what might forced God to personally stop the massacre? </U>
What was the difference between Holocaust and extermination of Indians in South America or extermination of Indians in North America or slavery of Negroes ........and many others?

But there is one significant difference: white race had the first time “occasion” <BIG>
TO RECOGNISE WHAT EXTERMINATION MEANS FROM VICTIM PERSPECTIVE</BIG>
That’s why it was so shocked for us (not shocked enough to prevent Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

It was a lesson. And we know that every hard lesson which also required a big sacrifice is remembered in a very long time.
Now please imagine what could happened if we (white race) hadn’t “such experience”. How many times some crazy finger could push the “A” button if he hadn’t seen any pictures from Auschwitz or Hiroshima before.

Maybe that “lesson” helped us (humans) to exist a little bit longer time. Maybe Jew(s) played a sacrifice for whole mankind role again.

Is it a proof for God’s existence – of course not. But as you can see, every occurrence can be seen in quite different way.

<HR>

http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/ivan.gif

The Ravens Are Not What They Seem


------------------

vinnie, i have to appreciate your knowledge of the bible and the christian religion. i also have to appreciate your ability to debate the issue. you are the first christian which i can see reason behind their beliefs. it must be very frustrating for you to see others' inability to defend christianity at all.

at this point, i will have to admit that my knowledge of the bible is very limited. but your incessant quotes from scripture do not necessarily make you correct.

_______________________________________
Satan, ignorance, taking scripture out of context, selfish ambitions, greed (theres a lot of false preachers who want money and stuff) etc etc ec.
______________________________________


i am glad you are able to see that. most christians refuse to acknowledge that a church can make a mistake.


_______________________________________
Regardless of its origin I see no problem with a bunch of people sacrificing meat once a week. Yes, there will always be people with bad motives but just makes the external appearance of Christianity look bad. It doesn't change much about its internal side.
___________________________________

_______________________________________
Why don't you show me the verse in scripture that says if you eat meat on friday you will go to hell.
____________________________________


refer to my statement above regarding my ignorance of these specifics. i don't know where exactly it "is written," but i do know of the practice in catholicism. no meat on fridays during lint. if you do, you are going to hell.

___________________________________
In the case of the NIV version of the bible it was not someone but over 90 scholars. It doesn't matter if the words existed at the time. There must be a word in hebrew that means the same thing as the fiath in renglish or it must be very similar to it because thats the word chosen. Are you implying a person can't understand both greek and english at the same time? That is pretty absurd. I never said the niv was perfect just that it is an accurate translation.
________________________________


yes, but you use it for a very specific purpose, to define EXACTLY what a word means. let me ask you, how does your definition fit with the phrase "faithful to god." my definition fits perfectly, as this means to follow his path. but yours cannot be modified in this manner, and what's more would be meaningless if you were to "cram it in there," so to speak.

to revert to the original arguement, does this mean that a christian must know for sure that there is a god, or just trust that he exists? many denominations of chritianity and judaism allow for members to decide for themselves whether or not god exists, but follow the path none-the-less.

______________________________
On what do you base your moral values? Emotianally its obvious to most of us that it is wrong to put babies in the microwave and other such things. But from logic its very hard to believe in absolute rights and wrongs without God, or some overlying truth that tells us ewhat is right and wrong. The problem is that a lot of atheists will say there is no absolute right and wrong but the actions in their lives contradict their beliefs. Let an athiest define evil and tell if there is a real right and wrong and why evil is bad or why its wrong to kill babies. You'll get a bad definition of evil and/or a bunch of hogwash and/or stuff that contradicts our everyday experiences. That worldview doesn't seem to be too consistent.
________________________________

i am very dissapointed in you lack of faith in human nature and reasoning, but this is going to get REAL philosophical, just to warn you ahead of time. my initial response is what makes the word of god "right"? is it that he knows what is right, and tells you, or that what he says is automatically right? if the first is true, where did that come from? (apply all of your arguements here.) if the second, then god can do no wrong? this is not to imply that he has to answer to me by any means, but this leads us to question what makes god "good." this implies that whatever he does, it will be good. for instance, if he were to kill off all the lepers instead of healing them, it would be equally worthy of praise due to the fact that it is automatically right. god doing something "good" implies that he could instead have done something "bad," but this is not possible.

we also see that at a certain point christians will also have to make judgement calls as to what is right or wrong. for instance, god has yet to take a stance on speeding, yet christians must still decide whether it is right or wrong based on the same reasoning that an athiest would use. how does a christian decide what is right and wrong when god does not decide for them?

as for what i believe, this will have to be analyzed in a little more detail. first, we have to understand that right and wrong is simply a function of our existence. for example, we can die because we are alive. if you were to crush a rock, this is not "killing" the rock, and is not "wrong" because the rock was not alive. this can be applied to all situations, such as we have consentual sex, thus we can have rape. bacteria cannot have rape. we can analyze these things from the standpoint of emotion and knowledge.

to emotion, we can divide positive and negative emotions by desire. we desire to feel certain emotions, and desire to avoid others. more acurately, we desire or do not desire the situations surrounding those emotions. we can instincually say that killing is bad because we desire to live. we can say that putting a baby in the microwave is bad because the baby will not desire that situation. we can say things are wrong because the result is not desired by those effected, and we can say things are right because the result is desired by those effected.

we can also have collective desires. although each individual wants to go at whatever speed they choose, we know that that will not make for safe driving conditions. thus, we desire a driving environment where speed limits are imposed. although some will speed, very few desire roads without speed limits. thus we can say that it is wrong to speed.

to knowledge, we must look at the knowledge of the parties involved. if a man were to rape a girl, he would know that she would not desire that situation but would proceed anyway. in effect, he acknowledges that it is wrong but proceeds anyway. but if you were to step on a freshly cleaned floor that was not marked, you would produce an undesired effect without the knowledge that that would occur. we can say the act is not specifically "wrong" (just unfortunate) because you did not intend on reaching an undesired effect. from this point of view, we can say that "right" and "wrong" are based on the motives of the act in relation to the desires of the effected.

we must also factor in long term desires. for instance, let's say we had a child molestor who approached a child, and that child was too young to understand the consequences and therefore had no immediate objections. eventually, this will have many consequences, and when that child grows up they will come to not desire that that situation occured. it is wrong on face because of the eventual undesirablility, and the knowledge of the child molestor that the undesirablility will eventually exist.

to complicate things, many issues will have those which desire something and those which do not desire that something. for instance, we can say that our rapist REALLY likes rape, and so from his point of view he could argue for it. but obviously his victem DOES NOT like rape, and she would argue against it. at this point we have to start weighing the desires and forming boundries.

if we were to simply weigh these desires, we would sometimes come to conclusions that are questionable. for instance, let's say our rapist raped someone in their sleep and that person never found out (didn't get a disease, pregnant, or anything undesirable). he could point out that the situation was only desired, with no one that does not desire it (to their knowledge). here, we could argue that if the person were to know or find out, they would not desire it, thus it is wrong but he is simply hiding. we could also say that as discussed above, it is the motives of the act and the act itself that is used to determine "right" or "wrong," not the results of the act. his motive was to ignore the desires of another person, and it was merely a coincidence that she never found out.

we must also form boundries. boundries are defined by self-determination. each person is allowed to determine his or her own actions, as long as those actions do not negativily effect others. for example, i have the right to bang my head against the wall because it does not effect anyone but myself (assuming i do not damage someone else's wall or make noise which annoys others). the rape victem above has the right to determine what happens to her body, and thus the intrusion of the rapist on those rights is always wrong, regardless of the strength of the desires of the rapist. this is a very basic understanding of "right and wrong," but i hope it is helpful.

to answer your question, we can and do determine what is right and wrong for ourselves. for the most part, it is obvious to all people when something such as rape is wrong. rapists do not think that it is right, they simply don't care that it is wrong.

off the subject, i do not believe in "evil." this implies doing things just because we know they are undesirable. rather, i think people can be selfish and weigh their interests and desires above others. corporations such as nike do not take advantage of workers in other coutries because they like to see them suffer. they do so because they can get their product made by employees who are paid less than a dollar a day. it isn't evil, it is selfish.


_______________________________
No. Satan believes God exists. So do all the other fallen demons. Does that make them good or saved? No, of course not.Trusting God is very important. The whole Christian thing is basically admitting that your a sinner and stuff and that Jesus died for your sins. The Bible says we are accountable to what we know. Its like the question that is always asked "What about those who have never heard?" Well, the bible has answers to this question. Their own conscience will judge them etc etc. The more you know about Jesus the more is expected from you. I'm more accountable to preach the gospel than a native in okewokchewaba whose never heard of the new testament or the old or Jesus Christ for that matter. This is hard to understand but we will be judged on what we know. Thats why we can't logically say all mormons will go to hell or all Jehova's witnesses will go to hell for not believing Jesus is the son of God. By defintion, if these people were truly mormons in the fullest sense that they understood everything and still rejected Jesus then yes they are condemned. But these people don't understand everything. The point is that God sees our inner selves. I'm not saying its ok to not believe in Jesus. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm saying that God doesn't only see the external choices and actions of us. He can see things like how much of what we have done is because of our heredity and how much because of a good upbringing etc etc. But the bible is clear that the only way to the father is through the Son. But those who don't fully know or have never heard of the Son may still be saved through Him.
______________________________


i have heard this before. this is the christian patch on a loophole in the bible. does the bible say this? i have yet to hear that verse, but as i said above, my knowledge is limited so i am willing to hear it. but the impression i get from most people is that this is just something that christians thought up themselves. the bible is very clear that faith is required for salvation, and by YOUR definition they MUST "suppose or think god exists." your definition, not mine.


____________________________________
See my previous paragraph. I cannot judge who is going to heaven and who isn't. That is God's job. We know of how we are to be saved and we know the only way we can be saved (through Jeus) but we are accountable for what we know. God sees our hearts, I cannot say who is or who isn't going to heaven. Just because you might have eaten meat last friday you not excuded from heaven. That is very irrational and absurd for someone to preach something like that or teach something like that. Blashemying continously against the holy spirit is what gets you sent to hell. And again, you are held acountable for what you know. Being sincere does not get you a ticket into heaven either though.
_________________________________


you seem to claim knowledge in all other areas as to what god wants, but in this you plead ignorance. which is it, vinnie, do you know what god wants from people or not? does christianity know what god wants for certain, or is there room for error?


____________________________________
Again, we are held accountable to what we know. I'm not saying your saved or your not. I don't know how much you know and I can't see your hear and thoughts. The best advice I could give is to keep searching for the truth. Also asking God if He exists can help. Say, "God if you exist, please show yourself to me that I may know you and my purpose here." etc etc. I'm sure you can think of what to say. Don't order God to show himself to you or try to bargain. If your sinserely searching for the truth you'll find it. Maybe more later than sooner but one day the door will be opened. Just keep knocking.
___________________________________

believe it or not, i've tried that. i didn't get an answer. but you are evading the question. so far, the proof has not been presented to me so that i know that there is a god. i do not feel responsible for this knowledge because, as you can see, i do search for the truth. what's more, i have no control over what conclusions i reach. if you were to pay me $5 billion to know for sure that god existed, i could not simply do so because i want to. i see the evidense and the conclusion seems to me to be correct, not the one that i want or don't want.


_____________________________________
No we can't say that. We have nothing to base our epistemolgy upon if God did not exist. Christianity only outlines the way to live if God is real, which means he would be the all knowing source that we get our knowledge and stuff from. Otherwise we seem to be left with moral relativism and there aren't any real rights and wrongs. Our consciences are ony from our surrondings and other nonsense like that which contradicts our everyday experiences.
______________________________


again, you evade the question. you do in fact believe in god, so don't you think that people should act as outlined in christianity, even if they are not doing so to try to get to heaven?

___________________________
The reason, as the bible states, is that God's laws our written on our hearts. But since we live in a sinfilled world without scripture our inner feelings just give us a distorted view of the truth. Christians obey God out of love. We love Him and want to do good rather than evil. Besisdes, the bible is very clear that, not killing people, and giving all your money to charity will not get you into heaven. Its that whole faith/works thing which is the reason Martin Luther did what he did in breaking away from the church.
________________________________

you refute your own statement above about how we cannot know what is wrong or right without believing in god. and then you evade the question some more.

______________________________
Generally, bringing a smile to a persons face is a good thing but this is not the case this time I guess. I've seen that thread. I still maintain that the bible is inerrant. Most of those alleged contradictions come form misinterpreting scripture, taking things out of contxt, etc etc.
_____________________________

then you ignore the evidense in front of you. many of those are NOT misinterpretations, but are direct contradictions that cannot be explained any other way. i can believe much of what you say, but the bible is not inerrant. as i have said many times, it may have originated form god, but humans will find a way to screw it up. they always do. nothing is right for certain. even newton's version of gravity was so well proven that it became labeled a law, and then was blown out of the water by eistein's general relativity. i think even christians have to conceid that they are finite, fallable beings who more than likely do not have the absolute correct message of god. god is infinite, and therefore you cannot possibly claim to understand him.

you still have yet to show me how we know for sure this is the word of god. i'm sure somewhere there is a muslim who can defend his religion as well as you, and i'm sure there is a hindu that can defend his beliefs just as well, but none of you have any evidense why it is right. you can only stretch to tell me why it isn't wrong. refer to the analogy in my first post. you can defend anything that you want to believe. but your unwillingness to acknowledge the fallability of the bible only serves to hurt your case. i could be convinced that at some point god gave humans his message, but i have to recognize that humans probably screwed up that message.


