[quote]agshag wrote:
If I may, one more question along the same lines. Are you familiar with the term “the Watcher?” It is essentially the part of you that is not your body and not your mind. It is the part of you that can actually sit and watch your mind work. Try it and you will see what I am talking about. Simply take a few minutes to observe your thoughts. OK, so who is doing the observing?[/quote]
I would call this consciousness or perhaps my conscience. It is something substantial, but in reality isn’t it just a feedback loop (a subconscious pathway to make us consciously aware of our thoughts and actions)? The self aware part of my brain seems to reserve judgement, while it is my conscious mind that interprets the inputs from my self awareness as being either good or bad, etc.
I would say that the conscious judgements that I make about my own actions, as reported by the “watcher,” have been, for lack of a better word, programmed through the things I have learned during the course of my life.
However, I recognize that you are likely building to a particular point that you would like to present. I am anxious to read it.
[quote]pookie wrote:
futuredave wrote:
And then Moses was stepped on by a brontasaurus.
The End.
Man, that was hilarious.
They should hire you to do a full rewrite.[/quote]
Well, my agent talked to them about that. Problem is, God has gained a lot of weight since the first draft, plus now he wants to do his own stunts and the insurance company won’t cover it.
The same way John Goodman’s career ended. But then He’s omniscient, so you can’t tell Him anything.
[quote]haney wrote:
pookie wrote:
Well a perfect Being should be capable of perfect forgiveness, right? But still, it’s all His creation. If God had wanted a sin free world, He could’ve made it that way.
True; however theology doesn’t hold that he is capable of sustaining a perfect/sinless world.
[/quote]
So, he’s not capable? Hmmm… So he’s all-powerful and omniscient when it helps your argument, and then he’s unable to tie his own shoes when his omniscience just doesn’t cut it. I’m beginning to understand.
Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. mentions Jesus on two occasions in his Jewish Antiquities. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one “James” by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”{
This is also noteworthy because a recent dig has found the grave of this James in which his headstone read the same thing.
[/quote]
I also agree that Jesus was in fact a historical figure, but what I believe what you are referring to, the finding of James’ Ossuary, is widely believed to be a fake. There have been several articles written about it. One piece of evidence shows that James was too poor at the time of his death to afford an ossuary (a “bone box”). There are also significant anachronisms with the language written on the ossuary.
More in depth examinations that attempted to date sediment found on the box did not place the box as being 2000 years old. The examinations also found evidence of an artificial aging process.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
haney wrote:
pookie wrote:
Well a perfect Being should be capable of perfect forgiveness, right? But still, it’s all His creation. If God had wanted a sin free world, He could’ve made it that way.
True; however theology doesn’t hold that he is capable of sustaining a perfect/sinless world.
So, he’s not capable? Hmmm… So he’s all-powerful and omniscient when it helps your argument, and then he’s unable to tie his own shoes when his omniscience just doesn’t cut it. I’m beginning to understand.
[/quote]
Conjecture->God made the wave function which includes all possibilities-sinless and sinful. We just move into the particular collapsed state that our actions lead us to.
Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. mentions Jesus on two occasions in his Jewish Antiquities. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one “James” by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”{
This is also noteworthy because a recent dig has found the grave of this James in which his headstone read the same thing.
I also agree that Jesus was in fact a historical figure, but what I believe what you are referring to, the finding of James’ Ossuary, is widely believed to be a fake. There have been several articles written about it. One piece of evidence shows that James was too poor at the time of his death to afford an ossuary (a “bone box”). There are also significant anachronisms with the language written on the ossuary.
More in depth examinations that attempted to date sediment found on the box did not place the box as being 2000 years old. The examinations also found evidence of an artificial aging process.
Todd[/quote]
Thanks, I agree it may be a fraud, although James was the head of the early Christian church in Jerusalem, the first Bishop (Episopi=Overseer of a city or high priest of a city) in the Christian record. As the leader of so many, he might not have had to buy his own Ossuary.
Its also interesting that we know enough about James to suggest that he died dirt poor, around what 40 AD and yet there are people who doubt the historicity of Jesus.
