what is god to you/what do you revere?

[wally wonder]

What is god to you?

Is god no more than a superstition? Do you look toward the clouds after hearing the preacher talk about ted nugent and cat scratch fever? What the hay is cat scratch fever? And do you wonder just what the hay he was talking about when he spoke about the cedars, that one man saw profit there, while the preacher, good man that he is, saw a kind of beauty he has the luxury to enjoy? And they passed around a plate at the end of it all, i didn'’ have a penny to pay. sO i got me a pen and a paper, and I made up my own little sign…

Men to whom god is dead worship one another. So wrote the crews, gospel singer, circa 1968. Wonder how ole harry is doing today, probably retired.

How does one take hold of the concept of god? How does one arrive at more than a superstition? Or does one leave god out of it all, now and forever, amen?

Or do you think, yeah, well, there’s time. I can make do there at the last moment. And for all we know, that works. Take hold at the last moment.

Or are you one of those that does not credit a “god”? I mean, look around, right, walk into any flavor of ice cream you think you might like and where does it lead? May they all go to hell, except for cave 19? Cave 19 is living la vida loco. Walk into one or ten, not one in ten is in agreement. “Even now, one laughs.”

Or do you figure god is an evolution of things, of thought, of the times?

Curious is all. Lately, I’m wondering if my own faith is nothing more than superstition. Strike me dead kinda thing, quick glance at the cloudy sky.

[Nutty Bavarian]

Having been to the places I've been, to have survived the things I've survived, I say God is everything.

Life is all up to fate or Ka if you like:smile2:

God is too big to symbolize I think.

[MadamMack]

He's everything to me and I never doubt Him.

[psj77]

In my youth I had blind faith. In my teens I had faith, but I wasn't sure what in. In my twinty's I questiond my faith. I'm now in my thirty's. I don't have blind faith because I've seen too much. I know there's a god because I've seen him work miricles. This summer my aunt started atending a new church. She tried all summer to get me & my mom to atend. We finaly did in the begining of Augest. It turnd out to be the church I went to as a child. I've only missed two Sundays sence. The first that wednesday I almost broke my leg. The second I woke up about 4:00 p.m. thinking I was having a heart attack (It was acid reflux). I think some one is trying to tell me something.

[Srbo]

What is God to me ?

Pure and simple, one Word:

Love.

kjhkjhkhj

[StoryTellerRose]

Personally, my God is my life...literally. I would be dead without my faith in the Lord. Some on this thread know what my life used to be; I was suicidal many times growing up because of how my childhood was, and it was knowing that God was there for me every step of the way that kept me from using the gun, the rope, or jumping from the high place.
God and Jesus are always, without fail, there to help me through anything and everything, and I know for a fact that God brought my husband and I together...I don't know how I could ever get by without that kind of never-ending Love and support.



:biggrin2:

[davemelnick]

actual history & humanitarian feats are my god. Not ever when $, politicians, media & clergy plagiarisms are combined (in any shape or form). Please read Robert Ingersoll's & Thomas Paine's writings for more info.

[JayneH]

without being crucified by people ... I am not a believer in God at all. So ... no superstition, no worship, no nothing :smile2:

[PatInTheHat]

A rather silly word for supposedly such intelligent creatures to kill one another over:down:.
:umm:
That "God Is L:love:ve" thing I grew up hearing so much about, seems to be rather quite laughable, you know, if it wasn't so freakin' tragic, but then maybe I don't quite understand the definition..:dunno:..us agnostics are so easily confused that way.

[Mr Nobody]

God's my mate. We go for a pint now and then. :biggrin2:

Seriously...I have no time for organized religion. That's not about faith and worship, it's about control and manipulation. IMHO (gotta remember to be humble! lol).
Folks seems to squawk a lot about 'Evolutionary Theory' and 'The Big Bang Theory'. Newsflash: Evolution has been observed to take place (and the funniest thing is, most folks don't even realize they've observed it too!) and the background 'echo' to the Big Bang has been caught, as has other evidence that it all really happened. So they're not theories anymore.
Now, the question then is, who or what created the Big Bang?
For that, I am happy to shrug and say 'God'. So that means God, in a sense, did 'create' everything. He created the processes that run the universe, of which evolution (perhaps His greatest miracle) is one.
Also on the basis of that belief, I have scant time for the holier-than-thou folks that insist evidence against their blinkered view (Earth is only 10k years old, etc) is some kind of massive conspiracy. Indeed, I wonder what price they might pay in the end for denying the true scale of God's work.
Science is our way of exploring and discovering His creation in terms we can readily understand (or sometimes, barely understand but grab some hold of nonetheless).

And that's me. Almost literally. I feel sort of bare right now...

[aneaglesangel]

It's really a hard question to answer. I do believe in God, but in my own sort of way. I've had some pretty intense paranormal experiences my entire life. Now as a paranormal investigator I seek scientific answers for this phenomena, and I don't know why, but it's become personal to me to make a difference in the field. But even in proving things scientifically, in a way most people can understand and even look at objectively, I can't turn away from God. For how is it possible that these spirits of people, and strange negative entities can exist, but yet, there is no God?

In my field, I have to separate God from the work I do, for if I include God, most people will turn away from me, call me another religious fanatic. But I have had experiences that make me think that there truly is a God. Like a time when I was dead myself, and I had a Near Death Experience. I was lost, alone in a hallway, it was dark and shadowy, I was very frightened. As I wandered, hoping to find my way out of this place, or at least someone who could help me, I saw a golden light shining up ahead. Maybe it was the way out. I followed it and ended up in a room, the golden light was a beam shining in through a window. Something told me that it was OK, to go lay down on the bed in the room and everything would be all right. So I did. I woke up a couple of days later, in the hospital. It was not even similar to the room I had found in that place. For a long time, I didn't realize how important this was, or that it was even a Near Death Experience. It took a while before I realized that what I had seen what must have been the light of God, or of the higher power that resides in the universe we live in.

I have met up with many ghosts in my time, many of them aware enough to know my name. I've also met up with other creatures that I do not consider human in any way, shape or form. What are they? I don't know yet, but when they come, it is Great Spirit I call out to for help, and so far, he's never let me down.

But God, I think is something none of us can really understand. I look at God in a strange way, I admit, but I don't think he's some guy who looks like us, floating out there in space, wanting to smite us for our mis-behaviors. To me it's more of a great consciousness that maybe even evolves as the universe does. Each day the universe changes, new stars are born, and it circles and grows. Maybe even new planets are shaped and new life grows on them. Is God standing there with his magic wand creating these things, or is he just a part of the universe, as old and as powerful as all time and space is itself?

I don't know, but I can say this. I don't think any form of life after death could be possible without this consciousness. I feel as if each one of us has a part of this consciousness inside of us. It is only waiting for us to reach out and touch that part of ourselves, to be more than we appear to be, to connect and try to come to a higher understanding. And for me, faith and religion are two different things. Religion in my eyes, twists what God is to make it what that religion wants it to be, and not what God really is. For in my time, I have heard many different sides to the whole religion thing, but not once has anyone ever tried to find the God inside of themselves that I think each one of us has.

For me, maybe it's string theory, those little tiny strings that connect us to everything else in the universe. Maybe it's my own experiences that have led me to have faith that there is more that just us here. That there may be a higher consciousness, a higher being out there somewhere. But for me, there has always been another side to life, a side most don't see or ever touch upon. I never asked for my strange paranormal life, but I see the difference in me because of it.

Like substances attract, it's a fact of science. Is my reaching out to the other side, and hoping to change the way people feel about their mortality, only reaching out to that part of God that is attached to me by those strings? Sometimes, I do think that maybe, yes, I'm reaching out to touch what is out there, the things I can not help but be connected to, and sometimes, it answers back.

But yes, my life has been strange, confusing and frightening at times. I belong here in the paranormal field, it has been ingrained into my life in ways I can't explain in the limited amount of characters I have here. Something or someone led me here, maybe to make changes in the way people feel about death and the after life. I don't know why, or how, but I think that it just might have been what some call "God" that led me here....

[Charms7]

God is my guide, my protector, my inspiration, my hope, my reason for being anywhere. All it takes is that leap of faith, and the knowing beyond all understanding that God is God is now what my life is all about.

[boogerb53]

I, too am not a fan of organized religion. Now. That having been said, neither was Christ. God is everything. He is my beginning and my end. My salvation. My friend. Protector. Wonderful Counsler. Father (better than the earthly one he gave me, that's for sure!). He is the one I go to when all around me falls to dust. He is my uplifter. My confidant. My hope that this life is not all there is. He is not a myth. He is love. But he is also just. He is no respector of persons. He wraps me in His arms and carries me when I cannot go another step. He dances with me when I'm beside myself with joy. He is the Rock I go to when I'm sinking. He loves me for what I am....His imperfect child whom He made new and whole again when I accepted His son and changed my DNA....my very nature. Without Him I am nothing. With Him I am everything. He is the one I want to spend eternity with. Forever and ever and ever.

[davemelnick]

I work w/ a property appraiser. Iow, dealing w/ real-life facts -:grinning:. Then again, always get LOL when I hear religious nuts speak of illogical events/plagiarisms & frauds as real-life history. At best I can see why they rely on astronomy & astrology & economics/trade for milleneas.

[Damaris]

I once wrote a story about a similar topic. I called God a cockroach. I'm not as angry at him as I was then but I've never quite retracted the sentiment.

[Haunted]

God is with me carrying my burdens so that I can continue to travel through this world with all of its perils. I have learned over the years that when the doctors want to do yet another unfamiliar test for a possible 'maybe', not to fret, but to give the worry to God and ask Him to be with me when I have the testing and the biopsy or whatever. When I do that an incredible weight is lifted off of me and I am at peace.

[elevelyn]

Dont believe in god or religion of any kind

[aptpupil]

I have no belief in God whatsoever, and I say that completely unapologetically. I'm grateful to have had the kind of parents who were quiet believers, but who never forced their beliefs upon me, and who left me to draw my own conclusions when I was old enough to do so.

Historically, "God" has been used to explain all manner of natural phenomena that, at the time, were impossible to explain in other terms, but science has made such inroads into explaining how the world turns and how the universe operates, that a belief in God seems almost quaint in the 21st Century.

PS Bluey, this is a bit of a heavy subject, my friend. I'm pleasantly surprised to find that I'm able to post my thoughts here before some idiot has come along and tried to divert it to a debate about the merits of pizza, or similar. :eyebrow:

[bookworm101]

He's everything to me and I never doubt Him.



Amen, Sister.

[Tery]

To me, "God" is a name we give to that ineffable something -- a being, a force, a feeling -- that we know is there but we cannot begin to understand its enormity or its minuteness. God is a word we use as a handle for that.

As a Wiccan, I split that into male and female aspects. This is no better nor worse than any other way of relating to the Ultimate Divine. We all have our own way of making God something we can deal with day-to-day.

Now, I think that bringing things like evolution, Big Bang theory and the like is superfluous to the intent of this thread. The basic question was pretty straightforward and we should stick to that.

[rjt65]

Glad u admit ---God is a he! Male power yah!!! :laugh:



He's everything to me and I never doubt Him.

[rjt65]

For Me God is the universe... in everything.... Believe there is a connection to all ---

not into organized religion

[Felipe]

Hi,
Right, I am skeptical, therefore, I don't know
god, unless, appear some concrete proof:wink2:.

[Tooley]

Considering the fact that all humans will believe and hear only what they want to - I can say that I don't necessarily believe in a god. I interpret what is right and wrong for me, through personal experiences - so if my morals are my 'god', then I guess that my personal 'god' is none other than what I have created for myself.

[OhmyGod!]

Under The Dome is my God right now...

[poisonbat]

I don't follow any organized religion, I have never fit in. I believe in God and the Lord. They have lifted me up out of the gutter and helped me in my hours of desperation. It truly is a miracle that I met my husband, I look at him as my gift from God. After years of abusive relationships he gave me just what I needed when it comes to my hubby.

I was living 200 miles away, had a steady job and bam! my life fell apart. My employer died and her children came in and fired everyone who worked for the apartments I was managing. I was given 24 hours to move out. I questioned God for doing this to me. Why? I asked. I was angry. I wound up moving back here and moving in with my mom. I had no where else to go. I could not believe that at 34 I would have to do such a thing.

I went out one night to sing karaoke, and a miracle happened. I met my husband that night. Come to find out, he had just broke off a 10 year relationship with an abusive woman and had to move in with his mother. He had lost his house in the break up and only had his truck and the clothes on his back.But, w:bat::bat:e fell deeply in love.

What are the chances that I would be forced to move 200 miles away and him 45 miles away to meet? Why did BOTH of our lives crumble at the same time? Some could say it was chance or coincidence, but it was a miracle to me.

To further my point, here is something else. We both lived just a couple of blocks from each other when we were in our teens, but never met. We probably passed each other many times, but God knew we were not ready for each other yet. I believe that he guided us through those years so that we would have the children that we have. He kept us apart so that later in life we would be happy and be able to raise our children together. :bat:

[mojomofo]

I believe in God, just not the God that the folks in my neck of the wood believe in. I don't think God cares if I eat meat on Fridays, if I have my hair covered, or if I am out hunting evil-doers. I don't think he gives two shakes if I vote R or D, if I love a man or a woman, or if my husband is black, green, yellow or purple.

What I do think he cares about is that I do my best to treat others fairly and with love. That I try to make good decisions that do not hurt others. I think there is virtue in the willingness to put oneself in another's place, and realize that while I may not like the choices others make, it is not my place to tell them they are wrong. Nor is it my place to dictate what options they have- it is my job to love them even when I do not like them.

I am pretty much a left brain person, but that cold logical part of me has to bow down to a higher power when I see my daughters' nose wrinkle when they laugh, when my foot touches my husbands foot in bed at night, or I smell the ozone before a storm. It just confirms to me that there is a purpose, even if I don't know it or understand it.

[Vincent Gaines]

For Me God is the universe... in everything.... Believe there is a connection to all ---

not into organized religion



I actually wrote an article titled, God Is The Universe.

Science is the new religion and the only one that can prove it's theories.

Our existence is due to elements found in space cultivating here on earth
and any intelligent life that exists beyond our sight is not being found for a reason...yet:cool2:

[Becks19]

My belief in God is absolute. My faith guides every decision I make.

[catnoel]

God "IS" He is called by many names, but regardless of how he is defined, he simply IS

[ginapenn]

For this one, I will quote Mark Twain: "The quickest cure for christianity is to read the bible." 'nuff said.

[OhmyGod!]

God "IS" He is called by many names, but regardless of how he is defined, he simply IS

Maybe 2 you...to me he just isn't...it's all in the point of view.

[boogerb53]

Hi,
Right, I am skeptical, therefore, I don't know
god, unless, appear some concrete proof:wink2:.

That's why it's called FAITH!!!

[boogerb53]

I work w/ a property appraiser. Iow, dealing w/ real-life facts -:grinning:. Then again, always get LOL when I hear religious nuts speak of illogical events/plagiarisms & frauds as real-life history. At best I can see why they rely on astronomy & astrology & economics/trade for milleneas.

I work for a pest control company, dealing with real life termites and bugs. What does that and your statement have to do with anything. We deal with real life facts all the time. It doesn't preclude faith. And why am i a nut because I choose to take God on faith? I don't believe in astrology or reading the stars (I guess that's what you mean by astonomy) to make any decisions. Who do you know that does? And if they believe in astrology and use it to make decisions AND say they are a Christian, they are not practing what the bible preaches. Astrology is the same as false prophets and should be used for entertainment purposes only.

And by calling we who believe "religious nuts" you are judging and persecuting us and that is wrong whether you are a Christian or not.

[Natjen26]

Nope, don't believe in GOD! Too macho for me.. Typical male coming to the rescue.. and calling all the shots! HA, seems emancipation hasn't reached to heaven yet!
Until there is talk about a GODDESS I'm keeping my options open. :D

[Feaze17]

Agnostic for the win
I tried believing in a god once, never did anything for me, couldn't feel what other people seemed to feel, figured it was just all chemical related, you know like dopamine and other chemicals in the brain
I realized how many other possibilities there are, and it all just turned to stone
I believe in the inability to fully understand things, and that faith is just a game, a silly game that makes no sense, as if our lives are just gambles; the idea that we were created just to love and worship whatever god so we can make it to whatever paradise is just stupid to me, and I'm not really sure why other people don't see how funny it all is really; overall, I don't really have a problem with religion, just those who follow it, who block off all thought for the idea that maybe it's not what they think it is, that maybe it's possible we're all being scammed; I don't mean no disrespect, and I'm getting into any debate, so don't bother calling me names or trying to prove me wrong, because I'm not here to be proven wrong, nor am I here to be proven right, just speaking my mind

[Felipe]

That's why it's called FAITH!!!

Hi again,

I always asked for me, what is faith?Then I came
to following conclusion: Faith, at least for me, is to
believe in things that don't exist, ie, the ancient
civilizations had faith in his gods, but until now any
evidence about existence of anyone been found.
Otherwise, we would have a Universe riddled with of gods. :smile2:

[Feaze17]

edit: I meant to say I'm NOT getting into any debate; sorry for the confusion for anyone who might have read my really long post lol

[PatInTheHat]

Hi again,

I always asked for me, what is faith?Then I came
to following conclusion: Faith, at least for me, is to
believe in things that don't exist, ie, the ancient
civilizations had faith in his gods, but until now any
evidence about existence of anyone been found.
Otherwise, we would have a Universe riddled with of gods. :smile2:

Well, maybe the universe is, and we're just the dust & so many icky microbes on one of their marbles...or dust bunnies:wink2:.

Now while I don't have "faith" or "a faith" in any ideological supreme being or beings, I don't understand why faith in something would have to be relegated to something that doesn't necessarily exist...or does..or even hasn't..or has, for that matter:eyebrow:.

I have faith in me, so by using that logic, then I don't exist...okay, so now maybe I'm gettin' a little creeped out:laugh:.

[Kim L.]

He is my creator and redeemer.

[Speedy2]

In my family I have a wicken, a Catholic, a Cavalry Baptist and a Marine with religion and me. I have my beliefs. They are in a higher power that gives us choices and free will and does not judge (lest ye be judged). I was born Baptist, raised Catholic, hung out with Wickens and now I am what I am.

[Mike in Canada]

God is whoever taught a spider to spin a web as a trap for food. Like the spider, I'd rather have the groceries come to me.

I despise organized religions and the way they trash talk other's beliefs, so I study up on the way the Aboriginals (Canada's First Nations people) view things spiritually.

There is something out there but I can't put my finger on it yet.

[PatInTheHat]

In my family I have a wicken, a Catholic, a Cavalry Baptist and a Marine with religion and me. I have my beliefs. They are in a higher power that gives us choices and free will and does not judge (lest ye be judged). I was born Baptist, raised Catholic, hung out with Wickens and now I am what I am.

You got some patter, so if your sportin' a radical tat, and missin' just one tooth, you could be a carny...am I close:eyebrow:..I am huh...yeeaahhh come on..what shows you play huh huh?
:biggrin2:
(seriously, just whisper it to me, no one'll know)
:wink2:

[psj77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmUG5fhPWxU

[DelvianBlue]

As for me, I'm a Christian and God is God, the Great "I Am." Jesus is his son, and my savior. It took me a long while to commit to him, and a lot of study. I studied all of the major world religions, many of the minor ones, and atheism. But in the end, Christianity was the only one that seemed logical and made sense to me. It's the one that speaks the truth to me, so I'm sticking to it.

[Speedy2]

You got some patter, so if your sportin' a radical tat, and missin' just one tooth, you could be a carny...am I close:eyebrow:..I am huh...yeeaahhh come on..what shows you play huh huh?
:biggrin2:
(seriously, just whisper it to me, no one'll know)
:wink2:


I have approximately 20 hours of "tats" as you call them, not so many as most. Not a carny but definitely my own person. I could be a Carny but choose to work in Higher Education in an "almost" Ivy league University (so that almost ranks me as a carny, wouldn't you say)? Check you posts! Hugs and kisses!

[PatInTheHat]

I have approximately 20 hours of "tats" as you call them, not so many as most. Not a carny but definitely my own person. I could be a Carny but choose to work in Higher Education in an "almost" Ivy league University (so that almost ranks me as a carny, wouldn't you say)? Check you posts! Hugs and kisses!

Oh yeah babe, most definitely you'd fit right in:cool2:!
Some of the smartest professors I've ever met were on the road..some were even actual egghead profs...yes, I have in fact talked to some...why some even talked back to me..it could happen:glare:.

One of the grooviest, was a tatooed Doctor of something or other (philosophy I think), who had a freakin' swell geek act, but mostly worked as a Bobo (you know, drown the obnoxious clown).
So ya see, there's nothing in that 'lil sucker job for you to be ashamed of, it's good to know ones limitations:wink2:.
:laugh:.

[Speedy2]

I work as a "jock strap" for the so called "egghead profs". Still up there in the geek ranks but my head isn't has far up in the clouds and I have maintained my common sense:)

[Haunted]

Maybe 2 you...to me he just isn't...it's all in the point of view.