_____________________________
The bible is literal not figurative. This is a very important point that needs to be known when reading the bible. You must also look at the context that things are said in though. Yes Genesis is literal too. The first verse in Genesis is not the one where God created light. Genesis goes as follows:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 3 is where the light comes in. But this is not light as in energy and photons and stuuf. You, like a lot of others do, missed a crucial shift that is neccesary to properly understand Genesis. Our perspective Changed. Our reference frame is on earth (verse two). Light appeared on earth. Not that this is the first time light existed in our universe. Also if you view this as moses or whovever you believe wrote Genesis describing a vision revealed to Him from God it is much easier to see. Moses was seeing a vision from a reference frame on the earth. He saw the sky light up. Our atmosphere did go from opaque to transparent at one time in the past. This is most likely what the author of Genesis is describing.


I see a direct corrolation between Genesis 1 and the big bang. The Genesis account of Creation is the only one that is in accord with the findings of current cosmolgy. Other religions stories of creation don't even come close or even remotely compare to the accuracy that Genesis has.
_____________________________


okay, then, fine. i will not stray to cosmology as i think i have an unfair advantage over you. personally, i think i have an unfair advantage over most professors. but genesis is only consistent as it is vague and can be interpreted in many ways.

let's move on to when jesus "healed the leper." obviously this isn't refering to jesus healing leperacy, we still have that today. more, it is refering to how he socially healed the leper, as in made them less of an outcast. figurative, not literal.

______________________________________
Call me stupid if you must but why can't we translate the bible from hebrew straight to english or from greek straight to english. The ot was written in hebrew and the nt in greek. We don't need to go from hebrew to greek to latin then to english do we? Not as much is lost as you seem to think.
____________________________

first, we had hebrew. then, we had greek. then, we had latin. then, we had english. as the languages came in succession, they were translated to in turn. this is how most versions of the bible were reached. if yours was done as you say, then good for it. but more importantly, i'm not saying that they are totally different books, just that there are subtle differences that need to be understood. refer the the example i gave before about using the lord's name in vain which you ignore.


_____________________________
False. The bible has remained pretty much the same over the years. People seem to envision these zealous monks changing all sorts of verses to fit their doctrine or something. I don't understand. The dead sea scrolls and other documents show that the bible we have today is the same as the one they had a long time ago. I covered different versions of the bible and multiple denominations up above.
__________________________________


believe this if you want. apparently you've never met one of these humans, so you don't know how they really are. but trust me, they are often self-serving and prone to mistakes.

___________________
Humans wrote the bible. That is a misleading statement with a little truth to it. God wrote the bible is also a misleading
statement with a little truth to it. God wrote the bible through humans is an accurate statement. The holy spirit guided the biblical authors is an even more accurate statement. The bible is inerrant. There aren't any contradictions. At least I haven't seen any that can't be explained.
___________________________________

fine, believe what you want. i can't make you see the evidense.


____________________________
First of all there are two different translations of the noahs ark account. Both are literal and the most logical one is the least popular. The word erets is translated as the entire earth, This word much like the word yom has a few different meanings. Hebrew is a very small language compared to english. The word erets can refer to the entire earth or just a small portion where humans live or a small portion of land. Something like that anyways. You can look it up to find an exact defintion. With that being said, the flood did not cover the entire earth according to one literal translation. Thus there werent any koala bears or polar bears on the ark. Just local animals. Suddenly the account beigns to get more reasonable. Plus I'm sure you've heard of other cultures and their flood accounts. Lets look to geology. What does the geological data tell us about massive floods in the earth's history? The evidence shows that the only place in the world where massive flooding has occurred since the advent of modern man is the region of Mesopotamia. Oddly enough, just what a literal interpretation of the bible says. And like I said, the view that the flodd didn't cover the entire earth is a lot more logical than the other one.
_______________________________


this is actually your best explaination yet. usually, i get moronic responses such as "if god created the earth, why can't he flood it all?"


_________________________________
Good question. Why does a police man arrest people? Why are people sent to jail? Why are some exocuted? God punishes sin.

Gen 6:5-7

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."

Every inclination of man's thoughts was towards evil. Thats the reason God killed the entire human population. All were evil. Why did the children have to suffer? Well, most christians will tell you that when Children die they go to heaven. So they are in a better place.

I can't explain all the reasons God has done certain things. He is beyond me. I guess he felt the evil was too great on the earth and wanted to start over or something. I trust God and have faith (trust) in His decisions. If he felt he needed to kill everything on the earth then who am I to argue? I can't disagree with someone like God and keep my intellectual integrity.
____________________________________


okay, fine, then why does god allow crack babies to be born, live in intense pain for a few days, and then die?


_________________________________
Plus the question you asked "why does a god that christians are so quick to label all-loving kill off the entire population of the world, including innocent children?" assumes that if you kill something you can't be all loving. You might be interested in a previous thread called killing vs murdering to see what some Christians feel about the issue. Is killing in war, self defence, or in the case of capital punishment the same as killing your neighbor because his dog keeps using the bathroom in your yard? I personally doubt it and the Bible talks a little bit about this too. Anyways, you can check out the thread if you like.
_____________________________


actually, i looked through it and most people tend to misinterpret this. even if you say that the commandment should be translated "thou shalt not murder," this still excludes the type of killing you describe. these forms are supposedly "justifyable homicides," meaning "okay" forms of murder. you can distunguish killings into four categories: premeditated homicide, non-premeditated homicide, self defense, and accidental. you clearly are refering to the first, which implies that you thought it through and decided that killing was the right thing to do. i think i can safely say that this is never sanctioned by god. he is clear, and what's more jesus tells you he who is without sin should throw the first stone. god will deal with sinners, not humans. the death penalty is not mandated by "thou shalt not kill," in fact the opposite. from god's point of view, this is like children he tells to stop hitting each other. "he hit me first" is not a valid exemption to this rule.

follow the path of truth, not the destination you think to be right.

samus

Originally posted by Ivan Kruk:
Wizard,

I want to say something about the Holocaust.
You said:

<HR>
“God could have prevented the Holocaust. If he was unable to stop it, he is impotent and useless; if he could have stopped it and chose not to, he is a monster. Jews are not the only people who believe that the Holocaust put an end to conventional theology.”
<HR>

I understand that Holocaust can be a reason for rejection of God existence for many people. Maybe it sounds terrible, but I see that event in quite different way.

First: What was such extraordinary with Holocaust, what might forced God to personally stop the massacre? If God exists, he see the world totally. Not only Jews, but also Indians, Negroes and Asiatic. He see every nation and every race in the same way, without any exceptions. I ask again: <U>What was such extraordinary with Holocaust, what might forced God to personally stop the massacre? </U>
What was the difference between Holocaust and extermination of Indians in South America or extermination of Indians in North America or slavery of Negroes ........and many others?

But there is one significant difference: white race had the first time “occasion” <BIG>
TO RECOGNISE WHAT EXTERMINATION MEANS FROM VICTIM PERSPECTIVE</BIG>
That’s why it was so shocked for us (not shocked enough to prevent Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

It was a lesson. And we know that every hard lesson which also required a big sacrifice is remembered in a very long time.
Now please imagine what could happened if we (white race) hadn’t “such experience”. How many times some crazy finger could push the “A” button if he hadn’t seen any pictures from Auschwitz or Hiroshima before.

Maybe that “lesson” helped us (humans) to exist a little bit longer time. Maybe Jew(s) played a sacrifice for whole mankind role again.

Is it a proof for God’s existence – of course not. But as you can see, every occurrence can be seen in quite different way.

Hi Ivan,

I agree with pretty much everything you say. But your argument works equally well without the need for God to exist. Mankind makes progress very slowly, in a very random and chaotic manner. Massive mistakes are made and terrible attrocities are committed. I strongly believe that when we look back at these events we learn something that helps us to avoid future mistakes and allows progress towards a better civilization. This is the evolution of human nature and has nothing to do with any God.

If God does exist then we have a problem. He is meant to be omnipotent (he can do anything). Why would such a being create a universe where he WANTS such attrocities to occur when he could just have easily created one without making mortal beings suffer? If he had just wanted to teach us a lesson, then because of his omnipotence he could have shown us without the need for us to suffer. The accuracy and strength of the lesson would have been just as strong because he can do anything.

If God didn't want evil in the universe but it occurred because of man's so called 'free will' then he cannot be omnipotent. If he wanted something to happen then nothing should have been able to stop him. The only conclusion must be that these evil acts exist because God wants them to exist. So I stand by my original quote. If God is omnipotent then he is also a monster. If he is not omnipotent then he is useless.

I also apologize to anyone who reads this and who might object to my making a point based on recent real human suffering. I had been reading some history texts and came upon this and it made me cry, I wanted others to feel those emotions. I also felt angry that someone had been duped into a religious belief which had let them down when it was most needed.

Wizard,

<HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Mankind makes progress very slowly, in a very random and chaotic manner. Massive mistakes are made and terrible attrocities are committed. I strongly believe that when we look back at these events we learn something that helps us to avoid future mistakes and allows progress towards a better civilization. This is the evolution of human nature and has nothing to do with any God. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>

O.K. you are right.
But let assume that II WW happened without Holocaust and the first test of nuclear weapon was performed just after Japanese had given up. The rest circumstances were as they were in reality.
There was no difference in our minds except the remembrance of these two events: Auschwitz and Hiroshima. But these two events gave us the lessons. First one showed to us “WHAT EXTERMINATION MEANS FROM VICTIM PERSPECTIVE” and from that time we were able to recognize what feels a nation which we are trying to raze to the ground. The second showed to us what are nuclear weapon possibilities for killing.
I think, that if we hadn’t such knowledge, the III WW was finished a long time ago. But in such case there aren’t any humans on the earth now, who can learn that nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous for both sides and to allows progress towards a better civilization. Is it only coincidence – maybe, but you have to know that there are plenty of similar coincidences in our history, biological evolution and evolution of the universe.

<HR>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
If God does exist then we have a problem. He is meant to be omnipotent (he can do anything). Why would such a being create a universe where he WANTS such attrocities to occur when he could just have easily created one without making mortal beings suffer? If he had just wanted to teach us a lesson, then because of his omnipotence he could have shown us without the need for us to suffer. The accuracy and strength of the lesson would have been just as strong because he can do anything.
If God didn't want evil in the universe but it occurred because of man's so called 'free will' then he cannot be omnipotent. If he wanted something to happen then nothing should have been able to stop him. The only conclusion must be that these evil acts exist because God wants them to exist. So I stand by my original quote. If God is omnipotent then he is also a monster. If he is not omnipotent then he is useless. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>

Well… It’s very hard to add something if the logical deduction is performed correctly. So I have to say: You are right in everything what you have written.
I don’t want to discuss about God’s skills because I don’t know what they are. I tell you something about myself.
I had some spiritual experiences in the past (they were described somewhere in this forum). I know that such spiritual experiences are often a product of our subconscious, but I know my subconscious’s possibilities in illusion creation and I’m quite sure that there was something external in those cases, something spiritual. These experiences given me the base: GOD EXISTS!
After I had reached such conclusion, I had to compose all pieces (facts of human history, science achievements, knowledge of human nature, ………) together, in order to everyone piece fits to others. I had had very big problem to solve because of my native religion, which had made a lot of turmoil in my mosaic, before I “discovered” reincarnation, which let me threw many questions into basket.
I’m still during making that composition now (this forum helps me a lot), but some picture starts to appear.
<UL>
I see that human “free will” is so important value that God doesn’t want to break that law (or He is not omnipotent in this scope).
We (people) have to learn something, what makes our individual live better (I mean the level of suffer and happiness during our live) and how long we will make the same mistakes, we stay on the same level.
The only place where we can find our individual true answer for basic questions is our mind and it is only the matter of ones brave and objectivism of the look to reach them.
[/list]

Sorry Wizard, that I used such illogical arguments in my post, but that is the only way for me to put together all pieces in God picture.

<HR>


http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/ivan.gif

The Ravens Are Not What They Seem


------------------

Wizard,


If God does exist then we have a problem. He is meant to be omnipotent (he can do anything). Why would such a being create a universe where he WANTS such attrocities to occur when he could just have easily created one without making mortal beings suffer?

I think that here, perhaps, you are confusing omnipotent power (the "ability" to do anything) with the exercise or non-exercise of such power. Also, because God is exercising His power in a way which is contrary to what you believe He "should" be doing (because your pride makes you think that you know better?) you seem to be interpreting God's non-exercise of some powers as evil. Well, Wizard, this is simply your interpretation which does not make it true.

Can you consider the possibility that there is an all-loving God that WANTED to share the greatness and goodness of love with others who He created in His spiritual image and likeness? That God knows that in order for His creations to be able to come to a full awareness of the greatness and goodness of "love" that they must be empowered individually as He is, to shun evil?

Can you consider that what God WANTS to do is to empower us to make conscious decisions about good and evil for ourselves with our full knowledge of the real consequences of such choices so that we would come to "know," appreciate, desire and choose "love"? Can you consider the possibility that God created the universe, giving people the gift of free-will with full knowledge that some would choose evil, regardless of the fact that He WANTS us to choose love?


