All beliefs may be discussed here

[Max Starkiller]

Why does this exist?
As much as I like talking in the Atheist Question, The Liberal Lounge, etc. I find that when you are surrounded by your ilk, you lose an open mind and become ignorant of others. As much as whatever you hear displeases you, think with a tolerant mind, and try to come up with intelligent responses.

For example instead of saying "I think that pro-choicers are baby-killers", try to put it more appropriately. I personally feel that people often forget that pro-choicers sometimes do let the fetus live, and that it isn't considered living (because it isn't sentient at all) until about 3-4 months.

Cheers all

[goodwije]

i appreciate the thought Max.. and i hope it works out

[Max Starkiller]

Jamie, I hope it will. I really do. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif

[DarthBandon]

What are people's opinions on conversion? (Example going around trying to convert people to your religion) Frankly i think it is the worst aspect of any religion.

[Talcy]

I take exception to those who think the can impose their ideas on others. I'm always up for dialogue and debate, but I've met quite a few folks who've just got tunnel vision and tend to look down on others as a result. It's pretty intolerant.

If folks express an interest in a religion then I think that converting can be suggested. I don't know. I'm always cynical of these things. But I respect everyone's right to both celebrate their beliefs (as long as it's not violent obviously) and to inform others of different ways. I do feel sorry for some of those poor sods who stand out in the cold on busy streets asking people to say gouranga but I've also had folks come up to me in the street (completely random, not someone with a clipboard or anything) and ask me if I've heard "the news about God" (a real quote flung at me). When I told them that I'm already a Christian (Catholic) they didn't seem to listen, as though their version of events was superior to mine. it got me angry and so I'm always slightly volatile when it comes to that sort of thing.

Blimey, what a rant.

Max, I totally agree with your point on hearing other views. I often find that it's intolerance, borne out of ignorance, that causes fights and conflict, be it two Celtic or Rangers fans in a pub fight (or any Scottish team for that matter) or a full blown war. How on earth can we all grow as people if we don't learn about the thoughts and motivations of others?

[Jediwan]

An off topic question but have you okayed this with Tbone?

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I find it to be a prerequisite for any decent religion.[/b][/quote]

For any type of religion to grow, I would say yes. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Master Cephus]

Not in the elitest sense.

Does a king do every job for his followers? or does the king set the goal and let his followers do the jobs to make the dream come true.

Maybe God's plan is for eveyone to be saved, but he wants his people to make his presence known...

[Max Starkiller]

All I'm saying is the fact that it's the conservative cantina
"with no Liberal interruption", bothers me in essence.

[Max Starkiller]

Re: Conversion

It should be offered to those who want to join, but the idea of missionaries etc. I do not like.

[Greedo Boy]

Originally posted by DarthBandon@Mar 11 2005, 07:41 AM
What are people's opinions on conversion?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I don't really find anything wrong with the idea of sending out missionaries to other countries and such. It's just people going out to people and sharing their beliefs with them.
But that's not conversion, that's missionary work.

There's nothing wrong with conversion... it's just a person taking on a religion that has appealed to them, that's all.

Forced conversion on the other hand, like what the Europeans did to the Native Americans... that I disagree with, strongly.
We have no right to force our beliefs on other people; religious, moral, political or whatever.
I believe it is up to every human being to decide how they live their life. If you want to help them find a path, so be it. But if a person tries to force another onto their own path... I condemn that.

BTW, very good idea for a thread. I didn't like going into other threads with these sorts of parameters as I find it hard to 'define' myself, but here... you don't have to define yourself. You just speak your mind in a civil matter, listen to others, and that is that. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Justin]

Well if you don't believe in people having morality forced on them, I assume you are an Anarchist? Because the Justice system is essentially forcing morality on people. Without it, pedophiles, rapists and murderers would be free to do their thing.

[goodwije]

I think we as a people regardless of religion, or lack there of, understand that things like rape, murder, and child abuse is wrong. GB is prolly refering to subjective morality. Like is it wrong for a stranger to approach me in line at the grocier because he sees me buying a six pack of Killians and begin preaching to me about how it is sinful to drink acohol? Is it wrong for people to come to your door and invade your privacy in attempt to convert. Be honest with you i have not idea, i don't like strangers approaching me in public, but if the weather is nice i have more than once spent awhile talking with door to door misionaries out on the front porch.

I know i certainly would not want to be a member of an religion that requires missionary work. But we each have to make that decision for ourselves.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>All I'm saying is the fact that it's the conservative cantina
"with no Liberal interruption", bothers me in essence.[/b][/quote]

How can that bother you? It just reads that it's strictly conservative talk, with no liberal conversation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I think we as a people regardless of religion, or lack there of, understand that things like rape, murder, and child abuse is wrong. GB is prolly refering to subjective morality. Like is it wrong for a stranger to approach me in line at the grocier because he sees me buying a six pack of Killians and begin preaching to me about how it is sinful to drink acohol? Is it wrong for people to come to your door and invade your privacy in attempt to convert. Be honest with you i have not idea, i don't like strangers approaching me in public, but if the weather is nice i have more than once spent awhile talking with door to door misionaries out on the front porch.
[/b][/quote]

I agree that morality is usually about the same for some people (granted some ideals are different with each person).

However, I really don't see what the whole "Mission work in wrong thing" I think mission work is a good thing. I have read some good things that have been done due to mission work, not just converting souls.

Acts 1:8
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

[goodwije]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I have read some good things that have been done due to mission work, not just converting souls.[/b][/quote]
definantly.. however i have read some thing that make me cringe as well

Also i personally see a big difference in wittnessing and proselytizing

[Max Starkiller]

It bothers me because of the notion of not hearing others' viewpoints

[Master Zeary]

Ignorance is never an apporpriate route. It's not fair to the other person. At least hear them out. Of course you have to keep in mind "is what they are saying truthful?" So you have to know where the truth lies. In which case...good luck with that. I'm still doing my searching. have fun. You can hear some of my comments in the Athiest Question thread and the Christianty thread. Enjoy if you want.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It bothers me because of the notion of not hearing others' viewpoints[/b][/quote]

We have threads for that type of discussion. It's called the moderate middle ground.

There is a thread for the liberal minded people who want to discuss liberal oriented points of view.

[goodwije]

those are havens as well.. as long as everyone remains civil this thread is fine.

[Sargoth]

I subscribe to a purely libertarian view of morality: Your rights end as soon as someone else's begins, beyond this, do what thou wilt.

And to the earlier point: Conversion is *absolutely* necessary for any religion to take root on a large scale. This one reason why I am so opposed to organized religion.

[Jediwan]

So you are opposed to someone being converted to Star Wars because that is what you are implying.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Jediwan2000@Mar 14 2005, 03:39 PM
So you are opposed to someone being converted to Star Wars because that is what you are implying.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I wasn't aware Star Wars was a "religion"... But then again, I do consider both to be "works of fiction". But that's just my opinion.

[Greedo Boy]

Originally posted by Krogenar@Mar 14 2005, 10:53 AM
But Justin made an excellent point about enforced morality -- in any political system, people are compelled (forced) by the government to bow to some sort of collective, agreed upon morality. When a murderer is captured by the police and a jury of his peers send him to jail (or death row), aren't they enforcing their morality on someone else?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Well of course I believe that murder, rape, and such simliarly heinous acts are morally unjust and that it should be taught that they are wrong. However, as goodwije guessed pretty close, I think I was referring to a more subjective morality.

Though I must admit, I can't remember what my entire intent was when I was writing that... slippery memories.

[Marbleman]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I subscribe to a purely libertarian view of morality: Your rights end as soon as someone else's begins, beyond this, do what thou wilt.
[/b][/quote]

Where is that line exactly? I think we affect one another in more ways that we can imagine - I may sound like an old record, but propriety, self-discipline, temperance. . . these things are too often neglected by the current "Be Your Own Individual" drum-beaters, and they are important traits in a healthy society.

[Talcy]

For me, morality begins and ends with the phrase "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

[Master Cephus]

I think in many ways, we can say should the government impose anything on us?

Like Krog and MM have said, it's a slippery slope.

Take welfare. Should there be a point where we can say that a family doesn't need aid? My family when I was a kid struggled pretty hard, but we never received aid. Does that mean people on welfare deserved the aid more? I don't know.

I think though, we can all say that there is some type of standard of morality. If we can't, we can at least say for the health and well being of society, we can enfore rules (no murder, rape, etc.) that can protect us as a whole.

I agree that morality is a slippery slope, but we can I think draw a line on what we can enforce, and what we can't.

[goodwije]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>For me, morality begins and ends with the phrase "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"[/b][/quote]
and oddly enough.. nearly every religious thought has a simular saying Talcy.. check this out

Bahá'í World Faith: "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." Baha'u'llah

Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, KJV

Confucianism: Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4

Hinduism: "This is the sum of the Dharma [duty]: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517

Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.

Unitarian: "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles.