Curious considering your moniker.:biggrin2:

[TBlack]

God is the gossamer dew on the morning grass... the sound of a cold babbling brook... the smell of "Puppy Breath"... that fluffy white cloud that just floated past... the way the sunlight strikes the ripples on a lake that makes it seem to almost whisper words forever wet.
If you're always looking for the face of Satan (you'll find it) but you just missed all of these things!
I don't need to sit in a pew to appreciate this!

[pathoftheturtle]

...Historically, "God" has been used to explain all manner of natural phenomena that, at the time, were impossible to explain in other terms, but science has made such inroads into explaining how the world turns and how the universe operates, that a belief in God seems almost quaint in the 21st Century. ...Very patronizing.
In fact, people did not set aside religion because science developed; rather, science developed because people set aside religion.
How to build technology and a stable economy, science indeed has given us; that this is a good aim for humanity, and the other major modern presumptions, derive from the same "faith" of secular humanism which started western science in the first place.
As for an explaination of the universe, our "inroads" mostly have just allowed those really paying attention to realize exactly how clueless we are.

[OhmyGod!]

Very patronizing.
In fact, people did not set aside religion because science developed; rather, science developed because people set aside religion.
How to build technology and a stable economy, science indeed has given us; that this is a good aim for humanity, and the other major modern presumptions, derive from the same "faith" of secular humanism which started western science in the first place.
As for an explaination of the universe, our "inroads" mostly have just allowed those really paying attention to realize exactly how clueless we are.

I don't think we should discuss the meaning of religion to society here...there are some positive things and some negative things (like with almost everything). But it does not matter to the question if there is or isn't a god...

And there are many questions left about the universe...but that also does not contribute to the question if there is or is not a god...just because we don't know everything about the universe (we do know something...), does not make it more logical that god just did it all. We use to know nothing about viruses and bacteria....we know now so much more! Because people once did not accept that god made people sick and thought something else would be more logical!

I hope u notice i do not say there is or isn't a god, just wanted the facts straight :)

[Mary Strickland]

Very patronizing.
In fact, people did not set aside religion because science developed; rather, science developed because people set aside religion.
How to build technology and a stable economy, science indeed has given us; that this is a good aim for humanity, and the other major modern presumptions, derive from the same "faith" of secular humanism which started western science in the first place.
As for an explaination of the universe, our "inroads" mostly have just allowed those really paying attention to realize exactly how clueless we are.

I think God used physics, evolution and all life sciences to create everything. After all, who is the best physicist. His clever use of science backs up everything anthropologists have found. Science and creation are in perfect harmony.

[peaceluvnsploosh]

i honestly dont know ---- it kinda confuses me

[sprinco12]

My faith used to be really strong in God, but for the past couple of years I've had a hard time believing in God when it seems like everything is going completely against my beliefs...so I'm not quite sure where I'm at right now. Hopefully someday soon my faith will restore itself....:smile2:

[Doc Wilson]

God is subtle or hard, whatever you make of him, its all good. All the sacred texts cannot explain it or contain God. The highest form of goodness, like water, giving life to all things without striving with them.

[OhmyGod!]

I think God used physics, evolution and all life sciences to create everything. After all, who is the best physicist. His clever use of science backs up everything anthropologists have found. Science and creation are in perfect harmony.


That seems maybe logical...but it isn't when you think about it. What created the creator? The god you talk about must be so clever...so brilliant...and whatever (or who ever) made that god....must be even more clever....while evolution and science started out simple...and got more and more complicated on the way....logical would be if there was just some kind of reaction that put the process in working....what that reaction was....I don't know...but just because no one knows...does not mean (a very complicated) suer-being did it automatically...like i wrote...it is not logical!

But I love these questions...and reading about them :)

[TBlack]

" ...and so it came to pass that Moses came down from the mountain carrying two stone tablets (there were actually four tablets but they were really heavy & Moses was old... and tired from wandering around the desert for all those years!) & he said to the Israelites as they danced around their newly forged baby cow, "Lo, I have seen The Lord God! He spoke to me from within a burning bush!", and they were in awe & repliedith,
" OK there Moses... Maybe you were burnin' a little bush there too?"

[pathoftheturtle]

I don't think we should discuss the meaning of religion to society here...there are some positive things and some negative things (like with almost everything). But it does not matter to the question if there is or isn't a god...

And there are many questions left about the universe...but that also does not contribute to the question if there is or is not a god...just because we don't know everything about the universe (we do know something...), does not make it more logical that god just did it all. We use to know nothing about viruses and bacteria....we know now so much more! Because people once did not accept that god made people sick and thought something else would be more logical!

I hope u notice i do not say there is or isn't a god, just wanted the facts straight :)Is the question of whether there is a god or not the topic of this thread? I thought that it was about what the word means to each of us... and THAT is something to which the meaning of religion in general to society in general does directly relate.

If it is fair game to analyze the motives of the religious, then it's equally important to analyze the motives of the irreligious, isn't it?

Regarding the logic of evolution, why should evolution be more logical than devolution? If the universe started out simple, then grew more complex, and that is merely the result of chance, then wouldn't it ultimately just start to fall apart? Even if you cannot accept the traditional personality of "God," can you acknowledge the possibilty of something divine at work in existence?

[Bryan James]

I like to think of Jesus as a mischievous badger. Cal Naughton, Jr.

[ponygirl01]

To me God is someone who holds my life in his hands everyday. and i trust that he will only do what is best for me and my family. i have looked to him in the worst times in my life and prayed that he will listen. and he did. so, to me God is someone who loves you no matter what you have done, said or thought. Someone who you cna be mad at and will never judge you for it. and someone who you can yell at and cry to, and will understand without retaliation. unconditional love.

[OhmyGod!]

Is the question of whether there is a god or not the topic of this thread? I thought that it was about what the word means to each of us... and THAT is something to which the meaning of religion in general to society in general does directly relate.

If it is fair game to analyze the motives of the religious, then it's equally important to analyze the motives of the irreligious, isn't it?

Regarding the logic of evolution, why should evolution be more logical than devolution? If the universe started out simple, then grew more complex, and that is merely the result of chance, then wouldn't it ultimately just start to fall apart? Even if you cannot accept the traditional personality of "God," can you acknowledge the possibilty of something divine at work in existence?

The question of this topic is: 'what is god to you', religion to society is something different in my eyes...the next direct question to answer this topic question would be: 'does god exist to you and why'. God is nothing to you when you do not believe in god. And because without answering the question if there is a god you cannot even answer the question of religion and society...(because there would be no organised religion if there was no one believing in god).

I don't understand what you mean by: 'motives of the irreligious'...

And I never said that evolution is merely the result of chance...it's the opposite! There is no chance in evolution...genes don't survive because of chance...they survive because of very a difficult (but logical and proven) process! And also the beginning of the universe has nothing to do with chance...if there was only 0.0000001 different kind of gasses in the beginning...there would be no life. It may be a process of billions of years before this universe could finally begin as it began...we don't know (yet) how the universe got this way and if there have been other universes, will be other universes et cetera! No chance here!

And even if it all had begun out of a simple chance...it also wouldn't automatically mean it would just fall apart in the end.

I cannot acknowledge the possibility of something divine at work in the existence. Well maybe if you explained to me what you exactly mean by 'something divine' (I take it as you mean: ‘something godlike’). But why should I acknowledge something divine...if there is no evidence, it is not logic and it really does not make sense...that would be the same if I said to you: 'can you acknowledge that there are invisible purple leprechauns living in the woods of Europe?'
I give you this: If anyone can give me evidence (hard evidence) of something divine...I would admit I was wrong and accept the truth without a problem!

I also would like to say that this is not my mother tongue…so if something is not clear I would love to explain again! And I do not want to disrespect anyone. Everyone should be free to believe what they want! (as long as respect anyone else too!).

:)

[AngelZ]

When I think about God, I am reassured that I am not alone in this world.

[pathoftheturtle]

God is nothing to you when you do not believe in god.God is a word. The question of precisely what that word means, logically, should come before the question of whether or not it is true that whatever the word might refer to exists. Even if you don't believe in God, (or gods) the concept still is something to you, if you recognize the fact of belief in other individuals. That is what I'm talking about with 'motives of the irreligious.'


...maybe if you explained to me what you exactly mean by 'something divine' ...divine /adjective/ supremely good

(Now you just have to figure out what "good" means.)

[OrganGrinder]

I was raised to believe in an all-knowing, loving god. I followed religious teachings and creeds until my mid twenties. I had religious experiences and even had a supposed miracle happen to me.

I am now in my mid thirties and a firm atheist though I don't identify with atheists in any "club" or "brotherhood".

Knowledge is indeed the fruit which we were warned away from. It leads to a beautifully religious free existence.

I believe in Man.

[OhmyGod!]

God is a word. The question of precisely what that word means, logically, should come before the question of whether or not it is true that whatever the word might refer to exists. Even if you don't believe in God, (or gods) the concept still is something to you, if you recognize the fact of belief in other individuals. That is what I'm talking about with 'motives of the irreligious.'

divine /adjective/ supremely good

(Now you just have to figure out what "good" means.)

Yeah...you are right...that should be the first question: 'what is god?' and then: 'what is god to you?' And later the question what god to society is.

I understand now what you mean by motives of the irreligious. But I believe there are no motives of irreligious people...it's a personal motive. Not like with organised religion...that's a group’s motive with certain group rules. The only thing non-god-believers have in common with non-god-believers is that they do not believe in god (in perspective with this discussion...sure they will have other things in common).

And I don't believe in something supremely good. Like I also don't believe in something supremely evil. And like you said: 'what is good?'. That is maybe one of the most subjective matters in this world (without evil there wouldn't even be a good). So it is in my opinion ridiculous to say something is supremely good...& how do you measure something like that?

[pathoftheturtle]

Naturally, I agree that the motives of the irrelgious are personal. My point is that the same is true of the religious. Believers don't all have too much in common, either. You don't have to belong to any organized religion to believe in God or something divine, and while it may be true that some believe because they want to belong, some others who do belong decided to only after having first believed. On top of that, there are many very different religions, with lots of highly diverse sects. You can'r stereotype god-believers.

The concept of good can, indeed, be very subjective. What benefits one often ends up harming another. But, then, how do you account for compassion?
It's quite difficult for any one person to define "greater good," but I am one person, at least, who does believe in it.
...without evil there wouldn't even be a good...Perhaps, but the existence of evil certainly doesn't have to imply the non-existence of good. I don't mention this point to be argumentative. My motive here is not really to criticize satisfied atheists. Another thing that I agree with is your earlier comment that
...Everyone should be free to believe what they want! (as long as respect anyone else too!). :):)
I am mostly posting just for those who may have had a loss of faith which they regret. I only wanted to let them know that someone cares.

[dividedgrlofmine]

I firmly believe in God. I believe that everything does happen for a reason, although that reason may never be entirely clear. I believe that good will be rewarded, evil will be punished, and that the point of life is to make connections with out fellow man.

[OhmyGod!]

Naturally, I agree that the motives of the irrelgious are personal. My point is that the same is true of the religious. Believers don't all have too much in common, either. You don't have to belong to any organized religion to believe in God or something divine, and while it may be true that some believe because they want to belong, some others who do belong decided to only after having first believed. On top of that, there are many very different religions, with lots of highly diverse sects. You can'r stereotype god-believers.

The concept of good can, indeed, be very subjective. What benefits one often ends up harming another. But, then, how do you account for compassion?
It's quite difficult for any one person to define "greater good," but I am one person, at least, who does believe in it.Perhaps, but the existence of evil certainly doesn't have to imply the non-existence of good. I don't mention this point to be argumentative. My motive here is not really to criticize satisfied atheists. Another thing that I agree with is your earlier comment that:)
I am mostly posting just for those who may have had a loss of faith which they regret. I only wanted to let them know that someone cares.

Yeah, I was talking about the organised religions when I talked about the non-personal-motives.

How do I account for compassion? (Somehow I feel stereotyped as an atheist here...:) Like I am evil to the bone and know no compassion) Just because it's not the most logical human behaviour, does not mean there is no logic explanation. There are biological explanations and social-psychological explanations for compassion. I make it sound so cold...but just because we want something to be divined...does not make it automatically divine. I do not want to belittle compassion. Compassion is extra-ordinary!

I am posting because I love to find answers and ask every question one can think of. I don't like it when there are subjects that are non-discussable...

[PatInTheHat]

But, then, how do you account for compassion?





How do I account for compassion?

Just because it's not the most logical human behaviour, does not mean there is no logic explanation. There are biological explanations and social-psychological explanations for compassion. I make it sound so cold...but just because we want something to be divined...does not make it automatically divine. I do not want to belittle compassion. Compassion is extra-ordinary!



Compassion is a learned behavior.


And I think it is logical.
What could be more logical, than in order to receive anything resembling compassion, good will, friendlyness or anything of any emotional/social value, you must be able to display the same capability if you wish to participate in that society.
True pychopaths not quite being an exception to the rule, but they learn to mimic those behaviors if they're to become successfully intergrated..think Ted Bundy...they probably even had compassion at some point, until something shorted out the circuits.

Put a child in a box with no human contact, with nothing but the essentials of life and force it to live, you'll have a creature not capable of compassion.
If it has it hasn't known any, it won't have any:down:.

We start our compassion primer with the love & caring of a mother to her child from the moment of birth...well, thankfully most of us.
Then family & society (we are social animals afterall) has to do it's part too, but the mother is the best start, as it's unconditional, the rest teaches us the differences in/of degrees.

Those that don't have that from the beginning, hopefully find (or are thankfully found) by someone who can instill those needed nuggets of emotional education and support.
I also don't think there's anything clinically cold about that, but rather one of the warmest & most wonderful things we are capable of, not to mention the great apes, who often seem to put us to shame in this department.

I do agree though, c:love:mpassion is the ultimate schnizzle:wink2:!

[smerdyakov]

I tend to think of god as originating from some nebulous concept of mystery. One of my favorite thoughts to consider is stripping myself of all scientific knowledge and imaging the sound of thunder. It brings about a paradox: one of being alienated by nature, but at the same time subsumed by it. And that feeling, I think, sparks religious awe or an experience of the numinous. Of course, that would mean the experience is contingent on our knowledge of the natural world.

Today, science tells us the ‘how’ of thunder, tells us a deity isn’t growling at us from the sky. And for that reason, it’s mystery isn’t quite as ripe in comparison to how it was experienced millennia ago. I think this points to the modern reliance on faith as an approach to god. Many will not agree, but I think science dominates the realm of objective inquiry, leaving only the subjective faith-based claims to the religious sphere. When the natural world becomes reducible and mathematically predictable, it loses a great deal of its mystery.

I think this is why the biblical times seem rife with wonder and miracles and a theistic involvement within the scope of history -- a sufficient knowledge of the natural world simply wasn’t there, so mystery loomed at every corner. Thus, when thunder was heard in the sky, it was experienced as a growl. Today, we don’t experience the immediacy (in a culturally holistic way) of a theistic involvement within the natural world in the same way as the ancients. This implicates a distinction in world views and the basic premise that our knowledge necessarily dictates how we experience the world.

For this reason, I don’t think the ancients were spinning fairy tales. I believe they were honest in their accounts, and perhaps those accounts were meaningful in their own context. We don’t live in that context, though, and should not align ourselves with its validity in such a rigid and at times feverish way. Perhaps there’s truth that can be applied allegorically to the modern human experience (the moral teachings of jesus), but those claims about the natural world (such as creationism) overreach their proper scope.

That was a longwinded way of saying I think theism has anthropological origins, and really speaks little to what we consider the important question of ‘what created the world, what created us?’

[OhmyGod!]

Compassion is a learned behavior.


And I think it is logical.
What could be more logical, than in order to receive anything resembling compassion, good will, friendlyness or anything of any emotional/social value, you must be able to display the same capability if you wish to participate in that society.
True pychopaths not quite being an exception to the rule, but they learn to mimic those behaviors if they're to become successfully intergrated..think Ted Bundy...they probably even had compassion at some point, until something shorted out the circuits.

Put a child in a box with no human contact, with nothing but the essentials of life and force it to live, you'll have a creature not capable of compassion.
If it has it hasn't known any, it won't have any:down:.

We start our compassion primer with the love & caring of a mother to her child from the moment of birth...well, thankfully most of us.
Then family & society (we are social animals afterall) has to do it's part too, but the mother is the best start, as it's unconditional, the rest teaches us the differences in/of degrees.

Those that don't have that from the beginning, hopefully find (or are thankfully found) by someone who can instill those needed nuggets of emotional education and support.
I also don't think there's anything clinically cold about that, but rather one of the warmest & most wonderful things we are capable of, not to mention the great apes, who often seem to put us to shame in this department.

I do agree though, c:love:mpassion is the ultimate schnizzle:wink2:!

I agree with you partly....but it's not as simple as you put it tho.

Mother-child compassion is complete different from compassion for a total stranger. A mother's got her genes to protect...she does not care for strange genes (as ALL animals also do...you won't find an example of a true altruistic animal).

Humans can be compassionate for complete strangers. And that does not make us different from animals in the end, we are animals (tho we want to forget that somehow). We just evolved different with our brains. Like I said before: there are perfectly reasonable explanations for compassionate behavior. I'm not going to explain them all here...because that is not the topic of this thread and it's a lot of writing in English for me.

If people want to believe compassion is the greater good (or the greater god), I truly admire that. But like i said before...it does not make it more true...and I do not like people who believe in buying themselves with loads of so-called compassion into heaven...

[PatInTheHat]

I agree with you partly....but it's not as simple as you put it tho.

Mother-child compassion is complete different from compassion for a total stranger. A mother's got her genes to protect...she does not care for strange genes (as ALL animals also do...you won't find an example of a true altruistic animal).

Humans can be compassionate for complete strangers. And that does not make us different from animals in the end, we are animals (tho we want to forget that somehow). We just evolved different with our brains. Like I said before: there are perfectly reasonable explanations for compassionate behavior. I'm not going to explain them all here...because that is not the topic of this thread and it's a lot of writing in English for me.

If people want to believe compassion is the greater good (or the greater god), I truly admire that. But like i said before...it does not make it more true...and I do not like people who believe in buying themselves with loads of so-called compassion into heaven...


I agree completely about a mother/child relationship vs. all others, though I do believe it's a lot more than just a primal gene pool saving instinct, not that it doesn't play a great part in it.
I don't agree that there's no such thing as a truly altruistic "animal"..I believe great apes have shown not only the capability, but the desire.

I didn't mean to simplify it, but Ms. Mod's got better things to do than read one (another one okay, sheeesh:biggrin2:) of my wordy ramblings on a question posed that peaked my brain (:oo: don't nobody go there), and gave me the occasional pause for a few days.
Owwy owwy owwy..hmm, I suppose it coulda been a stroke:eek2:.

And while we humans commit acts of compassion to total strangers (and isn't that the point), it is a behavior that has been displayed by apes (and dolphins to name another species) to our species as well, and totally altruistically
And just like us, they were taught compassionate behavior by their Mama's, their own extended families and social groups, in order to function within the those groups.
It's not only for protecting the direct gene pool, not to mention a species as a whole, but for individual survival as well..okay ya got me maybe it is rather simple to me:laugh:.

[pathoftheturtle]

...One of my favorite thoughts to consider is stripping myself of all scientific knowledge and imaging the sound of thunder. It brings about a paradox: one of being alienated by nature, but at the same time subsumed by it. And that feeling, I think, sparks religious awe or an experience of the numinous. Of course, that would mean the experience is contingent on our knowledge of the natural world. ...Today, we don’t experience the immediacy (in a culturally holistic way) of a theistic involvement within the natural world in the same way as the ancients. This implicates a distinction in world views and the basic premise that our knowledge necessarily dictates how we experience the world. ...I disagree. I don’t believe that our cultures have diverged so far from their origins that it is no longer possible to experience the world mystically. Some individuals, overly secure in popular interpretations of select facts, may suffer such an inability to experience the depths of reality, but this hardly proves that it is impossible for everyone.
...What could be more logical, than in order to receive anything resembling compassion, good will, friendlyness or anything of any emotional/social value, you must be able to display the same capability if you wish to participate in that society. ...I think that that is indeed a good description of development in a psychopath, but I’m not so sure that it adequately describes genuine altruism. I’m positive that some do more than mimic a behavior which they wish to receive. (Although I have indeed known and, to be frank, disliked some who thought to, so to speak, “buy salvation” myself.)
Anyway, though, I didn’t mean to assert that compassion has no natural cause. OhmyGod! asked about measuring goodness, and all I intended was to suggest that the scope of effect from a given positive fact or situation might be taken as a starting point. The further idea that any good greater than one that is purely subjective to a single individual must be supreme good is also not my position.

[smerdyakov]

I disagree. I don’t believe that our cultures have diverged so far from their origins that it is no longer possible to experience the world mystically. Some individuals, overly secure in popular interpretations of select facts, may suffer such an inability to experience the depths of reality, but this hardly proves that it is impossible for everyone

Perhaps, but we do know the mechanism of thunder. I'm not being overly secure about that knowledge -- it's just knowledge. And with that knowledge there's no way to attribute any force beyond the natural (in terms of the 'how') without denying the natural. You can say god put the law into effect, but it's still natural law that we are dealing with. This claim would need some arguments and also need to explain why occam's razor isn't valid. Regardless, the mystery I was alluding to in the earlier posts -- is thunder a growling god -- no longer exists. What we now become concerned with is god prior to thunder (something whose nature is in line with what we consider 'the rational' because we are dealing with law).