If he had just wanted to teach us a lesson, then because of his omnipotence he could have shown us without the need for us to suffer. The accuracy and strength of the lesson would have been just as strong because he can do anything.


Can you consider the possibility that God loves us and WANTS us to love Him in return but knows that true love does not come through force, but rather, through total awareness? Can you consider the possibility that the sin-free kingdom of heaven is being prepared for those who have been empowered to consciously make a fully informed decision about whether or not to spend eternity "with" God in "love"? Can you consider the possibility that God "knows" that the best way to empower us to make decisions on our own is to allow us to experience the real world and the real consequences of both good and evil? Can you consider the possibility that God knows better than you about the best way to accomplish this?


If God didn't want evil in the universe but it occurred because of man's so called 'free will' then he cannot be omnipotent. If he wanted something to happen then nothing should have been able to stop him. The only conclusion must be that these evil acts exist because God wants them to exist.

Empowering people with free-will with full knowledge that some might choose evil does not exclude omnipotence. Can you consider again, that although God WANTS us to choose goodness and love and that although He has the ability to "force" our decisions, He chooses not to because He "knows" that it is best for us to experience the real world so that we can be become fully aware of what "love" is and totally empowered to make a conscious choice conerning our eternal destiny? Can you consider the possibility that God desires a good, positive and loving outcome for all of us, but that in His benevolence and knowledge, He knows best how we will come to the awarenes of "love" and although He also knows that some will choose evil He chooses not to "control" our choice in this matter? (If He did control our choice, we would be prevented from being fully aware of "love"!)


So I stand by my original quote. If God is omnipotent then he is also a monster. If he is not omnipotent then he is useless.

As you can see, Wizard, just because you interpret it as such, does not make it so. As a matter of fact, there are some who would argue that if God did not give us the free-will to choose our destiny, if God controlled our choices without allowing us to be consciously aware of what was "true" about "love", then He would not be a truly loving God. Rather some might look upon such a controlling God as a monster that abused His power for His own good only rather than for the purpose of sharing in a loving fellowship. Furthermore, there are those who would also argue that without God's loving gift of free-will and without our ability to make a conscious and informed decision concerning our eternal destiny, our entire existence would be virtually useless.

truestory,

That was a beautiful lecture. You should try someday giving it to some of the 300,000 recently dead Tutsi children, or to some of the latest victims of the Chechniya war, who are suffering undeservedly even as we speak. Or maybe to all those people worldwide who are dying of starvation or AIDS by a dozen a minute. It's so comforting that all of that enables you personally to grow spiritually and "learn about love". I doubt the picture is nearly so rosy from the other side of the fence...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Oh?

And what are you becoming aware of from such human conditions, Boris?

Just what is it that you would say to those people?

Boris & Truestory--

... if I may ...

* "Just what is it that you would say to those people?" (Truestory to Boris, 2/1/2000)

I think the best answer to that might be that there is nothing to say to those people. If we're seeking justifications for what happened, well, that implies placing blame, and since truth is perhaps the most subjective thing ....

After all, there are unspeakable moments when silence is the only appropriate action. (I still remember my brother, when I was 14, thrusting a newspaper under my nose, with a picture of a good friend whose decaying body had been pulled out of the woods two towns over ... five seconds of silence, then, "Hey, you want some Cheez-Whiz with those chips?")

But what would we expect one to say to Chechnyan refugees, or the Tutsi dead? "Blame it on God"?

It works, but only if that's the extent of a person's comprehension.

Once, in a moment of my own mourning, the best comfort a schoolmate could give was, "It's times like this that you really need Jesus." Now ... why was it necesary to say this?

What I'm after with that is that sometimes we feel compelled to say things in order to alleviate the building tension within ourselves. Other times we feel genuine human compassion and wish to end or reduce a person's anguish.

But it's not "Gettysburg". "Fourscore and seven years" won't necessarily heal the wounds.

If we tell suffering people: "God will provide," then we are offering, naked to all, the temptation to hold Its will against It. For God has not provided, and in Its absolute will, this must be what God wants.

What would Boris tell the suffering ones? What would I tell them? What would anybody tell them?

There is nothing to tell them, until the end of the bad situation is in sight. Anything else is deciding that there's something we want to tell them.

I mean, "Free cash for everyone" wouldn't work most of these times, because there's nothing to buy (or nobody has the physical energy left to jump into the Cash Cyclone for the Sixty-Second-Million-Dollar Grab.)

There is nothing to say in the face of massive human suffering. Some things are just too large for words.

What were the magical words to the suffering Jewish in German camps? "It's over ... we're going to get you warm and get you some food. Oh, and Hitler's dead."

Look at me, for instance ... ;)

How many words can I burn up trying to say that there's nothing to say?

Unless I'm reading True's question to Boris completely wrong, I would assert that anything he said to those people would be wasted words, at best, offensive at worst. Unless, of course, he wants to lie to them and tell them exactly what they want to hear. Rarely do reality and desire coincide as such.

I should also note that I've been too lazy about tagging my text. Darn, all those wasted moments of emphasis. :cool:

thanx,
Tiassa

it seems that this here debate is a little skewed in particular directions that have little bearing to its overall goal

assuming it has one

lets saddle up and ride for the sunset

if we can all agree that thats a good place to ride

first i should admit my biases

im agnostic

religion doesnt appeal to me

never has never will

but at the same time

i dont mind if its relevant to other peoples lives

its like what kind of ice cream someone likes

etc

its a matter of personal preference

to me atheism is a philosophically untenable position since it can never make the type of inductive argument required to prove or disprove the existence of something that is supposedly greater than us in some way shape form etc

to either prove or disprove the existence of god

takes evidence

etc

and of course

the evidentiary threshold for making such a proof is unfortunately infinite in nature

and if its not infinite its probably a sizable finite chunk that would outlast the survival of our species

i see a lot of similar lines of argumentation in general being made

you guys say

if god does exist hes evil

if god does exist hes an absentee landlord

if god does exist

if god does

etc

how do we know that god

does

anything

to do implies causality

how do we know that cause and effect apply to god and limit the scope of possible actions that god must choose from

if god even can choose

what if god cannot

do

something

what if the term existence doesnt apply to him

to exist means to continue to be

what if god existed way long ago but doesnt now

or what if god has yet to exist

or what if god cannot be

what if god doesnt have free will

as of yet

we are not even sure we do

eg some outside factors may impinge upon our cognitive functions causing us to choose x versus y but testing the existence of these factors is beyond our capability

how do we know god doesnt have a god

if god

this thing

this monster

this something

exists

and i mean exist in the way in which we can only come to understand it

ie we know that our universe exists but not to the degree of certainty we have about our little lives

is existence something we can even apply to god

all this talk seems very speculative

and with good reason

we have limited faculties that are stuck to our vantage point of the universe

which isnt a very good one

therefore i think that all this talk of god

and how god relates to

ethics

our goings on

this world

this universe

reality

choice

etc

is meaningless

until we can actually get something down about this god

this something

but we never will

or at least i dont think

i will try not to bump against you as we wander in the dark

and if someones feeling you up

thats just samus

so sit back as our section of the universe blasts this little grain of sand around at millions of miles per hour

trotter,

That was quite annoying.

truestory, Tiassa,

My point is not what we should tell those people. Personally, all I would ever say is something like: "you got a shit deal, pal. Sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes, or anywhere near them." Should we all collectively try and do something about atrocities? Certainly. But that was not my point either.

My point was: what do these people learn of love or God in such circumstances? What does a child learn, watching her entire family slashed to death with machetes right in front of her, young and old, in utter terror and pain, their blood splattering all over her body, and then, to add some umph to the "lesson", getting collectively raped by the killers, beaten and left for dead, only to subsequently live out a life of orphanage, crime, and prostitution, and die of AIDS, exposure and malnurishment, on the street? What does an infant with spina bifida learn during its short sentient lifespan? Just how can all that be conceived of as necessary evil, in order for <u>the rest of us</u> to learn a lesson? You go and tell a family locked into a burning warehouse that their terror and torment is God's loving way of teaching the rest of us. Just try and ask them what they think about that.

And then consider yourself, in the process of giving praise to some imaginary friend for not intervening in such a sorry state of affairs, and for setting up such a mess in the first place. You would even look humorous, if only your behavior was not so grotesque.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 02, 2000).]

Thank you for your kind words isdaman. I also say the same thing back to you. Thanks for posting those sermons too. You break everything down and make it practical for our daily lives. Also made me feel guilty about cds and tapes and stuff. We must submit to the law.

So far samus, you seem to be very honest so I'd also like to thank you for that and your ability to discuss things in a civilized manner.

i said
_______________________________________
Why don't you show me the verse in scripture that says if you eat meat on friday you will go to hell.
____________________________________

you said

refer to my statement above regarding my ignorance of these specifics. i don't know where exactly it "is written," but i do know of the practice in catholicism. no meat on fridays during lint. if you do, you are going to hell.
___________________________________

You misunderstood my question. The reason you misunderstood it was because, as you said, your knowledge of the Bible is limited. The point I was trying to make is that no such verse exists anywhere in scripture. Read the question again now that you know the true intent of it. If someone teaches this they are teaching a doctrine that is unbiblical and one that contradicts what scripture really says regarding salvation and how we achieve it. Sorry for the confusion.

_____________________________________________yes, but you use it for a very specific purpose, to define EXACTLY what a word means. let me ask you, how does your definition fit with the phrase "faithful to god." my definition fits perfectly, as this means to follow his path. but yours cannot be modified in this manner, and what's more would be meaningless if you were to "cram it in there," so to speak.
____________________________________________

My definition, rather, the New Testament's definition of faith is 'belief and action based upon established facts.' It is also defined as trust. Being faithful to God means obeying his commands. Doing what he tells you too. Listening and trusting Him no matter how bad things get. In order for you to be faithful to God He must exist. If God did not exist then you couldn't be faithful to him. The point I'm trying to make is that when the word faith is used in the Bible, God's existence is assumed as an established fact. Look back to my definition. It says belief and action based upon established facts. The action part means being 'faithful to God.' Its not one scripture I use to define faith. Every verse I've looked at recently that has the word points to this. We could also look at the greek word if you like.

__________________________________________
to revert to the original arguement, does this mean that a christian must know for sure that there is a god, or just trust that he exists? many denominations of chritianity and judaism allow for members to decide for themselves whether or not god exists, but follow the path none-the-less.
__________________________________________

A Christian, by defintion, is a follower of Christ. Christ, the man who existed and was crucified. If He didn't exist then there are no Christians because there is no Christ to follow. Thats the reason why you need to believe in the actual existence of Jesus/God to be a Christian in the Biblical sense. You can read Acts 11:26 to see where the word Christian comes from. Disciples were first called 'Christian' in Antioch.

And what do you mean by 'know for sure?' The problems we will most likely run into here are what does it mean to 'prove' God exists and we will also have to distinguish between to type of propositions (semitic and analytical). By proving God's existence I mean verifying that the Bible is inerrant. and the author of it predicted the future with a startling degree of accuracy (100%, well, it will be anyways ;)) By showing how the Christian world view is very complete and other such things like the resurrection of Jesus..etc I am as sure that God exists that I am sure that atoms or some place like california exist.

___________________________________________
my initial response is what makes the word of god "right"? is it that he knows what is right, and tells you, or that what he says is automatically right? if the first is true, where did that come from? (apply all of your arguements here.) if the second, then god can do no wrong? this is not to imply that he has to answer to me by any means, but this leads us to question what makes god "good." this implies that whatever he does, it will be good. for instance, if he were to kill off all the lepers instead of healing them, it would be equally worthy of praise due to the fact that it is automatically right. god doing something "good" implies that he could instead have done something "bad," but this is not possible.
________________________________
I'll answer the second part first. The defition of evil is that which is away from God's will. How can God be considered evil using this defition? Are you asking that like before our universe or something was God good or something like that? If you are I can't answer your question because it is outside of my experiential knowledge of reality. Defition of evil states that before God gave out free will to anyone there may not have been any such concept as good and evil. Because evil is that which is away from God's will. That is partly a speculation on my part. You also asked what makes the word of God right? Igod created all that you see. He gave us free will. He designed everything. He gave us our ability to reason. God knows all about our universe and its laws and about us and our consciences because He made them. So what God says regarding morality can be taken as the truth because He created all this stuff. 'Outside' of our universe and God's absolute attributes or whatever there is outside of my experiential knowledge of reality I can't speak about. I can only use stuff God has revealed to us all. Everything God has said would happen in the Bible has happened (prophecies and other stuff). God's testable statements have proven to be true and since God created everything I think its safe to assume God knows what He is talking about. Plus, if you look at the definition of evil (that which is away from God's will), things that are against His will are what he tells us are wrong to do. Knowing this, its kind of hard to say God is wrong in areas of morality. Thats the best answer I could put together with the amount of time that I have.
____________________________________________
we also see that at a certain point christians will also have to make judgement calls as to what is right or wrong. for instance, god has yet to take a stance on speeding, yet christians must still decide whether it is right or wrong based on the same reasoning that an athiest would use. how does a christian decide what is right and wrong when god does not decide for them?
___________________________________________

As you said, your knowledge of the Bible is limited. The Bible does speak on speeding but not directly. The Bible says Christian are to submit to the authorities and the law as long as you are not contradicting one of God's commands. If the law tells you not to worship God then you disobey it because it contradicts His teachings. But in the case of speeding, we are to obey the law because it does not violate one of God's laws. Theus, the Bible take on speeding is that Christians should not do so because they are to submit to the law. I'm sure there are some grey areas which scriptue is not totally clear upon and we must formulate our view as best we can with the scripture wev'e got. Most of the time scripture is clear or there is a more logical stance to take when formulaing your views regarding an issue not specific in the Bible. I also said 'that God's laws our written on our hearts' implying we can know what it right and wrong, which you in turn said, """you refute your own statement above about how we cannot know what is wrong or right without believing in god."""" There is clearly a misunderstanding here between us. I said we cannot know rights and wrongs absolutley without some God or an overlying truth. I then said that the laws our written on our hearts but because we live in a sin filled world they are a bit distorted. I didn't contradict myself. The first time I said if there was no God or an overlying truth on which we could base our epistemology then we could not know absolute rights and wrongs. They would be subjective, nothing more than opinions or heredity. The part about the law on hearts was speaking from the Christian standpoint that God exists. The laws our written on our hearts and thats why, I, as a Christian, will tell you have have morals and stuff like that, But removing God makes morality hard to rationalize unless you can find another overlying truth. You need to show what you base your epistemology upon.