[quote]mfurci wrote:
FightingIrish26 needs to brush up on his or her history. The Holocaust was perpetrated by nazis who beleived in mysticism and the paranormal. Hitler was the center peice of there beliefs. Dictators do not allow freedom of religion and have killed 10’s of millions; ie, Josef Stalin had an anti-religion campagne and killed more than 20 million Russians. And most genosides are most certainly done with the absence of religion, athough a few have been performed in the name of it.
Throughout history the nonreligious have done much more harm than those beleiving in a higher power. Next time research bfore you write. That goes for most who have responded.[/quote]
Like those non-believers of the Crusades? Or the non-believers who orchestrated the 40 Years War, and the Spanish Inquisition, and the 100 Years War, and the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I, and the American Civil War, and the French Revolution, and the Japan’s actions within China, and Muslim attacks on Armenians, and… do I really need to go on? You would actually have a difficult time naming a significant number wars that were fought by professed non-believers.
Anyway, there are well documented connections between the Nazi party and the Catholic Church (with the very notable exception of Dietrich Bonhoffer). The Nazis were certainly into mysticism also, but the claim that they were somehow not largely composed of and connected to Christians is not supported by the facts.
[quote]On the contrary, I find that many of God’s “laws” or “commandments” appear to be more primitive and cruel than what is commonly acceptable in today’s society.
There are many examples of large numbers of people being killed or damned or being submitted to hardship just because they belong to some group; not thru any fault of each individual. [/quote]
As you go back in time, it seems that the thinking of humankind becomes more harsh and inflexible.
I do not mean this in a religious sense.
Even today, it is very easy to fall into the line of thinking that whatever it is you have been doing for some period of time is “right”.
What we eat as we are growing up is “right”. What we believe and base our decisions on is “right”. It seems to be hardwired into us to equate the concept of “right” with that which we do without repurcussions for long period of time.
It makes sense to me that we are outgrowing the cruel and out of touch passages contained in the bible. They were written by men at that time. Surely their thinking was very different than ours today.
Unfortunately, any fundamentalist interpretation of the popular religions appears to stand in the way of our advancement, again and again and again.
It is so easy for us now to accept what was once heresy, such as the world being round or not at the center of the universe, or perhaps that women need not be treated as second class people.
Religion would appear to be a good way of uniting groups of humanity, of coming up with easy to manage codes of behavior, that would make life easier during the times, or overturn an authority of the times. We have to remember that the world was so incredibly different than we can easily comprehend, to those that lived at the time.
Perhaps we are simply starting to outgrow it? Perhaps the realities of the world demand that we outgrow it?
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
haney wrote:
pookie wrote:
Well a perfect Being should be capable of perfect forgiveness, right? But still, it’s all His creation. If God had wanted a sin free world, He could’ve made it that way.
True; however theology doesn’t hold that he is capable of sustaining a perfect/sinless world.
So, he’s not capable? Hmmm… So he’s all-powerful and omniscient when it helps your argument, and then he’s unable to tie his own shoes when his omniscience just doesn’t cut it. I’m beginning to understand.
[/quote]
well it would only stand to reason that because of Free will He wouldn’t be able to. For example why is Lucifer was able to fall and take 1/3 of the angels with them? Perfect beings that gave up “their former glory”.
I am merely giving you the theology.
You can find it silly, interesting, philosophical, or anything else.
Maybe capable is a poor choice of words on my part. I should rephrase it to “He isn’t capable to sustain it when free will is allowed”.
Are you really trying to assert that Chrisitanity is responsible for the Nazi’s actions? That is ridiculous. Its influence if any pales in comparison to other influences and Hitler’s warped worldview that melded them together? Are you just trying to agitate? There have been plenty of real atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christianity. But even there you can’t really blame the relgion. You have to blame the corrupt, Godless, power-hungry men who purported to be men of God and good people. If it hadn’t been religion there would’ve been some other instrumentality they used to seize power.
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
mfurci wrote:
FightingIrish26 needs to brush up on his or her history. The Holocaust was perpetrated by nazis who beleived in mysticism and the paranormal. Hitler was the center peice of there beliefs. Dictators do not allow freedom of religion and have killed 10’s of millions; ie, Josef Stalin had an anti-religion campagne and killed more than 20 million Russians. And most genosides are most certainly done with the absence of religion, athough a few have been performed in the name of it.