Like I said, I'm sure folks do experience something they consider the religious -- but it will be a subjective experience, not a culturally holistic experience (like the ancient contexts I was referring to). Again, this seems to be the result of a difference in world views. The past was dominated by a religious worldview; the modern worldview is one dominated by science (at least in terms of objective validity). I think the former was dominated by the religious because there was no sufficient understanding of the natural world.

Modern science has its bed in religion for this very reason. The ancients approached an understanding of God via the natural world -- demystifying the mysterious. But this understanding has exceeded its original intent (at least for some) by limiting the necessity of god's role in our current understanding of the universe. Some still argue for intelligent design, but that's very much different from the early myths of creationism we find in the bible (which were reliant on other near eastern myth traditions, at least for the hebrews, not science).

BTW, I think the conundrums of quantum theory give plenty of depth and complexity to the world as we know it. There still exists mystery! So god can still have a role in the world that we will discover in the future -- will perhaps force us to reevaluate our understanding all together. But I see no evidence for such a conclusion as of yet, although will humbly recant my position if something of the sort comes about.

As of yet, I think God is limited to the realm of a subject's own experience/faith and has no evidence in terms of objective validity. I have some thoughts on why god cannot have objective proof -- I think it would give us a contradiction of conception -- but will leave that out for the sake of this discussion.

Those are just my thoughts. I should also say that I'm speaking primarily to the existence of a theistic god, not a deistic one. Given the complexity and improbability of life, perhaps some agent kickstarted the world into a linear trajectory. I'm not entirely convinced of this argument, but find it more reasonable than common assertions for a theistic god who enters history, changes the course of events, saves us from hell, and all that.

Anyway, sorry if that was kind of long. Thanks for responding.

[PhyllisEB]

Oy!

[OhmyGod!]

And while we humans commit acts of compassion to total strangers (and isn't that the point), it is a behaviour that has been displayed by apes (and dolphins to name another species) to our species as well, and totally altruistically


There is no evidence of 'totally' altruistic behaviour in the animal kingdom...it may look that way...but in the end it can all be explained to save the animals own genes.

No animal will ever try to save the whole species. That's not how evolution works. There is not one example of an animal caring altruistic for the group/species. (only wasps and ants...but they are not the gene carriers...the queen is).


Given the complexity and improbability of life, perhaps some agent kickstarted the world into a linear trajectory. I'm not entirely convinced of this argument, but find it more reasonable than common assertions for a theistic god who enters history, changes the course of events, saves us from hell, and all that.

If one would think logical...it kind a makes no sense if some magic-god kick-started the world into a linear trajectory...that would make as much sense if a unicorn would blow the universe into working...
And life didn't start out complex....it started out simple...and how improbable live is, can be questioned....we don't know how many times other universes without live excited...we do know it was a process of millions of years...we do know how many other planets exist with no live....if you count all these things up...it might not all be that improbable in the end. For example: It is improbable to throw a penny right into a bottle...but if you tried it a million times on a million different places....the improbable factor would drop, wouldn’t it?

[nygene40]

God (in all its many forms) is a human response to the basic fear of nature.

[poisonbat]

Compassion and empathy are both special traits found in spiritual people. Happiness and joy come from within and is given away to those in need by the compassionate. Whatever God is or isn't to an individual is not important, what is important is the spirit of the person themselves. Look inside and find what is good and you will find spirituality.

[smerdyakov]

If one would think logical...it kind a makes no sense if some magic-god kick-started the world into a linear trajectory...that would make as much sense if a unicorn would blow the universe into working...And life didn't start out complex....it started out simple...and how improbable live is, can be questioned....we don't know how many times other universes without live excited...we do know it was a process of millions of years...we do know how many other planets exist with no live....if you count all these things up...it might not all be that improbable in the end. For example: It is improbable to throw a penny right into a bottle...but if you tried it a million times on a million different places....the improbable factor would drop, wouldn’t it?

The cell is vastly more complex than darwin could have ever dreamed. And on top of that, how the cell could have come out of cosmic soup is even more unfathomable -- and something evolutionary theory can not reasonably account for. And on top of that, to form something like a human eye? Evolution requires favorable mutation. The probability of favorable mutation can excede to the trillionths. So consider: We have unfavorable mutations in the trillionths. All this to produce ONE favorable mutation. The amount of favorable mutations necessary to gradually assemble the human anatomy is mind boggling. And on top of that, where are all of these species with unfavorable mutations in the fossil record? They ought to be bountiful.

Gradual evolutionism would require its own magical unicorn. It seems to me a theory only effective once we have a level of complexity in place to account for a gradual change in a species.

[OhmyGod!]

The cell is vastly more complex than darwin could have ever dreamed. And on top of that, how the cell could have come out of cosmic soup is even more unfathomable -- and something evolutionary theory can not reasonably account for. And on top of that, to form something like a human eye? Evolution requires favorable mutation. The probability of favorable mutation can excede to the trillionths. So consider: We have unfavorable mutations in the trillionths. All this to produce ONE favorable mutation. The amount of favorable mutations necessary to gradually assemble the human anatomy is mind boggling. And on top of that, where are all of these species with unfavorable mutations in the fossil record? They ought to be bountiful.

Gradual evolutionism would require its own magical unicorn. It seems to me a theory only effective once we have a level of complexity in place to account for a gradual change in a species.

How the cell could have come out of the cosmic soup is not as unfathomable as it sounds. Many people think it took about a year or something. It took a real real long time. Nothing compared to the time of evolution of the ape into a human. Many excellent researches and evidence back this up. It is a fact.

The forming of a fossil is a very rare situation (that needs rare circumstances). We should be lucky we found as many fossils as we did and do. And all fossils found, back the evolution theory up. Thousands and thousands of fossils.

There are many scientific articles about the evolution of the human eye (since creationist always use that as the evidence evolution cannot be true). It is all backed up with excellent evidence and a clear logic.

Gradual evolutionism does not need it's magic unicorn. It needs research and evidence. And there is plenty. Like I said before...evolution is a fact. There are still processes that we don't understand (yet), but so far all found evidence does back this 'theory' up. I am not talking about a book of evidence. I am talking about library's full of books all over the world with only evidence.

[PatInTheHat]

There are many scientific articles about the evolution of the human eye (since creationist always use that as the evidence evolution cannot be true). It is all backed up with excellent evidence and a clear logic.

.

Julia Sweeney did a brilliant piece on this theological Eyegate subject, in her show (maybe too in her book by the same name, but I've as yet not read it) Letting Go of God.
A very good comparison of we favored above all living things humans, and the lowly godless squid & octopi with the kickin' evolved eye they have...the one without an optic nerve going through it to attach to the retina, causing a blindspot, which our brains have to compensate for by hallucinating the difference:oo:.
Yeah I know, kewl huh:eek2:..where's my stick:cool2:?

[smerdyakov]

How the cell could have come out of the cosmic soup is not as unfathomable as it sounds. Many people think it took about a year or something. It took a real real long time. Nothing compared to the time of evolution of the ape into a human. Many excellent researches and evidence back this up. It is a fact.

What's a fact? The probability of a cell arising is what? 1 in 10^57,800. And that came about 'in a year or something'? 'That's a fact'?

Point me in the direction where gradual evolution has demonstrated how a single cell arose from cosmic soup.



The forming of a fossil is a very rare situation (that needs rare circumstances). We should be lucky we found as many fossils as we did and do. And all fossils found, back the evolution theory up. Thousands and thousands of fossils.

There should be trillions of fossils. That's the point.


There are many scientific articles about the evolution of the human eye (since creationist always use that as the evidence evolution cannot be true). It is all backed up with excellent evidence and a clear logic.

I only used the eye to illustrate that the jump from a single cell (already incredibly complex) to the evolution of an eye is enormous. 'Simple to complex' becomes relatively meaningless given the overarching complexity of all parts involved in the system.



Gradual evolutionism does not need it's magic unicorn. It needs research and evidence. And there is plenty. Like I said before...evolution is a fact. There are still processes that we don't understand (yet), but so far all found evidence does back this 'theory' up. I am not talking about a book of evidence. I am talking about library's full of books all over the world with only evidence.

But it is by no means as factual as you make it out to be. It's a splendid theory, yes, given a complex species exists, but does not address the ]origins of the species as directly as I think you imagine.

Keep in mind. I'm not a creationist, as I stated in earlier posts. I don't agree with intelligent design, either. I only said I find ID more reasonable than Theistic creationism (for the reasons I posted earlier), not that I was convinced by it.

I agree with you that that science is a viable tool to understand the origins. We're not there yet, though -- not by a long shot. More time and research is needed. By no means does gradual evolutionism demonstrate factually the origins of the species (as of yet). I think punctuated equilibrium makes more sense than gradual evolutionism anyway.

But yeah, I don't think you and I are in disagreement concerning the question of this thread. Thanks for responding.

[Draga]

GOD: Group Of Drunks.

GOD: Getting Off Drugs.

GOD: Game Of Death.

GOD: Glory Or Death.

Dunno, search for it on Godgle.

[OhmyGod!]

What's a fact? The probability of a cell arising is what? 1 in 10^57,800. And that came about 'in a year or something'? 'That's a fact'?

Point me in the direction where gradual evolution has demonstrated how a single cell arose from cosmic soup.

There should be trillions of fossils. That's the point.


But it is by no means as factual as you make it out to be. It's a splendid theory, yes, given a complex species exists, but does not address the ]origins of the species as directly as I think you imagine.

.

Evolution is a fact. Ignoring evolution or saying it's not true, is ignoring the truth. It took hundredthousands and thousands of years for the single cells to evolve into multiplecell organism in the cosmic soup. What theory do you have over the beginning?

Why should there be trillions of fossils? Do you know how a fossil get's to be? Like I wrote before, it's a rare process. It doesn't happen much. Some rare animals we found who were fossilised are such a coincidence! And unique. We should be very happy to even found some of them. There sould not be trillions of them, that does not make sense at all.

I also believe in punctuated equilibrium. But also in gradual evolution. I think both processes happen(ed) to species. Both have evidence. And one does not exclude the other.

Thank you too for responding! I like talking about these subjects! And I know we are not there yet...not in a long way. That makes it so interesting. But we do have A LOT tho...we also should remember that.

@PATINTHEHAT: Thank you! I'm gonna read it! I love that blindspottheory! Tres kewl! :cool2:

[sknut70]

God to me is a giant turtle. :)

[pathoftheturtle]

...Like I said, I'm sure folks do experience something they consider the religious -- but it will be a subjective experience, not a culturally holistic experience (like the ancient contexts I was referring to). Again, this seems to be the result of a difference in world views. The past was dominated by a religious worldview; the modern worldview is one dominated by science (at least in terms of objective validity). I think the former was dominated by the religious because there was no sufficient understanding of the natural world.
...

We must be careful not to over-generalize. Cultures have always had dissidents. I think that it is fair to say that some societies today permit more pluralism than any that existed in the past. What I do agree with is your conclusion that ancient religions should not be applied rigidly to the whole culture of the world today, but I object to making this depend upon a particular theory of natural history. You’re confusing social progress with the hard sciences. According to your logic, the priesthood does not have the right to dominate the public worldview any longer… because that right belongs properly to the scientific community. Call me crazy, if you like, but I don’t see much difference.
OhmyGod! has said that --
... there are no motives of irreligious people...and I agreed that there is no single, grand conspiracy. However, it is also true that even those outside of churches do form some organizations. In the former Soviet Union, theism was outlawed, but tyranny still existed. I don’t mean to stereotype all atheists as Marxist. I’m only saying that a person with no political outlook whatsoever is just as hard to find as one who is entirely above self-interest.
Yeah...you are right...that should be the first question: 'what is god?' and then: 'what is god to you?' And later the question what god to society is.
...One may attempt to set aside the influences of culture within one’s own mind prior to arriving at a definition, but this is practically impossible when in a discussion with others. This forum is not a controlled environment suited for scientific experimentation. Communication is inherently social.
...I am posting because I love to find answers and ask every question one can think of. I don't like it when there are subjects that are non-discussable...Are you trying to learn, or are you just here to teach?
Evolution is a fact. Ignoring evolution or saying it's not true, is ignoring the truth. ...:tongue:
...we do know the mechanism of thunder. I'm not being overly secure about that knowledge -- it's just knowledge. And with that knowledge there's no way to attribute any force beyond the natural (in terms of the 'how') without denying the natural. ...So what? Naturalism has anthropological origins, as well. It’s just as easy for me to dismiss that concept as it is for you to deny God.
Nature, Schmature… You can’t fool me. It’s turtles all the way down.

[apebraKisparp]

Sell your XS on e-bay -- youll get more for it. Set-up a reserve price on it...describe it...show a picture of the warranty card, etc. Youll do well -- its a popular set-up for prosumers right now.

Then get what you need/want Youll definitely want to stick with Canon because of your existing Canon lenses and the 40D. Mind if I put your inquiry to my pro friend who shoots exclusively Canon? Hell have something immediate to say knowing him and suggest for you.

[OhmyGod!]

OhmyGod! has said that --and I agreed that there is no single, grand conspiracy. However, it is also true that even those outside of churches do form some organizations. In the former Soviet Union, theism was outlawed, but tyranny still existed. I don’t mean to stereotype all atheists as Marxist. I’m only saying that a person with no political outlook whatsoever is just as hard to find as one who is entirely above self-interest.

Yes, those outside of churches do form organizations. I never said they didn’t. They even kill. But not in the name of atheism. And to use the former Soviet Union example, is kind of weak and I think you know it. Marxism has nothing to do with atheism. It’s some violent kind of utopia of extreme equality. They might have been atheists…but they also had two ears. Or two legs. It was never in the name of atheism why they have done the things they did. There has never been any mass murder in the name of atheism…as in opposite of religion. There is no motive in atheism. No motivation that says people with opposite thoughts are less or should be killed or what so ever. That’s what we are speaking about…not about people with political outlook or without opinions.






One may attempt to set aside the influences of culture within one’s own mind prior to arriving at a definition, but this is practically impossible when in a discussion with others. This forum is not a controlled environment suited for scientific experimentation. Communication is inherently social.

I was only poiting out that asking the question what God is to society, is also a huge question, but maybe for a special topic? I would love to discuss it...but we should keep in mind the thread starter wanted to know what god to an individual person is. Not to a group. If you see a scientific experimention in my words....well, that is sure not my intention.





Are you trying to learn, or are you just here to teach?

This has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. It’s more about the way HOW I am discussing. But I will respond anyway. Well, like I wrote before, I am Dutch…my English is not that good. So if I come over like I only want to teach people something, that is not my intention. But you try to have this discussion in Dutch and I wonder if you can make it so far that I might think you only want to teach. I stand open for every thought, I do not own the truth and will change my opinion if I think someone’s got a better point than me.





:tongue:



And that smiley…I’ve learned long time ago when people use a smiley in a discussions it’s a way to say they don’t have the words to explain. Well…anyway, I do think evolution is a fact. How much more evidence do we really need? It scares me that about 70 percent (I’m not sure…I think it is even more) of all humans believe the earth is not older than about 2000 years. And that there are still many schools who teach the Bible/Koran as a fact.

[smerdyakov]

We must be careful not to over-generalize. Cultures have always had dissidents. I think that it is fair to say that some societies today permit more pluralism than any that existed in the past. What I do agree with is your conclusion that ancient religions should not be applied rigidly to the whole culture of the world today, but I object to making this depend upon a particular theory of natural history. You’re confusing social progress with the hard sciences. According to your logic, the priesthood does not have the right to dominate the public worldview any longer… because that right belongs properly to the scientific community. Call me crazy, if you like, but I don’t see much difference.

Though I'm not trying to generalize, this may be impossible to avoid given the type of idea I'm suggesting. I understand that religion exists today (and I don't think it's a bad thing). I'm speaking to the nature of the religious experience. It seems to me that the experience has slowly slinked back into the individual while God has slowly been pushed away from an immediacy in the natural. And this is reasonable enough given that we can't find miracles in the realm of objective experience (ie, blatant miracle -- not interpretive -- though I think all miracles were/are interpretive). Like I've said, I believe this is a consequence of drying out the objective world, so to speak, of mystery, or wonder. With science comes reducibility which in itself separates the individual (particular subjective experience) from the natural (objective actuality). My argument is that this sort of reducibility did not dominate the ancients' worldviews -- nature was more so interpreted from the standpoint of the human rather than understood in a reducible way. Really, the issue is an epistemic distinction, not one of social progress. For this reason, I believe:


So what? Naturalism has anthropological origins, as well. It’s just as easy for me to dismiss that concept as it is for you to deny God. Nature, Schmature… You can’t fool me. It’s turtles all the way down.

makes little sense. Yes, science has anthropological origins, but only because humans are the ones that do it. Everything humans do have anthropological origins. Saying god has anthropological origins is a bit different insofar as we are talking about a deity distinct from humans. Also, from above, the result of science takes the humans out of the picture -- something entirely different from religion. Sure, you could say it's turtles all the way down :smile2:, but this conclusion would be based on some subjective judgment most likely influenced by defiance. I could say the world is a chicken egg, but would you take me seriously? No, because there's no way to objectively substantiate my claim -- it's one limited to the caprice of the subject.

[Ayla]

I'm a card carrying evolutionary athiest and have come to the inevitable conclusion that we will never convince people who rally against evolution. And i'm now pretty well much beyond caring.

ID started off as an excellent compromise between the two warring factions. We could all think what we wanted to think, know the other side was wrong but have a nice polite way to discuss it at dinner parties - Brilliant. Its a pity the concept was abused in the ways that it was.

But to the original question. What is God to me?

God is a faith and comfort that i wish i had. Its the grown ups Santa. Its meant to motivate us to do well, judge us when we dont and surround us with light and comfort when we need it in the secret early hours of the morning when the whole world is grey and sad. I *wish* that i could have that. The cold hard facts of science are of little comfort when i worry about the otherside. I know that there is no otherside and that bleak emptiness without scares the crap out of me. i know that i will not be aware and that i'll have probably ceased to exist (c'mon string theory) and i'm sad for a world that doesn't have me in it. cause yes...i am *exactly* that self involved. But i cannot reconcile the mythology with the science.

I grew up amongst some deeply religious people that not only worshipped their god, but loved it in an entirely personal way that was touching to see. The idea of a God is a comfort, whether real or not, and i whole-heartedly support anyones methods of getting through the day. As long as i can get the same respect for my methods.

And to all the Anti-IDers out there, i reccomend the Church of the Flying Spaghettie Monster. A must read - and uproariously funny. If i have a church, its this one.

[pathoftheturtle]

...you try to have this discussion in Dutch and I wonder if you can make it so far...Probably not. I have to give you credit. It’s hard enough when countrymen try to comprehend each other. I have been making effort, already, to give extra thought to reading your posts. I think that we have done pretty well until now. I accept the blame for miscommunication here, but it might be less a matter of me not understanding you than of me myself not being clear enough. Sorry to be rude. Open-mindedness is important.


...I was only poiting out that asking the question what God is to society, is also a huge question, but maybe for a special topic? I would love to discuss it...but we should keep in mind the thread starter wanted to know what god to an individual person is. Not to a group. ...It is a good idea to organize so that questions can be approached in productive order without any being simply disallowed, but I think that it is already too late to separate this topic. Remember that I joined this thread responding to an “historical” theory applied as critique of belief in God. Such arguments are in themselves a form of social pressure. Many individuals will tend to change what they say about their private beliefs, based on their perceptions of the group dynamic. Some who only planned to read will decide that they have something which they want to post, once they see where the discussion is going. Others will decide not to, after all. Should we leave this as a judgmental atmosphere? I’ll gladly withdrawal if doing so encourages individual opinions of all types to be posted without provoking arguments.


...There has never been any mass murder in the name of atheism…as in opposite of religion. There is no motive in atheism. No motivation that says people with opposite thoughts are less or should be killed or what so ever. ...“Motive” only means a reason for taking a specific action. It doesn’t have to have so a negative a connotation. If someone believes that theism leads to mass murder, that would be a darn good motive for opposing theism.

I grant that it is a great evil when religion is carried to such extremes. However, not all believers are such zealots. It is overkill, in my opinion, to reject God in general due to that motive.

smerdyakov: I don’t mean to ignore you. RL keeping me pretty busy. I’ll try to respond ASAP. Til then, peace.

[poisonbat]

Wow, you three seem to be really hashing this out :eek2:. I thought the thread was about God and who he/she is to you, not about evolution! :bat:

[pathoftheturtle]

What is god to you?