_______________________________________________
as for what i believe, this will have to be analyzed in a little more detail. first, we have to understand that right and wrong is simply a function of our existence. for example, we can die because we are alive. if you were to crush a rock, this is not "killing" the rock, and is not "wrong" because the rock was not alive. this can be applied to all situations, such as we have consentual sex, thus we can have rape. bacteria cannot have rape. we can analyze these things from the standpoint of emotion and knowledge.
____________________________________________

So you assume killing a human being is wrong I guess? What makes shooting and killing a living creature that is alive, in a biological sense, any worse than shooting a rock, which cannot die in the biological sense? What makes killing a living thing wrong? You may say, as I think you did, 'killing is bad because we desire to live' but what makes it bad if someone kills you even though you desire to live? How is this bad? On what do you base your epistemolgy on. Is it infinitely wrong to kill a person because with your infinite knowledge you posit it to be infinitely so? I will admit that one definition of bad means unfavorable' and another of the many say 'unpleasant or disturbing.' So I cannot dispute killing being bad in this sense but another defintion, which is a better defintion to use because of what we are talking about says that something that is bad is evil; sinful. Evil can also mean a few things. The most fitting defintion I see for us to use is the one that means morally bad. Evil and morally bad in this case point to sin. A sin is basically an act commited that is against God's will. Evil, according to the Christian world view is not a physical substance like matter. A sword is not evil in its being. Its not composed of quarkes, leptons, and atoms like other things are. I don't think you can draw one of those fenyman diagrams showing how evil interacts in the universe. A gun is not evil in its being. A gun used to shoot someone in the head is not evil. In fact, if it isn't a 'good' shot it won't hit its intended mark. You can't show someone a handful of evil. Evil is in the intent of the human. Its a nonconformity between our will and God's will. Its often said that theres evil in the world and if God created everything He must have created evil. But, using the definition of evil I have given, the proper Christian one, evil is that which disobeys God's will. If God gave us free will He is off the hook for and cannot be said to have created evil in its being. Just creatures with the ability to choose. Sorry for getting off on a tangent there. I tend to chase rabbits sometimes but as I was saying, you may think something is morally bad or this or that is wrong but in order to have absolute morally bad and morally good choices you must find an overlying truth or else morality becomes basically subjective. You need to state how you come to the conclusions that certian things are evil and why things are morally bad.
________________________________________
to emotion, we can divide positive and negative emotions by desire. we desire to feel certain emotions, and desire to avoid others. more acurately, we desire or do not desire the situations surrounding those emotions. we can instincually say that killing is bad because we desire to live. we can say that putting a baby in the microwave is bad because the baby will not desire that situation. we can say things are wrong because the result is not desired by those effected, and we can say things are right because the result is desired by those effected.
we can also have collective desires. although each individual wants to go at whatever speed they choose, we know that that will not make for safe driving conditions. thus, we desire a driving environment where speed limits are imposed. although some will speed, very few desire roads without speed limits. thus we can say that it is wrong to speed.
to knowledge, we must look at the knowledge of the parties involved. if a man were to rape a girl, he would know that she would not desire that situation but would proceed anyway. in effect, he acknowledges that it is wrong but proceeds anyway. but if you were to step on a freshly cleaned floor that was not marked, you would produce an undesired effect without the knowledge that that would occur. we can say the act is not specifically "wrong" (just unfortunate) because you did not intend on reaching an undesired effect. from this point of view, we can say that "right" and "wrong" are based on the motives of the act in relation to the desires of the effected.
we must also factor in long term desires. for instance, let's say we had a child molestor who approached a child, and that child was too young to understand the consequences and therefore had no immediate objections. eventually, this will have many consequences, and when that child grows up they will come to not desire that that situation occured. it is wrong on face because of the eventual undesirablility, and the knowledge of the child molestor that the undesirablility will eventually exist.
to complicate things, many issues will have those which desire something and those which do not desire that something. for instance, we can say that our rapist REALLY likes rape, and so from his point of view he could argue for it. but obviously his victem DOES NOT like rape, and she would argue against it. at this point we have to start weighing the desires and forming boundries.
if we were to simply weigh these desires, we would sometimes come to conclusions that are questionable. for instance, let's say our rapist raped someone in their sleep and that person never found out (didn't get a disease, pregnant, or anything undesirable). he could point out that the situation was only desired, with no one that does not desire it (to their knowledge). here, we could argue that if the person were to know or find out, they would not desire it, thus it is wrong but he is simply hiding. we could also say that as discussed above, it is the motives of the act and the act itself that is used to determine "right" or "wrong," not the results of the act. his motive was to ignore the desires of another person, and it was merely a coincidence that she never found out.
we must also form boundries. boundries are defined by self-determination. each person is allowed to determine his or her own actions, as long as those actions do not negativily effect others. for example, i have the right to bang my head against the wall because it does not effect anyone but myself (assuming i do not damage someone else's wall or make noise which annoys others). the rape victem above has the right to determine what happens to her body, and thus the intrusion of the rapist on those rights is always wrong, regardless of the strength of the desires of the rapist. this is a very basic understanding of "right and wrong," but i hope it is helpful.
to answer your question, we can and do determine what is right and wrong for ourselves. for the most part, it is obvious to all people when something such as rape is wrong. rapists do not think that it is right, they simply don't care that it is wrong.
____________________________________________

I can't say your logic wasn't good here because it was. But if your initial assumptions are inaccurate then the rest of your argument which is based upon these will be off. I think its pretty clear that there are absolute rights and wrongs just looking at us emotionally but thats just my opinion. Some may feel inclined to disagree. The Christian world view backs up my opinion. Thus if the Christian world view is accurate, as I claim, then there are morally bad and good choices for sure. But you need to state why things that are against our desires are morally bad.

_____________________________________________
off the subject, i do not believe in "evil." this implies doing things just because we know they are undesirable. rather, i think people can be selfish and weigh their interests and desires above others. corporations such as nike do not take advantage of workers in other coutries because they like to see them suffer. they do so because they can get their product made by employees who are paid less than a dollar a day. it isn't evil, it is selfish.
_____________________________________________

Selfishness is evil, its a sin according to the Bible. But to add more to this, people who are hooked on drugs didn't one day decide I want to be a drug addict for the rest of my life, this is my lifes goal. These things just happen through bad choices fro some people. Others like that type of life.


______________________________

i have heard this before. this is the christian patch on a loophole in the bible. does the bible say this? i have yet to hear that verse, but as i said above, my knowledge is limited so i am willing to hear it. but the impression i get from most people is that this is just something that christians thought up themselves. the bible is very clear that faith is required for salvation, and by YOUR definition they MUST "suppose or think god exists." your definition, not mine.


you seem to claim knowledge in all other areas as to what god wants, but in this you plead ignorance. which is it, vinnie, do you know what god wants from people or not? does christianity know what god wants for certain, or is there room for error?
____________________________________

I claim knowledge in areas revealed to me in scripture by God. I'm not God, I don't know who is saved and who isn't. If you have accepted Jesus then you are saved. If you blashemy continuosly against the Holy Spirit then you are not saved. A ten year old child that is killed may not have ever heard much about Jesus. People raised in other religions may not here much about Jesus. We are all accountable to what we know. Some people may have never heard of Jesus. My wording up above may have been slightly less than perfect, but you can read Romans 2 for starters. Verses 11-16 are probably the most relavent here but I'd start from the beginning. Also the last verse of Romans 1 hints at this. And to answer your last question, Christianity pretty much can tell us what God expects from us.

___________________________________
believe it or not, i've tried that. i didn't get an answer. but you are evading the question. so far, the proof has not been presented to me so that i know that there is a god. i do not feel responsible for this knowledge because, as you can see, i do search for the truth. what's more, i have no control over what conclusions i reach. if you were to pay me $5 billion to know for sure that god existed, i could not simply do so because i want to. i see the evidense and the conclusion seems to me to be correct, not the one that i want or don't want.
_______________________________________

I did say the answer might came more later than sooner but it will come if you truly seek it. It may not be the right time yet but it will happen if you truly search for the truth with an open mind. My evidence is the inerrant, infallable, word of God. I said there aren't any contradictions. You pointed to a thread thats intent was on pointing out some. I said I have seen those and still maintain that the bible is inerrant. If you think there are contradictions you post them. One at a time though. Don't go to some web site that has '101 Biblical Contradictions' and paste them all here becuse it would take me waaaaayyyy to long to do all that. If you know of a contradiction then post it one at a time and we can dicuss it and see if it is really a contradiction. I'll discuss them one at a time with you. Thats all the time that I have. But I am willing to back up my claim. Show me your first contradiction if you like. Explain why its a contradiction and we can go over it or, to be truthful, I will explain why it isn't ;)

__________________________________
again, you evade the question. you do in fact believe in god, so don't you think that people should act as outlined in christianity, even if they are not doing so to try to get to heaven? -__________________________________

People should behave the way it is outlined in the bible because it is true. If it weren't true then without some other overlying truth there is no proper way to act. But yes, because it is true, it is the way all should act. Again, read those verses I posted above. The last verse of Romans chapter 1 and Romans 2. It relates to what we are talking about. It talks about the law on our hearts.

__________________________________________
then you ignore the evidense in front of you. many of those are NOT misinterpretations, but are direct contradictions that cannot be explained any other way. i can believe much of what you say, but the bible is not inerrant. as i have said many times, it may have originated form god, but humans will find a way to screw it up. they always do. nothing is right for certain. even newton's version of gravity was so well proven that it became labeled a law, and then was blown out of the water by eistein's general relativity. i think even christians have to conceid that they are finite, fallable beings who more than likely do not have the absolute correct message of god. god is infinite, and therefore you cannot possibly claim to understand him.
___________________________________________

As I said above, if you know of a contradiction, speak, and ye shall be heard. I will discuss them with you one at a time. We won't go on to the next till the first one is resolved. Christians claim to have the correct message from God because he revealed it to us in scripture. Yes we do screw up but we feel we have this book, written by apostles or disciples of Christ and amazingly there aren't any errors in it. The size of the Bible and the amount of material covered make this fact hard to believe that it was written by Humans without any help from God. Plus all the miracles and answered prayer throught the years. God revealed himself to us through scripture. One more thing. I do not pretend to completely understand God. I can in some ways understand Him in this 4 dimensional universe of ours because He has revealed Himself to us. I can, as can anyone else, only understand what God has revealed to us about Him.

_____________________________________________
you still have yet to show me how we know for sure this is the word of god. i'm sure somewhere there is a muslim who can defend his religion as well as you, and i'm sure there is a hindu that can defend his beliefs just as well, but none of you have any evidense why it is right. you can only stretch to tell me why it isn't wrong. refer to the analogy in my first post. you can defend anything that you want to believe. but your unwillingness to acknowledge the fallability of the bible only serves to hurt your case. i could be convinced that at some point god gave humans his message, but i have to recognize that humans probably screwed up that message.
_____________________________________________

As I said above, we can discuss those supposed contradictions if you like. I will also post some stuff from archaeology and other things which help give credibility to the Bible once we start , if we actually do, discussing those contradictions. Humans alone would have screwed up the message. But hristians claim they didn't screw up the message and the reason is because the Gospel writers were under the influence of the Holy Spirit.


___________________________________________
okay, then, fine. i will not stray to cosmology as i think i have an unfair advantage over you. personally, i think i have an unfair advantage over most professors. but genesis is only consistent as it is vague and can be interpreted in many ways.
_____________________________________________

You probably do have more knowledge than me in cosmology. I know a good deal about cosmology for my age. I hope to further my education in that field one day. Astronomy, physics, meteorology, maybe a sytematic theology course. I'm familar with cosmology and things like the standard model, quantum mechanics, physics, relativity, astonomy, and other such things. You can discuss them if you want. And science being compatable with the Genesis account of creation doesn't have much to do with the 'bible being vague.' It has to do with the fact that the author of Genesis wrote (which we are hopefully going to try to prove or disprove) the bible with help from God. The author seems to be describing a vision God showed him of the creative act. God, I'm sure knows how the universe formed if He is in fact the one who made it. As for the Bibles validity, hopefully we will discuss that now.

