Choir, preaching, to, the 
I didn’t mention anything in depth about my beliefs. Apart from that thing about Blakean Christian Atheism earlier on.
Also, backwards-looking is not a comment on morality…
Forgive me if I don’t read all the previous posts before chiming in. Not only do I believe but I find it really hard to understand the point of view that we are here by accident. It would actually take much more faith to believethat lightning struck some pond scum and ultimately an ordered ecosystem coming from it. Lightning generally blasts shit apart rather than puts it together. Not to mention that whole life thing. Those darn evolutionists are really reaching to believe that. I guess we’ll all find out sooner or later. Whose side would you rather be on? If I’m wrong we’re in the same boat. If they’re wrong they’re up the creek.
[quote]gregbrock wrote:
If they’re wrong they’re up the creek.[/quote]
Faith cannot be taken on and off like a fur coat; if Christian doctrine be correct, it is through God’s beneficence alone that we receive revelation and Salvation. Without His divine intervention, we would indeed be lost.
The absence of faith is not, necessarily, the matter of intentional ignorance the faithful often make it out to be. It is often the end state after years of fruitless searching and seeking to be granted the same surety that the faithful so often profess.
[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
Your response creates a “strawman” argument. It is not a question of either/or with relation to being a “good guy” who isn’t a follower of Christ OR a poser who claims to be. [/quote]
There’s no straw man. People keep misreading my answer as applying to everyone. I was simply talking about my personal feelings on the matter. I was NOT saying that the two only possible situations were honest atheists and deceitful believers. I clarified it once a bit later, and once again now.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
The absence of faith is not, necessarily, the matter of intentional ignorance the faithful often make it out to be. It is often the end state after years of fruitless searching and seeking to be granted the same surety that the faithful so often profess.[/quote]
Very well said.
Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman’s back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.
[quote]CHILIBOY13 wrote:
Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman’s back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.
[/quote]
Nice Bull Durham quote. Probably the best lines of the movie.
No.
DH, I’ve enjoyed your careful and thorough answers on this page, but you pick up a dangerous sword in accusing scientists of deifying human interpretation. Isn’t this precisely what all believers in Supreme Beings have been doing for time immemorial?
Entirely leaving aside every spiritual faith alternative to Christianity in human civilization (100% of believers pre-Christ and two thirds or more post Christ, which is a huge step to take in and of itself, Christianity itself has hardly provided a unified vision.
Christian morality has changed and evolved drastically and constantly over its 2,000 year history. To give one small example, in the 1200s the Crusading doctrine was embraced by a majority of Western Christians, who saw killing a non-believer in the Holy land as not only morally correct, but a path to remission of sins. Would even 1% of modern Christians agree? Would they see this as a sure way of pleasing God? Most Christians I talk to defend the New Testament as valid because the Council of Nicaea in which its texts were accepted and many others rejected in A.D. 325 was Divinely Inspired. Two further Ecumenical councils of similar prestige and importance convened on the issue of Icons in worship for instance, one rejecting them as unholy and one upholding them as necessary. Most modern American Christians entirely neglect Icons out of indifference-- is God now indifferent? Did God change His mind earlier? These are very small examples in an endless field of them. Human interpretation has been essential to spiritual belief from the beginning-- I have only been able to conclude that this therefore destroys any solid “truth” about the way in which we should conduct ourselves, OR that God has indeed been constantly changing His mind on the subject for the last couple of thousand years.
It all makes the prospect of ‘pleasing God’ very intimidating and not very promising. How do I know that the generally accepted interpretation of today is the correct one? The dilemma also causes folks who assure me of a loving and merciful God to get under my skin, despite their best intentions.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
-Nietzsche
I think the concept of God is well past its use-by date. The age of enlightenment started in the 17th century, and there are still people embracing religious fundametalism, I think that is ridiculous.
[quote]The Red Monk wrote:
DH, I’ve enjoyed your careful and thorough answers on this page, but you pick up a dangerous sword in accusing scientists of deifying human interpretation. Isn’t this precisely what all believers in Supreme Beings have been doing for time immemorial?
Entirely leaving aside every spiritual faith alternative to Christianity in human civilization (100% of believers pre-Christ and two thirds or more post Christ, which is a huge step to take in and of itself, Christianity itself has hardly provided a unified vision.
Christian morality has changed and evolved drastically and constantly over its 2,000 year history. To give one small example, in the 1200s the Crusading doctrine was embraced by a majority of Western Christians, who saw killing a non-believer in the Holy land as not only morally correct, but a path to remission of sins. Would even 1% of modern Christians agree? Would they see this as a sure way of pleasing God? Most Christians I talk to defend the New Testament as valid because the Council of Nicaea in which its texts were accepted and many others rejected in A.D. 325 was Divinely Inspired. Two further Ecumenical councils of similar prestige and importance convened on the issue of Icons in worship for instance, one rejecting them as unholy and one upholding them as necessary. Most modern American Christians entirely neglect Icons out of indifference-- is God now indifferent? Did God change His mind earlier? These are very small examples in an endless field of them. Human interpretation has been essential to spiritual belief from the beginning-- I have only been able to conclude that this therefore destroys any solid “truth” about the way in which we should conduct ourselves, OR that God has indeed been constantly changing His mind on the subject for the last couple of thousand years.