Is god no more than a superstition? Do you look toward the clouds after hearing the preacher talk about ted nugent and cat scratch fever? What the hay is cat scratch fever? And do you wonder just what the hay he was talking about when he spoke about the cedars, that one man saw profit there, while the preacher, good man that he is, saw a kind of beauty he has the luxury to enjoy? And they passed around a plate at the end of it all, i didn'’ have a penny to pay. sO i got me a pen and a paper, and I made up my own little sign…

Men to whom god is dead worship one another. So wrote the crews, gospel singer, circa 1968. Wonder how ole harry is doing today, probably retired.

How does one take hold of the concept of god? How does one arrive at more than a superstition? Or does one leave god out of it all, now and forever, amen?

Or do you think, yeah, well, there’s time. I can make do there at the last moment. And for all we know, that works. Take hold at the last moment.

Or are you one of those that does not credit a “god”? I mean, look around, right, walk into any flavor of ice cream you think you might like and where does it lead? May they all go to hell, except for cave 19? Cave 19 is living la vida loco. Walk into one or ten, not one in ten is in agreement. “Even now, one laughs.”

Or do you figure god is an evolution of things, of thought, of the times?

Curious is all. Lately, I’m wondering if my own faith is nothing more than superstition. Strike me dead kinda thing, quick glance at the cloudy sky.With only a shallow understanding, I think that belief in God can indeed be only superstition. I hate to be insulting, but if you carry a cross with just a vague idea that it will cause something good to happen to you, I think that that’s roughly equal to a rabbit’s foot.

Now, rationalists are a bit more sophisticated. They use strategy to get what they want. Such people have for centuries been collecting knowledge they find useful.
Science has not disproven the existence of God; it is just treated as an unproven claim. The scientific method exists to isolate those data that can be applied. Everything else is irrelevant.

... I understand that religion exists today (and I don't think it's a bad thing). I'm speaking to the nature of the religious experience. ...I get that, and I respect your attempt to reach a reasonable compromise, but nonetheless, where you are speaking from is a cultural construct. It’s fine for you to state that your own worldview is dominated a paradigm of reducibility, and that you feel compelled to interpret experience in that way. However, your apparent belief that I’m the same is nothing more than psychological projection.

The fundamental assumption of rational epistemology is that human reason can comprehend reality. This supports many other ideas, but it cannot be used to support itself.

Some are frightened of religion because it stands in the way of progress. But to some others, it is human progress that is frightening. Our environment is fragile. Don’t be too secure in your own imperfect knowledge.

[smerdyakov]

QUOTE=pathoftheturtle;348923]With only a shallow understanding, I think that belief in God can indeed be only superstition. I hate to be insulting, but if you carry a cross with just a vague idea that it will cause something good to happen to you, I think that that’s roughly equal to a rabbit’s foot.[/QUOTE]

Symbols have a powerful quality. I don’t think this is a just comparison because the cross is such a symbol, whereas a rabbit foot is not. Maybe some folks use both objects as ‘good luck charms’, but for entirely different reasons.


Now, rationalists are a bit more sophisticated. They use strategy to get what they want. Such people have for centuries been collecting knowledge they find useful.

I really don’t understand your use of ‘strategy’ here. If you mean a method for amassing information about the material world, then I agree (lots of a’s and m’s there!). If this isn’t what you mean by strategy, maybe you could clarify. It’s not like there’s some underground conspiracy to cast selective truths in the shadows -- entirely the opposite. Science is in the business of bringing all truths to light, but unfortunately can only deal with quantifiable evidence. The existence of god bares no such evidence, though it should. Given that God is the cause, we should see his fingerprint on everything quantifiable. This isn’t the case, though. Some may argue for a quality of god in all things, but such qualities are limited to the human and their own experience of it. I think this makes the argument even more suspect. Shouldn’t there be evidence outside the human (for the reasons suggested above)? And if evidence for god is limited to human conception, doesn’t this support the possibility of god’s concept being fashioned in the human mind altogether? If you look at other qualifiable experiences -- such as color or heat -- we find a quantifiable explanation beneath it (wavelength of light/motion of particles). Why doesn’t the quality of god we experience in things also have a quantifiable counterpart if god is active in the natural?


Science has not disproven the existence of God; it is just treated as an unproven claim.

I hate to use the tired cliché of Dawkins and those other bahumbugs, but the burden of proof is not on the scientist -- it’s on the theist. Nonetheless, I think science has slowly limited the necessity of god’s existence to make sense of the world. Without necessity, God becomes a meaningless concept.


The scientific method exists to isolate those data that can be applied. Everything else is irrelevant. I get that, and I respect your attempt to reach a reasonable compromise, but nonetheless, where you are speaking from is a cultural construct. It’s fine for you to state that your own worldview is dominated a paradigm of reducibility, and that you feel compelled to interpret experience in that way. However, your apparent belief that I’m the same is nothing more than psychological projection.

From these reductions we are able to predict the actions of things outside of us. This effectively tells us that our own human biases aren’t getting in the way -- we have transcended ourselves for the truth outside. And this has become the modern criterion for an objective truth. Maybe you could explain more about how you and I differ in our criterion of ‘truth’, or your own personal paradigm.


The fundamental assumption of rational epistemology is that human reason can comprehend reality. This supports many other ideas, but it cannot be used to support itself.

I see your point here -- though we can understand other things with our minds, how do we go about understanding our own minds with our minds? My first response would come from above (predictions/taking subjective quality out the picture). A second would be this: Why can’t consciousness itself be reduced to brain states? Why can’t consciousness be an emergent property in the same way as color or heat? All organisms have awareness to some degree. It seems reasonable to me that the level of an organism’s complexity would dictate the degree of its awareness. After all, the brain does have centers which function in accord to our own subjective experiences -- emotion, for example -- and those centers can be further reduced to other biological activities. I guess my point is this: If we find that the method of reducibility works for every other natural phenomena, why should we find this method inapplicable to ourselves? What makes us different?

[smerdyakov]

My post was too long! Here's the last part:


Some are frightened of religion because it stands in the way of progress. But to some others, it is human progress that is frightening. Our environment is fragile. Don’t be too secure in your own imperfect knowledge.

No one said we have perfect knowledge, only that we have a better way of acquiring it nowadays. And the good thing about science is that dogmatic systems have to be discarded once better theories arise (notably the overhaul of Newtonian space in favor of Einstein’s relativity). So I guess I don’t really agree that anyone’s being overly secure, nor are they saying we have perfect knowledge. We in fact admit an imperfect understanding, and for that very reason dismiss some theories for others that offer better predictions. By contrast, Theists claim to know something perfect and infinite -- consequently, there must be some perfect center in their minds to receive such knowledge.

I should say that I have a deep respect for religion, but also think it can be considered apart from the existence of god, as a human activity. I think many of the ‘good’ things humans can do were born out of it -- from music, to painting, to sculpture, modern ethics, and even science. Arguably, all of these activities began as acts of reverence for some god or another and continued through its influence. Many point to unnecessary blood spilt in the name of religion. Well, sure, but this isn’t exclusive to religion. We could make such connections to science as well. After all, evolutionism certainly influenced the atrocities of Hitler. Does that somehow dirty it? Just because an action isn’t done for the sake of X doesn’t negate accountability. All things are corruptible in individual hands.

I’m sorry if that was long -- I just enjoy talking about this stuff. I’d love to keep going with it.

[SmushingGnomes]

God is love, God is great and looks over us in this life and the one after it. God is good and makes all that is wrong into something good again at the end. At least that's what I've always wanted him to be but he always seemed so different in the bible, the koran, and in the many other different religious texts he's in. And some of the people who claim to follow him act so much differently than this loving God.

But I'm an atheist and no longer believe that he exists anymore. And even though I don't have the comfort of religion anymore, I've found that I appreciate life even more now. I don't have a God anymore but I worship life now.

[omm poppa mow mow]

There's a couple great quotes I return to, time and again:

http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1288199869p2/3137322.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3137322.Fyodor_Dostoyevsky) "So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship."
— Fyodor Dostoyevsky (http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/3137322.Fyodor_Dostoyevsky) (The Brothers Karamazov (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3393910))

Men to whom God is dead worship one another.
--Harry Crews, The Gospel Singer, 1968

And why is that? That men seek someone to worship?

With me, it was sports figures....Bobby Orr, Pistol Pete Maravich, and so on and so forth. We don't outgrow that, do we? Our idols simply change. Down comes the Farrah Fawcett poser and up goes the Tom Cruise. But too, why is it that we also seem to seek out a devil, something to whip and chain and cast in the basement? Why is that I wonder?

[PatInTheHat]

There's a couple great quotes I return to, time and again:

http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1288199869p2/3137322.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3137322.Fyodor_Dostoyevsky) "So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship."
— Fyodor Dostoyevsky (http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/3137322.Fyodor_Dostoyevsky) (The Brothers Karamazov (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3393910))

Men to whom God is dead worship one another.
--Harry Crews, The Gospel Singer, 1968

And why is that? That men seek someone to worship?

With me, it was sports figures....Bobby Orr, Pistol Pete Maravich, and so on and so forth. We don't outgrow that, do we? Our idols simply change. Down comes the Farrah Fawcett poser and up goes the Tom Cruise. But too, why is it that we also seem to seek out a devil, something to whip and chain and cast in the basement? Why is that I wonder?

Great apex question.
My belief is, it's the fear of the dark & unknown, and probably even more so, the fear of being alone in the dark unknown.

[Hicks]

God to me is next to nothing.

Weird, because most of my closest friends are very religious (They go to church, hang out with predominantly the same kind of people, don't drink, don't sleep around and so on, really old school). They seem to get something out of religion, an inner peace. I think it helps them feel better about life, makes it more coherent. There's no harm done. When they die, if there's a heaven, they're taken cared of. If there is nothing after death, there is nothing to loose. Win--Win. Unlike some religious people I know, my friends are nice to non-believers.

I don't like God. Suppose he exists. If he's so omnipotent, why doesn't he make this world a better place to live in and take out the bad stuff he created? God has the power to do so, why doesn't he? I don't want to hear that life is just a test to see if we live up to his standards. God is supposed to know us by heart. He doesn't need a training run for that. When you say something like this to religious people, they say: "God works in mysterious ways." That's a nice excuse for everything. Like talking to a juke-box.

If God does exist, he is evil, inconsiderate, stubborn, childish, criminally insane...how about an example from the Bible, from the Book Of Job: God and Satan are talking, Satan says: "A man will always loose his faith in you if he gets broken down enough." God says: "No way, Jose, I'll prove it." So then he goes and destroys Job. To top it off, God (read it from the book if you don't belive me) kills Job's wife and children. God does this! When I mentioned this to a nice pentecostal woman, she said: "Yes, yes, but read on, God gives him another wife and more children!"

I loved that woman, but I just couldn't process that answer of hers. It blew my mind. The determination, the fanaticism. If that (killing Job's family) wasn't a work of evil, what was?

Are we supposed to be like an ant-farm at the mercy of a masochistic brat?

God: "Sorry about your family, Job. I had to make a point. Here's a new one."
Job, Bible version: "Thank you, Sir! May I have another?"
Job, the uncut version: "I miss my old family."

I like Jesus. He really gave some good advice about life, things even a non-believer can use.

God? No thanks. If you're running heaven, I'll go to hell and spare myself the abuse.

[omm poppa mow mow]

I wonder if it is possible to live w/that feeling you get when you look in the mirror? You know the one? That feeling you get (or I do, anyway) when you see your reflection, that sense of self? This is related to what Pat said, how the fear of being along in the dark unknown, seems to be related (for me anyway) to that sense of self one can attain by looking at one's reflection.

Do you know what I mean? That sense that there is this small version of yourself, way back in your head maybe? Heh! Maybe like in Dreamcatcher, remember that? Pete was it? Or one of them? Way back in the room and Mr. Gray wanting in? What do you do w/that feeling? There's this sense of quiet but the noise of the world seems to intrude and we welcome that, don't we? Seems like we do. I do. You?

[omm poppa mow mow]

This should be in the religion/religious group.

[J.T. Adams]

the Lord Jesus Christ is God to me. King of kings, Lord of lords.

[Mark Alan Trimeloni]

God is a belief in a higher power. No more. No less.

love Mark :)

[Gerald]

God succeeded at making the most boring planet in the universe.

It's the same over and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and over

[PatInTheHat]

God succeeded at making the most boring planet in the universe.

It's the same over and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and overover and over and over and over
W:eek2:W, that might just be a wee tad over done, but no matter, as I'm curious as to just exactly how many others have you been to, you know, to be able to make such an empirically over easy comparison:eyebrow:?

[JohnDalglish]

W:eek2:W, that might just be a wee tad over done, but no matter, as I'm curious as to just exactly how many others have you been to, you know, to be able to make such an empirically over easy comparison:eyebrow:?

Hi.,

Aye indeed.

I certainly don't think it's boring (someone kick that man in the testicles and he won't be bored no more!).

Long days and pleasant nights

[muskrat]

Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Jake Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey
Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey Gary Busey

[tower-obsession]

God, to me, is a presence. He's everywhere, all the time, and He lives in me. I can tell Him anything, even though He already knows. I can even tell Him I'm mad at Him, and He still loves me. He's a friend. I was angry for a long time after my mother died, because I thought that I hadn't gotten to say goodbye--but then, I remembered, before the crash, I had this urge to tell my mother I loved her, and it was so unbelievably strong, I had to reach up to the front seat and pat her shoulder and say, "I love you, Mom." So I did. I did get to tell my mom that I loved her, just one more time before she died. And that was God, allowing me to say goodbye, although I didn't realize it til later.

When I'm having a hard time dealing with people or things, He comes and sits with me, and gives me hope. And once, I was sitting on the sofa with my Bible in my hand, crying over something, and my Bible fell open to a passage that told me to leave off crying, everything was going to work out for the best.

And about a year ago, I was having a meltdown. One night, I had a dream that was so real--the phone was ringing, and it was that old lime-green, rotary dial phone we had when I was a kid. I answered it, and my mom said, "Hi, Tawny, how are you doing?" I told her I didn't know, and I wasn't sure what to do, etc. And she said, "Well, don't worry, everything's going to be okay." Then I told her I miss her and we said we love each other and I woke up. I think that God had something to do with that.

Anyway, sorry for rambling on. I've tried to explain as best I could, who and what God is to me.

[Sundrop]

Muskie, I see that you added a 'Jake' for variety.... nothing boring there LOL

[dsurrett]

I believe in what historic Christianity has taught for nearly 2,000 years. There have always been plenty of people who profess to believe the same thing, but have not let their lives reflect their claimed beliefs. Jesus of the Bible is full of mercy and compassion, unlike many who say they follow him. He didn't condone sin, but also didn't condemn sinners - He offered forgiveness and mercy at every turn. The only people Jesus blasted in the Gospels were the extremely religious leaders who He compared to 'whitewashed tombstones.'
That being said, my core beliefs in God are reflected in the Nicene Creed, as follows.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[senca the lemon]

Good topic! To be honest, I have no idea :umm: .
I'm always wondering if he is testing us on earth, I'm always wondering if he is forgiving, I'm always wondering if he is truly as nice as we think he is (perhaps he put us on earth to just bug us), I'm always wondering if me saying such a thing will make him angry, etc. Loads of questions but no answers :). I guess I just can't really answer what he is, maybe I could try "he will remain a mystery until I die" :)

[Roux_dimentary]

God is nothing to me. There are so many things that do NOT make sense and many people ask questions and get pretty generic response at least in my experience. Things like "You don't need to understand" or "Don't question God." I think we should always ask as many questions as we can. I am not trying to offend anyone merely putting out my beliefs.

[Manxkitti]

I don't believe in bullying people into believing in one all knowing God. In my opinion, that is what the Christians have done. "Believe in what I believe in or die!" Really? My deities are not in a building, and they hear me where ever I am. I believe in the old ways. Yes, I would have been hung for my beliefs back in the day. Only a "Christian" can be a Satanist, since Satan is purely a Christian concept. Satan didn't exist until Christianity became prominent.

Blessed be and merry meet. Do what thy will, but harm none.

[Brice]

A bogeyman made up by some really imaginative people to scare the kids into being good.

[Gerald]

I think Jack Torrance invented that computer option. :D

But it is true. Religion is a mystery to me. I've been raised religiously partly (reformed), but while God scared the living hell out of me as a kid (I was so afraid even THINKING a blasphemous word would garantue me a place in hell), as an adult I can't see how people can honestly believe in a higher being that created everything and now looks down on it all from 'somewhere'. I know a lot of people believe it, but I just can't understand HOW they can without the slightest bit of 'evidence'. Life is a complete mess, imo, good people die, bad people live and harm others - it makes no sense at all.

I'd rather avoid the subject altogether, but I had just watched 'The Invention of Lying' that time.

[Gerald]

You can't modify your posts... But if I can add to that. I find life very repetitive. You do the same things throughout your life all the time, every day over and over...

Even Stephen said 'hell is repetition'.

[Gerald]

I closed the book on God it seems.

That's good. Cause I'm SICK of the guy.

[sandybeachbeach]

:dunno:ASK MICHAEL JACKSON. IS HE STILL WONDERING, OR DOES HE KNOW? LISTEN TO GARY NUMAN, HIS LYRICS STRUGGLE EVERYDAY, BUT HE HIMSELF IS DOING GREAT.

[PatInTheHat]

:dunno:ASK MICHAEL JACKSON. IS HE STILL WONDERING, OR DOES HE KNOW? LISTEN TO GARY NUMAN, HIS LYRICS STRUGGLE EVERYDAY, BUT HE HIMSELF IS DOING GREAT.

Yeeaaahh, exactly what I was just thinkin' :y::upside::y:!!!

[Donna C.]

Each human has 24 hours each day to survive. In order to spend those hours doing something other than quivering in fear, different societies invented beliefs to explain away the demons. A few of those who were eloquent speakers and real nice guys became prophets and convinced others to follow them (and to hand over their riches sometimes). Seriously, how did Joseph Smith get anyone to believe him? And the Catholics! My ex's best friend was married for 15 years, but he was able to get that marriage annulled so that he could divorce and remarry in the Catholic church. How? A nice fat donation! It's all ridiculous. I've been through some tough spots in life, and one thing got me through them: myself (and sometimes my mother--thanks, Mom).

[tenngolfer]

From a technical perspective I like DSurrett's answer; but I feel too "indequate" in my ability to communicate, to express how I feel about God, and the many thoughts I have concerning God.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Seriously, how did Joseph Smith get anyone to believe him?



He must've been pretty convincing. I believe him

[guido tkp]

hmmm...with no offense towards the mormons (or you, LG)...methinks the real reason is complete and utter failure of the 'church' of the moment (whoever that may be)...and the ever questing soul of man to find a better answer than the clear and present lie that they know they are being told...to find an answer that might actually make sense

thus the 'christian' leaves behind his jewish roots...the roman catholic leaves behind the orthodoxy what came before it...the protestant the catholic...the baptist/methodist/whateverist leaves behind the lutheran...and on and on and on

if we were all actually honest, true and ethical...we'd all have to admit to the lie...and where would that leave us...barren and alone on this stolid rock ?

nay...we'd just cleave to a new belief...one that suits our better knowledge of the moment.

[Donna C.]

Am I in the minority here? I don't see the need for "a better answer," when the answers are all around us. It doesn't matter how we got here or where we're going, because we can't do a thing about either one. What matters is that we all do the best we can, that we help and support each other, that we're as kind as we can be, that we protect our Earth and our fellow beings. Peace, love, and understanding.

[guido tkp]

you are probably not in the minority, donna...but...

alot of the people, throughout history and on up to now, feel that the exact path we take to achieve those shared goals and ideals is every bit as important as getting them done...

and, by and large, it is those differences that really drive us to these distractions

we just simply can't see past the ego of our beliefs to see that the forest and the trees are all the same

[staropeace]

I think of God as a really cool sorta hippy guy that looks like Ted Neely, in my mind.

[AnnaClaire]

Sometimes I think God gets really busy

[Frank-ly realistic]

Well, my Dad died of a rifle shot in the South Pacific during World War II... no breath or pulse for 1/2 an hour. During that time he walked in the beautiful field of flowers in Heaven. He heard God say that he had to go back to earth, because "his work on Earth was not over yet", and he woke up. I am glad he came back, because I wasn't born yet. -----

Who/what is God? Just like we, ourselves are body, soul, and spirit (one in three and three in one): God is body: Jesus, God is Soul: God the Father (who sometimes uses the moon for a footstool), and God the Holy Spirit .....
Technically, according to John 1, Jesus created the Earth, Adam and Eve. ...
The simple truth is that God/Jesus is a perfect gentleman and will not go where he is not invited. If you've sinned, ask forgiveness from God and keep a good relationship with God. The "Rapture" is coming soon. ///// from a High School buddy of Stephen ( 6 years of schooling together, not all High School ) 7th-12th

[GNTLGNT]

...to borrow from Unca Steve, to me "God" is "The White", the power of good-but impersonal, we as frail humanity must put it to work as best we can-IF we choose to follow that path...

[vickilynn]

To me, God isn't a "what" He's a who. And the God I believe in is the God of the Bible.

[guido tkp]

i thought horton was a who ?
how can that be ? the two ?!?