______________________________________
let's move on to when jesus "healed the leper." obviously this isn't refering to jesus healing leperacy, we still have that today. more, it is refering to how he socially healed the leper, as in made them less of an outcast. figurative, not literal.
______________________________________

I'm sorry, I couldn't find the verse you were referring to. I found one in matthew 11 but Jesus was referring to all the people He healed during his ministry in that example. Theres also a verse in Luke about Jesus healing 10 people of lerposy. I think Matthew 11 might (but im not certian) be what your referring to. The context of this verse tells us that Jesus was referring to the people he had healed. Not all people. The Biblie is to be literally read. You don't read it and interpret certian things to fit your doctrine. By literal I mean that Jonah was really swallowed by a big fish and that Adam and Eve really existed. By literal I mean these things are not just symbols, they are actual history. The Bible means what it says. Some things are clearly symbolic of other things in the Bible. For instance, the fig tree is a good example but we know when things are symbolic and when they aren't. Its fairly easy to tell by looking at the context that the verse is in and what it is talking about. When the Bible says God wiped out manking and destroyed sodom and Gomorah these thing are to be taken as literal events that happened. Not symbols of what happens if a nation is sinful or if there is too much wickedness on the earth. The Bible is to be literally read but without looking at the context you will get into trouble. Also, things like the 'streets of Gold' in heaven are symbolic. Gold is used to present the timelessness of heaven (Gold doesn't rust) and its value. When Jesus told us to be like doves he never meant that we are to lay eggs.

_____________________________________________
first, we had hebrew. then, we had greek. then, we had latin. then, we had english. as the languages came in succession, they were translated to in turn. this is how most versions of the bible were reached. if yours was done as you say, then good for it. but more importantly, i'm not saying that they are totally different books, just that there are subtle differences that need to be understood. refer the the example i gave before about using the lord's name in vain which you ignore.
_________________________________________

There are subtle differences. Look at the creation account. The word insects should not be found anywhere in there because clearly the hebrew text does not mention insects in the creation accounts. This is a mistranslation in a few versions of the bible and if the Bible did mention insects where its translatd to have done so then the text would be at odds with the findings of modern science. So yes, there are differences but for the purpose of knowing God and experienceing a personal relationship with Him any translation should do the job. If your looking for the most accurate version for theological study or apologetical reasons then I would suggest the Niv or the Nas. I didn't ignore what you said about 'using the lords name in vain.' I always thought that that meant not swearing falsely by it. The Niv translates that verse as "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name."


__________________________
believe this if you want. apparently you've never met one of these humans, so you don't know how they really are. but trust me, they are often self-serving and prone to mistakes.
__________________________


I agree, some probably were self serving and are prone to mistakes but the documents we have show that the bible is virtually the same as it was when the letters and books were first written. Obviously there are minor copyist errors and other small thing like a few words missing from one verse but all in all the Bible we read today can be trusted to be authentic, in that it has not been changed to fit peoples doctrine over the years and is not radically different and filled with false teachings.


_______________________________
this is actually your best explaination yet. usually, i get moronic responses such as "if god created the earth, why can't he flood it all?"
________________________________


Christians sometimes need to understand in issues like this, it is not what can God do, but what did God do. If God created the universe then yes I'm sure somehow he can cover the earth with water but we are not looking at what God can do. We want to know what he did.


__________________________________________
okay, fine, then why does god allow crack babies to be born, live in intense pain for a few days, and then die?
_________________________________________


I'll be honest. I can't give you a real good answer for that. If someone else here at the board can then hopefully they will. There seemingly has to be a reason for this. A sparrow will not fall to the earth without the Father's knowledge and permission (Matt. 10:29-31). God is good. God is holy. God knows what He is doing. I can't explain His purpose for every thing. As I said, most christians feel babies go to heaven when they die so an eternity in heaven is probably worth the suffering. I can speculate that maybe this will effect the parents lives somehow or how it might even effect your faith and others who view things like this but I'll just leave this question open. We do have lots of reasons to trust God and we know that He is Holy, if you accept the Bibles teaching. For you to say God is wrong or is doing things improperly for allowing this then you'd be arguing against the source that your ability to reason comes from. Its hard to argue with God and hope to be right. If you are using this to 'disprove God' then you need to reread above about the defintion of evil and tell me upon what you base your epistemplogy on. All in alll, I wonder about questions like this and why God allowed Job to be tested but I have to admit that I don't understand everything.


__________________________________________
actually, i looked through it and most people tend to misinterpret this. even if you say that the commandment should be translated "thou shalt not murder," this still excludes the type of killing you describe. these forms are supposedly "justifyable homicides," meaning "okay" forms of murder. you can distunguish killings into four categories: premeditated homicide, non-premeditated homicide, self defense, and accidental. you clearly are refering to the first, which implies that you thought it through and decided that killing was the right thing to do. i think i can safely say that this is never sanctioned by god. he is clear, and what's more jesus tells you he who is without sin should throw the first stone. god will deal with sinners, not humans. the death penalty is not mandated by "thou shalt not kill," in fact the opposite. from god's point of view, this is like children he tells to stop hitting each other. "he hit me first" is not a valid exemption to this rule.
_____________________________________________

God is the one who institutionalized the death penalty in the first place. Somewhere around Leviticus 18, 19, or 20 is the scripture I am referring to. Whether it is still to be applied today is an issue thats hard to resolve. Arguments for both sides can be presented. I don't want to start another debate about that issue so just remember we are talking about God and the time he wiped out all of mankind. I know, I got off track first and I apologize, but I'll try not to stray so we can try to make real progress here. We are talking about God killing, not human beings killing. In that thread I mentioned a few things about 'casting the first stone.' Aside from what I mentioned, God is without sin, so He can cast the stone ;)

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Boris,

Excuse my questions... I actually thought you might have become aware of something positive that you might be able to share with those people... My mistake.


My point was: what do these people learn of love or God in such circumstances?
What does a child learn, watching her entire family slashed to death with machetes right in front of her, young and old, in utter terror and pain, their blood splattering all over her body, and then, to add some umph to the "lesson", getting collectively raped by the killers, beaten and left for dead, only to subsequently live out a life of orphanage, crime, and prostitution, and die of AIDS, exposure and malnurishment, on the street? What does an infant with spina bifida learn during its short sentient lifespan? Just how can all that be conceived of as necessary evil, in order for the rest of us to learn a lesson? You go and tell a family locked into a burning warehouse that their terror and torment is God's loving way of teaching the rest of us. Just try and ask them what they think about that.

You would be surprised what some people learn from extremely adverse conditions. Personally, I know many, many, many, many people who have come into their personal relationship with God through adversity in this life including a number of AIDS patients who were previously atheist or agnostic. Have you ever experienced extremely adverse conditions in your life, Boris? If so, I am sure there was something good that you learned from it. If you have never experienced such hardship, you are one of the lucky ones for sure, because you DO get to learn from the experiences of others (and it actually sounds like you are, in a way). Hopefully, you will eventually be able to understand God's message through the experiences of others (without having to experience such relative hardship yourself). As far as "necessary" evil goes, no, I don't conceive this type of evil as "necessary"... hopefully, everyone will come to their senses one day and learn to live in right relationships through love as Jesus Christ taught us... until then, it will continue to be an unfortunate reality at the hands of those who do not know divine love and compassion.

To reiterate and comment on my questions to Wizard (hey, where'd he/she go, anyway?)


Can you consider the possibility that there is an all-loving God that WANTED to share the greatness and goodness of love with others who He created in His spiritual image and likeness? That God knows that in order for His creations to be able to come to a full awareness of the greatness and goodness of "love" that they must be empowered individually as He is, to shun evil?

It looks like you are becoming empowered to shun some evil, even if it is at the unfortunate expense of others, Boris.


Can you consider that what God WANTS to do is to empower us to make conscious decisions about good and evil for ourselves with our full knowledge of the real consequences of such choices so that we would come to "know," appreciate, desire and choose "love"? Can you consider the possibility that God created the universe, giving people the gift of free-will with full knowledge that some would choose evil, regardless of the fact that He WANTS us to choose love?

Now, all you have to do is understand the rest of the equation, for yourself.




[This message has been edited by truestory (edited February 02, 2000).]

truestory,



I actually thought you might have become aware of something positive that you might be able to share with those people.


Are you joking? Do you really believe that "those people" need some God's messenger to come and sing hymns to them? Heck, I'd be ashamed to even show myself in their vicinity, much less try to offer some kind of hypocritical comfort. Misery loves company; a happy rich healthy satisfied educated American savant pretending to understand and empathise for a short while until he gets distracted by another exosci debate, is the last thing misery wants. At least I have enough respect for "those people" not to try and shove my vain little bleeding heart in their faces.



You would be surprised what some people learn from extremely adverse conditions.


Oh yes, I'll be very surprised. Especially when those people turn out to be dead. I guess they would have learned how to die in suffering. If they were still alive, that is. Though I guess that would be kind of consistent with the general philosophy of teaching somebody a lesson by executing them. Strange, but true. But very strange.



As far as "necessary" evil goes, no, I don't conceive this type of evil as "necessary"... hopefully, everyone will come to their senses one day and learn to live in right relationships through love as Jesus Christ taught us... until then, it will continue to be an unfortunate reality at the hands of those who do not know divine love and compassion.


If God designed the universe with an express capability for such evil written into it, then God must have deemed it "necessary". After all, why would God put unneccessary spoilers into his work of art? And that "one day" you speak of will <u>never</u> happen, you do realize that? Meanwhile, what will keep happening is the "unnecessary evil." Oh well, said Jesus, shit happens. "Unfortunately."



That God knows that in order for His creations to be able to come to a full awareness of the greatness and goodness of "love" that they must be empowered individually as He is, to shun evil?


Do you truly believe that one cannot experience happiness and love without experiencing misery and hate? Then that "one day" is <u>definitely</u> never going to come. For the record, the emotional mechanisms of love and hate are quite neurologically distinct, and it is indeed possible to stimulate one without ever having had stimulated the other. But I guess brains don't concern us, since they couldn't possibly be all there is to us, can they? After all, God said we have souls. And who am I to question God? After all, I am only "empowered individually as He is", therefore I must be thoroughly incompetent.



Can you consider that what God WANTS to do is to empower us to make conscious decisions about good and evil for ourselves with our full knowledge of the real consequences of such choices so that we would come to "know," appreciate, desire and choose "love"?


"Knowledge" of good or evil has nothing to do with "love". Love is that which feels good. It just so happens that our species evolved to feel good about socially-beneficial, reciprocative behavior. And to feel bad about antisocial behavior. That's all there is to good vs. evil. No knowledge required. Even chimps can do it. Can you consider that?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually thought you might have become aware of something positive that you might be able to share with those people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you joking? Do you really believe that "those people" need some God's messenger to come and sing hymns to them? Heck, I'd be ashamed to even show myself in their vicinity, much less try to offer some kind of hypocritical comfort.

You make absolutely no sense here. Believe me, I don't think that you are one of God's messengers. You have made that abundantly clear to everyone and, quite honestly, I never considered you to be the type to "sing hymns."

What it seems to come down to is you do not believe that there is anything to be learned from suffering.

I asked if you have ever experienced extremely adverse conditions in your life, Boris... Either you did not answer, or we are supposed to assume that this buried statement was it?


...a happy rich healthy satisfied educated American savant pretending to understand and empathise for a short while until he gets distracted by another exosci debate...

Is that you, Boris? Is that the extent of hardship or adversity in your life? Have you ever had to fight for your life, Boris? Or, more imporantly, have you ever had to fight to save the life of another human being? Have you ever come face-to-face, personally, with pure evil?

Considering the adversity of others, I indicated that you might be surprised at what people learn through adversity... I also went further to explain the following:


I know many, many, many, many people who have come into their personal relationship with God through adversity in this life including a number of AIDS patients who were previously atheist or agnostic.

Your response to this was:


Oh yes, I'll be very surprised. Especially when those people turn out to be dead. I guess they would have learned how to die in suffering. If they were still alive, that is. Though I guess that would be kind of consistent with the general philosophy of teaching somebody a lesson by executing them. Strange, but true. But very strange.

You don't know anyone who has come into their relationship with God through adversity, Boris?

I find your answers to be increasingly strange. You object, criticize, taunt, focus on negativity, deny a higher power than yourself and deny your own soul. Then, supposedly (in a chimp-like way) you feel bad about the suffering of others because (according to you) there is just some insignificant physical process going on in your body which causes you to feel this way. You seem angry that death is a part of life and that some people suffer terribly before they die... and yet, you have NOTHING to offer other than a a chimp-like shrug of the shoulders, "Oh, well... Shit happens." (Good thing for you it's happening to other people, huh, Boris?)

If that's all there is, Boris, then why would you be so concerned about what others believe? Why not just consider it part of the "shit" that "happens?"

Instead, you become angry, combative and behave nastily towards people who do not believe the way that you do... Those who do not deny their souls, who do not deny God and who do not deny their reasoning (unlike chimps) which enables them to understand and explain the relationship between God and man. As if this somehow is an insult to those who suffer at the hands of other human beings who have no concept of the love of God?

