Why dont we all believe????

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

>What, no comment on my great "Thing" joke? Rats.

Wouldn't Thing just translate it into sign language anyway?

Not if he were given a pen and paper! He coulda' been a Masorete.

Quote

>The essentials of that message are that [reinserted] Jesus is the >"Son" of God, sent by God, to reconcile mankind to God; and there is no >other way to be reconciled to God except through Christ. . . .

Quote

That's one of the messages. I think the more important message for our everyday lives is through an example of how to live one's life. I don't think that people born before Christ had no way to be reconciled to God.

I think that the claims of Christ were the most important message for us to understand; His claims do apply to us today, and to everyone who has ever lived. Yes, the people who lived before Christ was sent from the Father (around 4 B.C.) had a way to be reconciled to God, but that way was incomplete, only a shadow of Him who was to come. The "plan" consisting of goats and calves was a temporary expedient until the Lamb of God came into the world, when He would deal with man's sin (which had separated him from God) once for all time. Hebrews 9:11-14:
"11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"

As far as providing an example for living, yes, that would be good if all, regardless of relationship to God, followed that example. But Christ didn't come expressly for that purpose. He came to reconcile us to God. (sorry to repeat myself.)

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

• Quote

[Mockingbird 0]

Smiles, I think you are not doing justice to the scriptures you mentioned when you don't look at them as books written by different men. For instance, the gospels. Why do you think God gave us four separate accounts? They don't contradict each other; they complement (complete) each other. Not one of them gives ALL the details. But when we put them together, we have a more complete picture of what happened and of what Christ taught. Certainly Luke didn't descibe every event that John did--- he might not have been privy to all that John knew. And vice versa. Mark focused more on the actions of Christ than His words. Perhaps because he was not present when Christ spoke and he recorded the recollections of Peter who was present. (After Christ's ascension, Peter was paired with Mark, who assisted and accompanied Peter on his journey's to spread the gospel of Christ.)

Quote

Modification of scripture in the early Christian church- modified words to make them more clearly support orthodox Christianity and more vigorously oppose heretics, women, Jews, and pagans.

Changes have real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. In some instances the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending on how one resolves a textual problem. Texts do not simply reveal their own meanings to honest inquirers. Texts are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of the texts only by explaining them in light of their own knowledge.

I know nothing of the modification of scripture by early church leaders to make the text read differently and communicate emphases that weren't originally there. I'm interested in what you have found, though, so pass it on to me, OK? From comparing the thousands of manuscripts in existence, the only variants noted were changes in spelling (probably done by accident), grammar, and in translations, word choice, and so on. In a very few cases, a verse was added, or a passage was added... BUT, with the sheer volume of manuscripts which are compared and found to be in agreement, it would be easy to determine exactly the what the originals said! The more copies, the better able we are to settle on what the original said. I'd be glad to pass on some documents and statistics about the manuscripts if you're interested.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I completely abhor the problems you discuss...except...I don't necessarily lay them at the feet of any particular church nor religion. Rather, I think it's more a combination of factors, wherein religion *may* play a part in one aspect, to the spread of AIDs and other sexually transmitted disease. I think the spread is less here in the US not because of religion, but because sex ed is taught; medical facilities are easily available; our communications networks are far better; our quality of life is higher...and so on. We, in the US and other "first world" nations (is that a term? Not sure...) are less reliant on cultural myths

Vatican: Condoms don't stop AIDS

Church in Africa continues AIDS fight without Condoms

The church and AIDS in Africa

Only a few of many results there. Yes, we in the west have access to much better sex ed and general schooling than most people in the worst AIDS affected areas. And, like I said, this allows us to see through the bullshit that is pushed by the church as moral law. In places that don't have that level of schooling, the religious message is by far the loudest one they hear.

As I see it, the poorer and more ignorant a general populace is the more likely it will be to follow religious extremism. Millions of people are following this insane doctrine and are dying because of it.

(Mutilation wasn't what I was talking about)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

From Jesus???

Indirectly, yes. What I quoted and replied to didn't make my meaning very clear, sorry.

Alias talked about the power of churches to do good, be charitable etc. I was referring to those churches that preach hate and fight for devisiveness. I know you'll say that those people aren't real Christians, but they are still people who have studied the meesage of Christ and based parts of their lives around what they thought he was saying.