...and all the other people, vickilynn...which god do you suppose they believe in ?
god of the kumquats ?!?

and in all this great big vast world...do you really believe god might not be the creator of all...or just those who read the same book as you....

since your good book tells you not to judge others (lest ye be judged)...if they choose a different path but reach the same goal...are they doomed...

and just what happens to even good people when, at the end of the day, they find that the seeming path of good intentions is found to be, instead (as warned) a road to hell...

what is god to me ? not that small....

[the_last_gunslinger]

.and all the other people, vickilynn...which god do you suppose they believe in ?
god of the kumquats ?!?

I've been told that I don't worship the God of the Bible because Mormons reject the Trinity. I always wonder what God it is they think we worship every Sunday.


As for who I think God is...I believe Him also to be a personal being. He is a physical personage with a body of flesh and bone, (and after His image are we made). He is the governor of all creation, the author of our salvation and the means by which all of creation rolled into existence. Most important of all, He is literally the Father of our Spirits, so the term "Heavenly Father is a rather good description of Him. We lived with Him before we were born in the flesh, and our hope is to live again with Him in the eternities if we pattern our lives after the manner in which He has established through His Son.

[guido tkp]

nice, LG...i like that...peace, brutha !

[vickilynn]

i thought horton was a who ?
how can that be ? the two ?!?

...and all the other people, vickilynn...which god do you suppose they believe in ?
god of the kumquats ?!?

and in all this great big vast world...do you really believe god might not be the creator of all...or just those who read the same book as you....

since your good book tells you not to judge others (lest ye be judged)...if they choose a different path but reach the same goal...are they doomed...

and just what happens to even good people when, at the end of the day, they find that the seeming path of good intentions is found to be, instead (as warned) a road to hell...

what is god to me ? not that small....


There are certain judgments we can make. People like to misuse that verse a lot so that they can do what they want and no one is supposed to say anything. Well, I can tell you that if you commit murder or adultery or stead you are sinning because the Bible says so. I can tell you that if you don't believe the gospel of Christ, you are lost because the Bible says so. This comes from God, not me. And there aren't many paths to God, there is one per the Bible. Oh and I never said God isn't the Creator of all. That doesn't mean all will be saved. That's clear right in the Bible. And if you choose not to believe that or accept the authority of Scripture, that's fine, that's your choice. Why do you think Jesus gave the great commission. Evidently any old belief is not ok because He said to go to the whole world and preach the gospel.

No personal offense intended. The OP asked a question and I ansered it.

[Sundrop]

There are certain judgments we can make. People like to misuse that verse a lot so that they can do what they want and no one is supposed to say anything. Well, I can tell you that if you commit murder or adultery or stead you are sinning because the Bible says so. I can tell you that if you don't believe the gospel of Christ, you are lost because the Bible says so. This comes from God, not me. And there aren't many paths to God, there is one per the Bible. Oh and I never said God isn't the Creator of all. That doesn't mean all will be saved. That's clear right in the Bible. And if you choose not to believe that or accept the authority of Scripture, that's fine, that's your choice. Why do you think Jesus gave the great commission. Evidently any old belief is not ok because He said to go to the whole world and preach the gospel.

No personal offense intended. The OP asked a question and I ansered it.

Speaking as someone who taught Sunday school for 12 years and also served as a deacon body leader for 7 years, I respectfully disagree with you.....
No where in the Bible are we told that we can make any sort of judgments about others. In fact, the Bible gives some very specific reasons not to be judgmental. (See Matthew 7)
And while the Bible does name some sins specifically, it also states that all sins are the same in the eyes of God....this means that if I happen to have an affair, it is no different than someone else stealing food to God's way of seeing things.
At no point does Jesus tell us that we are to haughilty flaunt our beliefs at others, nor are we to comdemn them for believing differently.
We are told to love one another....Jesus even says that this is greatest commandment of all.....simply to love one another.
Judgement of who will or who won't be saved is God''s business, and His alone.
Yes, Jesus did say to spread the gospel throughout the world.....but at no time did he say to condemn anyone else while doing so.

[guido tkp]

wow !! perfect answer, SD...

especially this bit: AT NO POINT DOES JESUS TELL US THAT WE ARE TO HAUGHTILY FLAUNT OUR BELIEFS AT OTHERS, NOR ARE WE TO CONDEMN THEM FOR BELIEVING DIFFERENTLY

:y::y::y:

[vickilynn]

Speaking as someone who taught Sunday school for 12 years and also served as a deacon body leader for 7 years, I respectfully disagree with you.....
No where in the Bible are we told that we can make any sort of judgments about others. In fact, the Bible gives some very specific reasons not to be judgmental. (See Matthew 7)
And while the Bible does name some sins specifically, it also states that all sins are the same in the eyes of God....this means that if I happen to have an affair, it is no different than someone else stealing food to God's way of seeing things.
At no point does Jesus tell us that we are to haughilty flaunt our beliefs at others, nor are we to comdemn them for believing differently.
We are told to love one another....Jesus even says that this is greatest commandment of all.....simply to love one another.
Judgement of who will or who won't be saved is God''s business, and His alone.
Yes, Jesus did say to spread the gospel throughout the world.....but at no time did he say to condemn anyone else while doing so.

I can agree with some of what you say here. However...respectfully, where the Bible clearly speaks Christians can speak. And it clearly says that those who don't come to Christ and believe on Him won't be saved therefore any Christian has authority to say that those who come to Christ will be saved and those who don't won't. I don't agree with this "I'm ok, you're ok" philosophy that's been around for quite some time. Those lost outside of Christ are not ok. Nor do I think it's ok to be haughty or arrogant in presenting the truth. I try not to be but I'm sure I don't always succeed. There are those who are better at saying things than I am.

Here's a little something about Christians and making judgments.

http://www.highlandpc.com/articles/makejudg.php

[vickilynn]

p.s. I posted a link though I don't know if that's allowed here. It is on any other board I've been to.

[Moderator]

p.s. I posted a link though I don't know if that's allowed here. It is on any other board I've been to.

Depends on the link.

[Moderator]

I can agree with some of what you say here. However...respectfully, where the Bible clearly speaks Christians can speak. And it clearly says that those who don't come to Christ and believe on Him won't be saved therefore any Christian has authority to say that those who come to Christ will be saved and those who don't won't. I don't agree with this "I'm ok, you're ok" philosophy that's been around for quite some time. Those lost outside of Christ are not ok. Nor do I think it's ok to be haughty or arrogant in presenting the truth. I try not to be but I'm sure I don't always succeed. There are those who are better at saying things than I am.

Here's a little something about Christians and making judgments.

http://www.highlandpc.com/articles/makejudg.php (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.highlandpc.com %2Farticles%2Fmakejudg.php)


I personally believe that there are those of faith that are not Christian who are just as loved and accepted by their higher power and who in their daily lives treat others as a higher power would wish them to do. I am not, however, going to try to convert anyone else to my way of thinking as I believe my connection with my higher power is a personal one and the only authority I have to answer to. And further, I believe there is a place for all those interpretations of spirituality to co-exist.

[not_nadine]

I was always afraid of Carrie's Mother.

[vickilynn]

I personally believe that there are those of faith that are not Christian who are just as loved and accepted by their higher power and who in their daily lives treat others as a higher power would wish them to do. I am not, however, going to try to convert anyone else to my way of thinking as I believe my connection with my higher power is a personal one and the only authority I have to answer to. And further, I believe there is a place for all those interpretations of spirituality to co-exist.


Thanks for the input though I disagree with it. I know there are a multitude of beliefs out there but I believe there's only one truth for everyone whether they ever accept it or not. If two different groups believe the exact opposite, one can be right and one wrong, both can be wrong, but both can't be right. I don't believe there are many "higher powers" or in "create your own realty." But, as I said, there are a multitude of beliefs out there and everyone is free to believe as they choose. Appreciate you sharing yours.

[vickilynn]

I was always afraid of Carrie's Mother.

Not sure how that relates to the question of the OP. Can you be more specific?

[the_last_gunslinger]

Speaking as someone who taught Sunday school for 12 years and also served as a deacon body leader for 7 years, I respectfully disagree with you.....
No where in the Bible are we told that we can make any sort of judgments about others. In fact, the Bible gives some very specific reasons not to be judgmental. (See Matthew 7)
And while the Bible does name some sins specifically, it also states that all sins are the same in the eyes of God....this means that if I happen to have an affair, it is no different than someone else stealing food to God's way of seeing things.
At no point does Jesus tell us that we are to haughilty flaunt our beliefs at others, nor are we to comdemn them for believing differently.
We are told to love one another....Jesus even says that this is greatest commandment of all.....simply to love one another.
Judgement of who will or who won't be saved is God''s business, and His alone.
Yes, Jesus did say to spread the gospel throughout the world.....but at no time did he say to condemn anyone else while doing so.

I don't think the Bible condemns judging; what it does condemn is unrighteous judgment, or hypocritical judgment. Mathew 7:1 does contain the admonition to "judge not, lest ye be judged," but it is more fully explained in subsequent verses when Jesus asks, " And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" In other words, why are you judging someone else for his sins while failing to see your own sins which are even worse? Mathew 7:5 then explains that if you remove the beam from your own eye, you will then see clearly to cast out the mote in your brother's eye. So judgment itself is not condemned. In John 7:24, we are actually commanded to judge, but not according to one's appearance, rather we are told to make 'righteous judgments." Not only that, but Mathew 18:15-17 says that unrepentant churchgoers are to be removed from the church, something that couldn't be done unless judgment is passed as to their worthiness.

I fully agree with you however that Christ's Great Commission does not give Christians a license to be disrespectful to others beliefs or to do it in any way other than according to the precepts of love. As 2 Timothy 4:2 says, we are to preach the word, correct, rebuke, reprove and exhort, but we are to do it with all long suffering (patience).

[vickilynn]

I don't think the Bible condemns judging; what it does condemn is unrighteous judgment, or hypocritical judgment. Mathew 7:1 does contain the admonition to "judge not, lest ye be judged," but it is more fully explained in subsequent verses when Jesus asks, " And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" In other words, why are you judging someone else for his sins while failing to see your own sins which are even worse? Mathew 7:5 then explains that if you remove the beam from your own eye, you will then see clearly to cast out the mote in your brother's eye. So judgment itself is not condemned. In John 7:24, we are actually commanded to judge, but not according to one's appearance, rather we are told to make 'righteous judgments." Not only that, but Mathew 18:15-17 says that unrepentant churchgoers are to be removed from the church, something that couldn't be done unless judgment is passed as to their worthiness.

I fully agree with you however that Christ's Great Commission does not give Christians a license to be disrespectful to others beliefs or to do it in any way other than according to the precepts of love. As 2 Timothy 4:2 says, we are to preach the word, correct, rebuke, reprove and exhort, but we are to do it with all long suffering (patience).

You've said it well.

[Lily Sawyer]

Not sure how that relates to the question of the OP. Can you be more specific?

It's a reference to Carrie, which I don't think you've read (yet). (I think the first King book you've read is Under the Dome, right?)
Anyway, it's a roundabout way to say that Carrie's mother has a God complex...and she's one scary broad. (She's a fervent religious nutjob, fruiter than Fruity Pebbles.)

[Sundrop]

Vickilyn: The link you provided is really just one man's opinion, and he uses partial verses and combines them in order to make his point. I also notice that he uses the terms "discernment" and "judgment" interchangeably. While these words are related, they have entirely different meanings. I could write an essay using these very same verses, and it would have an entirely different viewpoint. Not saying there's anything wrong with your viewpoint, or the author of the article......just it's gonna take a lot more than that to change my view. A whole lot more.




In John 7:24, we are actually commanded to judge, but not according to one's appearance, rather we are told to make 'righteous judgments." Not only that, but Mathew 18:15-17 says that unrepentant churchgoers are to be removed from the church, something that couldn't be done unless judgment is passed as to their worthiness.

Not exactly......We can't just take one line or verse from a passage of scripture, and skew it to fit what we want it to say. Well, we can, but that's where we get in trouble.
We have to read an entire section in order to take into account the context.
In the passage from John 7......Jesus had just healed a man on the Sabbath, and the "church" was upset with him for doing so.....they even accused him of being demon possessed.
In reply, Jesus told them that if they were allowed to perform a circumcision on the sabbath, and pointed out that this was passed down from Moses and the patriarchs, then why shouldn't he, the SON heal a man on the sabbath.....When he told them to judge correctly, he was referring to the judgements they were making about him. He wasn'tr commanding them to go out and judge the world.
I don't want to get into the Matthew 18 verse.......I will say that I don't believe that Jesus meant that anyone should be booted out of church.....and just who is going to determine my worthiness??....another human person with as many or more faults as me???....I don't think so.......
But again, we have to look at the entire passage in order to gain the context in which it was written.


I really didn't mean to get into a huge debate here, so this will be my last post in this thread. Love, Limes and Daisies, Y'all ♥

[PatInTheHat]

If two different groups believe the exact opposite, one can be right and one wrong, both can be wrong, but both can't be right.

Balderdash.
Two groups are just meanderin' along justa singin' a song, they spot a mouse and exclaim upon it's size, one group is made up of fleas, the other, elephants, them flea's say said mouse is rather large, big ol' elephants of course say, 'What that itty bitty teeny tiny thang?', so now tell me, which group is correct:eyebrow:???
Perspective comes in all sizes and packages, could be sensory based, could be in life, and no one thing is only thing, or at least I ain't found it, Aristotle and his contradictory non-contradictions be damned:wink2:.

[Spideyman]

Balderdash.
Two groups are just meanderin' along justa singin' a song, they spot a mouse and exclaim upon it's size, one group is made up of fleas, the other, elephants, them flea's say said mouse is rather large, big ol' elephants of course say, 'What that itty bitty teeny tiny thang?', so now tell me, which group is correct:eyebrow:???
Perspective comes in all sizes and packages, could be sensory based, could be in life, and no one thing is only thing, or at least I ain't found it, Aristotle and his contradictory non-contradictions be damned:wink2:.

Excellent example, PITH.

Loving people live in a loving world. Hostile people live in a hostile world. Same world-- perception.

[vickilynn]

It's a reference to Carrie, which I don't think you've read (yet). (I think the first King book you've read is Under the Dome, right?)
Anyway, it's a roundabout way to say that Carrie's mother has a God complex...and she's one scary broad. (She's a fervent religious nutjob, fruiter than Fruity Pebbles.)


I've probably seen the movie but it's sooooo long ago it's too vague now. I'm aware how the media enjoys making a mockery of certain things. I may have read other SK books since I've been reading for a long, long time so at this point I just don't remember.

[vickilynn]

Balderdash.
Two groups are just meanderin' along justa singin' a song, they spot a mouse and exclaim upon it's size, one group is made up of fleas, the other, elephants, them flea's say said mouse is rather large, big ol' elephants of course say, 'What that itty bitty teeny tiny thang?', so now tell me, which group is correct:eyebrow:???
Perspective comes in all sizes and packages, could be sensory based, could be in life, and no one thing is only thing, or at least I ain't found it, Aristotle and his contradictory non-contradictions be damned:wink2:.

This isn't the kind of thing I'm talking about. What if one person believes the moon is made of cheese and another that it is rock? By what perspective could it be made to be made of cheese? I doesn't become cheese because of someone's sincere belief. Neither do a thousand differing and opposing "truths" become so just because of someone's sincere belief. I don't believe in this "create your own reality" stuff.

[Moderator]

This isn't the kind of thing I'm talking about. What if one person believes the moon is made of cheese and another that it is rock? By what perspective could it be made to be made of cheese? I doesn't become cheese because of someone's sincere belief. Neither do a thousand differing and opposing "truths" become so just because of someone's sincere belief. I don't believe in this "create your own reality" stuff.

What you dismiss as the create your own reality stuff is very real to those who are of a different spiritual persuasion than yours. How you believe is your truth but we do not have any quantifying scientific way to verify that there is the God you (or others) believe in or to disprove those who think differently are not correct in their beliefs or even that you're all right, which is why it is called faith.

[PatInTheHat]

This isn't the kind of thing I'm talking about. What if one person believes the moon is made of cheese and another that it is rock? By what perspective could it be made to be made of cheese? I doesn't become cheese because of someone's sincere belief.
Um, sure, mm hmm, 'k, hmm, that's exactly the same thing huh :umm:?
Yeah I know that's not quite what your talking about, though t'would make it much more convenient for ya if it was, is what I'm reckonin'.

[Robert Gray]

This isn't the kind of thing I'm talking about. What if one person believes the moon is made of cheese and another that it is rock? By what perspective could it be made to be made of cheese? I doesn't become cheese because of someone's sincere belief. Neither do a thousand differing and opposing "truths" become so just because of someone's sincere belief. I don't believe in this "create your own reality" stuff.

Not to be put too fine a point on it, but isn't "faith" exactly that? You have chosen to believe something that you cannot empirically prove. I suspect that anyone of a different opinion is going to suggest that you are simply living in a subjective reality of your own choosing. The reason we know the Moon is made of rock today is because of science. We have been there. We brought back rocks and not big hunks of cheese.

Most religions are based on faith. You have every right to be as dismissive to the beliefs of others as you wish, but do not pretend that yours have anymore basis in provable fact. C.S. Lewis, a very popular writer was a devout Christian, but you would not deem him so. If you have read the various books in his Narnia series, specifically The Last Battle, you would find that Mr. Lewis made a very telling statement about God (personified as Aslan). In short, a Prince of another land approaches and speaks with Aslan to pay his respects but thinks he will not be judged worthy or allowed into Heaven. He states honestly that he never knew of Aslan and paid his respects to another entity. God (Aslan) replies that every good deed he ever did was automatically rendered to him. God (Aslan) indicates that salvation is indeed possible simply by living a good life. By your comments, Mr. Lewis would be a heretic for even suggesting this idea.

Unlike others, I'm not going to pile into you for being dedicated to your beliefs even if they are by nature exclusionary, intolerant, and self serving. What you are doing is a fulcrum of human nature. We all want to believe that we know the secret to life, the magic formula, and that we are somehow special (read better) than everyone else. It makes one feel included. Such notions clearly define the world in black and white in a way that is convenient and non-threatening. It is less work than trying to reconcile all these other ideas and philosophies. Faith comes good and bad. On the one hand it can help someone overcome impossible pain, problems, and provide a framework to get through the day. On the other hand, it is the spiritual version of Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot. Rather than solve the puzzle and seek truth, one take an intellectual shortcut (or end run).

Please bear in mind that I am not talking about the validity or your (or anyone else's) particular faith. Who is right and who is wrong is irrelevant to the discussion because nobody can prove anything. This brings us back to my first point and why people have "faith" to begin with. :) Discussions like this one, by their very nature, tend to be worthless. If you have faith, nothing anyone says or demonstrates (even if they can empirically prove you are wrong) is going to change your mind. Do you see where I'm going with this?

[GNTLGNT]

Um, sure, mm hmm, 'k, hmm, that's exactly the same thing huh :umm:?
Yeah I know that's not quite what your talking about, though t'would make it much more convenient for ya if it was, is what I'm reckonin'.

....duhhhhhh, where are da mouses Pat...huh, huh, huh?.....

[PatInTheHat]

....duhhhhhh, where are da mouses Pat...huh, huh, huh?.....

:eek2:
They went dat away! >>>---------->
:oo: .................................................. ..................yeah yeah wrong way:blush:

[not_nadine]

I like cheese.

[Chuggs]

As a basic statement--not wanting to delve too deeply here, at this moment in time--I'll simply say that God is the creator of all things.

[guido tkp]

ms mod @ 153& R gray @ 155: great, thoughtful stuff...love that cs lewis stuff... good call :y:

[champ1966]

I was always afraid of Carrie's Mother.

I think it's Ayko's sister

16731

[Wildcat]

I'm sure this will open a huge can of worms. My knowledge of God comes from Scripture. There is a lot more that could be said, but here's the basics.

There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.

God the Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. He is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and all wise. God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ. He is fatherly in His attitude toward all men.
Genesis 1:1; 2:7; Exodus 3:14; 6:2-3; 15:11ff.; 20:1ff.; Leviticus 22:2; Deuteronomy 6:4; 32:6; 1 Chronicles 29:10; Psalm 19:1-3; Isaiah 43:3,15; 64:8; Jeremiah 10:10; 17:13; Matthew 6:9ff.; 7:11; 23:9; 28:19; Mark 1:9-11; John 4:24; 5:26; 14:6-13; 17:1-8; Acts 1:7; Romans 8:14-15; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 4:6; Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:6; 12:9; 1 Peter 1:17; 1 John 5:7.