Wicca: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" The Wiccan Rede

{MY PERSONAL FAVORITE}

Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a

[Talcy]

Yep. Universal commonalities and all that. It just baffles me why so many folks can't try to live by this at least a little - it benefits everyone. I'm not a big God person or overly religious (see "Lapsed Catholic") but I once examined my life and the way I view other folks through this concept and found it really simple to just be nice to folks and try to understand where folks are coming from. I'm not about to have a go at anyone's moral lifestyle or make generalisations but I've had raging arguments with folks about politics in the pub about why we should all look out for each other and I often got, "Why should I?". When I asked if they'd like it done to them, the response was obvious but they still had trouble reconciling the two.

People. Ay! I get frustrated by other people too much, I guess.

[goodwije]

i think the USA has made it pretty clear "which" God they are refferring too. I think, i could be wrong though, tha during the civil war when we started consolidating coinage on the national level, that there was a fear that if in some time in the future the US was no longer around and that people whould believe that we where a heathen nation. I suppose it was a great fear.

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>In 1861, the Reverend M.R. Watkinson persuaded the secretary of the Treasury to try to introduce 'In God We Trust' as a motto on the coins of the land, arguing on the theological premise that in a Judeo-Christian nation, 'There is but one God.' Congress, then beginning to be responsive to the religious community and the votes that it was presumed to control, passed the Coinage Act of April 22, 1864, which designated that 'In God We Trust' be put on coins 'when and where sufficient space in the balance of the design' would permit it."

Watkinson's effort to religionize the coinage was part of a larger campaign waged by a coalition of eleven Protestant denominations under the umbrella of the National Reform Association. Disenchanted with the secularism of documents such as the Constitution, the NRA sought to amend that instrument to "indicate that this is a Christian nation." Petitions were raised and formally presented to Congress. They proposed a new preamble to the Constitution which read:


"We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government..." [/b][/quote]

now all that said, i do not believe that having the phrase "In God We Trust" is really hurting anyone. It spends the same whether you believe or trust in one god, many gods, or none.

[Master Cephus]

I agree with you good, but the quote you provided,
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>then beginning to be responsive to the religious community and the votes that it was presumed to control[/b][/quote]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Watkinson's effort to religionize the coinage was part of a larger campaign waged by a coalition of eleven Protestant denominations under the umbrella of the National Reform Association.[/b][/quote]


I found this one, which says the same thing, but in a different light:
Originally posted by http://www.coinsite.com/CoinSite-PF/PParticles/$20type2.htm
In 1866, when the second design for the double eagle was introduced, America was a vastly different country. The Compromise of 1850 lay as dead as the million young men that had given their lives on battlefields throughout the South. Reconstruction was proving to be a heavy burden on the southern states and also a political quagmire for President Andrew Johnson and the Radical Congress. However, no one in Washington could argue against the idea that the country needed divine direction to heal its recent scars. To that end, the Mint Act of 1865 included a provision that the motto IN GOD WE TRUST be placed on the nation's coins.

The idea that a religious motto should be added to U.S. coinage originated in 1861 when Reverend M.R Watkinson of Ridleyville, Pennsylvaniain a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase urged that coins should carry a "recognition of the Almighty God in some form." The Reverend suggested a design with a strong God and Country theme, and concluded his letter by stating, "This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. From my heart I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters." Obviously agreeing with Watkinson, Chase instructed Mint Director James Pollock to prepare a device for coinage with such a motto in the "fewest and tersest words possible." Over the next several years various mottoes were tried on base metal patterns including GOD AND OUR COUNTRY, GOD OUR TRUST, and finally IN GOD WE TRUST.

I quoted that to say this, isn't it neat how bias can change the sounding of the same event?Watkinson's effort to religionize the coinage was part of a larger campaign waged by a coalition of eleven Protestant denominations under the umbrella of the National Reform Association

[goodwije]

yeah i think i pulled that quote off of an athiest website.. not for any reason except it was the first to come up after the search.

I have said for years and years that most of our personal beliefs (be they religious, political, whateva') are hugely dependent on our personals presepective and experiences. That is why it is so hard for me to point at someone and say "absolutely wrong" because i cannot know what motivation led them to that conclusion.

[goodwije]

here is the question though.. if the eleven most prominent Protestant denominations today, and the Roman Catholic Church started pushing for the change of the constitution to read

"We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government..."

how would you feel? To be honest, i do not believe we are far off.

[Master Cephus]

I believe Jesus Christ is my personal savior, so I would definately not be against it. I would vote for it if ever come to a vote.

However, I do see where that breaks the 1st amendment. It would get absolutely no where in politics.

The problem is that there is so much differences between the eleven most prominent "protestant" denominations (and Catholics), there would never be a consensus.

[Greedo Boy]

Originally posted by goodwije@Mar 15 2005, 05:46 PM
"We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government..."

how would you feel?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I consider this a ridiculous notion. Separation of church and state seems to be a pretty big governmental factor, and I feel this is very important.

We do not need another series of Crusades...



Also, we no longer live in a christian nation, and if I were of a religion that did not hold to christian beliefs, I would be outraged at such an amendment.

Whatever happened to freedom of religion?

[Javen]

Actually it is not founded on Seperation Of Church and State. It was founded on Bible principles. Only the Supreme Court within the last, maybe 30 years has tried to interpret in something that does not even exist.

Thomas Jefferson wrote it in a letter who got it from a sermon. Which courts do not even bring that one up. He was even a person who suggested prayer meetings and dofferent things even though he wasn't a Christian himself.

[goodwije]

Jefferson was a freethinker of the time.. he admired the "man' Jesus but was contemptous of the theology of Christian churches.

He was not however an athiest, he spent a huge amount of time thinking of his own spiritual ideas and often talked and wrote about them. He even once attributed liberty as a gift from God.

.. and Javen although i agree with you that there is no where in the constitution the idea of seperation of church and state, there is the idea that religious expression should be free and open and that the government should have no rights when it came to an individuals faith. Or the support of one faith over another.

Jefferson himself was a adamant sepertionist (read not secularist) he did not believe that religion should not be part of the world, only that religion and government should be seperate.

[Javen]

Jefferson again got his words from a sermon that was preached which has nothing to do with this idea. You see this idea like saying if I went to Saudia Arabia and said now we are going to change your constitutions and Laws to Christianity. Islam will not be spoke about in offices of higher ups. We must now be politically correct and abide by these rules.

What do you think they would say? Better question. What do you think the Sudanese Christians tried doing when it was reversed with their laws? Their laws were changed to Islam.

Now it is happening to America it is being Secularism which in itself is a religion being propsed upon the people. Now how is that for being hypocritical?

[goodwije]

GB.. that idea was proposed in the 1860's so don't get too excited. And in a way we do live in a Christian nation, at least 80% of the population claims to be Christian. However less than 40 percent of the population attends church services regulary. Which is still higher than every other industrialised nation.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe where all deists, or at least expressed support for diestic ideas. Which is to say they believed in God they just did not believe that God took an active role in the world of man. Most of their families attended epispicol (or reformed) churches, as did they on occasion. although they seldom took part in communion, a very controversal idea for the time.

[Master Cephus]

If I am not wrong, I believe Jefferson wrote of protecting the church, not the state when he refered to the separation of the two.

[Greedo Boy]

Oh, I'm not excited. Not yet. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue2.gif

But think about how much uproar some people have given over the 'Under God' line in the Pledge.

I almost don't want to think about the public reaction if...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government...[/b][/quote]

...that got added in.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by goodwije@Mar 15 2005, 04:46 PM
here is the question though.. if the eleven most prominent Protestant denominations today, and the Roman Catholic Church started pushing for the change of the constitution to read

"We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government..."

how would you feel? To be honest, i do not believe we are far off.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Three words...

..."lock and load".

[goodwije]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Now it is happening to America it is being Secularism which in itself is a religion being propsed upon the people. Now how is that for being hypocritical?[/b][/quote]

there is a huge difference between seperationism and secularism. but often the two ideas get lumped together.

[Jediwan]

Originally posted by Sargoth+Mar 14 2005, 07:29 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth @ Mar 14 2005, 07:29 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Jediwan2000@Mar 14 2005, 03:39 PM
So you are opposed to someone being converted to Star Wars because that is what you are implying.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I wasn't aware Star Wars was a "religion"... But then again, I do consider both to be "works of fiction". But that's just my opinion.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
How do you think i became to love Star Wars so much. You can be converted to anything.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by goodwije@Mar 16 2005, 11:18 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Now it is happening to America it is being Secularism which in itself is a religion being propsed upon the people. Now how is that for being hypocritical?

there is a huge difference between seperationism and secularism. but often the two ideas get lumped together.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

I agree with you goodwije. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that a government is 'under God' - that it is not the highest authority. Recognition of religious sentiment is not the same as imposing religious sentiment upon others. And I find it heartening that the American Constitution states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed <span style="color:blue">by their Creator</span> with certain <span style="color:blue">inalienable rights</span>; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men."

If these rights were invested in men, by a government of men, then those rights are really just privileges, which can also be revoked by other men. The above statement is an attestation that humanity is to be respected.

Now, if we were a nation of wise people *cough*yeah,right*cough* <span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%">(excuse me)</span>, we'd be more willing to realize that 'Creator' could mean Yahweh, Jesus, Shiva, Allah, 'The Great Pumpkin', or raw chance (for Darwinists). Who or what that 'Creator' is (or even whether it should be capitalized) is not the real point. The point is that nearly all these faiths share a common belief that mankind is valuable, and that no government can arbitrarily decide to not value humans.