It was more the infrastructure of organised religion rather than what Jesus may or may not have said that i was aiming for.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[smiles 0]

hey
----these days I have spent some time on trying to reason some stuff (gut emotions) through...

I can express how I feel, (or how I think I feel today)by the values or moral intelligence that has grown within- through my life experiences.

re:
- I reject authoritarian beliefs. My view is that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live.
- I distrust people who claim to know that which they do not know. I choose rather admit that I know what little I know, and confess that I do not know -------------that which I do not know, for that is the beginning of knowledge.
- I feel life affirms itself through death, which was brought into existence by life and derives its entire significance from life......
- I find meaning and value in life. I am able to define my own standards as I figure them myself....
- I feel this is my one and only life, and I live it with peaceful acceptance.


I have not read Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Barnabas of Alexandria, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata, or Plutarch---I have no authority on the history of the New Testament or the early church, or the life of Jesus. I have not read the bible in its original language or ever looked at a manuscript- or a group of manuscripts. I have not learned the ancient languages (Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc.) ...or done textual criticism, reconstructing the "original" text based on the wide array of manuscripts that differ from one another in thousands of places...... I read the bible in the English translation, I know what's in it because scholars with unknown names, identies, backgrounds, qualifications, predilections, theologies, and personal opinions have told me what is in it. ....I do not read the bible as an inerrant blueprint for our faith, life and future, I read it as a very human book with very human points of view, many which differ from one another and none of which provides the inerrant guide to how we should live.


My laundry is done and it is one----beauty day for a skydive!!

SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[Dolph 0]

I think one should not neglect that possibility that humans are a one extremely short time occurance in an almost infinitely huge universe spanning a immense amount of time.

And that in the whole grander scheme of things, our morality, kindness, cruelty, all our deeds, are really of only very minor importance. Or maybe better to say; our general impact on the whole general mish-mash is almost insignificant. We're shit in space, an eruption of self awareness restricted in time and locality

This may be relevant. Because to be blunt it'd mean on a greater scale than our local one, it really doesn't matter.

It's a bit vain to ascribe so much value to the human experience when we know better.

It is usually at this point I get an intense desire to go to the DZ.

[smiles 0]

Quote

Smiles, I think you are not doing justice to the scriptures you mentioned when you don't look at them as books written by different men. For instance, the gospels. Why do you think God gave us four separate accounts?

Early Gospels? Christians were concerned to know more about the life teachings, death, and resurrection of their Lord; and so numerous Gospels were written, which recorded the traditions associated with the life of Jesus. Four such Gospels became most widely used- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament. Some others were Gospels allegedly by Jesus's disciple Philip, his brother Judas Thomas, and his female companion Mary Magdalene. Jesus's life was interpreted by Paul and others in light of the Jewish scriptures. These books too- both the Pentateuch and other Jewish writings, such as the Prophets and Psalms were in wide use among Christians.

God gave us four separate accounts?

---In some sense Christians started with a canon in that the founder of their religion was himself a Jewish teacher who accepted the Torah as authoritative scripture from God, and who taught his followers his interpretation of it. The earliest Christians were followers of Jesus who accepted the books of the Jewish Bible (which was not yet set as a "canon.") For the writers of the New Testament, including our earliest author Paul, the "scriptures" referred to the Jewish Bible, the collection of books that God had given his people and that predicted the coming of the Messiah, Jesus. Christians began accepting other writings as standing on a par with the Jewish scriptures. This acceptance may have had its roots in the authoritative teaching of Jesus himself, as his followers took his interpretation of scripture to be equal in authority to the words of scripture itself. Jesus's teachings were soon seen to be as authoritative as the pronouncements of Moses.

At the same time that Justin was writing in the mid second century, another prominent Christian was also active in Rome, the philosopher-teacher Marcion, later declared a heretic. Marcion was the first Christian that we know of who produced an actual "canon" of scripture that he felt constituted the sacred texts of the faith.
Marcion was completely absorbed by the life and teachings of the apostle Paul, whom he considered to be the one "true" apostle from the early days of the Church. Paul had taught that a right standing before God came only by faith in Christ, not by doing any of the works prescribed by the Jewish law.
Marcion concluded that the God of Jesus (and Paul) was not, therefore, the God of the Old Testament.
There were in fact, two different Gods: the God of the Jews, who created the world, called Israel to be his people, and gave them his harsh law; and the God of Jesus, who sent Christ into the world to save people from the wrathful vengeance of the Jewish creator God. Marcion believed this understanding of Jesus was taught by Paul himself, and so, naturally, his canon included the ten letters of Paul available to him at the time----since Paul sometimes referred to his "Gospel," Marcion included a Gospel in his canon, a form of what is now the Gospel of Luke.
(11 books, no old testament, only one gospel, and ten Epistles.)