God the Son: Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus perfectly revealed and did the will of God, taking upon Himself human nature with its demands and necessities and identifying Himself completely with mankind yet without sin. He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, fully God, fully man, in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord.
Genesis 18:1ff.; Psalms 2:7ff.; 110:1ff.; Isaiah 7:14; 53; Matthew 1:18-23; 3:17; 8:29; 11:27; 14:33; 16:16,27; 17:5; 27; 28:1-6,19; Mark 1:1; 3:11; Luke 1:35; 4:41; 22:70; 24:46; John 1:1-18,29; 10:30,38; 11:25-27; 12:44-50; 14:7-11; 16:15-16,28; 17:1-5, 21-22; 20:1-20,28; Acts 1:9; 2:22-24; 7:55-56; 9:4-5,20; Romans 1:3-4; 3:23-26; 5:6-21; 8:1-3,34; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2:2; 8:6; 15:1-8,24-28; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; 8:9; Galatians 4:4-5; Ephesians 1:20; 3:11; 4:7-10; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:13-22; 2:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; 3:16; Titus 2:13-14; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-15; 7:14-28; 9:12-15,24-28; 12:2; 13:8; 1 Peter 2:21-25; 3:22; 1 John 1:7-9; 3:2; 4:14-15; 5:9; 2 John 7-9; Revelation 1:13-16; 5:9-14; 12:10-11; 13:8; 19:16.

God the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, fully divine. He inspired holy men of old to write the Scriptures. Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. He cultivates Christian character, comforts believers, and bestows the spiritual gifts by which they serve God through His church. He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the guarantee that God will bring the believer into the fullness of the stature of Christ. He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.
Genesis 1:2; Judges 14:6; Job 26:13; Psalms 51:11; 139:7ff.; Isaiah 61:1-3; Joel 2:28-32; Matthew 1:18; 3:16; 4:1; 12:28-32; 28:19; Mark 1:10,12; Luke 1:35; 4:1,18-19; 11:13; 12:12; 24:49; John 4:24; 14:16-17,26; 15:26; 16:7-14; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4,38; 4:31; 5:3; 6:3; 7:55; 8:17,39; 10:44; 13:2; 15:28; 16:6; 19:1-6; Romans 8:9-11,14-16,26-27; 1 Corinthians 2:10-14; 3:16; 12:3-11,13; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30; 5:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:19; 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 9:8,14; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 John 4:13; 5:6-7; Revelation 1:10; 22:17.

[not_nadine]

Did you just copy a bunch of bible quotes? That's it?

[~Ally~]

Did you just copy a bunch of bible quotes? That's it?

I feel the post makes perfect sense in relation to the thread's question. They explained their knowledge of God comes from scripture, and provided examples that seem to demonstrate/represent what God is to them.

[Wildcat]

Those are source citations - where the ideas are found, that way people will know they are not just ideas from me (although I obviously believe them or I wouldn't have said them.) They are not direct quotes.

[Wildcat]

I would simply add to my previous comment that I have experienced the living God through and in the Bible. That is ultimately why I believe it (though certainly not the only reason). Why is it any better if it comes from myself or from anyone else?

[not_nadine]

I just it would have been better to hear it in your own words, hence the title.

[guido tkp]

hmmm..seems to me the first part of each...the paragraphical part...of wildcats answer kinda did indicate how he/she feels...in a sort of dry, nonrelevatory way

the second part seemed like footnotes to back up the thoughts/feelings...

'course...with a name like 'wildcat'... i probably am just feeling all sort of protective...wildcats are big in my state, too

[Robert Gray]

I would simply add to my previous comment that I have experienced the living God through and in the Bible. That is ultimately why I believe it (though certainly not the only reason). Why is it any better if it comes from myself or from anyone else?

It is always interesting to me how many people experience something vicariously through books. I am not being sarcastic or snide here, merely academic. Books are an entirely internal medium which engage the "mind's eye" and against which we have very few defenses. This is because we, ourselves, allow our imaginations and personal experience (i.e. context) to fill in any gaps and provide all the fine details. In short, failures in logic, omissions, contradictions in terms, and all other manner of problems simply vanish because of our own sense of story and the cleverness of the human brain. It hates a void and thus it doesn't allow one, filling in anything and everything needed to make it perfect (at least as far as that individual reader is concerned).

If I were to have to sum up your words based on the title of this thread, I would have to surmise that "God is a really good book." Clearly, that can't be what you mean. Like some of the others commented, it would be nice to hear it in your own words. This would indicate to us that you are doing more than parrot what you read, that there is an interactive flow of information, that critical thinking skills are being applied. People respect those that can do more than repeat or quote. What you are doing is the religious version of just giving someone a link to your favorite website when they ask you a question. It comes off as lazy and more than a little insincere (even if you are entirely sincere).

[atomicinchworm]

I like the idea of a god, and I can understand the comfort the idea would provide.

It just doesn't make any damned sense to me, so I don't believe in one.

[guido tkp]

ah, but, atomic"...would that be god as we unfortunately, commonly understand him/her/it ...god as commonly presented by the mere mortals who then screw up the idea/message (usually to advance their own purposes/power) to such a point where it does not, in fact, make sense to discerning, intelligent people...

or, is there another possibility...

that some folks, being of a more discerning intelligence, think about this sort of thing, but are left theologically/intellectually wanting because the more common, debased thinking is not broad enough to fit a true, all-encompassing godlike reality

[smooth operator]

I used to believe in God - when I was a child. Not any more. I would never tell anyone what to believe. That is something you have to discover on your own. I do believe that the world is full of mysteries and magic - for lack of a better word. Life itself is a miracle. But the idea of an omnipotent and omnipresent being who created the universe seems more than unlikely to me. I have read the Bible, which was written by men, despite the credited source of the material. Men are prone to exaggeration and mistakes. I sometimes wish I had faith - if just to ease my fear of death. But what I really believe is that you are given only one chance at life and you should make the best of it. My main thesis statement regarding my theology is the first line of the Hippocratic oath - "First do no harm."

[GNTLGNT]

....this is my guy....seriously, I just love this take on the "totems" of Christianity...

http://www.flixya.com/files-photo/P/h/e/Phee07-1842216.jpg

[guido tkp]

in the semi-immortal words of sir paul mccartney, SO..."that's good enough...good enough for me"

i think i know how you feel...especially about the mischieviousness of mankind and all...

so, i went a different path... i kinda gave up on the man-made thing called 'church' and let god be god all by its little lonesome

[atomicinchworm]

Mostly, any God worth worshiping would have to be an emotionless, force of nature. God in the Old Testament is capable of jealousy and anger, and in the New Testament he is capable of love. A powerful being, sure, but not one I would worship. I am not going to worship a person, why would I worship a being capable of only the broadest strokes of human emotion?

Science is not infallible, but it will at least adjust it's views according to observable data.

I find it disturbing when people believe everything that is written down without thinking about it, whether it is on the internet, in a novel, or in the bible.

[guido tkp]

agreed, AIW....especially since we know, through history, that such writings are I]not[/I] be what would claim it is...

and that facing up to reality has nothing to do with science attempting to trump anything...but everything to do with just plain common sense

love that statue, Big G...

[vickilynn]

Mostly, any God worth worshiping would have to be an emotionless, force of nature. God in the Old Testament is capable of jealousy and anger, and in the New Testament he is capable of love. A powerful being, sure, but not one I would worship. I am not going to worship a person, why would I worship a being capable of only the broadest strokes of human emotion?

Science is not infallible, but it will at least adjust it's views according to observable data.

I find it disturbing when people believe everything that is written down without thinking about it, whether it is on the internet, in a novel, or in the bible.


Christians believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God so naturally we're going to listen to it. One things for sure. The day will come when everyone will know if it's true or not. In fact I think a person who rejects it finds our as soon as they die whether it's true or not.

[guido tkp]

how can you have an infallible word of god if it is, in it's entirety, made up of stories never written down at the time... passed down by word of mouth thru generations...then assembled from various, scattered areas...rewritten, then edited to suit their needs of whomever culled those tales at that time...

an infallible word that has been folded, spindled, mutilated, edited, rewritten, translated...had large sections deleted (can you leave out sections of the infallible word of god ? the catholic church did when it 'created' the king james version...edited, of course to please king james...of england...a mortal)...

and again rewritten each time there was a new power on the throne (whichever throne that may be) again...

rewritten again for martin luther and his POV...

often rewritten, to this day, for whatever new religious leader decides he/she doesn't like the version that came before it...

once again,..awfully judgemental for one who supposedly has read the book, has become infused with its word...in which we are all admonished not to be judgemental of others...that only god has that power...

but, then again...what else would one expect from a mere, inferior, fallible mortal

[Robert Gray]

Christians believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God so naturally we're going to listen to it. One things for sure. The day will come when everyone will know if it's true or not. In fact I think a person who rejects it finds our as soon as they die whether it's true or not.

To be fair Vickilynn there are people who consider themselves (and call themselves) Christians that do not think the Bible is the infallible word of God. These people believe in God and Jesus Christ as their savior. They simply don't agree that the Bible, written by men, is free of all flaw or human misunderstanding of the divine word. I only point this out because you are defining Christian the way YOU want to define it, disfranchising lots of folks. I expect there are lots of Christian denominations that you would (for other reasons) also consider not "real" Christians. :) We are back at that notion of "faith" again aren't we, as well as the notion of some people being better than others.

[not_nadine]

Well, the Pope resigned.

[Moderator]

Well, the Pope resigned.

Fist time that's happened in 600 years. I've started a new thread (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php/28009-Pope-Benedict-to-resign?p=565843#post565843) about it in case anyone wants to discuss that topic without creating too many side topics here.

[vickilynn]

Well, the Pope resigned.


Ah yes, I heard about that this morning.

[vickilynn]

To be fair Vickilynn there are people who consider themselves (and call themselves) Christians that do not think the Bible is the infallible word of God. These people believe in God and Jesus Christ as their savior. They simply don't agree that the Bible, written by men, is free of all flaw or human misunderstanding of the divine word. I only point this out because you are defining Christian the way YOU want to define it, disfranchising lots of folks. I expect there are lots of Christian denominations that you would (for other reasons) also consider not "real" Christians. :) We are back at that notion of "faith" again aren't we, as well as the notion of some people being better than others.

Thanks for your viewpoint. I believe there are many people in this world that may consider themselves to be such but the only valid...imho....definition of what makes a person a Christian is God's which we find in the Bible....which I and a good many others do accept as God's infallible word. The term (Christian) is used very generically today and can be made to mean whatever someone wants it to. The Bible WAS penned by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. God is still the true Author in my view.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Thanks for your viewpoint. I believe there are many people in this world that may consider themselves to be such but the only valid...imho....definition of what makes a person a Christian is God's which we find in the Bible....which I and a good many others do accept as God's infallible word. The term (Christian) is used very generically today and can be made to mean whatever someone wants it to. The Bible WAS penned by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. God is still the true Author in my view.

The Bible's definition of Christian, however, is pretty vague, encompassing anyone who accepts Christ as their savior and strives to live according to the gospel he preached. The idea that one must accept the Bible as the 100 percent infallible word of God is not even supported or taught in the Bible. My faith has as one of its articles of faith the following, "We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, so far as it is translated correctly." In my view, this makes a lot more sense. The Bible, as originally penned by the ancient prophets and inspired men, was correct, but over the years, the text and the message was changed or altered due to the extrapolations of men, of corrupt politicians with agendas and simply due to poor translations and mistakes. It's hard for me to accept it as 100 percent infallible because one then would have to account for the many contradictions (like the two conflicting accounts of Judas' death) the failed prophecies (like the Old Testament prophecy that the city of Tyre would be destroyed and be a desolate wasteland forever, then finding that in the New Testament, it is a bustling seaport city) and most importantly, I'd expect an inerrant, infallible book that came directly from God to speak more plainly on matters of doctrine and morality. It's hard to accept the Bible as such if the text is so vague so as to destroy any hope of deriving its true meaning, especially in light of the thousands of ways different faith traditions interpret it.

[Robert Gray]

Thanks for your viewpoint. I believe there are many people in this world that may consider themselves to be such but the only valid...imho....definition of what makes a person a Christian is God's which we find in the Bible....which I and a good many others do accept as God's infallible word. The term (Christian) is used very generically today and can be made to mean whatever someone wants it to. The Bible WAS penned by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. God is still the true Author in my view.

All these are opinions, and as such as valid as you or whomever wants to make them. You have to admit there is a certain irony here. Let me demonstrate with sentence by sentence analysis. I will bold or highlight certain words to show emphasis as I quote you:

I believe there are many people in this world that may consider themselves to be such but the only valid...imho....definition of what makes a person a Christian is God's which we find in the Bible....which I and a good many others do accept as God's infallible word.

You follow this with:

The term (Christian) is used very generically today and can be made to mean whatever someone wants it to.

I apologize for the redundancy of quoting your whole passage at the top and then pulling these bits out. What I'm curious about is whether you are able to discern the problem or humor within your own paragraph? What I'm pointing out (and in doing so I'm not trying to be snide) is that you yourself and those you identify as agreeing with you are doing the EXACT thing you are talking about are you not? If I were to ask you how you know you are right and they are wrong, you would probably just say something to the effect that you "know" it. Of course, I expect people who believe differently feel the same way.

I'm not trying to shake your beliefs. I don't even think such a thing is possible. What I am trying to do is engage you in a discussion of philosophical and religious ideas that go outside our personal world view. You will note that I have never stated whether I agree with you or disagree with you. I've made no mention of my personal beliefs at all. This is largely because my "personal" bias is irrelevant to the issue. Truth remains truth whether I (or you) believe in it or not. This means that you and I (or anyone) should be able to have a discussion about philosophy or religion that goes beyond either:

1. I just "know" it.
2. The Bible tells me so.

A truth so profound should be reveal itself in more ways than that. More to the point, you and I (or anyone) should be able to put into words stronger arguments. If we "know" something we should be able to articulate why. Do you follow? Clearly you and I have some great differences of opinion. The key ones have to do with social grace. I, for example, am comfortable telling people what I believe but I can do so (and certainly choose to do so) in a way that doesn't belittle or attack the beliefs of others. I've always been of the opinion that if you can't build yourself (or your point) up without tearing something else down, you don't have anything worth talking about in the first place. In the post you made above, you make it quite clear (as if you hadn't already) what you think of MOST of the world. What called you to state your personal beliefs in just this way?

[guido tkp]

first of all...thank you, LG...your missive, especially from " ..and most importantly...' spot on perfect !

and RG...tremendous amount of applause, all from me, maybe, but there nonetheless...too bad it will fall upon oft deaf ears...

vickie...can one get more dismissive of anothers religious belief than "the term (christian) is used very generically today and can be made to mean whatever someone wants it to"...

in one fell swopp...you've condemned anyone who doesn't think/feel the exactly way YOU do...

my...i must've missed that part of the good book when i read it...what page is that on...

that one, sole, only, true, definition...i'll have to ask my catholic relatives about that...or my jewish friends...my baptists neighbors...or my sventh day adventist coworkers...'cause, obviously..if they don't think exactly like you...they are all doomed to eternal hell

but, then again, it's been said the road to hell is paved with good intentions...i didn't know it was paved so well with stones of ego

[vickilynn]

The Bible's definition of Christian, however, is pretty vague, encompassing anyone who accepts Christ as their savior and strives to live according to the gospel he preached. The idea that one must accept the Bible as the 100 percent infallible word of God is not even supported or taught in the Bible. My faith has as one of its articles of faith the following, "We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, so far as it is translated correctly." In my view, this makes a lot more sense. The Bible, as originally penned by the ancient prophets and inspired men, was correct, but over the years, the text and the message was changed or altered due to the extrapolations of men, of corrupt politicians with agendas and simply due to poor translations and mistakes. It's hard for me to accept it as 100 percent infallible because one then would have to account for the many contradictions (like the two conflicting accounts of Judas' death) the failed prophecies (like the Old Testament prophecy that the city of Tyre would be destroyed and be a desolate wasteland forever, then finding that in the New Testament, it is a bustling seaport city) and most importantly, I'd expect an inerrant, infallible book that came directly from God to speak more plainly on matters of doctrine and morality. It's hard to accept the Bible as such if the text is so vague so as to destroy any hope of deriving its true meaning, especially in light of the thousands of ways different faith traditions interpret it.

Doesn't it say that God is able to preserve His word? If so, then it must exist today. And if God is infallible, which He is, why wouldn't His own book be infallible?

Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” KJVMore: http://www.acts1711.com/inspire.htm

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/long-preserved.html

[guido tkp]

ummm...that's nice...and all sort of missing the point, miss V

dodging truth does not make a lie better

i've often thought that if the bible (or any religious text) were the infalible word of god...any body could pick it up and be able to read it...even though the pages be blank...and the book would speak to them...communicate with them on a level far beyond what any written word could ever do without the need for an interpretor...be it preist or whatever

the very same book would read total truth to a muslim, christian, buddhist or native american indian: god would speak and the soul would hear

that does not describe the bible as we know it today or during the last 2000+ years...not even close

some people worship this man made book...worship it...and, being man made, it is as false an idol as any

[not_nadine]

This is getting like the gun thread.

I was raised Catholic. Went to Calthoic schools. Had Nuns teach me. I really don't remember any of them teaching straight out of the Bible.


The Ark? Really? and Apple? C'mon

Fables.

[Robert Gray]

Doesn't it say that God is able to preserve His word? If so, then it must exist today. And if God is infallible, which He is, why wouldn't His own book be infallible?

Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” KJVMore: http://www.acts1711.com/inspire.htm

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/long-preserved.html (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fav1611.com%2Fkjbp% 2Farticles%2Flong-preserved.html)

You are getting boring. I wish there was a nice way to say it. Let me paraphrase what you just said. "The bible says it is the infallible word of God and since the Bible is infallible it must be right." This is called circular reasoning. This is a logical fallacy of the worst kind. Honestly, is this the best you can do? How can you expect to bear witness effectively to anyone with such tripe? Are you incapable of talking about your faith in your OWN words? Are you incapable of describing it in any way that doesn't simply parrot what you read in a book or was taught to you rote? You demonstrate no depth of feeling, no actual conviction, and cherry pick quotes with little context.

The only thing you are managing to do is sound like you miss the forest for the trees. I've gone back through your posts. Nowhere do you talk of lifting people up, good works, personal revelation, or anything that those within the Bible seem to value. Your comments seem to be nothing more than direct or indirect snipes at all those "other" people who are doing it wrong. :) I could play proverb with you (a game I can play very well) all day long, but then I would be engaging in the same, lazy intellectual deceptions. You have managed to offend (and anger) many here. I am not among them. You are merely boring me to tears. I want good conversations wherein I feel my education has been expanded, or at the least I have been allowed a glimpse of the world through another set of eyes. You haven't shown us anything. You are evoking the most embarrassing emotion of all. You are making us pity you.

[Sepia and Dust]

Doesn't it say that God is able to preserve His word? If so, then it must exist today. And if God is infallible, which He is, why wouldn't His own book be infallible?


Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”




Ohhh, dueling Bible verses! Yeah, I'll play!



And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
-Rev 22:19


Why the warning if changing isn't possible?

[Sepia and Dust]

Last edited by Moderator; 1 Hour Ago at 07:53 AM. Reason: fixed typo


You fix typos, Ms. Mod? Hey, I've got a backlog for ya! :D

[Moderator]

I think there's a 5 second rule for fixing typos.

[vickilynn]

Ok, I get it. I'm boring and you don't accept the Bible as the infallible word of God and some think certain things in the Bible are fables. I do accept it as the infallible word of God so I guess there's not much more to say so carry on with whatever you want to say about me. No offense, but I really don't care if you pity me. There's only one truth for everyone whether they believe it or not, not an undending number of "truths" according to what you choose to believe. There is no "create your own reality." I know you'll say I'm arrogant but that's just plain common sense. The grass doesn't change from green to purple just because you choose to believe it's purple. The earth doesn't become flat because there are people who believe that it is. The law of gravity doesn't suspend itself because someone thinks they can jump off a cliff, flap their arms and fly. There are absolute truths and I believe the Bible to be the absolute truth. If you don't, that's your perogative. Have a nice day.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Doesn't it say that God is able to preserve His word? If so, then it must exist today. And if God is infallible, which He is, why wouldn't His own book be infallible?

Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” KJVMore: http://www.acts1711.com/inspire.htm

Of course God is able to preserve His word. He is infallible. The problem is that men are not. The bible was entrusted to and handled by fallible, imperfect human beings and the only way that God could ensure that the book itself is perfect is if God were to revoke man's free agency, which is something He would not do. He will never force us to be righteous.

I don't say this to degenerate the Holy Bible; I believe it is an inspired text, just that it's imperfect and may contain some error intermingled with truth.

[vickilynn]

Ohhh, dueling Bible verses! Yeah, I'll play!



Why the warning if changing isn't possible?

It doesn't say that it's impossible for men to try and alter God's word. It's a warning of what will happen if they do. God's word cannot be altered in reality. That doesn't stop men from attempting it. For instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible where they've altered it to conform to their beliefs. I've even heard that the gays were going to create their own Bible, supposedly to take out the parts that condemn what they do. Whether they've actually done that, I don't know, it's just something I heard. They can print up new "Bibles" and add or take away or change what they want but that doesn't actually alter God's true word one iota which they will find out.

[the_last_gunslinger]

The only thing you are managing to do is sound like you miss the forest for the trees. I've gone back through your posts. Nowhere do you talk of lifting people up, good works, personal revelation, or anything that those within the Bible seem to value. Your comments seem to be nothing more than direct or indirect snipes at all those "other" people who are doing it wrong. I could play proverb with you (a game I can play very well) all day long, but then I would be engaging in the same, lazy intellectual deceptions. You have managed to offend (and anger) many here. I am not among them. You are merely boring me to tears. I want good conversations wherein I feel my education has been expanded, or at the least I have been allowed a glimpse of the world through another set of eyes. You haven't shown us anything. You are evoking the most embarrassing emotion of all. You are making us pity you.