Throughout history the nonreligious have done much more harm than those beleiving in a higher power. Next time research bfore you write. That goes for most who have responded.
Like those non-believers of the Crusades? Or the non-believers who orchestrated the 40 Years War, and the Spanish Inquisition, and the 100 Years War, and the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I, and the American Civil War, and the French Revolution, and the Japan’s actions within China, and Muslim attacks on Armenians, and… do I really need to go on? You would actually have a difficult time naming a significant number wars that were fought by professed non-believers.
Anyway, there are well documented connections between the Nazi party and the Catholic Church (with the very notable exception of Dietrich Bonhoffer). The Nazis were certainly into mysticism also, but the claim that they were somehow not largely composed of and connected to Christians is not supported by the facts.
Todd[/quote]
I agree mostly. Given the fact that political leadership until the 20th century was in most cases legitimised by some form of divine blessing, it’s hard to find a conflict that did not have fervent support of some organised religion.
That doesn’t make religions not worthy of existance, but it relativises claims for moral leadership IMO.
Some further sources & comments:
Bonhoeffer was not a catholic, he was lutheran.
His “Bekennende Kirche” movement was a counter-movement to the nazi “Deutsche Christen”.
Find here a source, how quickly the Vatican bowed to Hitler:
“[…]In the Concordat, the German government achieved controls over the traditional autonomy of the church by requiring an oath of Allegiance and its priests to be Germans and subject to German superiors. The Church’s independance was further crucially weakened by complete proscription of all clerical interference in the political field (articles 16 and 32). Restrictions were also placed on the Catholic organisations. The negotiation effected the dissolution of the long-standing and constitutionally inclined Centre Party. The Nazi government succeeded in silencing all their Catholic critics and in allaying popular distrust in its anti-church NSDAP manifesto[…]”
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Are you really trying to assert that Chrisitanity is responsible for the Nazi’s actions? That is ridiculous. Its influence if any pales in comparison to other influences and Hitler’s warped worldview that melded them together? Are you just trying to agitate? There have been plenty of real atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christianity. But even there you can’t really blame the relgion. You have to blame the corrupt, Godless, power-hungry men who purported to be men of God and good people. If it hadn’t been religion there would’ve been some other instrumentality they used to seize power.[/quote]
I don’t exactly think whom you are referring to, but I would like to offer my view on this: I agree with you that you can’t normally blame the religion itself for the atrocities committed in it’s name. But you can and have to blame it’s supporters and the organisations representing it.
For example, in the 3rd Reich, the churches - representing christianity - pretty much bowed to the nazi government, and pretty much everyone who voted for them and let them into government were christian. On the other hand some of the most influencial critics of the system were priests (both protestant and catholic). But the two big religious organisations themselves pretty much caved in and contributed to (not caused) the nazi regime.
I would argue that it makes sense to be sceptical of claims for moral leadership by any (religious) organisation, as corruption and hunger for power will inevitably compromise the moral values of the faith.
After 9 11 one of the wives of a person who was on the plane that fought back stated that god put him on there to fight these bad people who wanted to crash the plane.
why couldn’t god do something like give a hijacker a heart attack, rather than kill all of those nice people.
[quote]haney wrote:
True; however theology doesn’t hold that he is capable of sustaining a perfect/sinless world.[/quote]
So there is something that is impossible for God?
God cannot create beings that have free will and will remain sinless?
We know such a being is possible, since God would be an example of it. God in sinless and has free will, right?
The problem with that argument is that it diminishes God. Once you have something that is impossible for God, people will look for other things that are also impossible for God.
Eventually, you’ll have people suggesting a being greater than God who’s greater by not having the limitations of God. Ergo, that Being is probably God’s Creator and we should cut out the middleman and worship that Being instead.
So we’re back to the start, worshipping an all-powerful God to whom nothing is impossible.
If nothing is impossible to God, then this world He made with fallen men, sin, etc. He made this way because that’s how He wanted it.
The creation story where God makes Adam and Eve the perfect pinnacles of Creation; but then sees them fall shows a God that just made a mistake. His Creations were not perfect after all. It then gets worse as everyone involved gets blamed and punished, except for the responsible party… God.