Many kinds of books were being written and read by Christians in the early centuries...other gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses; there were records of persecution, accounts of martyrdom, apologies for the faith, church orders, attacks on heretics, letters of exhortations and instruction, expositions of scripture- an entire range of literature that helped define Christianity.

A Christian writer who opposed Marcion, took a far more authoritative stand. The bishop of Lyons in Gaul (modern France), Irenaeus wrote a five volume work against heretics such as Marcion and the Gnostics, and who had very clear ideas about which books should be considered among the canonical Gospels. (Against Heresies)

Irenaeus says that not just Marcion, but also other heretics had mistakenly assumed that only one or another of the Gospels was to be accepted as scripture: Jewish Christians who held to the ongoing validity of the Law and used only Matthew; certain groups who argued that Jesus was not really the Christ accepted only the Gospel of Mark; Marcion and his followers accepted only (a form) of Luke; and a group of Gnostics called the Valentinians accepted only John. All these groups were in error, however, because

...it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number that they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel...it is fitting that she should have four pillars.....(Against Heresies 3:11.7)

A Christian writing in the second half of the fourth century, the bishop of Alexandria named Athanasius wrote his annual pastoral letter to the Egyptian churches under his jurisdiction, and in it he included advice concerning which books should be read as scripture in the churches. He lists our twenty-seven books.....

Quote

I know nothing of the modification of scripture by early church leaders to make the text read differently and communicate emphases that weren't originally there. I'm interested in what you have found, though, so pass it on to me, OK?

Modification of scripture by early church leaders?

Cases where English translators have chosen the wrong reading and so present a translation not of the original text but of the text that scribes created when they altered the original????

Quote

BUT, with the sheer volume of manuscripts which are compared and found to be in agreement, it would be easy to determine exactly the what the originals said! The more copies, the better able we are to settle on what the original said.

You feel that when the vast majority of manuscripts have one reading and only a couple have another, the majority are right?

The vast majority of our manuscripts were produced hundreds and hundreds of years after the originals, and they themselves were copied not from the originals but from other, much later copies.

an example of modification: Mark 1:41
Which is more likely, that a scribe copying this text would change it to say that Jesus became wrathful instead of compassionate, or say that Jesus became compassionate instead of wrathful? Which reading better explains the existence of the other? The reading that indicates Jesus became angry is the "more difficult" reading and therefore more likely to be "original?"
We don't have any Greek manuscripts of Mark that contain this passage until the end of the fourth century, nearly three hundred years after the book was produced. But we have two authors who copied this story within twenty years of its first production.

Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and both Matthew and Luke used Mark's account as a source for their own stories about Jesus. Is it possible, then, to examine Matthew and Luke to see how they changed Mark, wherever they tell the same story but in a different way? Matthew and Luke are almost word for word the same as Mark in the leper's request and in Jesus's response in verses 40-41. Which word then do they use to describe Jesus's reaction? Does he become compassionate or angry? Matthew and Luke both omit the word altogether.
If the text of Mark available to Matthew and Luke had described Jesus as feeling compassion, why would each of them have omitted the word? Both Matthew and Luke describe Jesus as compassionate elsewhere, and whenever Mark has a story in which Jesus's compassion is explicitly mentioned, one or the other of them retains this description in his own account.

What about the other option? What if both Matthew and Luke read in Mark's Gospel that Jesus became angry? Would they have been inclined to eliminate that emotion? There are other occasions on which Jesus becomes angry in Mark. In each instance, Matthew and Luke have modified the accounts. Mark 3:5 Jesus looks around "with anger" at those in the synagogue who are watching to see if he will heal the man with the withered hand. Luke has the verse almost the same as Mark, but he removes the reference to Jesus's anger.
Mark 10:14 Jesus is aggravated at his disciples for not allowing people to bring their children to be blessed. Both Matthew and Luke have the story, verbally the same, but both delete the reference to Jesus's anger (Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:16) It is possible that Jesus is being portrayed in the opening scenes of Mark's Gospel as a powerful figure with a strong will and an agenda of his own, a charismatic authority who doesn't like to be disturbed?