I don't get the same impression from vickilynn's posts, exactly. I think she's made an attempt to look at other people's perspective on this; she simply disagrees and comes to different conclusions. There have been things that I agree with her on and others where I don't, but I don't feel as though she's been offensive (even if I fall outside her definition of Christian). I can respect her stance on the issues at hand here and I honestly don't feel as though she's intentionally trying to belittle or put down other viewpoints.

[hossenpepper]

Man, I gotta stay away from this thread. Faith is fundamentally devoid of logic and therefore the only debate that can be held are among those that agree the faith is truth and concerning small subtleties within it.

This is sad for me too, because I know the bible better than most of the cloth. But, people of faith are so easily offended by contradictory statements to this faith that is supposed to be such a strength inducing thing.

[hossenpepper]

I do accept it as the infallible word of God so I guess there's not much more to say...

See my previous post... this is what I am talking about. YOU accept it as such. That proves absolutely nothing is true except you have an opinion on a book. The opinion of Muslims is just as sure. And Catholics, who reject all other Christian faiths as not the true way (yet they practice one of the first no no's; idolatry). And Jews. And Sikhs. And Shinto. And Buddhism. Shall I go on? That is your OPINION of truth, not truth. Science is the only thing in this life that even approaches the definition of truth. Truth always cuts both ways and doesn't care about your opinion. Faith is based on and REQUIRES your opinion that the presented truth is such.


There's only one truth for everyone whether they believe it or not, not an undending number of "truths" according to what you choose to believe. There is no "create your own reality."
Ummm... have you read the whole bible? It's all about creating reality around you via your faith. there are numerous verses detailing how anything is possible through faith. If two be together who can stand against them? Jesus' main theme was the life you see is an illusion and only through faith is the real revealed; the spirit world. You are way off on this one, sorry. Factual reference reveals this, not opinion.



I know you'll say I'm arrogant but that's just plain common sense. The grass doesn't change from green to purple just because you choose to believe it's purple. The earth doesn't become flat because there are people who believe that it is. The law of gravity doesn't suspend itself because someone thinks they can jump off a cliff, flap their arms and fly. There are absolute truths and I believe the Bible to be the absolute truth. If you don't, that's your perogative. Have a nice day.

Common sense is not part of religion in any way, frankly. Common sense is logic. Faith is religion. The two are oil and water.

The flat world folks were the church. They locked up those who didn't agree.

Also you misspelled prerogative... :-)

[vickilynn]

I don't get the same impression from vickilynn's posts, exactly. I think she's made an attempt to look at other people's perspective on this; she simply disagrees and comes to different conclusions. There have been things that I agree with her on and others where I don't, but I don't feel as though she's been offensive (even if I fall outside her definition of Christian). I can respect her stance on the issues at hand here and I honestly don't feel as though she's intentionally trying to belittle or put down other viewpoints.


Thanks. It's true that I don't agree with other viewpoints but that doesn't mean I'm trying to be offensive. This particular thread has really about run it's course at least for me.

[vickilynn]

Man, I gotta stay away from this thread. Faith is fundamentally devoid of logic and therefore the only debate that can be held are among those that agree the faith is truth and concerning small subtleties within it.

This is sad for me too, because I know the bible better than most of the cloth. But, people of faith are so easily offended by contradictory statements to this faith that is supposed to be such a strength inducing thing.

I should probably stay away, too.

[Robert Gray]

Ok, I get it. I'm boring and you don't accept the Bible as the infallible word of God and some think certain things in the Bible are fables.

No. I refer you back to my posts. I don't, at any time, say that I don't accept the Bible as infallible. I don't mention my personal beliefs at all. What I have asked (and questioned) is your apparently refusal (or inability) to talk about these things in your own words. I don't think it is good manners to just parrot proverbs at people nor try to shove them off with a link to some other site which simply repeats your premise. The topic of this thread is "What is God to You?" So far the only conclusion we can draw is that you think God is a really good book. Clearly God means more to you than that. If you are going to chime into a thread like this, we want things in your own words.


I do accept it as the infallible word of God so I guess there's not much more to say so carry on with whatever you want to say about me. No offense, but I really don't care if you pity me.

The problem is that you aren't following me on any level. I don't pity you because of your beliefs. For all you know, I might have the same beliefs. I feel sorry for you because you seem to have hobbled yourself in both critical thinking and expression. I think you are capable of more. Because I think you are capable of more I'm bored and frustrated to get same old "canned" answers. I have to assume that you are either purposely refusing to give anything but a canned answer, or you are incapable. Those sorts of things evoke pity from me where little else does.


There's only one truth for everyone whether they believe it or not, not an undending number of "truths" according to what you choose to believe. There is no "create your own reality."

A good question is why you assume that you aren't simply "choosing" to believe something, i.e. creating your own reality. In your OWN words, what makes your subjective reality truth?


I know you'll say I'm arrogant but that's just plain common sense. The grass doesn't change from green to purple just because you choose to believe it's purple.

Of course you are arrogant; so am I. Of all the failings of humankind, pride has ever been our constant companion. Even when we try to live a good life and do what is right, we end up taking pride in it. I do want to talk to you a bit about truth and perception though. Grass does change color from person to person, although it rarely has anything to do with choice. A person who is colorblind doesn't see green. Most people do not see the same shades and hues even when they do see green. Our equipment, like our fingerprints, is slightly different. I'm not trying to be glib here. There are different truths for different people because how they interact with reality is different. Some people are deathly allergic to peanuts as the sad story of a girl dying from giving her boyfriend a kiss an attest (he had eaten some recently). Some people are deaf. Some people are blind. As touched on before, some cannot read traffic lights or signs the same as you and I because of the color. What is true for you and I is NOT true for them. I really think you should think about this for a bit because it bears on your "black and white" view of reality.


The earth doesn't become flat because there are people who believe that it is. The law of gravity doesn't suspend itself because someone thinks they can jump off a cliff, flap their arms and fly. There are absolute truths and I believe the Bible to be the absolute truth. If you don't, that's your perogative. Have a nice day.

Continuing with our discussion of perception versus reality, I think we all know what you actually meant when you said "have a nice day" above. :) I would like to point out, playing Devil's Advocate if the terms isn't too tongue and cheek for this particular debate, that the world was once believed FLAT and defended tooth and nail by the religious because to believe the world was round and circled the sun was not compatible with the Bible. :) If I wanted to go even more out on a limb I might suggest that God could make the world flat on a whim, allow people to fly, walk on water, turn water into wine, and bring the dead back to life simply because people have faith (i.e. believe in it). Surely you don't disagree that God can do those things? To push my commentary as far as it can go, if God is the Alpha and the Omega, then nothing is impossible or set in stone beyond God's will. The Bible shows God changing his mind from time to time. The Bible is infallible so we know that God does that. God's truth is the same as God's will, so we know that truth is also the whim of God and thus changeable. Would you like me to cite chapter and verse of the many places where God changes his mind? I doubt it since you do seem to know your Bible and already know what I'm talking about.

Religion is always a thorny subject. I appreciate that Ms. Mod has allowed us to even have this debate. I'm sure it is nothing but a bother and stress to her to have to read our posts (many of which probably straddle the line). I think you are a bright person. I have faith that if you really wanted to, you would be able to bear witness in a way which impresses those who listen to it. I believe you can talk about what you believe without having to discuss what is wrong with what other people believe. I find it sad that you don't make the attempt because clearly you have things you want to say. You appeared out of thin air not so long ago just to complain about the use of foul language in a fictional work. You and I have something in common. We are blowhards. :) I'm just suggesting, as a long time self-righteous, arrogant blowhard, that you can do a better job.

[~Ally~]

But, people of faith are so easily offended by contradictory statements to this faith that is supposed to be such a strength inducing thing.

That's a wee bit unfair to group us all the same, Hoss. I have faith in God but I'm not offended by anybody who disbelieves/disagrees with my religion. :smile2: Although, I don't believe everything that is written in the Bible, for many of the reasons stated previously in this thread. I also disagree with the notion that people must attend Church in order to pray and prove they are a true believer. A person can pray anywhere, and at any time. I don't go to church now, in fact the only time I've been in a church in the past four years has been for weddings and funerals. Surprisingly, a thunderbolt from God didn't strike me down! :wink2: I truly don't care what religion other people follow, or if they even believe at all, my faith is a personal thing and not something I feel the need to defend. Live and let live.

[Sepia and Dust]

It doesn't say that it's impossible for men to try and alter God's word. It's a warning of what will happen if they do. God's word cannot be altered in reality. That doesn't stop men from attempting it. For instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible where they've altered it to conform to their beliefs. I've even heard that the gays were going to create their own Bible, supposedly to take out the parts that condemn what they do. Whether they've actually done that, I don't know, it's just something I heard. They can print up new "Bibles" and add or take away or change what they want but that doesn't actually alter God's true word one iota which they will find out.

If all that's true, then how do you know that your bible wasn't altered centuries ago?

[~Ally~]

It doesn't say that it's impossible for men to try and alter God's word. It's a warning of what will happen if they do. God's word cannot be altered in reality. That doesn't stop men from attempting it. For instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible where they've altered it to conform to their beliefs. I've even heard that the gays were going to create their own Bible, supposedly to take out the parts that condemn what they do. Whether they've actually done that, I don't know, it's just something I heard. They can print up new "Bibles" and add or take away or change what they want but that doesn't actually alter God's true word one iota which they will find out.

Hmmm. I really don't like the tone of this post, but that's your opinion so hey~ho.

I have a friend who is a Jehovah's Witness, and have many homosexual friends--male and female--and despite being a Catholic I still respect their beliefs/relationships. I wonder if this means I won't ever make it through those pearly white gates? :devil:

[Lily Sawyer]

the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible where they've altered it to conform to their beliefs.

Do you also believe that the Book of Mormon is really Cliff Notes for the Bible?


I've even heard that the gays were going to create their own Bible, supposedly to take out the parts that condemn what they do.

Ooooh. I don't like where you're headed with that. Mind that you don't start casting stones at a part of the population of which you appear to know virtually nothing. I've very dear friends who are gay and they wouldn't consider believing that straights were out to create *their* own Bible, cutting out the parts that condemn what they do: judge, lie, murder, steal, rape, pillage, fornicate, just about all the things the Ten Commandments would have us not do.


Whether they've actually done that, I don't know, it's just something I heard.

Good to know you won't operate on hearsay. Don't always believe what you're told second-hand. Until you actually see a copy of a Gay Bible or a Jehovah's Witness Bible, I'd think twice about spreading rumours.

Then again, I always thought the latest copy of Vogue *was* the Gay Bible, so sue me. If there were ever a Gay Bible that were published, I'm sure it would be f-a-b-u-l-o-u-s and that the pictures would show Jesus rocking the latest toga look. Three Around-the-World-Backsnaps for that! ***


They can print up new "Bibles" and add or take away or change what they want but that doesn't actually alter God's true word one iota which they will find out.

Will it take a burning bush and a disembodied voice for someone to find out if God's word hasn't been altered? How will they find out? Ally said she hasn't been to church in over four years and she hasn't been struck down by God in the meantime. I wouldn't know a complete or abridged Bible if it hit me in the face, because I haven't always been a student of it, but here I am to tell about it. -I'm not being disrespectful; I'm just asking.

[hossenpepper]

I should probably stay away, too.

Please don't infer judgement in my posts. Tone is so hard to project through a text medium. I wasn't attacking your faith. As an American I fully support your right to believe as you see fit. I was just pointing out that when you have contradictions in your statements or views, people will find them.

To me, no man has gotten close to what is really out there. Even if the Judeo-Christian version of God exists, the idea that we could begin to understand and then boil down to a Cliff Note version such a being is just fallacy in and of itself.

In the end, it's what is right for you and what I or anyone else thinks really doesn't matter. :y:

"I'm the one that's gonna have to die when it's time for me to die. So let me live my life the way I want to." ~ Jimi Hendrix (from "If 6 was 9")

[hossenpepper]

That's a wee bit unfair to group us all the same, Hoss. I have faith in God but I'm not offended by anybody who disbelieves/disagrees with my religion. :smile2: Although, I don't believe everything that is written in the Bible, for many of the reasons stated previously in this thread. I also disagree with the notion that people must attend Church in order to pray and prove they are a true believer. A person can pray anywhere, and at any time. I don't go to church now, in fact the only time I've been in a church in the past four years has been for weddings and funerals. Surprisingly, a thunderbolt from God didn't strike me down! :wink2: I truly don't care what religion other people follow, or if they even believe at all, my faith is a personal thing and not something I feel the need to defend. Live and let live.

Yeah, sorry. I should have said "many of faith". D'Oh!!

You know I love thee, Ally... :love:

[the_last_gunslinger]

Good to know you won't operate on hearsay. Don't always believe what you're told second-hand. Until you actually see a copy of a Gay Bible or a Jehovah's Witness Bible, I'd think twice about spreading rumours.

I think she may be technically right on this. The Jehovah's Witnesses do have their own bible which is called the New World Translation. There is still a considerable amount of scholarly debate as to whether or not it's accurate or if it does skew the Bible more in favor with their doctrines.

The "Gay Bible," is also a thing. It's called the Queen James Version. Essentially, it's just the KJV but with four or five verses that condemn homosexuality changed to what they claim is a more accurate and accepting translation. But, since I can't read Koine Greek and compare the translations, I have no idea how close...or far these above mentioned translations are.

[Lily Sawyer]

*cue music* Reach out and touch faith with Depeche Mode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI

Lyrics: Reach out, touch faith!

Your own personal jesus,
Someone to hear your prayers,
Your own personal jesus,
Someone to hear your prayers,
Someone who's there.

Feeling unknown
And you're all alone,
Flesh and bone by the telephone,
Pick up [the] receiver, I'll make you a believer.

Take second best,
Put me to the test,
Things on your chest,
You need to confess,
I will deliver,
You know I'm a forgiver.

Reach out, touch faith!
Reach out, touch faith!

Your own personal jesus,
Someone to hear your prayers,
Your own personal jesus,
Someone to hear your prayers,
Someone who's there.

Feeling unknown
And you're all alone,
Flesh and bone by the telephone,
Pick up [the] receiver, I'll make you a believer.

I will deliver,
You know I'm a forgiver.

Reach out, touch faith!
Your own personal jesus
Reach out, touch faith!

Reach out!
Reach out, touch faith!
Reach out, touch faith!

[GNTLGNT]

....my last word on the subject...

http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-bible-quote-enemy.jpg

[Sundrop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlp0GBn02wM

[Robert Gray]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlp0GBn02wM

Thanks Sundrop... I heard this back when he first did it, but it bears listening to again.

[Lily Sawyer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlp0GBn02wM

I LOVE this. Thank you, Sunny! :love:

[guido tkp]

:y: ...wow !! in two pages i get a splendiferous DM reference...great song, lil' :biggrin2: ...and a most humbling, most astute reminder of some ultimate truths by paul harvey va sundrop and others...

okay...now this makes another great two pages of thoughts and ideas...kudos, everyone...take a bow, you all deserve it

[vickilynn]

The words of the video are the personal opinion of a man promoting his own idea of God. This isn't God speaking, it's Paul Harvey pretending to speak as God while ignoring His word in the process. If you want the truth about God, it's in His word, the Holy Bible. It's up to everyone whether to accept it or reject it. I, for one, don't share anyone's love for this video.

[Sundrop]

Okay....I'll try again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wneCa_yIuzg



* yeah, yeah....I know the way out* LOL :laugh: ♥

[guido tkp]

if there was a parade around...some people would take ultimate pleasure in being the biggest raincloud everyday

glad we have your humble omniscience on this , V...

would'nt have known that otherwise

[Sundrop]

The words of the video are the personal opinion of a man promoting his own idea of God. This isn't God speaking, it's Paul Harvey pretending to speak as God while ignoring His word in the process. If you want the truth about God, it's in His word, the Holy Bible. It's up to everyone whether to accept it or reject it. I, for one, don't share anyone's love for this video.

......and so how is this any different from your words stating your personal opinion, and promoting your own idea of God? Oh, wait....It's not!

Just because you can quote scripture from your idea of the correct version of the Bible does not make you any more right in your belief or faith than another person's belief or faith.

Btw.....my pastor used the Paul Harvey video as part of his sermon last week. It was used to help illustrate how we are all made different, but have a common bond....really good stuff.

[Lily Sawyer]

Okay....I'll try again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wneCa_yIuzg



* yeah, yeah....I know the way out* LOL :laugh: ♥

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
I love the levity in this thread. (Wait; am I allowed to say that?? Wouldn't want to p*ss off the Father, the Son, and the Holy Goat.)

[GNTLGNT]

Holy Goat

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rDDbozDHJ0A/S9w6S5STE-I/AAAAAAAABII/yLAP5LtEaCQ/s1600/goat+boy.jpg

[staropeace]

Vicki is entitled to her absolute belief in the Bible. I am a Christian but I do not believe every word of the Bible. Over the centuries the gospels have been edited for various reasons....most of them self-serving. I can still believe in Christ without taking all the bible at face value. For example, I do not think Homosexual relationships are a sin. The bible was written by men with very fixed ideas...especially when it came to women.

All our beliefs are based on faith...and that alone. If it works for you...great. If it doesn't...that is cool too.

[guido tkp]

:rofl:

baa-aaaa-amen !!

[vickilynn]

Vicki is entitled to her absolute belief in the Bible. I am a Christian but I do not believe every word of the Bible. Over the centuries the gospels have been edited for various reasons....most of them self-serving. I can still believe in Christ without taking all the bible at face value. For example, I do not think Homosexual relationships are a sin. The bible was written by men with very fixed ideas...especially when it came to women.

All our beliefs are based on faith...and that alone. If it works for you...great. If it doesn't...that is cool too.

So God is unable to preserve His own word? And if you don't believe all of it's true, why believe any of it? How do you know which parts are true and which aren't? Just pick and choose what you want and leave the rest? If it's not all true, can any of it be trusted? As for homosexuality, I fully accept the biblical teaching that it is sin. In fact, God calls it an abomination and I believe Him. No personal offense intended to any homosexuals here.

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

[Robert Gray]

So God is unable to preserve His own word?

She didn't say that. It is impolite to put words in other people's mouths. No one has stated whether or not God can or cannot preserve "The Word." God's ability to do so is not the same as the will to do so. There are lots of things I can do, but choose not to do. If I have such options, it would be silly to assume that God does not.


And if you don't believe all of it's true, why believe any of it?

This is a silly question. It demonstrates a profound lack of critical thinking. If a kid writes an essay for a teacher, chances are some of it will be true. Some of it will be incorrect. If you find one error, it would be silly to assume everything is an error. The same is true in reverse. Just because the first paragraph written is correct doesn't mean the next eight pages will be. Do you believe everything anyone tells you? If I walk on to a car lot and the salesman says, "It is a beautiful day," and it is a beautiful day, do you assume everything said salesman says afterwards is 100% true? Critical thinking skills allow one to sort truth and fiction. The world is not black and white.


How do you know which parts are true and which aren't?

How do you know? :) This goes back to the fallacy of circular reasoning. You don't know anything. You simply have chosen a book (decided which interpretation you like) and stated this book is 100% true and thus I can rate all of reality by this book. The fact that you can't know the book is true in the first place is the problem.


Just pick and choose what you want and leave the rest? If it's not all true, can any of it be trusted?

This is exactly what YOU are doing. The joke is that you are completely blind to the fact.


As for homosexuality, I fully accept the biblical teaching that it is sin. In fact, God calls it an abomination and I believe Him. No personal offense intended to any homosexuals here.

How do you write this stuff with a straight face? I think you are all abominations and so does God, no offense. :)

[atomicinchworm]

No personal offense intended to any homosexuals here.

I always find this kind of sentiment funny: "I think you are a sin and an abomination and you absolutely disgust me, no offense."

I am an atheist at most or an extremely apathetic agnostic at least, but I have a question. Considering that people have free will and whatnot, why could they not change the bible? Wouldn't god, as he seems wont to do, put something down and go "Whelp, do with it what you may" ?

There are some crazy as hell passages in the bible that haven't been socially relevant since it was written.

[staropeace]

But God did not preserve his own word. He told and showed the people how to live the right way and they probably lost something in the translation. Jesus Christ was about love and compassion for those around him. How his followers interpreted that depended on the thinking and the mores of their day. The only message I could get from it was the one about love and hope. If I have disregarded other things, it is not that I wish to pick and choose. It is probably because I am a child of my own time.

I like working in soup kitchens. I like helping with the Sally Ann Christmas kettles. I really enjoy interacting with folks in a street level capacity. It makes me feel whole and, I hope, closer to God's teachings. The heavy thinking stuff, I leave to other's.

You are entitled to your beliefs my dear. It is your right to have them. God bless.