That’s why I view religion as man-made stories passed down from ancient, primitive men. There are simply too many irreconcilable discrepancies in the stories and the theology.
Yes, and that fact has been used to “keep women in their place” for thousands of years.
Any concept I can entertain of a perfect, loving and most importantly Just God, can’t be reconciled with him wishing for half of the population to be treated as a creation from a leftover.
But if you see it as a man-made invention, created at the time of patriarchal societies, then it follows that we’d have a patriarchal God and that men would get all the starring roles. This version fits all the facts.
By the way, how many Christians still believe men have one rib less than women do?
Is it really free will? If God knows beforehand all you will do, all you will decide, are you really free?
From the moment your dad’s spermatozoa enters your mom’s ovum, God knows your ultimate fate; whether you’ll end up in Heaven or Hell.
So, what freedom have you left? Whatever you do, you can’t “surprise” God or prove him wrong, can you?
We could start by defining God and his attributes, since He’s the focus right now. Once we have a definition for what is required of God, the we can compare the definition to what the Bible teaches about God. Discrepancies between the definition and the Bible might indicate you’ve have the wrong religion.
(But don’t feel bad, they’re all wrong.)
Any chance we’ll be able to find the physical component of Sin in our Genetic code and remove it then?
I’m not familiar with theology on this point… I can’t remember reading anywhere that sin has an actual physical component.
It’d be pretty cool. Can you imagine a biology class in 2050, looking at “the Sin gene” under an electronic microscope?
I think we better leave the animals out of the discussion for now; I was mainly interested about what God likes about burning goat flesh…
But if one did repent in the afterlife, would one then be forgiven and accepted by God?
This will never fly. You could then live this life sinning all the way, and then, when you get proof of God, repent and go to Heaven. Get your cake and eat it too.
Christian theology, as I understand it, holds that this life is God’s test for us. Death is the final exam and you live with the result ever after.
That might be because the interpretation is becoming much to complicated. Trying to reconcile the Bible with scientific facts just doesn’t work. One of the two fields has to be wrong, and it ain’t science. So people shrug off science, shut their minds to it; and go back the the literal Bible. It’s a lot easier and simpler that way.
[quote]vroom wrote:
As you go back in time, it seems that the thinking of humankind becomes more harsh and inflexible.[/quote]
Are you familiar with modern day Republicans?
Everyone always rationalizes whatever he does as being the right thing. During prohibition, Al Capone saw himself as a great benefactor providing men with the alcohol they wanted.
[quote]What we eat as we are growing up is “right”. What we believe and base our decisions on is “right”. It seems to be hardwired into us to equate the concept of “right” with that which we do without repercussions for long period of time.
It makes sense to me that we are outgrowing the cruel and out of touch passages contained in the bible. They were written by men at that time. Surely their thinking was very different than ours today.[/quote]
That works for you because you see the Bible as and old man made document.
For people who see it as the literal Word of God, you can’t “outgrow” the Bible. From their point of view, when society drifts away from biblical teaching, it is society that’s going the wrong way.
Of course. Religious dogma is not open to revision and progress; and that’s a big problem. You can’t “correct” God’s word, obviously, since God can’t make mistakes in the first place. If He does, then he’s no God at all and we can all go home and concentrate on the important stuff.
The scientific method is a much better way of learning the “truth” of the world. The problem on that sides comes from people looking for moral teachings from science. There aren’t any.
For some reason, it appears that most people don’t believe man is capable of establish laws and ethical codes of conducts for a just an equitable society. They need “absolutes.” Absolute Truth from God; embodied “Evil” that explains away terrible events and dictators.
It seems that the more people have faith in God, the less they have in men.
The world’s history is a long succession of “us” against “them”; tribes, villages, nations fighting for resources. At one time, religion was a useful tool for making a large “us”. That distant village was filled with strangers, but they all worshipped the same God you did, so they were “the Good Guys”
Sadly, that’s still going on today.
Hopefully. Thought I think we still have quite a long way to go.
[quote]miniross wrote:
After 9 11 one of the wives of a person who was on the plane that fought back stated that god put him on there to fight these bad people who wanted to crash the plane.
why couldn’t god do something like give a hijacker a heart attack, rather than kill all of those nice people.