Types of alterations of the text:
Theologically motivated/Antiadoptionistic alterations/Antiadoptionist changes/Antidocetic alterations/Antidocetic changes/Antiseparationist alterations/

SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[smiles 0]

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/index.html

The Judas Gospel
An ancient text lost for 1,700 years says Christ's betrayer was his truest disciple.
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/video.html

SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[pajarito 0]

Gospel of Judas

The Gospel of Judas was developed by a Gnostic sect in the second century A.D. and was was originally written in Greek around 130-170. This fact alone tells us that it was not authored by Judas himself. The oldest extant copy is a Coptic manuscript written in Sahidic (last phase of ancient Egyptian) in the fourth or fifth century.
The gospel of Judas is included in a 62-page papyrus1 manuscript that was uncovered in Egypt during the 1950's or 1960's.2 The translator of the Gospel of Judas is Rodolphe Kasser of the University of Geneva, a leading Coptic Scholar and the contents are due to be released in April, 2006. At the date of writing this article (April 7th, 2006), the complete translated text of this pseudepigraphal writing is unavailable. However, at CNN.com we have the following excerpts:

"The newly translated document's text begins: 'The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot.'
"In a key passage Jesus tells Judas, 'You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.'
"This indicates that Judas would help liberate the spiritual self by helping Jesus get rid of his physical flesh, the scholars said.
"'Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom,'" Jesus says to Judas, singling him out for special status. 'Look, you have been told everything. Lift up your eyes and look at the cloud and the light within it and the stars surrounding it. The star that leads the way is your star.'"
"The text ends with Judas turning Jesus over to the high priests and does not include any mention of the crucifixion or resurrection."3

According to National Geographic website on the Gospel of Judas page, it says that the newly discovered gospel is, "One of the most significant biblical finds of the last century—a lost gospel that could challenge what is believed about the story of Judas and his betrayal of Jesus."4 In fact, National Geographic has invested a lot of money in its presentation.

"Retired Claremont Graduate University professor James Robinson said that "early in November he learned that Kasser and several European, Canadian and U.S. scholars had signed agreements with the National Geographic Society to assist with a documentary film and a National Geographic article for an Easter 2006 release and a succession of three books."5

Is the Gospel of Judas authentic?

The Gospel of Judas apparently depicts Judas in favorable terms and commends him as doing God's work when he betrayed Christ to the Jewish religious leaders. This, of course, contradicts what was written by the apostles in their gospels of Matthew and John as well as those gospels written by Mark and Luke who are under the direction of Peter and Paul.
The Gospel of Judas falls into the category of pseudepigraphal writings. This means that the gospel is not authentic but is a false writing. In fact, the gospel was not written by Judas, but by a later Gnostic sect in support of Judas. Gnositicsm was an ancient heresy that taught salvation through esoteric knowledge. Gnosticism was known at the time of the writing of the later epistles in the New Testament and was rejected by the apostle John.6
The ancient writer Irenaeus (130 - 202 AD) in his work called Refutation of All Heresies said that the gospel of Judas was a fictitious history:

"Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."7

We can conclude that the Gospel of Judas is not authentic, is not inspired, and was properly rejected by the early church as an unreliable and inaccurate depiction of what really happened concerning Judas.
Of course, the complaint is often raised that this opinion, like that of the early church, simply rejected anything that opposed a preconceived idea. But, this complaint falls by the wayside when we understand that the early church knew which documents were authored by the apostles and which were not. God did not make a mistake when he led the Christian Church to recognize what is and is not inspired. The Gospel of Judas was never recognized by the church as being inspired.