This is a special belief because it supercedes the government. We've taken the guiding principle of government and placed it beyond the reach of that government (any government) to revoke it. That's what really matters. Isn't it a belief with no real basis in fact or science, to declare that all men have value? Is it a religion? No, but it's a shared value, a shared belief. It doesn't matter your religious persuasion -- we can all just feel it -- human beings should be treated with dignity. There's no science to support that conclusion, however, yet all free humans, everywhere, believe it to be so.

So let's stop this crusade to banish religious or spiritual verbiage from government.

Thank you, please drive through.

[T-bone]

Originally posted by Jediwan2000@Mar 11 2005, 05:39 PM
An off topic question but have you okayed this with Tbone?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



People don't need my "permission" to start a topic.

As long as people are RESPECTFUL to each other on these boards, they can talk about whatever they desire.

I won't close threads I don't like or believe in. Socialism exists and there's a thread for it. Maybe I'm a Capitalist but I'm not going to smash out the Socialist thread because I disagree with it.

All I ask is everyone to be respectful - that's it. When it starts turning into flaming or people being trolls or whatever then I start to look a little closer and take some action but we still make use of the warning panel first - in most cases.

Just wanted to clarify all that.

Carry on.

[goodwije]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The point is that nearly all these faiths share a common belief that mankind is valuable, and that no government can arbitrarily decide to not value humans.[/b][/quote]

I love that... very well said


to further compound on T's comment, and then i will drop it. The reason we mods and admins worry is that threads like these in the past have degenerated into flaming, and bashing, and hurt feelings.

I am very proud of everyone who posts in here though (including myself) we have done an amazing job of talking through tough subjects while treating each other well. I hope it continues for a long time.

[T-bone]

yes i didn't mean to point that in here at anyone - just saying in general it happens sometimes.

when people are respectful there is NEVER a problem in any thread.

[Max Starkiller]

Hey all! I'd like to share something about atheism here!

Some folk are atheist out of ignorance. They say, "Who cares about other cultures? There's no god. meh."

I, on the other hand, am the type who is open to other people's ideals and says, "Believe whatever you want to. Just don't hurt your neighbor."

I have more respect for agnostics who believe in an unexplainable power that is not God than the ignorant atheists.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Max Starkiller@Mar 17 2005, 05:39 PM
Hey all! I'd like to share something about atheism here!

Some folk are atheist out of ignorance. They say, "Who cares about other cultures? There's no god. meh."

I, on the other hand, am the type who is open to other people's ideals and says, "Believe whatever you want to. Just don't hurt your neighbor."

I have more respect for agnostics who believe in an unexplainable power that is not God than the ignorant atheists.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I thought an agnostic was someone who would like to believe in some form of deity, or divine power, but just cannot muster the faith -- but would if they could! Actually, maybe that's not even the correct definition.

[Magic googling sound.... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happydance.gif .... googling complete.]



Originally posted by Google agnostic and definition
a person who believes that, at our present level of knowledge, we cannot know whether or not a God exists.

here: officially supporting neither one side nor the other. Usually refers to someone who believes people cannot know whether God exists or not.

An Agnostic [1] [noun] [OW] embraces a worldview in which the existence of deity is unknown or unknowable. Derives from the Greek agnostos, a = without, gnostos = known or knowledge. "Agnostic[ism] [CE] was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."

One who believes that we cannot prove the existence or the non-existence of deity. Many agnostics believe that we cannot know anything about deity or deities at the present time, but that this could conceivably change in the future. A "hard agnostic" feels that such knowledge will always be beyond human understanding.

person who thinks human mind is incapable of knowing whether there is a God, or an ultimate reality, or anything beyond material phenomenon

The word Agnostic derives from the negation of the Greek word [gnosis], which means esoteric knowledge of higher things. Thus, a'gnostic means No-knowledge or not knowing.

(Not committed to a belief in the existence or non-existence of any deity.)

a person who believes there is a God but he takes no personal interest in His creation. Since God takes has no interest in us, agnostics believe He could care less what we do or believe. Therefore, they believe there is no accountability for their actions or beliefs.

A MetaPhysical Orientation toward the Divine, that stipulates that it is not possible to know anything about the Divine, including whether it exists or not.

Agnostics holds it is unknowable whether a god or gods exist.

one who thinks that it is not possible to know whether or not a god exists

a person who doubts truth of religion


And there you have it!
I'm completely confused. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ok.gif

So it seems the term 'agnostic' means someone who believes the study of the divine to be futile.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Krogenar@Mar 17 2005, 09:54 AM
I agree with you goodwije. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that a government is 'under God' - that it is not the highest authority. Recognition of religious sentiment is not the same as imposing religious sentiment upon others. And I find it heartening that the American Constitution states:



Actually, this is stated in the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution. So while this sentiment was on the forefront of the Founding Father's minds, it certainly is not the law of the land. I've posted extensivley under the "under god" thread about my own feelings on this so I won't go any farther with this here.

To the comments on Agnosticism. You pretty much understand it now. Many will confuse Agnostics with Athiests, as we do share quite a bit in common with each other. I'm personally a devout Agnostic. I'm not ruling out that there is a "higher power". In fact I do think that there is some kind of "cosmic order" that keeps things in place in the universe. What I disbelieve 100% is that any human who has ever existed has ever spoken to, or with the authority of this Entity. I personally feel that if any god wanted humanity to know something, it would tell us personally. It would never use a resource as imperfect or corruptable as a Human Being be a proxy.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Sargoth+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth)</div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, this is stated in the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution. So while this sentiment was on the forefront of the Founding Father's minds, it certainly is not the law of the land. I've posted extensivley under the "under god" thread about my own feelings on this so I won't go any farther with this here.[/b]

Does the fact that the passage does or does not appear in the Constitution change my point in any way? I don't think so. The Founders did take steps to prevent America from spiraling into a theocracy, but I think it's a stretch to believe that they wanted all trace of spirituality scrubbed out of public life like so much grit, as is being done today.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sargoth
To the comments on Agnosticism. You pretty much understand it now. Many will confuse Agnostics with Athiests, as we do share quite a bit in common with each other.[/quote]

I always thought of them as spiritual fence-sitters; the spiritual equivalent of 'undecided voters'. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

Originally posted by Sargoth+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth)</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm personally a devout Agnostic.[/b]

Devout, huh? Nice turn of phrase, Sargoth. I salute you!

Originally posted by Sargoth@
I'm not ruling out that there is a "higher power". In fact I do think that there is some kind of "cosmic order" that keeps things in place in the universe. I hope it isn't a picket fence, Sargoth.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sargoth
What I disbelieve 100% is that any human who has ever existed has ever spoken to, or with the authority of this Entity. I personally feel that if any god wanted humanity to know something, it would tell us personally. It would never use a resource as imperfect or corruptable as a Human Being be a proxy.[/quote]

So, to rephrase, you believe 100% that no human, anywhere, at any time in history, has ever spoken to this cosmic deity? And yet, in the very next sentence you declare that if God did truly exist, he'd tell us personally. Well, are you suggesting that God would visit each person, personally? I always imagined God as a busy man! Or a woman who can multi-task. Anyway, then you say that if this Deity existed, it would never deign to communicate using a corruptible, flawed, sniveling Human Being as a messenger.

But... if we're not worthy of carrying the message of a higher being, then how could we be worthy of even receiving the message? In that logic, God's a stuck-up hermit, who would communicate with us, were we not the flawed stupid beings we are -- but he made us that way, so, I guess He deserves to be lonely.

It sounds to me, Sargoth, that what you're really saying is:

"I don't like religion. Spirituality may be alright, but I don't dig organized religions."

You believe with absolute (100%!) certainty, that God has never communicated with human beings. On what basis do you draw this conclusion, this article of faith? Were you on Mount Sinai when God handed Moses the tablets with the Ten Commandments on them? Can you say with certainty that it didn't happen? You've claimed certainty, and that's faith, brother.

[goodwije]

I think what your missing Krog.. and corret me if am wrong Sargoth, is though most agnostics accept the possibility of a higher power, they do not/have not been able to reconcile their personal sense of the devine with the standard religious views. A lot of agnostics i know are humanists, but most just do not accept any religion or philosophy.

I also disagree with you about the notion of faith to be agnostic. The agnostic argument is generally one of evidence where the idea of faith is not enough. I have have faith, and to me it is simply truth, that when i speak with God he hears me, and more oftne then not responds (although not always in the manner i expect) and agnostic, i would assume, does not or has not felt that connection.

[goodwije]

Originally posted by Max Starkiller@Mar 17 2005, 04:39 PM
Some folk are atheist out of ignorance. They say, "Who cares about other cultures? There's no god. meh."

I, on the other hand, am the type who is open to other people's ideals and says, "Believe whatever you want to. Just don't hurt your neighbor."

I have more respect for agnostics who believe in an unexplainable power that is not God than the ignorant atheists.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I think you misunderstand athiesm completely. (and suddenly i have become the defender of philosophies not my own style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blush.gif) Athiests come by their belief, just like the rest of us, through personal experience. I would venture to guess that in most cases someone being an athiest has absolutley nothing to do with ignorance, in fact i think it is the exact opposite.