Is it your goal to try and convince others that our reasoning capabilities mean absolutely nothing (unless, of course, we believe what you do), that there is no such thing as a soul, that there is nothing beyond the physical realm, that we should all, like you, just "wish" that we could live forever and all become chimp-like in our approach to living? (If you would acknowledge your soul, Boris, you will understand that life does go on)... Like you, should we all live in a happy, affluent, educated state, pretending to understand the suffering of others, ocassionaly complaining about the evil in the world which affects other people (but only in a feeble attempt to convince someone else on exosci that if God exists then God must be causing the evil), not acknowledging the reasoning capabilities and culpability of mankind, and reconciling it with a shrug of our shoulders because "shit happens?"

Although you know you would never be able to convince everyone of your beliefs, Boris... Suppose you WERE actually able to convince everyone that life is just a temporary matter of "shit happening" and then we die. Then what, Boris?



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited February 03, 2000).]

Boris

Keep it up you're doing great. Note that the arguments against you are now being directed at you personally. Basic political tactic: If the argument can't be discredited then discredit the person.

Stay with the reasoned argument - other people will be able to see the sense.

Wizard,

That's Boris' tactic... not mine... would you like me to point you to a few examples??? There are many...

Wizard,

Oh???!!! NOW I understand why Boris is constantly hurling personal insults? :rolleyes:

___________________________________________
So far samus, you seem to be very honest so I'd also like to thank you for that and your ability to discuss things in a civilized manner.
___________________________________________

yeah, i noticed that there are two seperate strings going on here, us and another one. the other one is kind of breaking down.

___________________________________
You misunderstood my question. The reason you misunderstood it was because, as you said, your knowledge of the Bible is limited. The point I was trying to make is that no such verse exists anywhere in scripture. Read the question again now that you know the true intent of it. If someone teaches this they are teaching a doctrine that is unbiblical and one that contradicts what scripture really says regarding salvation and how we achieve it. Sorry for the confusion.
_____________________________________________

well, at least you can see the fallability of man as far as organized religion, if not the bible. is there any denomination that you do follow? or rather, is there any which you do not believe has corrupted the message of the bible?

____________________________________________
My definition, rather, the New Testament's definition of faith is 'belief and action based upon established facts.' It is also defined as trust. Being faithful to God means obeying his commands. Doing what he tells you too. Listening and trusting Him no matter how bad things get. In order for you to be faithful to God He must exist. If God did not exist then you couldn't be faithful to him. The point I'm trying to make is that when the word faith is used in the Bible, God's existence is assumed as an established fact. Look back to my definition. It says belief and action based upon established facts. The action part means being 'faithful to God.' Its not one scripture I use to define faith. Every verse I've looked at recently that has the word points to this. We could also look at the greek word if you like.
__________________________________________


we have strayed from the original arguement, which is to say that the bible requires belief in god to attain salvation. you said that this is based on knowledge, but everything you have showed me from the bible is to the contrary. it all requires that knowledge as a pretense, that you MUST believe in god. i am still looking for biblical references supporting your claim that societies which do not have christianity still have a chance. you say yourself that we are all sinners, and i agree (and will discuss below). none of us are without violation of gods will, and christianity says that the only way to overcome that is through belief in god.

__________________________________________
A Christian, by defintion, is a follower of Christ. Christ, the man who existed and was crucified. If He didn't exist then there are no Christians because there is no Christ to follow. Thats the reason why you need to believe in the actual existence of Jesus/God to be a Christian in the Biblical sense. You can read Acts 11:26 to see where the word Christian comes from. Disciples were first called 'Christian' in Antioch.

And what do you mean by 'know for sure?' The problems we will most likely run into here are what does it mean to 'prove' God exists and we will also have to distinguish between to type of propositions (semitic and analytical). By proving God's existence I mean verifying that the Bible is inerrant. and the author of it predicted the future with a startling degree of accuracy (100%, well, it will be anyways ;)) By showing how the Christian world view is very complete and other such things like the resurrection of Jesus..etc I am as sure that God exists that I am sure that atoms or some place like california exist.
___________________________________________

actually, i don't doubt that you "know" god exists. we don't need to dip too far into philosophy, but you are right. there is no point in distinguishing between things which we are certain of and things which we know to be correct. to "know" something doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct. when i was younger, i "knew for a fact" that gravity was a force of nature. i had observed it many times and had never seen it fail. but then i studied general relativity and learned about the curvature of space/time, and discovered that i was wrong, regardless of how much factual basis i had placed on it.

so no, i do not demand that you "prove" god exists as a pretense for your beliefs, and unlike most other non-christians, i can accept these beliefs as a logical conclusion even though i myself have not come to the same one. but this does lead me to a hypothetical question...

if the proof presented itself, would you be willing to accept that the bible is not the message of god? now keep in mind, this is only hypothetical, as i know you will most likely say something to the effect of "it is true, so i don't have to worry." this is kind of like the question "would you jump out of a plane to save the starving children in africa?" of course, there is no such plane and there would be no reason for me to believe that this would have any effect on the situation in africa, but to answer the hypothetical question, yes i would. but in this universe, i will never do such a thing, because even if it were set up somehow, i could not trust that it would happen. but could the hypothetical vinnie accept our hypothetical proof in our hypothetical universe?


________________________________
I'll answer the second part first. The defition of evil is that which is away from God's will. How can God be considered evil using this defition? Are you asking that like before our universe or something was God good or something like that? If you are I can't answer your question because it is outside of my experiential knowledge of reality. Defition of evil states that before God gave out free will to anyone there may not have been any such concept as good and evil. Because evil is that which is away from God's will. That is partly a speculation on my part. You also asked what makes the word of God right? Igod created all that you see. He gave us free will. He designed everything. He gave us our ability to reason. God knows all about our universe and its laws and about us and our consciences because He made them. So what God says regarding morality can be taken as the truth because He created all this stuff. 'Outside' of our universe and God's absolute attributes or whatever there is outside of my experiential knowledge of reality I can't speak about. I can only use stuff God has revealed to us all. Everything God has said would happen in the Bible has happened (prophecies and other stuff). God's testable statements have proven to be true and since God created everything I think its safe to assume God knows what He is talking about. Plus, if you look at the definition of evil (that which is away from God's will), things that are against His will are what he tells us are wrong to do. Knowing this, its kind of hard to say God is wrong in areas of morality. Thats the best answer I could put together with the amount of time that I have.
____________________________________________

okay, i think we are going to be in agreement on this one. this is one way how i see god creating the universe.

in the beginning, there was the universe. matter, energy, the whole bit. all things did exactly according to god's invention, as in two hydrogen and one oxygen always came together to become water, blah blah blah. all things were totally consistent, without anything ever not acting as it should. but this was boring, and so god created some matter that could do as it pleased. thus, we have the beginnings of life. these things follow certain general patterns, but overall this "life" did not present the same exact consistency in action that all other matter did. this is where i will split the two theories.

first, is with a christian god. you can say that he caused the inherent will of god that is in our hearts, or instincts. animals, plants, everything knew generally what to do and how to act, and for the most part did so. eventually, some of these animals developed cognition, which is to say that they could think reasonably. the problem was not the reasoning, but that it was imperfect, and allowed humans to come to conclusions that were contrary to gods will, and override his "programming." eventually, god showed himself to humans and told them how to act and not act, approaching the issue from the cognative reasoning angle, and appealing to humans through heaven and hell.

second, we have the evolution angle. most people misinterpret evolution. it is not that life desires to change for the better, only that it is imperfect and will many times mutate. some mutations are good, and that species will live on. others are bad, and that species dies out. even the desire to exist can be explained through this. the first life had some that wanted to exist, and others that didn't care. the ones that didn't care died out quickly, and the ones that strived to survive did. by coincidence, some life reproduced and others didn't. obviously, the ones that did lived on, while the ones that didn't died out. this can be extended to the reasoning behind the species that exist today. there may very well have been wolves that didn't care for their young, but they died out quickly, and only those which did care for their young survived. to answer a previous question, what we now see as emotional preferences toward right and wrong are there because a human race that did not have them would have died out. maybe there was one that didn't have them, and it did die out. to us killing a baby is wrong. maybe there was another species that did not believe so, but they have died out.

to revert back to christianity, there became the ability to do that which is contrary to god's programming. thus the ability to do right and wrong, as you define it. right and wrong really doesn't apply to a plant, as it will grow and all of that, just as god programmed. this is what seperates us from the animals, so to speak. our very existence allows us to do wrong. rocks and plants really don't have that option and cannot really be evluated by that standard. if somehow hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms came together to form a lamp instead of water, this would be "wrong," as it is contrary to the will of god, but these atoms do not posess that ability. god allows them to do no wrong. god allows us to do wrong, and in every choice we make we can go against the will of god. throughout all of our choices in all of our life, even the best of us will inevidably choose against god's will at least a couple of times. therefore, we are all evil sinners.

___________________________________________
As you said, your knowledge of the Bible is limited. The Bible does speak on speeding but not directly. The Bible says Christian are to submit to the authorities and the law as long as you are not contradicting one of God's commands. If the law tells you not to worship God then you disobey it because it contradicts His teachings. But in the case of speeding, we are to obey the law because it does not violate one of God's laws. Theus, the Bible take on speeding is that Christians should not do so because they are to submit to the law. I'm sure there are some grey areas which scriptue is not totally clear upon and we must formulate our view as best we can with the scripture wev'e got. Most of the time scripture is clear or there is a more logical stance to take when formulaing your views regarding an issue not specific in the Bible. I also said 'that God's laws our written on our hearts' implying we can know what it right and wrong, which you in turn said, """you refute your own statement above about how we cannot know what is wrong or right without believing in god."""" There is clearly a misunderstanding here between us. I said we cannot know rights and wrongs absolutley without some God or an overlying truth. I then said that the laws our written on our hearts but because we live in a sin filled world they are a bit distorted. I didn't contradict myself. The first time I said if there was no God or an overlying truth on which we could base our epistemology then we could not know absolute rights and wrongs. They would be subjective, nothing more than opinions or heredity. The part about the law on hearts was speaking from the Christian standpoint that God exists. The laws our written on our hearts and thats why, I, as a Christian, will tell you have have morals and stuff like that, But removing God makes morality hard to rationalize unless you can find another overlying truth. You need to show what you base your epistemology upon.
_____________________________________________


whoa, there, nellie. you strayed WAY away from that question. you seem to forget that humans formulate laws. when formulating the speed limit on a highway, how do we know to make it 55 mph instead of 130? you refer to the knowledge of what is right or wrong in our hearts, but yet our hearts want to be able to hit the gas. only common sense and reasoning (which many times work against god) are able to tell us that 130 is too high and would pose a great risk. so in a christian run world, should the christian do what is in his heart and make the speed limit 130 so that he can enjoy it, or override that feeling with reason and make it a sensible 55?


____________________________________________
So you assume killing a human being is wrong I guess? What makes shooting and killing a living creature that is alive, in a biological sense, any worse than shooting a rock, which cannot die in the biological sense? What makes killing a living thing wrong? You may say, as I think you did, 'killing is bad because we desire to live' but what makes it bad if someone kills you even though you desire to live? How is this bad? On what do you base your epistemolgy on. Is it infinitely wrong to kill a person because with your infinite knowledge you posit it to be infinitely so? I will admit that one definition of bad means unfavorable' and another of the many say 'unpleasant or disturbing.' So I cannot dispute killing being bad in this sense but another defintion, which is a better defintion to use because of what we are talking about says that something that is bad is evil; sinful. Evil can also mean a few things. The most fitting defintion I see for us to use is the one that means morally bad. Evil and morally bad in this case point to sin. A sin is basically an act commited that is against God's will. Evil, according to the Christian world view is not a physical substance like matter. A sword is not evil in its being. Its not composed of quarkes, leptons, and atoms like other things are. I don't think you can draw one of those fenyman diagrams showing how evil interacts in the universe. A gun is not evil in its being. A gun used to shoot someone in the head is not evil. In fact, if it isn't a 'good' shot it won't hit its intended mark. You can't show someone a handful of evil. Evil is in the intent of the human. Its a nonconformity between our will and God's will. Its often said that theres evil in the world and if God created everything He must have created evil. But, using the definition of evil I have given, the proper Christian one, evil is that which disobeys God's will. If God gave us free will He is off the hook for and cannot be said to have created evil in its being. Just creatures with the ability to choose. Sorry for getting off on a tangent there. I tend to chase rabbits sometimes but as I was saying, you may think something is morally bad or this or that is wrong but in order to have absolute morally bad and morally good choices you must find an overlying truth or else morality becomes basically subjective. You need to state how you come to the conclusions that certian things are evil and why things are morally bad.
________________________________________

i am telling you what i believe. each human will come to these conclusions on his own. but as i discuss above, they will all come the more or less the same conclusion. you are right, there is no certainty here. we can even revert to the discussion about "knowing" that something is true. the vast majority of us believe that killing is wrong, not because we have done the math and the equation looks like killing=wrong, but because it is simply what we believe. i think i do a pretty good job of showing you how we can come to a moral consensus based on the common belief that we shouldn't do what others do not desire. again, i can't quantify why that is good and it is bad to do what others do not desire, but i think nearly all people will agree. even those that violate these rights and wrongs generally do not believe what they are doing is right.