Addendum

On April 9 National Geographic aired the special on the Gospel of Judas. Unfortunately, the special was below standard in its scholarly representation of both sides of the argument on the validity of the New Testament Gospels as well as the Gospel of Judas. It did not give competent counter evidences against its liberal and inaccurate suggestions regarding the formation of the New Testament cannon. The special failed miserably to adequately deal with the formation of the New Testament Cannon, how the gospels were arrived at, how we know who wrote them, and when they were written, etc. I was extremely disappointed. Here is a quick example of one of the many problems.
The National Geographic show had a "scholar" who stated that most experts agree that the earliest gospels weren't written until around 60 A.D. But, the problem here is that no substantiation was offered for this opinion. Second, internal evidence in the Gospels and the book of Acts contradicts the statement. The book of Acts was written by Luke well after he wrote the Gospel of Luke. Acts is a history of the early Christian church and it does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 The book of Acts is a compilation of the early church's history. One would think that it would naturally include the death of such important figures as James, Paul, and Peter if it were written any time after their deaths. Since this book does not include such information it appears that it was written before at least the death of James (A.D. 62). Let's offer a conservative number of three years prior to the death of James which would mean Acts could have been written around A.D. 59 This would mean that the Gospel of Luke was written years before that, let's pick a low number of five years before Acts which puts Luke at around A.D. 54. Additionally, it is generally agreed upon that Mark was the first Gospel written. Therefore, Mark was before Luke. Let's pick another low number of five years by which Mark preceded Luke. This would reasonably put the Gospel of Mark at 49 AD. This is a conservative estimate and it could be that Mark was written much earlier. Therefore, very quickly we see that the statement made in the program that the gospels weren't really written until after 60 A.D. can be easily countered. The question is why is it that National Geographic did not produce competent counter arguments?
Another issue is regarding Gnosticism which was not properly represented. Gnosticism basically states that God cannot become incarnate. The show suggested that gnostics were Christians, but this cannot be since they contradict one of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith -- which was also taught in the Old Testament (Zech. 12:10). John the apostle who wrote 1 John addressed the early formation of Gnostic thought in Chapter 4 when he denounced those as antichrists who denied that Jesus had "come in the flesh." National Geographic failed miserably to represent Christian theology and instead misrepresented Gnosticism, trying to make it appear that the present Christian theological system was merely the result of political happenstance.
CARM concludes that it the National Geographic program was very biased and insufficiently researched.

Gospel of Judas

[JackC 0]

Quote

~I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings.

Upon further research, then, I have discovered I was somewhat incorrect. And yet, you too, Jack, seem to be somewhat incorrect.

Fair point. It's easy for both sides to claim Einstein believed or not because he sort of did both. Spinoza's god is a fair bit different from the abrahamic god though.

Quote

Take a look and tell me what you think...tells me that far fewer scientists than commonly thought believe in a diety...which I think is neat!

And they are getting fewer according to research published in Nature. Perhaps your wording is not quite what you meant?

Quotes like the ones in your link always remind me of Project Steve

Quote

There is tons of stuff that has not yet been discovered; does that mean it doesn't exist? No, it only means it hasn't been discovered just yet. Have hope, man! There are things yet to be explored, yet to be understood, and yet to be experienced...and that is magical.

That maybe true, in the sense that there are plenty of problems still to be fully understood by science which is good because I'd be out of a job if there weren't. For the most part though, the fundamentals are relatively well understood even if some of the theories don't quite tie up. But with regards to god, an all powerful being the messes with the fabric of the universe from time to time, you think they'd have spotted something. That was my point. Plus if god did mess with the universe from time to time, science would be stuffed since you'd never be able to predict anything.

Quote

It's not God's failing that I don't understand it completely...it's simply and only mine. I haven't taken the time to research it more fully, but I'd like to. Have you got any links where a neophyte like me can begin to understand quantum particles and why it was once thought they behaved in a sentient manner but now don't? I'd really appreciate it...

Well this is my pet subject I suppose since I have a PhD in quantum field theory. I don't know of any part that says particles are sentient so I can't provide a link for you. My best guess is that some amature philosopher jumped to that conclusion and it gets perpetuated because it fits certain agendas.

As regards reading matter, you have to be careful with pop science books, many don't get the point across well at all. I'm not a big fan of Hawkin's "A Brief History of Time" for instance and "The Emperors New Mind" by Roger Penrose is awful. Feymnan's "QED: the srange theory of light and matter" on the other hand is much much better. In fact anything by Feynman is worth reading. But if you really want to know then you'll need to do the maths. I know it sound arrogant, but there really is no substitute.

Quote

Sorry to hear that you have such a rigid perspective on what faith is. You and I will have to agree to disagree about faith being blind.

Hey, that's just the way I read it in the dictionary. But we can agree to disagree here.