[Krogenar]

Goodwije, isn't it a form of faith to believe only what your five senses can detect? Isn't it faith to trust only what can be quantified, what can be scientifically proven, and reproduced? I think it is. You have faith in what you can detect.

What do you think?

[Master Cephus]

Hebrews 11:1

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. [/b][/quote]

[T-bone]

Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Krogenar@Mar 18 2005, 07:48 AM
I always thought of them as spiritual fence-sitters; the spiritual equivalent of 'undecided voters'. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif


Some are, yes. But I believe most of us are actually quite decided. We've decided not to believe until we have proof. The thing is, in the six thousand years of recorded human history, no mythology or theology has adequately proven this for us. We are clearly on the disbelief "side of the fence" until someone proves us otherwise.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Sargoth
I'm personally a devout Agnostic.

Devout, huh? Nice turn of phrase, Sargoth. I salute you!
[/b][/quote]

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/howdy.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>So, to rephrase, you believe 100% that no human, anywhere, at any time in history, has ever spoken to this cosmic deity? And yet, in the very next sentence you declare that if God did truly exist, he'd tell us personally. Well, are you suggesting that God would visit each person, personally? I always imagined God as a busy man! Or a woman who can multi-task. Anyway, then you say that if this Deity existed, it would never deign to communicate using a corruptible, flawed, sniveling Human Being as a messenger.
[/b][/quote]

*Whoooshhhhh* <-- The sound of Krog missing my point by a mile. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

I'm saying that humans are inappropriate messengers. I'm not saying that they're inappropriate recipients. If god wants us to believe, it should make questioning this belief beyond reproach. Natural disasters don't cut it, "prophesised" events don't cut it, tales of an immolated shrubbery dont' cut it, and the image of Christ on a fish stick certainly doesn't cut it. If god is so flawed that it can't communicate to *all* of humanity at once in a way that is certain and beyond doubt, he's certainly not worthy of my worship.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It sounds to me, Sargoth, that what you're really saying is:

"I don't like religion. Spirituality may be alright, but I don't dig organized religions."
[/b][/quote]

I can't disagree with this. Every Religion has, without exception, been used at one time or another to forward some human's agenda. And usually that agenda deals with control, power consolidation or excuse for genocide. I have always considered the bible to be more the agenda of the early Christians legitimizing their faith (and their political status) than the actual "words of Christ".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You believe with absolute (100%!) certainty, that God has never communicated with human beings. On what basis do you draw this conclusion, this article of faith? Were you on Mount Sinai when God handed Moses the tablets with the Ten Commandments on them? Can you say with certainty that it didn't happen? You've claimed certainty, and that's faith, brother.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

No I wasn't there when Moses received the commandments. Nor was I there when Mohammad received the Koran. Nor was I there when Osiris rose from the underworld, or when Zeus conceived Hercules.

You see, Krog, to the Agnosic (or Atheist), We draw only one single distinction between Mythology and Theology: "Religion is nothing more than a myth that hasn't died yet". (No offense intended, anyone. That's how we see it.) Look at some of the fantastic tales in the Bible and tell me how they are different from the supernatural stories found in Egyptian or Greek mythology. Many of the tales are exact parallels of the same story, only with different actors: Decents into Hell, resurrections, immaculate conception, humans being devoured by animals only to emerge unharmed, a blissful human paradise ruined by a curious or disobediant woman.... etc, etc.

To us, the stories of Moses, Christ's miricles, Mohammad's inspirations, are nothing more than stories; Folklore handed down through the generations. Now I don't see anything wrong with this. Mythology is part of what makes us so uniquely "human". There are good lessons to be learned through it. But to us, the idea of using these stories as "salvation" is as alien to us as the worship of Pharoh as a god on earth.

[Max Starkiller]

Well what I'm going on about is that I won't try to convert you to my beliefs.
I don't believe in "God", Jesus etc. I won't try to stop you.

I personally don't believe in a higher being because I try to find hope in people. People helping eachother for the sake of eachother.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I personally don't believe in a higher being because I try to find hope in people. People helping eachother for the sake of eachother.[/b][/quote]

You can believe in a higher being and still have faith in people. I have faith in my brothers and sisters in Christ that if I need something, they will help me to their best interest.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohwell.gif

[Max Starkiller]

I just find the "existance of higher beings" divides people to often.

[Master Cephus]

it does, but human actions divides us as well.

[T-bone]

I don't actually believe that anything in the Old Testament actually happened, myself. I believe they're mostly spiritual parables, meant to make points. I believe there was evolution - not just POW - Adam and Eve. I mean, it's written by man and this is how they explained things. They couldn't know that in a few thousand years we'd find Caveman remains and dinosaur bones and things like that. They had to explain it somehow and they used literary devices which was perhaps the only way they knew how.

I don't believe there really was a Noah's Ark or Garden of Eden, etc. However I do believe in the spiritual messages behind all these stories and I think they're helpful today.

[Jediwan]

TBone in the Old Testament before the flood there were animals described as great giants and those were the dinosaurs. The caveman theory has been proven wrong by scientists. Though they still won't let go of that theory it is obsolete. Evolution has been proven wrong but that's not saying under some circumstances we adapt not go through evolution again.

[goodwije]

oddly enough... For me, evolution is a proof of God's existance, if you look at everything that had to go exactly right in order for it to happen.. well i just cannot but see some intelligence behind it all

[Jediwan]

Yeah I was surprised to hear that David Suzuki (a major evolutionist) said that it was proven wrong. I don't think everything went in the right order I think we adapted.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Jediwan2000@Mar 18 2005, 03:18 PM
TBone in the Old Testament before the flood there were animals described as great giants and those were the dinosaurs. The caveman theory has been proven wrong by scientists. Though they still won't let go of that theory it is obsolete. Evolution has been proven wrong but that's not saying under some circumstances we adapt not go through evolution again.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



Care to cite this "proof"?

[Jediwan]

If I had my Bible on hand yes but I don't. I'll try to find it though. It also might be in one of the Bible's Apocraphies.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Jediwan2000@Mar 18 2005, 03:48 PM
If I had my Bible on hand yes but I don't. I'll try to find it though. It also might be in one of the Bible's Apocraphies.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



You see, that's the whole point right there! To the non-believer the bible is as far from "definitive proof" as you can get. You're begging the question by saying "everything in the bible is true because the bible says that everything in it is true". The Koran says pretty much the exact same thing! This is a textbook logical fallacy. It's ok to apply this reasoning to matters of faith and dogma, but it holds no place in the realms of critical thinking, and even less in matters of science.

[Jediwan]

Hey I didn't say I wasn't going to find it. I will find it.

[T-bone]

I'm not Anti-Bible - just saying I believe the stories are written in ways that are not literal.

An I believe in Goodie's statement above there.

[goodwije]

when it comes to evolutionism and creationism, i just do not understand how and why they must be such sticking points. All life here is either, a one in a billion chance or some intelligence was behind it. Either way, to my mind, there is just way to much biologic evidence to deny evolution. I have no problem with them being inclusive ideas.

ev·o·lu·tion
NOUN:
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive
generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic
variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new
species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms;
phylogeny.

a·dapt
VERB:
1. To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation.
2. To become adapted: a species that has adapted well to winter climes.

Seems to me all that evolution is.. is a series of adaptions that led to something different than the original species. In my mind is something is capable of adapting, it is capable of evolving as well.

[goodwije]

oh and btw adaptions do not take thousands of years, and if evolution is defined as a genetic change it does not take thousand of years either. Studies on wild foxes have shown amazing changes taking place in little over 10 generations. Of course these where studies designed to bring ot specific traits, in nature natural selection takes care of that.

[Master Cephus]

I really don't care either if life was created by God saying "Life" and it happened, or if God guided evolution...because my opinion is that either one is a pretty big miracle...I have yet to someone here on earth do either one...

[Greedo Boy]

How do you know I haven't...? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sly.gif

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Greedo Boy@Mar 19 2005, 11:31 PM
How do you know I haven't...? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sly.gif
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>



"One Nation, under Greedo Boy"?


*shudders*

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue2.gif

[Greedo Boy]

It does have a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

[Krogenar]

*bump*

Sargoth, you stated earlier that you're an agnostic because you don't believe that humans are capable messengers of God's will. How do the rest of us feel? I don't think it's practical for God to appear to every human, so he picks a few. And while I do agree that human beings are flawed, that's part of our charm I think.

A Mel Brooks bit comes to mind.

Moses: "Behold! I have come down from Mt. Sinai bearing these three tablets. God has decreed that we shall live by the Fift-"

[one of the tablets slips from his arms and smashes to pieces]

Moses looks at the shattered tablet.

Moses: "Ten! These Ten Commandments!"

[The Israelites cheer wildy, but continue to refuse to ask for directions.]

Sure, humans are flawed, but that's no reason to believe that God wouldn't deign to let us communicate his message to others. What's the alternative? Letters? A direct conversation? So sadly, if God does exist, and he's tried to communicate with mankind, he's probably tried to communicate to flawed people, using flawed people. All that would mean is that we need to listen carefully -- I don't think it would really invalidate the possibility that God exists, or that he's spoken to some people, some prophets.