It all makes the prospect of ‘pleasing God’ very intimidating and not very promising. How do I know that the generally accepted interpretation of today is the correct one? The dilemma also causes folks who assure me of a loving and merciful God to get under my skin, despite their best intentions. [/quote]
I am glad to know there are believers here. I am also a Christian. Red monk, you might consider reading the bible and coming to your own conclusions. A million crimes have been committed in the name of whatever religion, even the occ. serial killer swears he is doing God’s work, based on the Bible, God, or whatever. So, the crusader example and others like it don’t wash with anyone who bothers to read the word for themselves, humbly asking God for insight, and hoping to get it. Certainly I will confess that many Christians are among the greatest obstacles to successfully converting anyone to my faith. I will confess I have been guilty of this. We as Christians don’t want to win the arguement (though if one could, might be disc-hoss) as much as we want to win your soul. Please bear in mind that as believers we do want to see all come to salvation through our lord Jesus Christ. In fact, an atheist once remarked (words to the effect) that if Christianity is true, then Christians must not care about their fellow man very much, because if it’s true, then they should be screaming from the rooftops 24/7 to try and get the news out! Thank God we don’t have to rely on the body of Christ (the church) to deliver itself, or anyone, from destruction, only on Jesus Christ.
Creation, God, Jesus, I believe the full boat.
I know that Jesus Christ is my savior, and I believe whole heartedly that God created this world and everyone/everything in it.
-CJ
I see no reason to believe the christian creation myth any more than I would believe the hindi, norse or aztec creation myths. Though I find it profoundly disappointing that so many otherwise intellegent people choose to base their lives in superstition and myth, as long as you’re not forcing it on me I’m cool with it, believe what you have to. That being said, blocking stem cell research for religous reasons does effect me, so does spreading the ignorance inherent in ‘intellegent design’ in the school systems.
[quote]Xvim wrote:
I see no reason to believe the christian creation myth any more than I would believe the hindi, norse or aztec creation myths. Though I find it profoundly disappointing that so many otherwise intellegent people choose to base their lives in superstition and myth, as long as you’re not forcing it on me I’m cool with it, believe what you have to. That being said, blocking stem cell research for religous reasons does effect me, so does spreading the ignorance inherent in ‘intellegent design’ in the school systems.
[/quote]
Allowing stem cell research could have effected you too…if you had been the ebryo chosen. Believe what you want, but you should be happy that your parents didn’t believe in abortion.
[quote]ScrambyEggs wrote:
Creation
I just don’t think that evolution of monkey to man works. You of course need that missing link. As I see it, if evolution theory holds true there should be several hundred thousand years of skeletons of beings from that missing link stage. [/quote]
We evolved out of a region in Africa that is now Ethiopia. This is a rift valley meaning the land is being pulled apart from itself. It also didn’t have a large flood plain or other geological mechanism that would make it easy for sediments to form and build up, thus making it easy to create fossils. This is why the hominid (missing link) fossil record is piss poor. There are actually only a few small fossil sites in Ethopia that cover 5-10 million years ago. And we have these because they were coastal areas (sediments forming from beach action). We have an excellet fossil record after about 4 MYA because we started distributing ourselves out from this geologically erosive region.
If you believe that stem cell research requires the abortion of a fetus you’re sadly uninformed. Envitro fertilization produces multiple unviable blastocysts that can and do provide the stem cells in question. No abortion needed. Which of course it totally irrelevant when confronted by superstition.
[quote]fatsensei wrote:
It seems that there have been alot of discussions on evolution/creation lately and it also seems that the majority of T-Nation leans towards evolution.
I’m not interested in a debate of who’s right or wrong I’m just interested in who believes that God created us and his son Jesus came and died on the cross for our sins so that if we believe in Him and trust in Him for salvation that you will go to heaven.
Just curious.
FatSensei[/quote]
Absolutely.
I think believing in Jesus or any specific god has no bearing on whether you go to heaven if there is such a place. It does not even matter if there is a Heaven or if you are reincarnated. The purpose of religion in this world is to make people live better; when people forget that simple truth and believe they are superior to somene simply because they believe in Jesus religion turns to shit. That is why I love Buddhism in its authentic form; no people sitting on thrones, no golden statues, etc. just religion with its purpose.
Do you think Jesus honestly gives two shits if you believe in him? If he does so then he has an ego a human characteristic and that would take away his divinity so I doubt it. He wants you to live a better, more happy and helpful life and thats all that matters in the end. The church, rituals, etc. are all stuff added to the mix. I think the church as an institution has veered way off from religion; the Vatican has billions of dollars sitting in vaults and has done things other institutions would be fried for.