Quote

I am sorry you believe it's an incoherent concept...I don't. But I can appreciate your position nonetheless.

To me the omnipotent, omnipressent, omniscient god is an orthogonal concept and like the square circle, cannot exist by definition. In order to get over the logical inconsitencies you need to start redefining his properties into something altogether less god like. I just don't buy it.

[hairyjuan 0]

Quote

A lot of people don't want to surrender their life and want to keep doing things that are contrary to God's word.

the bible is not the word of god, in the 'bible' it says inthe beginning was the Word and the Word was g-d. this means in every literal sense of that phrase, WE ALL SPEAK FOR GOD.

iF G-D is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, then g-d is also the devil. denying this fact , is ignorance of what those three words mean

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[Michele 1]

Quote

Perhaps your wording is not quite what you meant?

Good grief. Teaches me to proof-read! LOL, yes, you're correct. What I meant to say was more along the lines of something on the order of 40% of scientists (that being a very broad brush, to be sure) believe in a deity, and that is a neat thing.

Sorry about that. And thanks for understanding I meant something different.

Quote

It's easy for both sides to claim Einstein believed or not because he sort of did both. Spinoza's god is a fair bit different from the abrahamic god though.

I didn't realize we had restricted the conversation to the Abrahamic vision of God. I thought we were discussing God in general. Spinoza's God is rather different at first blush than Abraham's God, to be sure. But underneath, at it's base level, is the belief in God...and that is more what I'm pointing out.

What I find encouraging is that some scientists, despite all the study and all the doctrine that works to prove God doesn't exist (in any form), do believe in God. To me, that's exciting. That is a glorious happening, not because of the particular sect's rules that they follow, but that they still have the ability to have awe, to notice God does indeed live in the details, that God exists and that there are things that are numinous. For me, that's a really "neat" thing.

I'd never heard of Project Steve...


[quuote]That maybe true, in the sense that there are plenty of problems still to be fully understood by science which is good because I'd be out of a job if there weren't. For the most part though, the fundamentals are relatively well understood even if some of the theories don't quite tie up. But with regards to god, an all powerful being the messes with the fabric of the universe from time to time, you think they'd have spotted something. That was my point. Plus if god did mess with the universe from time to time, science would be stuffed since you'd never be able to predict anything.
What if - and just humor me for a moment - answers to some of the most important questions still left to be answered are never able to be answered? Once all other factors are made clear, what if there's still that final step which just can't be explained?

Your comment reminded me of opposing quotes from the two men we were talking about: Einstein and Hawking. Einstein said something to the effect that "God does not play dice," and Hawking says something to the effect of "God does play dice, and sometimes, he rolls them blind" (paraphrasing really badly...sorry...). To me, that means that Hawking sees that there are things which just cannot be predicted, and that in some areas, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2, inasmuch as what was expected to occur from two events is just not what happened. And that, I think, is fascinating.

There is so much left to be understood, explored, discovered that to rule out God at this point is denying a possibility, and operating from a prejudiced viewpoint. The old saying "if you look for a bogey man, you'll find one" is apt here: if you look for God, you'll find him. Similarly, if you look for the absence of God, you'll find that, as well. Wouldn't it be best to approach with no conclusions and see what occurs? To me, that's the challenge...to not have a prejudiced position when exploring things...and see what one can find.

Quote

Well this is my pet subject I suppose since I have a PhD in quantum field theory. I don't know of any part that says particles are sentient so I can't provide a link for you. My best guess is that some amature philosopher jumped to that conclusion and it gets perpetuated because it fits certain agendas.

Fair enough. Perhaps I've understood what I've read incorrectly; I'm far from perfect, and without a college education. So when I read something, I have been known to misunderstand it. I'll see if I can't find something that backs my understanding, and see where it goes.

As for it being taught that way to fit certain agendas, I don't have a clue. As I said, this is something I've read over the years, so couldn't apply that thought to me.

However, the subject of agendas is fascinating. One could argue that you have an agenda, as do I, and all other folks. Some have the agenda that God does not exist, and formulates all their teachings thusly. Same with those who believe God does exist; they formulate their teachings a certain way. What I've not ever understood is why aren't subjects presented objectively, and let the learner make their mind up?