[Sargoth]

(good call on the Mel Brooks quote style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif )


So who gets to determine who is a real prophet and who is a charlatan? Mormons consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet of "continuing God's revelation", other Christians usually consider him to be a con-artist. Every religion has it's prophets, and guaranteed every prophet will say "my way is the right way". Even within Christianity, each of the hundred or so denominations has its own interpretation (or version) of the bible. And yet this bible is supposed to be "free of contradiction", and "free from need of interpretation - take it literally!"

Now, I'm not saying I don't acknowledge the profound impact (good and bad) that prophets such as Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad have had on western society. Their teaching have been ingrained into our collective psyche (and society) for thousands of years. Just because I dismiss the divinity of their teachings doesn't mean I don't admire them for their place in history.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Sargoth@Mar 22 2005, 06:25 PM
(good call on the Mel Brooks quote style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif )


So who gets to determine who is a real prophet and who is a charlatan? Mormons consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet of "continuing God's revelation", other Christians usually consider him to be a con-artist. Every religion has it's prophets, and guaranteed every prophet will say "my way is the right way". Even within Christianity, each of the hundred or so denominations has its own interpretation (or version) of the bible. And yet this bible is supposed to be "free of contradiction", and "free from need of interpretation - take it literally!"

Now, I'm not saying I don't acknowledge the profound impact (good and bad) that prophets such as Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad have had on western society. Their teaching have been ingrained into our collective psyche (and society) for thousands of years. Just because I dismiss the divinity of their teachings doesn't mean I don't admire them for their place in history.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Yes, but you stated earlier that you don't believe that God has communicated with mankind, because we're not suitable messengers; we're flawed. I agree with your belief that humans are flawed, but I believe that there's an excellent chance that God has communicated with some humans, and tasked them with spreading his message. Have some of those prophets garbled the message? It's certainly possible. Is it possible that some of them have 'added' to the message, for their own benefit? Sure. Have some organized religions acted abominably in God's name, on His alleged sayso? Certainly.

But I don't think God's message needs to come through with perfect, 100% clarity, in order to get through, in essence. I think it was an act of faith for you to declare that no human has ever communicated with God.

You can't be sure of that. So that would leave you with the rest of us, searching for God on a personal level, sifting through the Bible, trying to sort the theological chaffe from the wheat.

[Javen]

God speaks with humans through his Sprit. If you are born again. God speaks to all who listen. Yes, God speaks to me. All the time, everyday? No

Humans are flawed,and that is why when born again you have direct communication through his Spirit wh dwells inside of you. God has used all kinds of people. All it takes is obidience. God isn't hard to find or hard to know.

[Krogenar]

Javen, do you think God spoke (communicated) with Moses?
Sargoth, same question to you.

[Max Starkiller]

Well, here's a thing. Fundamentalism aside, Muslims seem more tolerant in some aspects. They say they have the same god as Jews and Christians, and respect Jesus as a prophet, but deny his being the "Son of God".

[Javen]

Originally posted by Krogenar@Mar 23 2005, 04:11 PM
Javen, do you think God spoke (communicated) with Moses?
Sargoth, same question to you.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Yes, I do.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Krogenar@Mar 23 2005, 02:11 PM
Javen, do you think God spoke (communicated) with Moses?
Sargoth, same question to you.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


No, I don't. What I do believe, is that Moses, or someone writing on his behalf, was a very wise man. But as I said earlier, a story about a man talking with an immolated shrubbery is hardly enough to get me to believe.

Let me ask you this Krog. If you can, step back and imagine that the stories in the Bible are nothing more than legends and morality tales - try to strip the presupposed 'divine' inspiration out of it. Now that you've done this, what makes these stories any different than any of the other myths and fables that have been passed down through the ages?

The Creation Epic: Present in virtually *all* religions, current and extinct.

The Expulsion from Paradise: Compare Eve with Pandora. It's essentially the same tale.

A Devastating Flood: Very prevelant to all peoples who lived around the Mediterranian about 6000 years ago. Sumerian & Babalonian religions of the time tell this story too.

Immaculate Conception: Again, this archetype has been used in myths throughout the ages. Even GL picked this one up style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

The Descent into Hell (Hades, Pluto, the Underworld) for the greater good: Ditto

A poor farmboy/carpenter/peasant/slave leaves his adoptive father and takes up the cause of his *true* Father. He then goes on to change the course of history, in the fulfillment of prophecy: Luke Skywalker/Christ/King Arthur/Perseus/Moses/etc...

I could go on for hours here, but you should get the point. For me, the bible is the same timeless story with some new lessons and different characters.

You also mentioned "separating the wheat from the chaff" when reading the bible and acknowledging prophets. This right here was the very paradox that made me become un-born again. If *any* story in the Bible is false, or exaggerated (think Jonah being eaten by the fish, a literal interpretation of Genesis, Cain's wife appearing out of *nowhere*, or Christ's direct lineage to King David), then that means that the pillar of the Bible as the "Divine word of God" begins to crumble. Who is to determine what is "true" in the bible and what is "false?? Man is. To take it a step farther, if the Jonah story is a fabrication, couldn't the resurrection be false as well? Or Christ's divine birth? Who determines what stories in the bible to follow as dogma, and which to ignore as fables? Man does.

[Krogenar]

You make a valid point Sargoth, that so many different spiritual tales have similar stories -- but you can decide that this is either evidence that spirituality is just a common social contruct between various human cultures, because deep down humans create myths to make sense of what may seem senseless.

For example: primitive man, when faced with a world full of terrifying randomness (earthquakes, eclipses, famines, sabretooth tiger attacks) develops a mythology that allows them to put some 'handle' on things. That is, the earthquake occurred because the Earth Gods are angry, so sacrifice Oog to make them happy again -- and then everyone can sleep easy.

Or... maybe all these different cultures share similar stories (creation, expulsion from paradise, sacrifice, etc.) because there's a similar (common) spiritual force impressing these stories on all human cultures, throughout time. Isn't that possible?

Originally posted by Sargoth
Who is to determine what is "true" in the bible and what is "false?? Man is. To take it a step farther, if the Jonah story is a fabrication, couldn't the resurrection be false as well? Or Christ's divine birth? Who determines what stories in the bible to follow as dogma, and which to ignore as fables? Man does.

Strangely enough, if you talk to most born-again Christians, and asked them "Who determines what stories in the bible are true or not?" they would probably recommend that you read them yourself, and decide for yourself. Personally, I don't believe every single detail in the Bible is necessarily true -- but they don't have to be. As you said, many of them could be parables. But I don't think God's message is blunted if Jonah had been swallowed by a whale, or an overlarge porpoise, or not swallowed at all. The message behind the story is what matters. God told Jonah to head in some direction. Jonah decided to travel in precisely the opposite direction. (Pfft! to you God, I do what I wanna do! *fingersnap in Z-formation*)

And Jonah was swept overboard on the ship he was traveling on, and swallowed by the whale, and regurgitated on a beach at the foothills of the city that God had intended him to visit all along. To me, it doesn't matter whether Jonah was really swallowed by a whale or not. The story speaks to me, and says: "Do what God wants, and you won't end up in a pool of whale vomit." And I take that message to heart, I really do.

As for determining what stories are true, I think that we all have a 'divine sense'. You've acknowledged to having one yourself, just a few posts back. You stated that you believed that if there were a God, that he would not communicate with flawed humans. I don't agree with your assessment of God, but you utilized some sort of sense to come to that conclusion. You're deeply flawed Sargoth, and it may take repeated readings of the Bible to absorb God's message, but don't give up.

Also, you've never really suggested an alternative method for God to communicate with humanity. Should He use direct mailing? Faxes? FedEx? Maybe whatever God exists is trying to communicate with Humans in other, more subtle ways. My 'divine' sense tells me that God isn't hiding from human beings, but He's not going to kick down my door, corner me in my kitchen, and demand that I acknowledge Him. Something tells me that's just not His way. Maybe what He really wants is for me to find Him.

[Javen]

Originally posted by Sargoth+Mar 23 2005, 11:10 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth @ Mar 23 2005, 11:10 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Krogenar@Mar 23 2005, 02:11 PM
Javen, do you think God spoke (communicated) with Moses?
Sargoth, same question to you.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


No, I don't. What I do believe, is that Moses, or someone writing on his behalf, was a very wise man. But as I said earlier, a story about a man talking with an immolated shrubbery is hardly enough to get me to believe.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
But what gets me to believe is that th eold testament things have all come to pass. Some have not been fulfilled. Becaus eyou haven't read to find out you won;t know what I'm talking about. BUt I will use one of the biggest ones that have came to pass that God through humans wrote. It ha sto do with Israel becoming a nation again. It is all through the old testament. Israel ceased to become a nation. And right down to the letter says that "in one day the nation of Isarel would be born" And in 1948 it was It even says that"It would be called Israel again" That is only a samll fraction of things that have came to pass and that is the BIG difference bewteen any other book. Besides God has proved to me many number of ways he is real. Like answering my prayers and I have known people healed of cancer and tons of other things.

I know I can't convince you no matter what I say. You are the only one that can convince yourself by looking at and reading the BIble. To see for yourself. I have already been convinced, so you won't change my mind either. As long as you just think it's fiction then that's all you will see it as. But this "fiction" as you call it has all kinds of things that have came to pass. Hard things that no man could bring to pass.