____________________________________________
I can't say your logic wasn't good here because it was. But if your initial assumptions are inaccurate then the rest of your argument which is based upon these will be off. I think its pretty clear that there are absolute rights and wrongs just looking at us emotionally but thats just my opinion. Some may feel inclined to disagree. The Christian world view backs up my opinion. Thus if the Christian world view is accurate, as I claim, then there are morally bad and good choices for sure. But you need to state why things that are against our desires are morally bad.
_____________________________________________

again, we simply believe they are. in fact, those who cannot differentiate between right and wrong are labeled insane. who's to say that we aren't all insane and they are right? i don't pretend to discuss right and wrong as absolutes, just beliefs, and i think that's all we need.


_____________________________________________
Selfishness is evil, its a sin according to the Bible. But to add more to this, people who are hooked on drugs didn't one day decide I want to be a drug addict for the rest of my life, this is my lifes goal. These things just happen through bad choices fro some people. Others like that type of life.
______________________________


i wouldn't define a drug addict as evil, but i do think i get your point. no one thinks they are evil. but i think in most cases, people recognize when they do something wrong. to use an old analogy, no rapist thinks rape isn't wrong, they just don't care. but i think in all cases that people ignore the desires of others, it is in favor of their own desires.

____________________________________
I claim knowledge in areas revealed to me in scripture by God. I'm not God, I don't know who is saved and who isn't. If you have accepted Jesus then you are saved. If you blashemy continuosly against the Holy Spirit then you are not saved.
___________________________________________


do you not see the contradiction here? you say you do not know who is saved and who isn't and then go on to tell me who is saved and who isn't. either you know that these are the things that need to be done to attain salvation or you aren't sure what god wants. i would tend to lean towards that latter, because as i said, god is infinite and you are finite. you cannot possibly understand him. even if you wish to stick by the bible as inerrant, at a certain point you have to recognize that it is a finite text and all the answers cannot be there.

____________________________________________
A ten year old child that is killed may not have ever heard much about Jesus. People raised in other religions may not here much about Jesus. We are all accountable to what we know. Some people may have never heard of Jesus. My wording up above may have been slightly less than perfect, but you can read Romans 2 for starters. Verses 11-16 are probably the most relavent here but I'd start from the beginning. Also the last verse of Romans 1 hints at this. And to answer your last question, Christianity pretty much can tell us what God expects from us.
___________________________________


from romans 1:

"20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. "

seems to me that the bible is pretty straightforward on this one. you are expected to know it in the same way that ignorance is no excuse for the law. "i didn't see the sign" won't get you out of a ticket. if you are born in a region without christianity, you should still follow the word of god. this is continued below.

_______________________________________
I did say the answer might came more later than sooner but it will come if you truly seek it. It may not be the right time yet but it will happen if you truly search for the truth with an open mind. My evidence is the inerrant, infallable, word of God. I said there aren't any contradictions. You pointed to a thread thats intent was on pointing out some. I said I have seen those and still maintain that the bible is inerrant. If you think there are contradictions you post them. One at a time though. Don't go to some web site that has '101 Biblical Contradictions' and paste them all here becuse it would take me waaaaayyyy to long to do all that. If you know of a contradiction then post it one at a time and we can dicuss it and see if it is really a contradiction. I'll discuss them one at a time with you. Thats all the time that I have. But I am willing to back up my claim. Show me your first contradiction if you like. Explain why its a contradiction and we can go over it or, to be truthful, I will explain why it isn't ;)
__________________________________


sorry to double team you here, but as i said before, my knowledge of the bible is very limited. i have turned this one over to one of my friends who knows way more on the subject than do i. he should begin posting here shortly.

__________________________________
People should behave the way it is outlined in the bible because it is true. If it weren't true then without some other overlying truth there is no proper way to act. But yes, because it is true, it is the way all should act. Again, read those verses I posted above. The last verse of Romans chapter 1 and Romans 2. It relates to what we are talking about. It talks about the law on our hearts.
__________________________________________


from romans 2:

"13
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
14
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15
since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) "

here's your first contradiction.


from romans 2:

"20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
21
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. "

continued:

"27
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.
28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. "

okay, dude, this is pretty blatent. the first one says "those who obey the law who will be declared righteous" and the second one says "no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law." i don't even have to say anything. i'll just wait for your explaination. by the way, this is all from the NIV.

_____________________________________________
You probably do have more knowledge than me in cosmology. I know a good deal about cosmology for my age. I hope to further my education in that field one day. Astronomy, physics, meteorology, maybe a sytematic theology course. I'm familar with cosmology and things like the standard model, quantum mechanics, physics, relativity, astonomy, and other such things. You can discuss them if you want. And science being compatable with the Genesis account of creation doesn't have much to do with the 'bible being vague.' It has to do with the fact that the author of Genesis wrote (which we are hopefully going to try to prove or disprove) the bible with help from God. The author seems to be describing a vision God showed him of the creative act. God, I'm sure knows how the universe formed if He is in fact the one who made it. As for the Bibles validity, hopefully we will discuss that now.
______________________________________


we will start in on genesis in my next post.

_________________________________________
There are subtle differences. Look at the creation account. The word insects should not be found anywhere in there because clearly the hebrew text does not mention insects in the creation accounts. This is a mistranslation in a few versions of the bible and if the Bible did mention insects where its translatd to have done so then the text would be at odds with the findings of modern science. So yes, there are differences but for the purpose of knowing God and experienceing a personal relationship with Him any translation should do the job. If your looking for the most accurate version for theological study or apologetical reasons then I would suggest the Niv or the Nas.
___________________________________________


somewhere along the way we went from "inerrant" to "any translation should do the job."


___________________________________________
I didn't ignore what you said about 'using the lords name in vain.' I always thought that that meant not swearing falsely by it. The Niv translates that verse as "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name."
__________________________


right, and my original point holds. we need to understand these things in order to understand the bible.

________________________________
Christians sometimes need to understand in issues like this, it is not what can God do, but what did God do. If God created the universe then yes I'm sure somehow he can cover the earth with water but we are not looking at what God can do. We want to know what he did.
__________________________________________


i just realized that your explaination of the noah's ark story is achieved through pointing out a flaw in the translation of the bible. which story do you support, this or the NIV version as inerrant?

_________________________________________
I'll be honest. I can't give you a real good answer for that. If someone else here at the board can then hopefully they will. There seemingly has to be a reason for this. A sparrow will not fall to the earth without the Father's knowledge and permission (Matt. 10:29-31). God is good. God is holy. God knows what He is doing. I can't explain His purpose for every thing. As I said, most christians feel babies go to heaven when they die so an eternity in heaven is probably worth the suffering. I can speculate that maybe this will effect the parents lives somehow or how it might even effect your faith and others who view things like this but I'll just leave this question open. We do have lots of reasons to trust God and we know that He is Holy, if you accept the Bibles teaching. For you to say God is wrong or is doing things improperly for allowing this then you'd be arguing against the source that your ability to reason comes from. Its hard to argue with God and hope to be right. If you are using this to 'disprove God' then you need to reread above about the defintion of evil and tell me upon what you base your epistemplogy on. All in alll, I wonder about questions like this and why God allowed Job to be tested but I have to admit that I don't understand everything.
__________________________________________


i was using this to refute the common conception of god. as i showed above, our mere existence is only because we are apart from god's direct control. god cannot effect such conditions without destroying what makes us human, or our soul.


_____________________________________________
God is the one who institutionalized the death penalty in the first place. Somewhere around Leviticus 18, 19, or 20 is the scripture I am referring to. Whether it is still to be applied today is an issue thats hard to resolve. Arguments for both sides can be presented. I don't want to start another debate about that issue so just remember we are talking about God and the time he wiped out all of mankind. I know, I got off track first and I apologize, but I'll try not to stray so we can try to make real progress here. We are talking about God killing, not human beings killing. In that thread I mentioned a few things about 'casting the first stone.' Aside from what I mentioned, God is without sin, so He can cast the stone ;)
____________________________________________


from Leviticus 19:

"19
"`Keep my decrees. "`Do not mate different kinds of animals. "`Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "`Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. "

continued:

"26
"`Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. "`Do not practice divination or sorcery.
27
"`Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28
"`Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. "

no wonder we are all sinners. we will go to hell for getting a haircut. and i am willing to bet that RIGHT NOW as you read this you are wearing somthing woven of two different materials.


samus

[This message has been edited by samus (edited February 03, 2000).]

truestory,

Nothing motivates me like a zealous Christian. Consider that as an insult if you wish, or as a compliment -- I don't really care. In fact, telling people exactly what I think of them is not something I consider as insulting. I think it's basic honesty. I think it's common courtesy. Respect, even. Anything is better than hiding true opinions behind little white lies, smiling at someone you really want to strangle with your bare hands, telling someone that it's really OK to have their own opinion, even if they just left a burning cross on somebody's front lawn. I think it's safe to assume in any debate that the opponents don't like each other very much when it comes to the point of their contention -- otherwise they wouldn't be debating in the first place. But you should understand that in our case it is not so much personal dislike as it is ideological opposition. My beef is not specifically with you, but the cause you champion with such valiant abandon. Of course, you are free to take it personally any day; far be it from me to deny you your freedoms -- though I'll also keep mine, if you don't mind. Now, on to ideology...

You keep insisting that I had not experienced any great trauma, and therefore do not know what I am talking about. A assume you have, otherwise you would sound a bit hypocritical... Well, perhaps I hadn't been eating much shit in my life. Though I have been repeatedly beaten up and harrassed for being a "Jew" during much of my childhood back in the good old Soviet Union (note: I've never been religious, but my family background is Jewish). Then, in US I've been harrassed and beaten up for what little was left of my childhood, this time for being white in a black neighbourhood. Granted, I haven't been slashed with machetes ever in my life. But I do bear a rather ugly scar across my face and a chipped tooth, reminders of a close encounter with a Jew-bashing piece of blunt metal. I spent most of my pre-school childhood, and some of my early school years, in and between hospitals suffering from a dangerous liver condition (stemming from my mother's prenatal infection with hepatitis.) I was also lead-poisoned to the point of hospitalization once when I was a boy, which will undoubtedly bring me much misery and mental illness much later in life. I have lost family members. I have lost a best friend to cancer, and another to an accident. So even though I have not been born with spina bifida, or had my limbs amputated on a landmine, I have my own little bag of complaints. This doesn't stop me from being satisfied with my life at this moment. And all those experiences did teach me a couple of things. First, I'm not as lucky as some, but not as screwed as some others. Second, some people can be true idiots without suffering from any neurological disorder. And given my opinions (with which you are so familiar), you can take it for what it's worth as far as learning from misery goes. In particular, you can tell that I'm just a totally 100% converted Christian now, can't you? :D



What it seems to come down to is you do not believe that there is anything to be learned from suffering.


Jackpot! My claim is that anything can be learned without suffering just as well (if not much better!) than with it. It's only a matter of wanting and trying to learn. But (as I hoped you would notice by now), I have been pointing out that not everyone even gets a chance to learn. A lot of people just plain die too young to learn anything. Others get caught up in life-long murderous vendettas. Yet others get killed in the course of their suffering. As I said, shit happens, and God doesn't seem to mind. Because if God did care, he woldn't design a universe in which shit happened.



You don't know anyone who has come into their relationship with God through adversity, Boris?


No. Why would I? I don't attend Christian rallies. But I have met quite a few people who actually divorced themselves from a previous relationship with God because of their hardship. So... Your point is...?



You object, criticize, taunt, focus on negativity, deny a higher power than yourself and deny your own soul. Then, supposedly (in a chimp-like way) you feel bad about the suffering of others because (according to you) there is just some insignificant physical process going on in your body which causes you to feel this way. You seem angry that death is a part of life and that some people suffer terribly before they die... and yet, you have NOTHING to offer other than a a chimp-like shrug of the shoulders, "Oh, well... Shit happens." (Good thing for you it's happening to other people, huh, Boris?)


If it makes you feel any better, your feelings are just as chimp-like as mine. In fact, we are all very chimp-like -- all 6 billion of us. So what's this quipping about "insignificance"? Haven't you been taught to be proud of your heritage?

And you are damn right about me being angry about death and suffering. After all, in your estimation, should I be happy about it instead? Take this into account: denial of religion does not equal denial of morality, empathy or hope. Yes, I am indeed capable of the latter three, shockingly, even while being an atheist. And yes, I would indeed have "NOTHING" to offer. Because I wouldn't be able to tell them that God is waiting on the other side. I wouldn't be able to tell them that their child, parent, or sibling is happy in some afterlife. I wouldn't be able to tell them that it's all part of some grand, amazing, beautiful miraculous plan. I wouldn't tell them any of it, because I would be lying. And I respect the dead and dying enough not to bullshit them. I would tell them they'll be missed. I would tell them that they are being felt sorry for, if they wish to hear it. I will tell them that with death, their suffering will truly end. But that's it. And by no means would I tell them that I understand their suffering. Their suffering is theirs alone, and I have no right to pry or pretend to "know". Not even if I had previously gone through a worse suffering myself. I would offer help and support if it's asked for. But there is very little I would find it proper to "tell" them.



If that's all there is, Boris, then why would you be so concerned about what others believe? Why not just consider it part of the "shit" that "happens?"


Why not? Well, perhaps this is the one case where I can do something about it. This is the one arena so far where I can pretend to have tried to make some sort of a difference to make things better.



Instead, you become angry, combative and behave nastily towards people who do not believe the way that you do... Those who do not deny their souls, who do not deny God and who do not deny their reasoning (unlike chimps) which enables them to understand and explain the relationship between God and man. As if this somehow is an insult to those who suffer at the hands of other human beings who have no concept of the love of God?