[vickilynn]

She didn't say that. It is impolite to put words in other people's mouths. No one has stated whether or not God can or cannot preserve "The Word." God's ability to do so is not the same as the will to do so. There are lots of things I can do, but choose not to do. If I have such options, it would be silly to assume that God does not.



This is a silly question. It demonstrates a profound lack of critical thinking. If a kid writes an essay for a teacher, chances are some of it will be true. Some of it will be incorrect. If you find one error, it would be silly to assume everything is an error. The same is true in reverse. Just because the first paragraph written is correct doesn't mean the next eight pages will be. Do you believe everything anyone tells you? If I walk on to a car lot and the salesman says, "It is a beautiful day," and it is a beautiful day, do you assume everything said salesman says afterwards is 100% true? Critical thinking skills allow one to sort truth and fiction. The world is not black and white.



How do you know? :) This goes back to the fallacy of circular reasoning. You don't know anything. You simply have chosen a book (decided which interpretation you like) and stated this book is 100% true and thus I can rate all of reality by this book. The fact that you can't know the book is true in the first place is the problem.



This is exactly what YOU are doing. The joke is that you are completely blind to the fact.



How do you write this stuff with a straight face? I think you are all abominations and so does God, no offense. :)


God isn't a salesman, He's God.

[vickilynn]

I always find this kind of sentiment funny: "I think you are a sin and an abomination and you absolutely disgust me, no offense."

I am an atheist at most or an extremely apathetic agnostic at least, but I have a question. Considering that people have free will and whatnot, why could they not change the bible? Wouldn't god, as he seems wont to do, put something down and go "Whelp, do with it what you may" ?

There are some crazy as hell passages in the bible that haven't been socially relevant since it was written.

God's word can't be changed. Making a new Bible and making it say what you want doesn't actually change it.

[vickilynn]

But God did not preserve his own word. He told and showed the people how to live the right way and they probably lost something in the translation. Jesus Christ was about love and compassion for those around him. How his followers interpreted that depended on the thinking and the mores of their day. The only message I could get from it was the one about love and hope. If I have disregarded other things, it is not that I wish to pick and choose. It is probably because I am a child of my own time.

I like working in soup kitchens. I like helping with the Sally Ann Christmas kettles. I really enjoy interacting with folks in a street level capacity. It makes me feel whole and, I hope, closer to God's teachings. The heavy thinking stuff, I leave to other's.

You are entitled to your beliefs my dear. It is your right to have them. God bless.

Yes, He did. If you don't believe it and accept it as God's infallible word then we don't have much to talk about because I do. I'm going to try and take the advice of a Christian friend. She doesn't argue the legitimacy of the Bible with people, believes it's dishonoring to it's Author.

[vickilynn]

She didn't say that. It is impolite to put words in other people's mouths. No one has stated whether or not God can or cannot preserve "The Word." God's ability to do so is not the same as the will to do so. There are lots of things I can do, but choose not to do. If I have such options, it would be silly to assume that God does not.



This is a silly question. It demonstrates a profound lack of critical thinking. If a kid writes an essay for a teacher, chances are some of it will be true. Some of it will be incorrect. If you find one error, it would be silly to assume everything is an error. The same is true in reverse. Just because the first paragraph written is correct doesn't mean the next eight pages will be. Do you believe everything anyone tells you? If I walk on to a car lot and the salesman says, "It is a beautiful day," and it is a beautiful day, do you assume everything said salesman says afterwards is 100% true? Critical thinking skills allow one to sort truth and fiction. The world is not black and white.



How do you know? :) This goes back to the fallacy of circular reasoning. You don't know anything. You simply have chosen a book (decided which interpretation you like) and stated this book is 100% true and thus I can rate all of reality by this book. The fact that you can't know the book is true in the first place is the problem.



This is exactly what YOU are doing. The joke is that you are completely blind to the fact.



How do you write this stuff with a straight face? I think you are all abominations and so does God, no offense. :)

Sorry, I can't change God's word for you and I'm not interested in being politically correct or changing truth to suit the morals of modern society. Go read Leviticus 18:22 and Romans chapter 1. Accept it or reject it, it stands and will stand.

[~Ally~]

God's word can't be changed. Making a new Bible and making it say what you want doesn't actually change it.

:lfacepalm:

*Just wanted to try out the new emoticons!*

[Robert Gray]

Yes, He did. If you don't believe it and accept it as God's infallible word then we don't have much to talk about because I do. I'm going to try and take the advice of a Christian friend. She doesn't argue the legitimacy of the Bible with people, believes it's dishonoring to it's Author.

Your friend sounds like a nice, polite person. I think this is a wonderful idea.

[the_last_gunslinger]

This is a silly question. It demonstrates a profound lack of critical thinking. If a kid writes an essay for a teacher, chances are some of it will be true. Some of it will be incorrect. If you find one error, it would be silly to assume everything is an error. The same is true in reverse. Just because the first paragraph written is correct doesn't mean the next eight pages will be. Do you believe everything anyone tells you? If I walk on to a car lot and the salesman says, "It is a beautiful day," and it is a beautiful day, do you assume everything said salesman says afterwards is 100% true? Critical thinking skills allow one to sort truth and fiction. The world is not black and white.

I get the thinking behind this, but I don't know if it equates to choosing what to believe from the Bible. If a kid wrote an essay in school on the Civil War, for example, and got some dates and names wrong, they can be demonstrated to be false by relying on historical records that are in existence. When it comes to God and the Bible, we have no such luxury. We are basically left to choose to believe in whatever we feel is right. I think vickilynn's question about biblical truth is a good one to consider; namely, how does one decide which parts to believe and which parts to ignore? It would be interesting to gauge an individual's thought process as to how one decides which parts represents Divine Truth and which are merely the opinions of the people who wrote the Bible.

I disagree with the idea that the Bible must be either all true or all false, but I think it is an important theological discussion that could be had as to where the line is drawn between what one believes and what is passed off as erroneous.

[vickilynn]

Your friend sounds like a nice, polite person. I think this is a wonderful idea.

She is a nice, elderly lady. I've not met her in person ( she did send me a picture of her) but we've been online friends for a long time. She also said, which I left out, that if one doesn't believe it (the legitimacy of the WHOLE Bible from Genesis to Revelation), she moves on. I didn't want to leave the impression she doesn't believe it all from beginning to end, just that she's not going to argue it with people.

[Robert Gray]

I get the thinking behind this, but I don't know if it equates to choosing what to believe from the Bible. If a kid wrote an essay in school on the Civil War, for example, and got some dates and names wrong, they can be demonstrated to be false by relying on historical records that are in existence. When it comes to God and the Bible, we have no such luxury. We are basically left to choose to believe in whatever we feel is right.

You are kind of going to the heart of the point I tried to make to her earlier. We have no such luxury. We don't know the Bible is true. We can't prove the Bible is true. We must take such things on faith. The problem with every single one of Vickilynn's arguments is that she argues fact: "The Bible is the infallible word of God. We know this because the Bible tells us so." This is, as I have belabored before, circular reasoning and not evidence.

We could go on into another theological discussion about the Bible, like the fact that Jesus Christ didn't use a book. We could point out nothing was written down until long after the fact and we can only presume the words even come from those to whom they are attributed. We could talk about the many contradictions within the Bible. We could discuss the oddity that the word of God seems so open to interpretation. We could discuss all sorts of things but they would be beside the point. I'm not opposed to such discussions in their own thread. This one is about, "what is God to you?" I thing a lot of these things have been tangents, rude attacks on people veiled as statements of faith, and wastes of time. I appreciate that you are tackling the subject in a more in depth manner.


I think vickilynn's question about biblical truth is a good one to consider; namely, how does one decide which parts to believe and which parts to ignore? It would be interesting to gauge an individual's thought process as to how one decides which parts represents Divine Truth and which are merely the opinions of the people who wrote the Bible.

I think you are reading more into her question than was there in fact. I don't think she was really asking a question. :) I think her meaning from the gestalt of her comments was an attempt to attack the comments of another person. At the very least, she did NOT ask a thoughtful question of the group saying, "how do we know the divine truth from fiction?" She already has her answer and has been trumpeting it for a good while now. Her argument is that it is in the Bible and that makes it true. All that being said, I agree with you that it is an important question. My own feeling is that we know the answer in our hearts and can apply the same critical thinking skills taught to us as children. If we have one person who talks about:

1. Doing good works, helping people, soup kitchens, and the kind of love and community service attributed to Jesus...

and another person who talks about:

2. God and I think these people are abominations. (the definition of abomination being a thing which causes hate and disgust)....

...we can put on our thinking caps and select whom is acting in a manner more in line with Jesus Christ. I'm not trying to be negative, although it is hard not to do so in such a heated discussion. The big questions are who hears the word of God, and who gets to interpret the word of God? Do we follow the example of Jesus Christ (which is clear and unambiguous) or do we listen to the dueling cacophony of voices all saying they know what God says because they read it in the book (and someone all draw different conclusions)? In the end, lacking direct proof, people must have faith and find their way the best they can. I have enough to worry about with my own soul, that I don't spend a lot of time worrying about those of other people. I have faith that God (whatever form or name you want to give the divine) is wise and powerful enough to look out for the world.


I disagree with the idea that the Bible must be either all true or all false, but I think it is an important theological discussion that could be had as to where the line is drawn between what one believes and what is passed off as erroneous.

You and I agree here. I don't think the Bible must be all true or all false. However, that puts you at odds with Vickilynn. For her premise to stand it must be all true. There is no margin of error. She has built herself a house of cards wherein the removal of even one brings the whole thing down.

[Robert Gray]

She is a nice, elderly lady. I've not met her in person ( she did send me a picture of her) but we've been online friends for a long time. She also said, which I left out, that if one doesn't believe it (the legitimacy of the WHOLE Bible from Genesis to Revelation), she moves on. I didn't want to leave the impression she doesn't believe it all from beginning to end, just that she's not going to argue it with people.

You didn't leave that impression. I understood what you were saying. I think her policy sounds like a good one. If people have two mutually exclusive articles of faith, they will not be able to have a discussion beyond talking about the weather. Faith and not facts are a barrier. You and I are having a problem communicating because I have not asked you to defend the Bible, nor has anyone else. We haven't asked you your opinion of homosexuals. We haven't asked you about any of the things you have decided to talk about. We commented on the fact that we would rather hear what God is to you in your OWN words and not get links to other sites or biblical quotes. Whether or not the Bible is infallible has nothing to do with this thread.

[the_last_gunslinger]

You and I agree here. I don't think the Bible must be all true or all false. However, that puts you at odds with Vickilynn. For her premise to stand it must be all true. There is no margin of error. She has built herself a house of cards wherein the removal of even one brings the whole thing down.


Good point. I've just been trying to see both angles and am willing to give vickilynn the benefit of the doubt as I don't know her intent and haven't been terribly offended by what she has said thus far. But if she does insist on maintaining her position, I do think it would be beneficial for her to first define what it means for the Bible to be infallible, then to consider the various facets of the Bible that seem to conflict with this notion. ie, is it possible for the Bible to still be inerrant because it's overall message is true, despite apparent historical, scientific inaccuracies? I've heard some Christians argue as such.

[atomicinchworm]

Ahhhhh. Leviticus.

So if the entire bible is to be believed...

Do you eat bacon?
Pigs are unclean.

Wear cotton blends?
That ain't ok either.

Cut your hair or shave?
Also a problem.

Or in Deuteronomy, you're supposed to kill others who don't have the same religion. I assume you don't go around murdering heathens. Of course, if you do, let me know, so I can stay out of your town because I am on your list. I am also an artist, and break the 2nd commandment on a regular basis. Everyday, in fact.

I suspect you eat pigmeat and wear cotton blends and cut your hair, because those passages are absolutely bonkers. Almost every Christian I know takes bits and pieces of the bible. What I am saying is that most (probably all) modern believers take out the inconvenient parts and don't follow them. And honestly, isn't all sin equal sin in the eye's of your god? Other than the 10 commandments, but homosexuality isn't on that list. So the pigmeat you eat is on the same level of sin as homosexuality. Do correct me if I misunderstand.

[GNTLGNT]

....sooooo, when do we pass the collection plate and get to the sandwiches and juice???.....:still_dreaming:

[TheInterloper]

I consider go to be a.... Atom, the atom giveth and the atom taketh away nuth said. Thankee and long days and pleasant nights

[the_last_gunslinger]

Ahhhhh. Leviticus.

So if the entire bible is to be believed...


Do you eat bacon?
Pigs are unclean.

Wear cotton blends?
That ain't ok either.

Cut your hair or shave?
Also a problem.

Or in Deuteronomy, you're supposed to kill others who don't have the same religion. I assume you don't go around murdering heathens. Of course, if you do, let me know, so I can stay out of your town because I am on your list. I am also an artist, and break the 2nd commandment on a regular basis. Everyday, in fact.

I suspect you eat pigmeat and wear cotton blends and cut your hair, because those passages are absolutely bonkers. Almost every Christian I know takes bits and pieces of the bible. What I am saying is that most (probably all) modern believers take out the inconvenient parts and don't follow them. And honestly, isn't all sin equal sin in the eye's of your god? Other than the 10 commandments, but homosexuality isn't on that list. So the pigmeat you eat is on the same level of sin as homosexuality. Do correct me if I misunderstand.

I don't really see that this would be a problem for Christians who hold to biblical inerrancy. One can still believe these things to have been revealed by God while believing still that they are not required to follow them. The things you have listed are all part of the 613 commandments pertaining to the Mosaic Law or covenant. This covenant, given after the Israelites were delivered from Egyptian bondage, included God's promise that He would make Israel "a Kingdom of priests and a holy nation," if they would harken unto the law given by His prophet, Moses. This covenant (which serves as a sort of contract) was between God and the children of Israel only, so Gentiles were under no such obligation. This notion is reaffirmed during the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem around 50 A.D. where the Apostle Peter (and the other apostles) came to the conclusion that keeping the Law of Moses was not essential for Gentile converts to Christianity. Some portions of the law were still considered important for the gentiles to keep (prohibitions against fornication and idol worship) but it is generally assumed that Christians are not under the same covenant.

[Robert Gray]

This notion is reaffirmed during the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem around 50 A.D. where the Apostle Peter (and the other apostles) came to the conclusion that keeping the Law of Moses was not essential for Gentile converts to Christianity. Some portions of the law were still considered important for the gentiles to keep (prohibitions against fornication and idol worship) but it is generally assumed that Christians are not under the same covenant.

This is all true, however, we should still apply our critical thinking skills to this should we not? Motivation and intent matter. Whose motivations are being considered, the divine or that of mortals? :) That same Council brought up the fact that it was very difficult to get converts from the Gentile because of the strict rules. Relaxing the rules was done for temporal purposes and not via divine inspiration. The Bible doesn't say anything about exceptions or my rules only apply to these people. Changing the rules to get more people paying in seems somewhat cynical and not at all in keeping with the lofty ideals often espoused by some. If these commandments are holy and true in the absolute sense, it would seem they would be universal truths.

[atomicinchworm]

It still strikes me as a lot of picking and choosing, especially if one claims to believe the bible front to back, but if the whole religion is founded on picking and choosing then I guess it works for them. Thank you for the clarification, sir.

And I just realized I used an apostrophe on a plural. :26_002: The interwebs are eating my braaaaiiiinnnnnn!!!!!

[the_last_gunslinger]

This is all true, however, we should still apply our critical thinking skills to this should we not? Motivation and intent matter. Whose motivations are being considered, the divine or that of mortals? That same Council brought up the fact that it was very difficult to get converts from the Gentile because of the strict rules. Relaxing the rules was done for temporal purposes and not via divine inspiration. The Bible doesn't say anything about exceptions or my rules only apply to these people. Changing the rules to get more people paying in seems somewhat cynical and not at all in keeping with the lofty ideals often espoused by some. If these commandments are holy and true in the absolute sense, it would seem they would be universal truths.

I'm certainly not attempting to devalue critical thinking on these issues; I'm merely attempting to show that, in this specific instance regarding an infallible bible, that a failure on the part of a Christian to keep the Mosaic Law is not a serious threat, in my opinion. One could still choose to believe that God gave these laws, while rejecting the idea that they are universally applicable. As to the motivation behind the council's decision, that's up for debate, and depending on how one views its underlying purpose, one will come to a potentially different understanding. I believe that this council of Apostles was a divinely led gathering, and believe that the edicts set forth in the forthcoming Apostolic Decree were from God. Holding such a belief eliminates any conflict regarding this specific issue. If you reject the meeting and believe it to be a way to gain gentile converts, then I could see where there would be problems regarding the authenticity of the Bible.

[the_last_gunslinger]

It still strikes me as a lot of picking and choosing, especially if one claims to believe the bible front to back, but if the whole religion is founded on picking and choosing then I guess it works for them. Thank you for the clarification, sir.


And I think you raise a very good point, one that many Christians need to consider, that is, deciding which parts of the Bible are meant to be followed and which ones aren't. Homosexuality is considered a sin by most, but very few think it is a sin fora woman to talk in church, even though the New Testament expresses this sentiment. Why is one followed and the other ignored could make for an interesting and thought provoking topic, and your example serves as a good illustration of this principle. I just don't believe that citing the Mosaic Law is the best example to disprove Biblical Infallibility, since it does not necessitate a disbelief in those laws, only a belief that the Bible essentially lets Christians off the hook. There is so much more in there that biblical inerrantists need to address first. We have, for example, two accounts of the suicide of Judas, one where he hanged himself, another where he threw himself off a cliff, hit the ground and his 'bowels gushed out.' These seem at odds to me, though I've heard attempts to harmonize them, saying that the rope broke and he fell to his death, but that doesn't seem very likely to me. This may be a small matter and one that does no have serious theological implications, but if a Book is touted as being perfect, I'd expect a lack of any and all errors, regardless of how insignificant.

[weave9]

God could exist as far as I'm concerned, but I don't spend time thinking it over. Whatever is, just is, you know what I mean? I do think that 99% or organized religions are a scam to make money and a way to control the masses.

[Robert Gray]

I'm certainly not attempting to devalue critical thinking on these issues; I'm merely attempting to show that, in this specific instance regarding an infallible bible, that a failure on the part of a Christian to keep the Mosaic Law is not a serious threat, in my opinion. One could still choose to believe that God gave these laws, while rejecting the idea that they are universally applicable. As to the motivation behind the council's decision, that's up for debate, and depending on how one views its underlying purpose, one will come to a potentially different understanding. I believe that this council of Apostles was a divinely led gathering, and believe that the edicts set forth in the forthcoming Apostolic Decree were from God. Holding such a belief eliminates any conflict regarding this specific issue. If you reject the meeting and believe it to be a way to gain gentile converts, then I could see where there would be problems regarding the authenticity of the Bible.

This is the next layer of the onion. If we got his route (as you suggest above) it means that the Bible is more less without meaning except that which is applied externally. It means people today just pick whatever individuals parts they like, interpretations they already agree with, and make the divine word fit them rather than the other way around. :) No matter how we try to dance around the subject, the Bible is either:

1. Infallible.
2. Fallible.
3. A tool through which external meaning is applied not unlike a deck of Tarot cards.

Let's linger on that third option. If, as you suggest, the book can be infallible because the meanings and rules change but only when divinely inspired, the Bible is being transformed into Ouija Board wherein a select few (the loudest or most theatrical) get to decide what means what. In such a situation, how exactly is a normal person to tell the divine truth from a charlatan? The Bible becomes like statistics wherein anyone can prove nearly anything they want.

The funny thing about #3 is that is solves all the logical problems for people claiming #1. If you believe the Bible is infallible, and you can make it thus simply by interpreting it however makes it true, you have accomplished a self-fulfilling prophecy. We see this discussion come up very often when people discuss Genesis. How many days did it take God to everything? It is measured in days. Is this literal? Some would argue yes. But those seeking to reconcile science with theology counter with, "ah but what does a day mean to God?" They can interpret the statement in a way that still can be supported with just a little bit of legwork.

In short, #1 and #3 are indistinguishable from each other to most people because their personal bias doesn't allow them to see the distinction.

[staropeace]

I still do not understand how it can be the word of God. Jesus gave us guidelines to follow....such as living life in the way he led his. His ideas were written by his discipiles who were men. They each had their own understanding on what should be put down. Next came the big church and a lot of the written word was edited...a nip here, a tuck here. Some parts were taking out altogether. The changes were geared to suit the needs of the Church. A lot of it was just plain politics in work.

I can certainly not believe everything I read in the Bible. THere is all kinds of scientific and historical data to back me up on this. I am still a Christian though. I believe in the simple man from Galilee. He is the Son of God....my faith tells me . Faith is the only thing I have in that regard.

As to doing the soup kitchens,etc, they do not have to all Christian. I enjoyed spending once a week doing a meal with Sai Baba here in the city. I would be just as happy to pick up a ladle in a Jewish shelter. I am living like my beliefs tell me to live....go do good stuff. In the end, the task is worthwhile. I would never preach to folks who are hungry and tired. I never preach anyway. Folks need food in their bellies and some cleans clothes on their backs.

[GNTLGNT]

The interwebs are eating my braaaaiiiinnnnnn!!!!!

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e315/tomthedog2/lolmitten.jpg