[goodwije]

.. but things in every prophetic book come to pass. If you are looking for it.. you will find it. As far as Isreal.. well it seems to me western governments, specifically the british government, decided to will Jewish Zionists with land in what was then Palestine. Now.. i am not saying it wasn't deserved, wasn't their land to begin with, nor that they where in the wrong. But the prophetic words of the bible certainly was a motivation in athat. So in a way, man used the bible (and historical fact) to bring about the prophesy.

[Javen]

I severly doubt that. It has always been Israel's land the moment God gave it to them and always will be up to the moment when Jesus will sit on his throne in Jerusalem. When every nation and tongue will bow before him.

God said they would come from every land and they did. What other prophetic books? There is none that can take events from that moment and prophsey from that event and it come to pass. none. God did it and every single prophesy will come to pass that he has spoken. Denying it won't make it stop. There are too many things that have came to pass. And keep coming to pass.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Krogenar@Mar 23 2005, 10:10 PM
Or... maybe all these different cultures share similar stories (creation, expulsion from paradise, sacrifice, etc.) because there's a similar (common) spiritual force impressing these stories on all human cultures, throughout time. Isn't that possible?


Yes, this is a possibility. Many of our tales are universal amongst humans, transcending language and cultural barriers. I have no qualms with saying that man is a spiritual being. It could be karma, it could be god, it could just be our genetics.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Strangely enough, if you talk to most born-again Christians, and asked them "Who determines what stories in the bible are true or not?" they would probably recommend that you read them yourself, and decide for yourself.
[/b][/quote]

That's partially why born-again Christians are scattered across dozens of different denominations, and read from about a dozen different versions of the Bible. One believer's "parable" is another believer's "fact". If the bible were the "perfect word of god", shouldn't it be more precise and less debatable and open for interpretation? Don't get me wrong. I prefer following your own beliefs over mandated groupthink any day. But it doesn't solve the conundrum about using man to deliver the message of "salvation".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You're deeply flawed Sargoth...
[/b][/quote]

You think I'm bad now? You should hear me when I'm drunk. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rofl.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>...and it may take repeated readings of the Bible to absorb God's message, but don't give up.
[/b][/quote]

Sorry. I was raised Catholic, and have the bad knees and back to prove it (kneel-sit-kneel-stand-sit-stand-kneel-stand). I searched for the biblical "truth" for nearly two decades, and always came up short. From all of the time's I'd read the bible, the only time it made perfect sense to me was when I read it from not a spiritual perspective, but from a social one. When I read the bible as the "truth" it was shallow and empty to me. When I read it as a "myth" it all became clear. There will be no born-again Sargoth. There are simply too many fundamental Christian beliefs that run contrary to my own morality and judgement. I can't fault you for trying though. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Also, you've never really suggested an alternative method for God to communicate with humanity. Should He use direct mailing? Faxes? FedEx? Maybe whatever God exists is trying to communicate with Humans in other, more subtle ways. My 'divine' sense tells me that God isn't hiding from human beings, but He's not going to kick down my door, corner me in my kitchen, and demand that I acknowledge Him. Something tells me that's just not His way. Maybe what He really wants is for me to find Him.
[/b][/quote]

I would prefer a method that were irrefutable, beyond doubt, and beyond contradiction. Every holy book is laden with contradiction. Every religion, at time, as acted in a way that was barbaric and contrary to their supposed beliefs. Even Thomas had a chance to poke Jesus before he believed. I think the rest of us at least deserve that chance.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Sargoth+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Krogenar@
Strangely enough, if you talk to most born-again Christians, and asked them "Who determines what stories in the bible are true or not?" they would probably recommend that you read them yourself, and decide for yourself.


That's partially why born-again Christians are scattered across dozens of different denominations, and read from about a dozen different versions of the Bible. One believer's "parable" is another believer's "fact". If the bible were the "perfect word of god", shouldn't it be more precise and less debatable and open for interpretation? Don't get me wrong. I prefer following your own beliefs over mandated groupthink any day. But it doesn't solve the conundrum about using man to deliver the message of "salvation".[/b]

That's not really fair Sargoth. Let's imagine, for a moment, that God literally handed a copy of the Bible over to some prophet, perfectly bound in leather, with every quibbling details laid out in perfect lawyerspeak (no defining what the meaning of the word 'is' is) -- which raises another issue, even human language is flawed and fallible at times -- what makes you think that perfect text wouldn't be corrupted and skewed and mistranslated over several thousand years of transmission? So in order for God to exist, he not only needs to make his will known to humanity, he has to visit each person (regularly) explain himself, smooth over any misunderstandings, and proofread the dispatches of every religious speaker?

Why shouldn't God expect we humans to do a little bit of detective work ourselves? I guess if he expects that of humans, then He can't exist. You're putting all the burden of belief on God, Sargoth, and none on yourself. But the Born Again Christians do have one thing right, they trust that The Bible is the word of God, and that if you read it, God will speak through it, he'll wend His way through all the begats and begot and other weird incomphrensible stuff in the Bible and reach you. But you've got to pick it up and try.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sargoth
When I read the bible as the "truth" it was shallow and empty to me. When I read it as a "myth" it all became clear. There will be no born-again Sargoth. There are simply too many fundamental Christian beliefs that run contrary to my own morality and judgement. I can't fault you for trying though. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/quote]

When I read it as a boy, it was boring, confusing and a waste of time. But I had my He-Man T-shirt, so all was well. Later on, however, I read some more of it, and again, it was mostly tedious and boring, but some parts (The New Testament) had an impact on me. I was also born and raised Catholic, so I know where you're coming from Sargoth.

So do what Born Agains recommend: read the Bible and come to your own conclusion. They're not telling you how things should be, they let you make up your own mind on the matter.

Also, Sargoth, what fundamental Christian beliefs run contrary to your judgement? Christian morality is the basis of Western Culture -- so maybe you're opposed to freedom, due process, etc.? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

Originally posted by Sargoth+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Krogenar+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Krogenar)</div><div class='quotemain'>Also, you've never really suggested an alternative method for God to communicate with humanity. Should He use direct mailing? Faxes? FedEx? Maybe whatever God exists is trying to communicate with Humans in other, more subtle ways. My 'divine' sense tells me that God isn't hiding from human beings, but He's not going to kick down my door, corner me in my kitchen, and demand that I acknowledge Him. Something tells me that's just not His way. Maybe what He really wants is for me to find Him.
[/b]

I would prefer a method that were irrefutable, beyond doubt, and beyond contradiction.[/b]

You need to put your finger in the wounds, eh? A Doubting Sargoth? Do you willfully doubt, or is doubting somehow hip and trendy? Then even if God appeared and said, "Go on, touch my beard, it's totally cool dude." you could later assure yourself that it was all a hallucination, a bad reaction from too much food from 'The Olive Garden'. And isn't it a bit presumptuous of you (or any human) to demand an audience from God?

<!--QuoteBegin-Sargoth@
Every holy book is laden with contradiction. Every religion, at time, as acted in a way that was barbaric and contrary to their supposed beliefs.[/quote]

Back to the church-bashing, huh? So if some churches and faiths have acted abominably in the past... there's no God. That's a non-sequitur, Sargoth.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sargoth
Even Thomas had a chance to poke Jesus before he believed. I think the rest of us at least deserve that chance.[/quote]

Keep waiting, then, is all I can say. But I still get the sense that you're doubtful not for some rational, serious sense, but to satisfy your own ego or to seem trendy. Not believing is a point of pride. Am I wrong?

[goodwije]

Originally posted by Javen@Mar 24 2005, 11:55 AM
I severly doubt that. It has always been Israel's land the moment God gave it to them and always will be up to the moment when Jesus will sit on his throne in Jerusalem. When every nation and tongue will bow before him.<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


You doubt that England gave land from Palestine back to Jewsih Zionists? They did really. I am not making it up. Did God move through these people.. in my belief yes he did, but that does not change the fact that man did play a part. The British government even helped pursuading Jews to move back into the region. Your right though there always has been a Jewish settlement in the area since biblical times. I read somewhere though that there where little more than 10,000 Jews living there in 1947.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>God said they would come from every land and they did. What other prophetic books? There is none that can take events from that moment and prophsey from that event and it come to pass. none. God did it and every single prophesy will come to pass that he has spoken. Denying it won't make it stop. There are too many things that have came to pass. And keep coming to pass.[/b][/quote]

Oh i don't know about events from that "moment". But it isnt too hard to think about works of the past that could look prophetic today Jules Verne comes to mind. Some might argue H.G. Wells, perhaps the most famous is Nostradamus. I still say that if you look hard enough you can find just about anything you want.