I came up in a time before the internet. I clearly recall a teacher telling me God didn't exist...in class, while we were discussing molecular weight. I don't recall how the subject came up, but it did indeed come up; and not with my instigation. But I remember thinking that that particular teacher wasn't teaching me to formulate my own thoughts and conclusions; he indeed was teaching an agenda.

While that's not a clear representation of what I am trying to communicate, it did start me on the road to consideration of being taught someone else's opinions and thoughts; even on the mundane subject of molecular weights, there was opinion mixed with fact. And that colored my view of all instructors - and I also understood how difficult it was to separate the two...

It came up again in a biology class. I tried to get permission to do a project involving mice and alcohol consumption, breeding those who preferred alcohol with others who preferred it, and seeing if perhaps one could find a commonality in future generations of alcoholic mice...the whole thing was well thought out - I was 15, but I managed to get all the bases covered. I had approval from my parents - they would've funded the experiment, and as it was a project for class (for a final grade; I figured I could get one generation down the line, perhaps two) they thought it was a great one. My biology instructor told me that I could not do it because it involved alcohol and presented a moral dilemma. I never did understand the moral dilemma part, but apparently he did. I was assigned to cross polinate flowers and see what sort of genetic hybrid would work. I did it, was completely unsuccessful at creating a different color of flowers, and lost interest in science because of that.

So in my experience, there are instructors who have agendas, both pro and con God. That is such a personal subject that it should not ever be taught - neither pro nor con - and allowed to be left to the child's finding and exploration in a school setting. Similarly, both the Big Bang theory and creationism should be taught in school, given equal weight and time. Regardless of the teacher's personal opinion, and with no pressure to believe one over the other. Kids are not stupid; they will discover what they believe on their own, and should be encouraged to come up with their own opinions about something...not regurgitation of an instructor's opinion.

And yes, I so went off track there...sorry.

Back to the subject...

Quote

As regards reading matter, you have to be careful with pop science books, many don't get the point across well at all. I'm not a big fan of Hawkin's "A Brief History of Time" for instance and "The Emperors New Mind" by Roger Penrose is awful. Feymnan's "QED: the srange theory of light and matter" on the other hand is much much better. In fact anything by Feynman is worth reading. But if you really want to know then you'll need to do the maths. I know it sound arrogant, but there really is no substitute.

I'll check out your recommendation. I can't promise to do the math - I can balance my checkbook, but there has been no other use of math since I left school...so there would be a learning curve that I don't know I'll make it through. But I will read, I promise that. And I'll let you know what I think...

Quote

To me the omnipotent, omnipressent, omniscient god is an orthogonal concept and like the square circle, cannot exist by definition. In order to get over the logical inconsitencies you need to start redefining his properties into something altogether less god like. I just don't buy it.

I am not sure I can agree with you at all. Maybe God is the ultimate mathematician, the ultimate imaginer, the ultimate engineer, and the ultimate geometrist...and created levels upon levels upon levels, so that as one discovered that the earth was not flat, man then discovered that there was gravity; and then that discovery spawned many other scientific discoveries, such as molecules. Those i turn then discovered...and on and on until quantum physics and on and on until...as one of the scientists I quoted, the mind of God is discovered.

And that, my friend, is amazing and exciting and very fascinating.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[hairyjuan 0]

Quote

With currently popularity of religious threads I thought I might pose the question:-

Why are we not all believers?

I mean what person would not want there to be a glorious afterlife, because as I see it that is really the root of or ultimate reward for most religions. If Christianity came with no afterlife promise I imagine there would be very few Christians around today, and there would be another dominant religion that does promise a glorious afterlife.

If we look around at the moment and the current rise in the popularity with the “paranormal” this can only but enforce the human desperation to try and prove there is something else out there, as the knowledge that when we die that is it for eternity, is just to much for some people to live there lives knowing..

Don’t get me wrong I as much as the most religious of people on this forum would dearly like to live on after my earthly body as expired, but I just am unable to except something that as of to date has no supporting evidence and tells me that it will all be ok if I just have a little faith. But why don’t I just have a little faith what have I got to lose, some would say nothing. However for some reason I can’t, it almost feels like there is no part of me, or my brain that needs or wants religion, in the same way a non-smoker doesn’t feel the need for a cigarette. Some would say this is the work of the devil, but will skip that hypothesis for now.