To deny something, it must first exist. As it stands, I'd say I am stating the obvious. And ability to reason indeed is the one main difference between us and chimps. Which makes it especially appalling when people choose to misplace that ability to such a degree that they choose religion in the modern world. Chimp-like indeed. "Understand and explain"? You make a mockery of those two words. Especially within Judaic doctrine, no "man" can claim to 'understand' God, much less 'explain' it. But even that's beside the point, because nobody on this board professes what I would call an "understanding" of their own religious beliefs or experiences. Guesswork, perhaps. Attempts to rationalize, maybe. Twisted logic, contradictory beliefs, wordplay and and endless interpretation/reinterpretation/misinterpretation. Definitely not "understanding".

And where did you get the silly idea that people who understand the "love of God" don't perpetrate atrocities? I'll challenge you to a duel, by slapping you on the left cheek with the Spanish Inquisition, and on the right cheek with the Crusades and the Conquests of the Holy Roman Empire. Maybe that'll bring you to your senses. And if not, then you ought to consider the Christian vs. Muslim clashes in Indonesia and the Balkans. Or the holy wars and suicide bombings of religious fanatics.

But what I would find not only insulting, but downright disgusting and reprehensible -- is somebody trying to preach to someone in adversity. After all, if you are so high and holy, why don't you just trade places? And if you are trying to preach to a dying person, you are filling the last fleeting moments of their life with your crap. Disrespectful at the very least.



Is it your goal to try and convince others that our reasoning capabilities mean absolutely nothing (unless, of course, we believe what you do), that there is no such thing as a soul, that there is nothing beyond the physical realm, that we should all, like you, just "wish" that we could live forever and all become chimp-like in our approach to living?


Whenever did I claim that "our reasoning capabilities mean absolutely nothing"? In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I just wish you'd use them. Also, I do not claim that "there is nothing beyond the physical realm" -- because I haven't been there and wouldn't know. But you can be very sure that "there is no such thing as a soul". There, I've been long enough to know. And would you clarify to me, please, in what way my approach to living is "chimp-like", and yours isn't?



a feeble attempt to convince someone else on exosci that if God exists then God must be causing the evil), not acknowledging the reasoning capabilities and culpability of mankind, and reconciling it with a shrug of our shoulders because "shit happens?"


Sorry, I must be having one of those days. Because for the life of me, I can't recall when I ever tried to "convince someone on exosci that ... God must be causing the evil." I think it's glaringly obvious that a lot of the evil is caused by us, and a lot of evil is caused simply by the fact that shit happens. The world indeed runs itself, both at the physical and human levels. But what I do imply is that God would be a "monster", as someone here aptly put it before (sorry, don't remember who) -- for creating such a universe in which shit can happen in the first place. If I were a parent, I wouldn't leave my infant alone in a room full of powertools. And if I did, I would directly bear blame for any harm that results, since I was the one who created the dangerous situation to begin with. In fact, in such a case, if my mistake was deliberate and not accidental, I could with good justification be called a "monster". I think it would be called "criminal neglect."



Suppose you WERE actually able to convince everyone that life is just a temporary matter of "shit happening" and then we die. Then what, Boris?


That would be the day! What would happen then, True, is that the world would be a saner place. And I would be very satisfied to have helped make it so. And then I might find some other hopeless cause to pursue. ;)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 05, 2000).]

Boris,

Thanks for sharing some of your personal suffering. I'm sorry that you have not learned anything more from it.

This discussion has turned to nonsense and I am taking the sane approach to end my participation in it now for many reasons, a few of which follow:

First, I am not going to continue in a discussion with someone who believes that calling another person derogatory names (such as "village idiot" to use just one example) is a courteous, respectful and acceptable form of debate. Doing it says one thing, Boris. Defending such behavior is quite a different story... kind of like your burning cross example...


In fact, telling people exactly what I think of them is not something I consider as insulting. I think it's basic honesty. I think it's common courtesy. Respect, even.

Second, I am not going to continue in a discussion with someone who it seems cannot even remember what they say from one day to the next despite the fact that their words are posted right here for their review. Quite frankly, I don't have the time or desire to continue to go back and do someone else's homework for them. I will post one last example to support my position, however:


posted by truestory:

As far as "necessary" evil goes, no, I don't conceive this type of evil as "necessary"... hopefully, everyone will come to their senses one day and learn to live in right relationships through love as Jesus Christ taught us...


originally posted by Boris:

If God designed the universe with an express capability for such evil written into it, then God must have deemed it "necessary".


subsequently posted by Boris:

I can't recall when I ever tried to "convince someone on exosci that ... [if God exists] God must be causing the evil."

Lastly, I am not going to continue in a discussion with someone who does not seem to have the ability to interpret (or honesty of intentions?) needed to present what someone else has posted in an accurate manner. For example:


You keep insisting that I had not experienced any great trauma, and therefore do not know what I am talking about.

I'm not going to do your homework for you Boris, so go back and read again... you will "learn" that I asked a question, you did not respond, and I asked again to clarify - I did not "keep insisting" that you did not have such experiences.

Respectfully yours in sanity,

truestory


[This message has been edited by truestory (edited February 05, 2000).]

truestory,

(or whoever else, since truestory is apparently not coming back...)



First, I am not going to continue in a discussion with someone who believes that calling another person derogatory names (such as "village idiot" to use just one example) is a courteous, respectful and acceptable form of debate.


The "village idiot" remark was directed at a blunt misrepresentation of my statements, and was not even a part of this particular discussion. Besides, in case you are not familiar with that idiom, "playing the village idiot" means pretending ignorance or inanity in order to avoid an unpleasant situation or issue. In your particular case, the remark was directed at a blunt misrepresentation of my statements.



Second, I am not going to continue in a discussion with someone who it seems cannot even remember what they say from one day to the next despite the fact that their words are posted right here for their review. Quite frankly, I don't have the time or desire to continue to go back and do someone else's homework for them. I will post one last example to support my position, however:


Ok, let's see what it is that I can't remember:



posted by truestory:
As far as "necessary" evil goes, no, I don't conceive this type of evil as "necessary"...hopefully, everyone will come to their senses one day and learn to live in right relationships through love as Jesus Christ taught us...

originally posted by Boris:
If God designed the universe with an express capability for such evil written into it, then God must have deemed it "necessary".

subsequently posted by Boris:
I can't recall when I ever tried to "convince someone on exosci that ... [if God exists] God must be causing the evil."


And... where is it that I am contradicting myself? I thought "causing evil" is quite different from making evil possible, and then sitting back and watching it happen. In legalese, whilst the first may be "murder", the other would be "accessory to murder", or perhaps "conspiracy for murder". Very different things, though neither of them pleasant. Do you happen to disagree?



Lastly, I am not going to continue in a discussion with someone who does not seem to have the ability to interpret (or honesty of intentions?) needed to present what someone else has posted in an accurate manner. For example:

quote:
You keep insisting that I had not experienced any great trauma, and therefore do not know what I am talking about.


All right, how about I do your homework for you this time?



I actually thought you might have become aware of something positive that you might be able to share with those people... My mistake.



You would be surprised what some people learn from extremely adverse conditions.



Have you ever experienced extremely adverse conditions in your life, Boris? If so, I am sure there was something good that you learned from it. If you have never experienced such hardship, you are one of the lucky ones for sure, because you DO get to learn from the experiences of others (and it actually sounds like you are, in a way). Hopefully, you will eventually be able to understand God's message through the experiences of others (without having to experience such relative hardship yourself).



It looks like you are becoming empowered to shun some evil, even if it is at the unfortunate expense of others, Boris. ... Now, all you have to do is understand the rest of the equation, for yourself.



Is that you, Boris? Is that the extent of hardship or adversity in your life? Have you ever had to fight for your life, Boris? Or, more imporantly, have you ever had to fight to save the life of another human being? Have you ever come face-to-face, personally, with pure evil?

Considering the adversity of others, I indicated that you might be surprised at what people learn through adversity...


And thus, truestory makes yet another attempt at a graceful exit from a hopeless situation she got herself into. Nice try.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

And to add yet more fuel to the fire:

Arguably a lot of evil is caused by humans. And in general, perhaps lessons can be learned from misery sometimes. But not always! It seems that there exist varieties of misery which are just plain pointless!

As a case in point, consider disease. What can people learn from having sickle cell anemia, or rheumatoid arthritis, or diabetes, or Alzheimer's disease? What do autistics learn from their condition? What about schizophrenics? What do we learn from having flu every year? What did people learn from bubonic plague epidemics? Why did native Americans have to be scourged by smallpox? What's the point in AIDS?

Why should God create a humankind succeptible to disease? Why should God tolerate disease in its universe in the first place? How can that be reconciled with an "all-loving" Creator?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

hi everyone. my name is tom and i am a friend of samus. he has asked me to enter into your discussion because he feels that my knowledge of the bible may add to the quality of your discussions. i'm not going to pick up the whole thread here, because god knows that would take days, but i have made a few comments where i thought they were relevant. oh, one last thing. call me jigga.


And what do you mean by 'know for sure?' The problems we will most likely run into here are what does it mean to 'prove' God exists and we will also have to distinguish between to type of propositions (semitic and analytical). By proving God's existence I mean verifying that the Bible is inerrant. and the author of it predicted the future with a startling degree of accuracy (100%, well, it will be anyways

ok, i feel like i have to jump in here because this is really misleading. the problem is that the people who wrote the new testament had been reading the old testament their whole lives. they knew all about isaiah, jeremiah, daniel, etc. and then used this knowledge to construct the story of jesus. see, they already believed that jesus was the messiah, so in the decades following his death they began to look for ways to connect him to the scriptures talking about the coming messiah. unfortunately, since we don't really have any unbiased, objective observers of jesus' life, we'll probably never know how much of the gospels is factually accurate.

_____________________________________
As you said, your knowledge of the Bible is limited. The Bible does speak on speeding but not directly. The Bible says Christian are to submit to the authorities and the law as long as you are not contradicting one of God's commands. If the law tells you not to worship God then you disobey it because it contradicts His teachings. But in the case of speeding, we are to obey the law because it does not violate one of God's laws. Theus, the Bible take on speeding is that Christians should not do so because they are to submit to the law. I'm sure there are some grey areas which scriptue is not totally clear upon and we must formulate our view as best we can with the scripture wev'e got. Most of the time scripture is clear or there is a more logical stance to take when formulaing your views regarding an issue not specific in the Bible.

what about the times when the bible is quite specific and yet we still reject it? the quotes that samus provided at the end are good examples. the new testament is not free of this either. for instance, what about the message of the book of philemon? should we have regarded slavery as part of the natural order and submitted to it as well? paul seems to think so.


I did say the answer might came more later than sooner but it will come if you truly seek it. It may not be the right time yet but it will happen if you truly search for the truth with an open mind. My evidence is the inerrant, infallable, word of God. I said there aren't any contradictions. You pointed to a thread thats intent was on pointing out some. I said I have seen those and still maintain that the bible is inerrant. If you think there are contradictions you post them. One at a time though. Don't go to some web site that has '101 Biblical Contradictions' and paste them all here becuse it would take me waaaaayyyy to long to do all that. If you know of a contradiction then post it one at a time and we can dicuss it and see if it is really a contradiction. I'll discuss them one at a time with you. Thats all the time that I have. But I am willing to back up my claim. Show me your first contradiction if you like. Explain why its a contradiction and we can go over it or, to be truthful, I will explain why it isn't ;)

well, the issue with me isn't so much that the bible is contradictory, but rather that it simply wasn't meant to be taken literally. the problem here is that i don't know how much of a literalist you are. do you honestly think that the bible is scientifically accurate? you seem intelligent, so i'm hoping the answer here is no. i think that claim can be fairly easily dismissed. the hard part comes when we try to determine precisely which parts of the bible to take literally and which not. for example, in his ascension, where did jesus go? as people of the 21st century we know that heaven isn't just above the sky like first century jews did. or how about the book of the revelation? is that all literal or can we regard it as symbolic/figurative language? there is a great deal of disagreement among scholars when it comes to what parts of the bible to read literally and which parts not to. but almost no one believes that it is all literal.

And science being compatable with the Genesis account of creation doesn't have much to do with the 'bible being vague.' It has to do with the fact that the author of Genesis wrote (which we are hopefully going to try to prove or disprove) the bible with help from God. The author seems to be describing a vision God showed him of the creative act. God, I'm sure knows how the universe formed if He is in fact the one who made it. As for the Bibles validity, hopefully we will discuss that now.

well, the first question that has to be asked here is "which creation account?" since there are two, are we to assume that the author had two visions? or can we reasonably assume that these parts of genesis came from a different author. much of the biblical scholarship focused on genesis centers around this idea that it has multiple authors each with their own style and way of thinking about god.
i just realized that your explaination of the noah's ark story is achieved through pointing out a flaw in the translation of the bible. which story do you support, this or the NIV version as inerrant?

what interests me most about the flood story is not whether the story has been translated accurately from the hebrew, but what the story says about the hebrew conception of god. see, nearly all mesopotamian cultures have a flood story similar to the one in genesis. for an easy to read one, check out the epic of gilgamesh. but it is how the story changes in the hands of the genesis author, i.e. how yahweh is different from the gods in the other stories, that is the most fertile area of inquiry.