As for every single prohesy coming true (and i am assuming you are talking the Old Testament here) the whole point of the discussion is that these works where written by man, where they written before the settlement of Isreal? Or was it after with the "prophecies" written after the events took place? The simple truth is there is no way for us to know. You can have faith and that is an amazing thing, but for me whether or not God prophisised Abraham being a "father of nations" or whether Ezekiel was talking about the Jews after the destruction of temple when he referred to "dry bones" isn't important. To me the important part is God's love, and forgivness, and compassion.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Krogenar@Mar 25 2005, 05:04 AM
That's not really fair Sargoth. Let's imagine, for a moment, that God literally handed a copy of the Bible over to some prophet, perfectly bound in leather, with every quibbling details laid out in perfect lawyerspeak (no defining what the meaning of the word 'is' is) -- which raises another issue, even human language is flawed and fallible at times -- what makes you think that perfect text wouldn't be corrupted and skewed and mistranslated over several thousand years of transmission? So in order for God to exist, he not only needs to make his will known to humanity, he has to visit each person (regularly) explain himself, smooth over any misunderstandings, and proofread the dispatches of every religious speaker?


Well, if he wants me to belive that one religion is "the one true religion - all others are false", he's going to have to prove it to me. Nothing presented thusfar stands up to even a minimal amount of scrutiny. Sorry, no proof = no belief.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But the Born Again Christians do have one thing right, they trust that The Bible is the word of God, and that if you read it, God will speak through it.
[/b][/quote]

Well, that's your opinion. Mine is contrary. Let's leave it at that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>So do what Born Agains recommend: read the Bible and come to your own conclusion. They're not telling you how things should be, they let you make up your own mind on the matter.
[/b][/quote]

Like I said, I *did* read it and I *did* come to my own conclusions: Morality tales, propoganda and mythology. Not the "divinely inspired word of god". But that was my experience. Yours was apparently different. Nothing wrong with that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Also, Sargoth, what fundamental Christian beliefs run contrary to your judgement? Christian morality is the basis of Western Culture -- so maybe you're opposed to freedom, due process, etc.? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif
[/b][/quote]

Tsh, tsh, no need to be building straw men Krog. The US constitution to me is a *sacred document*, moreso than the bible or torah.

My most prominent complaint about Christianity is the concept of "salvation through Christ alone". This right here disqualifies me instantly, don't you think?

Belive it or not, I have a strong sense of morality. (A moral nonbeliever??? Impossible??) Honesty, and fairness are virtues I try to live every day. I know I've advanced almost as far in my career as I can, because to go any higher, I'd need to start stepping on people and put my life on a pedastal above theirs. I simply can't do that. When I first met my wife, she was a 21 year old single Mom who was working her way through school. At the age of 22, I chose (out of love), to sacrifice a large portion of my youth to raise her son as my own. I finished putting her through school myself. Now, I'm not bragging, nor fishing for praise. I just want you to know that I do know the value of putting other people's needs ahead of my own.

Some years down the road, I shuffle off my mortal coil and meet the Almighty:

"Well Sargoth, you lived a very moral and noble life. Jesus would be proud of you. But unfortunately, since you didn't accept him as your "lord and saviour" You get to spend eternity with Hitler, Stalin, and Ted Bundy."

I'm sorry, but if this is a true indication of the Christian Almighty (as everyone tells me), I want *nothing* to do with him. I'll be looking forward to hell.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You need to put your finger in the wounds, eh? A Doubting Sargoth? Do you willfully doubt, or is doubting somehow hip and trendy?
[/b][/quote]

Doubting "trendy"? Bah!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Then even if God appeared and said, "Go on, touch my beard, it's totally cool dude." you could later assure yourself that it was all a hallucination, a bad reaction from too much food from 'The Olive Garden'.
[/b][/quote]

Carl Sagan had an excellent quote on what it would take for him to belive in god. I'll be danged if I can't find it! It went something along the lines of "If god spoke to me, I'd ask him to prove his existence by making him solve an equation that has eluded scientists for centuries. If his proof was sound, I'd belive. If not, I'd be calling a psychiatrist."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And isn't it a bit presumptuous of you (or any human) to demand an audience from God?
[/b][/quote]

Isn't it a bit presumptious of the church to demand I believe in their god without proof?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Sargoth
Every holy book is laden with contradiction. Every religion, at time, as acted in a way that was barbaric and contrary to their supposed beliefs.

So if some churches and faiths have acted abominably in the past... there's no God. That's a non-sequitur, Sargoth.
[/b][/quote]

Of course it's a non-sequitur. It's also *not* the argument I've been making in this thread. My argument is that due to the churchs' actions, we cannot rely on them to be accurate "custodians of the truth". They use the bible/torah/koran to preach "love and tolerance" one day, "inquisition and genocide" the next.

Their actions don't disprove god's existance. I never said or claimed that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Keep waiting, then, is all I can say. But I still get the sense that you're doubtful not for some rational, serious sense, but to satisfy your own ego or to seem trendy. Not believing is a point of pride. Am I wrong?
[/b][/quote]

Hmm, I must've ruffled some feathers if you're resorting to baseless ad hominem attacks. Come on Krog. We're both adults here. I'm not claiming your belifs are due to "blind faith", or "sheep mentality". I recognize that you came to your conclusions after a lifetime of experience and contemplation. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>"Well Sargoth, you lived a very moral and noble life. Jesus would be proud of you. But unfortunately, since you didn't accept him as your "lord and saviour" You get to spend eternity with Hitler, Stalin, and Ted Bundy."

I'm sorry, but if this is a true indication of the Christian Almighty (as everyone tells me), I want *nothing* to do with him. [/b][/quote]

But the key is that if those people you named above accepted Christ Jesus as saviour and changed their ways (which is a sign of a true change), they would have a home to.

Remember, you (me and everyone else) don't get to make the rules. God doesn't bend his own rules. I don't understand the rules he has, but he does and he is the one who enforces them.

It's like when your child asks you for something or to go somewhere and you say no, and the kid goes "But why?" what do you say? "Because I said so." Do you have to give a complete account of everything to your child because you want them to do something? No. You just tell them to do something because you are the parent and you want them to do something...you don't need justification...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'll be looking forward to hell.[/b][/quote]

I really hope that's not the case...I couldn't imagine what that place is going to be. I know you typed that tongue-in-cheek, but it's a terrible thing for anyone...ANYONE to go there...

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Mar 25 2005, 02:24 PM
But the key is that if those people you named above accepted Christ Jesus as saviour and changed their ways (which is a sign of a true change), they would have a home to.


Yes, I understand this. And it is this very dogma which makes Christianity so incompatable with my belief system. A god who would enforce a rule such as this is not one to whom I would bend my knee.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Remember, you (me and everyone else) don't get to make the rules. God doesn't bend his own rules. I don't understand the rules he has, but he does and he is the one who enforces them.
[/b][/quote]

Years ago, I found myself at a fork in the road of my belifs. I could either Follow the Shepherd, or Run free with the Wolves. I made my choice and have no regrets.

Remember, as a non-judeo/christian, the "rules" you are referring to I don't acknowledge as legitimate or binding. I don't feel like I'm getting away with breaking the rules. I simply don't think that there is any rule to break! This isn't out of "rebellion" or out of "hubris". It's a simple matter that I don't believe the Christian teachings. I don't "fear" god's judgement anymore than I "fear" Zeus or Amon Ra's wrath.

I know. What I'm saying has got to be an alien concept to you as the idea of true salvation through Christ is to me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'll be looking forward to hell.[/b][/quote]

I really hope that's not the case...I couldn't imagine what that place is going to be. I know you typed that tongue-in-cheek, but it's a terrible thing for anyone...ANYONE to go there...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Yes, to clarify. I don't belive in the Christian hell either. My point was the hypothetical case that Christianity is right and I am wrong.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Remember, as a non-judeo/christian, the "rules" you are referring to I don't acknowledge as legitimate or binding. I don't feel like I'm getting away with breaking the rules. I simply don't think that there is any rule to break! This isn't out of "rebellion" or out of "hubris". It's a simple matter that I don't believe the Christian teachings. I don't "fear" god's judgement anymore than I "fear" Zeus or Amon Ra's wrath. [/b][/quote]

That's your decision. I would hope that maybe I could help to change your mind, but I will not press it upon you. Everyone has their own path, whileI believe that the path enevitably comes to Jesus (whether believing or not), I think everyone's path is a different one to the same point.

[Master Zeary]

So than Sargoth what do you believe?

If you don't believe in God as you say than how did we come to be here? How were we created?

And where are we going?

I'm asking mostly because I'm at that very cross roads you refered to earlier. And right now I'm trying to find as much information as possible as to which I really want and should do. Heck I'm curious in generally what any one has to say on the topic.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by Master Zeary@Mar 26 2005, 09:32 AM
If you don't believe in God as you say than how did we come to be here? How were we created?


I never said I didn't believe in god. I am much more of an agnostic than an athiest. I do believe there *may* be "something" above us, be it a higher power, a collective conciousness or the laws of physics, biology and mathematics. I just find no 'truth' or salvation in any of the western religions. I do find a lot of serenity in Buddhist teachings, as they deal a lot more with introspection and how to live life *now* rather than preparing for when we die. I have a lot of respect for nature, so I do enjoy listening to the teachings of some wiccans and Native American groups. Do I worship the tree in my back yard? Heck no! But I do respect it for sustaining me with oxygen.