That really takes the biscuit.[/quote]
If the 19 hijackers had had simultaneous heart attacks, you’d have a hard time discounting God, now wouldn’t you?
Dick Cheney has a quite a few of them, though. Do you think each time he survives God says “Damn, The Dark Side is strong in this one!”
I would call this consciousness or perhaps my conscience. It is something substantial, but in reality isn’t it just a feedback loop (a subconscious pathway to make us consciously aware of our thoughts and actions)? The self aware part of my brain seems to reserve judgement, while it is my conscious mind that interprets the inputs from my self awareness as being either good or bad, etc.
I would say that the conscious judgements that I make about my own actions, as reported by the “watcher,” have been, for lack of a better word, programmed through the things I have learned during the course of my life.
However, I recognize that you are likely building to a particular point that you would like to present. I am anxious to read it.
Todd[/quote]
OK so you recognize this “other” self that I was talking about, right?
I disagree however with you on one point. This watcher is simply a watcher. It does not make any judgment on what is. The minute you make a judgment you have moved from this other self into the calculative mind. Therefore this other self is not conditioned in any way. It simply IS.
Interestingly enough (and so many times overlooked in the Judeo-Christian tradition) when Moses asks God who He is, He replies “I AM”. (Pookie…you have not idea how right you were in your answer to my question.) In other words pure being itself.
You can call this other self anything you want based on your background, but it is your connection to right now or in other words your connection to being itself. As you get to know this (I’ll call it your True Self) true self better, you will come to experience God better.
It is as if God is hidden in plain sight. . Like St. Catherine of Genoa: she ran through the streets of Genoa, Italy saying “My deepest me is God! My deepest me is God”
While most people thought her a quack and a fool, I think it is an incredible insight.
The problem I see with Atheism is that they are trying to know God when God is only something that can be experienced. They see God as A being instead of Being itself.
I must admit, 95% of so called religious see it the same way. The Atheists are attempting to answer the questions they have, while the religious simply leave the answer to God. There is a middle ground.
Everything should be questioned and searched for until you reach the seeming contradiction. It is at those contradictions that true spirituality begins.
On this point every single organized religion agrees 100% and this is where I feel they all get it right.
Now I know a lot of you are going to dismiss this as a load of spiritual crap, but for the more open minded ones try watching your mind for the next few days. If you are interested in learning more about this, PM me and I will be happy to recommend numerous books on the topic that are going to describe this much better than my clumsy attempt here.
To my Atheist brothers and sisters I want to again thank you. I was in the book store yesterday and came across a book titled “The Faith of the Atheist” Thanks to you I could not resist buying it to learn more about where all of you are coming from.
Why is it that everyone assumes that dying is the worst thing that can happen to you?
[quote]pookie wrote:
miniross wrote:
After 9 11 one of the wives of a person who was on the plane that fought back stated that god put him on there to fight these bad people who wanted to crash the plane.
why couldn’t god do something like give a hijacker a heart attack, rather than kill all of those nice people.
That really takes the biscuit.
If the 19 hijackers had had simultaneous heart attacks, you’d have a hard time discounting God, now wouldn’t you?
Dick Cheney has a quite a few of them, though. Do you think each time he survives God says “Damn, The Dark Side is strong in this one!”[/quote]
[quote]agshag wrote:
OK so you recognize this “other” self that I was talking about, right?[/quote]
No.
Well it was the only way to answer, as I don’t “feel” a separate presence in my mind.
Are you familiar with schizophrenia?
Great. I’ll call it “Bull.”
[quote]Like St. Catherine of Genoa: she ran through the streets of Genoa, Italy saying “My deepest me is God! My deepest me is God”
While most people thought her a quack and a fool, I think it is an incredible insight.[/quote]
I think most people had it right.
Those are just word games. You can’t convince someone of God’s existence, so you fall back on “having to ‘feel’ Him.”
I don’t feel Him either.
Either there is a God, or there isn’t. What middle ground can there be?
Again, word games. When I reach a logical contradiction I conclude that either the initial premises were wrong, or that there is a mistake somewhere along the process that took me from the initial premises to the conclusion.
Have you considered the possibility that they all get it wrong?
An open mind is a good thing. A mind so open that your brain falls out is not.