As far as where we came from, you need to turn to science for that one. A philosopher or preacher can help you understand "why" we're here, but only the biological community can help to answer "how" we got here. The accepted theory is that for every random collision of molecules, there is a very small percentage chance that the collision will result in the construction of protiens. It could have been that as the earth was cooling off, the right conditions were present for some of these protiens to thrive and evolve in the primordial soup. Or perhaps the earliest building blocks of life hitched a ride on an asteroid that impacted with the earth. If there is one thing that we know about life is that it *wants* to live. From barren deserts to volcanic undersea vents to rocks buried under hundreds of feet of ice, life can be found. It only makes sense that there are other planets rich in life as well. We just need to find them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And where are we going?
[/b][/quote]

Towards our eventual extinction. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif Human beings are, without a doubt, the greatest life form that mother earth has spawned. But we are still bound by nature's rules. For as far as we come, we are still vulnerable to the forces that surround us, and that caused the other five(?) great extinctions. One stadium-sized chunk of space debris slamming into the earth will make your concerns about your 401k and you mortgage seem pretty moot.

But I'm not ready to count us out yet. If anything, Humans are creative, innovative, and curious. This is what got us out of the caves and hunter-gatherer tribes and into cities and universities, and eventually onto the surface of the moon. Our evolution has encoded within us the need to survive, explore, and grow. Perhaps these traits will be able to get us off of the earth before the next extinction occurs. The bacteria seeds that fed the earth from the cosmos have been harvested, and human beings return to their celestial nursery to spread their progeny to other worlds. As Carl Sagan so eloquently said, "We are all Children of the Cosmos".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm asking mostly because I'm at that very cross roads you refered to earlier. And right now I'm trying to find as much information as possible as to which I really want and should do. Heck I'm curious in generally what any one has to say on the topic.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Well, the only thing I can tell you to do is, "don't let anyone tell you what to do" style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif This is your path to follow. Meditate, pray, reason, read. Learn something new, and relearn something you thought you knew. Don't be afraid to change past perceptions. Search for all the answers, but never trust someone who claims to have all the answers.

And every time you watch Star Wars, listen to Yoda. He has some good things to say. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/y.gif

Best of luck to you!

[goodwije]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And every time you watch Star Wars, listen to Yoda. He has some good things to say[/b][/quote]
That's good advise no matter what the subject style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

[Master Zeary]

Originally posted by Sargoth+Mar 26 2005, 07:04 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth @ Mar 26 2005, 07:04 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Master Zeary@Mar 26 2005, 09:32 AM
If you don't believe in God as you say than how did we come to be here?* How were we created?


I never said I didn't believe in god. I am much more of an agnostic than an athiest. I do believe there *may* be "something" above us, be it a higher power, a collective conciousness or the laws of physics, biology and mathematics. I just find no 'truth' or salvation in any of the western religions. I do find a lot of serenity in Buddhist teachings, as they deal a lot more with introspection and how to live life *now* rather than preparing for when we die. I have a lot of respect for nature, so I do enjoy listening to the teachings of some wiccans and Native American groups. Do I worship the tree in my back yard? Heck no! But I do respect it for sustaining me with oxygen.

As far as where we came from, you need to turn to science for that one. A philosopher or preacher can help you understand "why" we're here, but only the biological community can help to answer "how" we got here. The accepted theory is that for every random collision of molecules, there is a very small percentage chance that the collision will result in the construction of protiens. It could have been that as the earth was cooling off, the right conditions were present for some of these protiens to thrive and evolve in the primordial soup. Or perhaps the earliest building blocks of life hitched a ride on an asteroid that impacted with the earth. If there is one thing that we know about life is that it *wants* to live. From barren deserts to volcanic undersea vents to rocks buried under hundreds of feet of ice, life can be found. It only makes sense that there are other planets rich in life as well. We just need to find them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And where are we going?*
[/b][/quote]

Towards our eventual extinction. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif Human beings are, without a doubt, the greatest life form that mother earth has spawned. But we are still bound by nature's rules. For as far as we come, we are still vulnerable to the forces that surround us, and that caused the other five(?) great extinctions. One stadium-sized chunk of space debris slamming into the earth will make your concerns about your 401k and you mortgage seem pretty moot.

But I'm not ready to count us out yet. If anything, Humans are creative, innovative, and curious. This is what got us out of the caves and hunter-gatherer tribes and into cities and universities, and eventually onto the surface of the moon. Our evolution has encoded within us the need to survive, explore, and grow. Perhaps these traits will be able to get us off of the earth before the next extinction occurs. The bacteria seeds that fed the earth from the cosmos have been harvested, and human beings return to their celestial nursery to spread their progeny to other worlds. As Carl Sagan so eloquently said, "We are all Children of the Cosmos".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm asking mostly because I'm at that very cross roads you refered to earlier.* And right now I'm trying to find as much information as possible as to which I really want and should do.* Heck I'm curious in generally what any one has to say on the topic.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Well, the only thing I can tell you to do is, "don't let anyone tell you what to do" style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif This is your path to follow. Meditate, pray, reason, read. Learn something new, and relearn something you thought you knew. Don't be afraid to change past perceptions. Search for all the answers, but never trust someone who claims to have all the answers.

And every time you watch Star Wars, listen to Yoda. He has some good things to say. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/y.gif

Best of luck to you!
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]


first things first. How the heck do you qoute little sections at a time. I can't figure it out and it upsets me that I can't. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/banghead.gif

go even farther than that though. The conditions on earth may have been right but where did Earth come from? the whole universe for that matter. I have come to understand of my own accord that something must exsist higher than what we know as creation because for one. doesn't seem a little convienant that all these cells and atoms and nuetrons and all that science stuff works together all so well. Put a few remote control cars in a huge room together and let them go. sure eventually they may hit one another but there is no garentee that they will brake or keep going. molecules (which had to have come from somewhere) may collide but are they going to create something every time? I don't know. something (to my understanding) probably could have made them hit yes but just in the right way that something even more comlpex comes out of the mix. after a while all that complexity (if thats even a word) have to start falling together if they are to create some as massive as a living creature or even some rocks for that matter. all this stuff seems to come together all too well for something to just fall into place and create life. some manor of intelligence must have been used for all this stuff you know?

It sounds again that i didn't word things correctly. I agree with everything you said about where we are going to go. However what I ment more was were do we go once we die. sure the here and now is fun. but sooner or later the later will be the now. and I'd like to make sure I haven't screwed myself over by that time because what I did in the now makes things more difficult in the future. Much like college. I'm currently trying to look for one. I didn't before thinking I'll deal with it when I get to it. when it came I realize that there are things that I should have done so that now every thing doesn't fall apart. College will then prepare me for even more later in life. it would give me the skills I need in for when the future becomes the present. Or maybe I'm reading way too far into what you said. Ugh.

thanks for the advise as well. That's why I enjoy my theology class as I do. the teacher doesn't say this is what this is. No he tries to get us to think things out and understand what would be the best thing to do. I could word it better but I've been sitting at the computer typing out long responses like this and I'm starting to lose my focus. I enjoy talking though. PM me with some of this stuff so we don't use up whole pages talking. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif

[Max Starkiller]

Bumped to get traffic

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Master Zeary@Mar 26 2005, 11:32 AM
So than Sargoth what do you believe?

If you don't believe in God as you say than how did we come to be here? How were we created?

And where are we going?

I'm asking mostly because I'm at that very cross roads you refered to earlier. And right now I'm trying to find as much information as possible as to which I really want and should do. Heck I'm curious in generally what any one has to say on the topic.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


One thing to keep in mind is what you risk. I know that this is hardly the best Christian attitude to have, but when I was about 14 I wieghed the pros and cons of beliefs.

If I lived my whole life for God and then it turns out that there is no God, well I lost a pleasured life.

But if I lived for sex, drugs, alcohol, and just trying to make myself feel good, and then after death I suddenly become aware of God (all to late), then I'm screwed like none other.

This thought process was what really got me on the Godly path. It took me awhile to actually get what I was supposed to do to honor God, however because of the stuff I talked about, I was in a position to recognize it when it was put before me.

[Sargoth]

^ ahh, yes. Pascal's Wager.

[goodwije]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But if I lived for sex, drugs, alcohol, and just trying to make myself feel good[/b][/quote]hmm.. see to me that implys that athiests only live for sex, drugs etc. or that they are athiests so they can partake of said things. In my experiece that just is not true.

[Sargoth]

Originally posted by goodwije@Aug 13 2005, 07:04 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But if I lived for sex, drugs, alcohol, and just trying to make myself feel goodhmm.. see to me that implys that athiests only live for sex, drugs etc. or that they are athiests so they can partake of said things. In my experiece that just is not true.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

I don't think he's referring as much to Atheism as he is to Hedonism.

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by goodwije@Aug 13 2005, 09:04 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But if I lived for sex, drugs, alcohol, and just trying to make myself feel goodhmm.. see to me that implys that athiests only live for sex, drugs etc. or that they are athiests so they can partake of said things. In my experiece that just is not true.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

True, true. I was going for a polar example. Also thats what I was headed for when I made that desicion.

[Angel Starmaster]

Hedonism. Masochism. Two ways of life in which I shall never partake. They tell you, "Oh, please and pain let you know you're alive." Very nice, but why do you need to know you're alive? If you do not, then something is inherantly wrong. IMO, anyways. It's an unbalanced lifestyle. Unrational.

[Cassus Fett]

A Quick Questions For All Believers:

If all the Religions believe in essentially th