Is it possible that it the need for a god is genetic? Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, has a theory of there being a gene that some human beings bear which gives them a predisposition to episodes interpreted by some as religious revelation.

At the end of the day religion has no place in my life, and I have no need for it, but for many life with out religion would be unthinkable.....

What makes me and other people like me different to the millions of believers?

So if you believe, why, what is it about your particular god/religion that made you decide to embrace it?

And if you Don’t believe, why don’t you believe..

Would it be possible also to have the discussion with anyone quoting endless passages of the bible, or any other religious doctrine??? Please .... Pretty please.....

the simple fact of reigious history is this - all religions in thehistory of the human race have taken from the former religion and incorporated it into the new one. this is an indisputable fact that all christians chose to remain ignorant of

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[JackC 0]

Quote

What I meant to say was more along the lines of something on the order of 40% of scientists (that being a very broad brush, to be sure) believe in a deity, and that is a neat thing.

Well, Nature is a top tier scientific peer reviewed journal, godandscience.org is a christian apologetics website. I know which I would tend to believe.

Quote

I didn't realize we had restricted the conversation to the Abrahamic vision of God. I thought we were discussing God in general. Spinoza's God is rather different at first blush than Abraham's God, to be sure. But underneath, at it's base level, is the belief in God...and that is more what I'm pointing out.

Well Spinoza's God is the natural world and has no personality. I think you'd have to go a long way to find someone who doesn't believe in the natural word. So, me as an atheist can still believe in spinoza's god, maybe not in the same way Spinoza imagined it but as a belief in the natural world. I think Spinoza's god is vastly different from the Abrahamic (and many of the non-abrahamic) god(s). It is important to make this distinction.

Quote

What I find encouraging is that some scientists, despite all the study and all the doctrine that works to prove God doesn't exist (in any form), do believe in God. To me, that's exciting.

Firtly, scientist do not work to prove god doesn't exist. God is just not part of science by definition, which is why ID should not be taught in science class. Every sane person should beleive in the natural world (or spinozas god if you prefer) because there is a universe full of evidence that the universe exists. Other gods are very different - no evidence. Since science is built on evidence, (non-spinoza type) religious scientists seem to ba an oxymoron to me. That doesn't excite me one bit.

Quote

I'd never heard of Project Steve...

Glad to be of service, it was done as a parody of creationist "lists of scientists" who doubt evolution. Project Steve has a longer and more distinguished list of scientists than the creationists and they're all named Steve. It just goes to prove that not all lists are worth a bean.

Quote

What if - and just humor me for a moment - answers to some of the most important questions still left to be answered are never able to be answered? Once all other factors are made clear, what if there's still that final step which just can't be explained?

Then there would be some questions that could never be answered. The correct response would then be "I don't know" not "godidit"

Quote

Your comment reminded me of opposing quotes from the two men we were talking about: Einstein and Hawking. Einstein said something to the effect that "God does not play dice," and Hawking says something to the effect of "God does play dice, and sometimes, he rolls them blind" (paraphrasing really badly...sorry...). To me, that means that Hawking sees that there are things which just cannot be predicted, and that in some areas, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2, inasmuch as what was expected to occur from two events is just not what happened. And that, I think, is fascinating.

That's a reference to quantum theory which has a random element to it. Certain aspects of quantum events can't be predicted deterministically, only statistically. The quotes you presented are not about god except as a euphemism for the universe. You're right though, it is fascinating.

Quote

There is so much left to be understood, explored, discovered that to rule out God at this point is denying a possibility, and operating from a prejudiced viewpoint.

When Laplace published his theory of the formation of the Solar System, Napoleon Bonaparte asked him where God fit into his theory. Laplace replied, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.". Nothing has changed since then, in the words of Steven Hawking, this doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.

If I want to know what mechanism is responsible for the spin-dependent hyperfine interactions in positive-parity non-strange excited baryons and I just posit god as an explianation, what good does that do? How can I test the god mechanism? What predictions can I make from it? I fail to see how god actually explains anything at all. Unless you can say god has property X, symmetry Y and behaves acording to rule Z, all you've really said is I haven't got a clue how this works, it must be magic. That seems like a most unsatisfying answer to me. A cop out if you will.

Quote

One could argue that you have an agenda, as do I, and all other folks.

Yep.

Quote

What I've not ever understood is why aren't subjects presented objectively, and let the learner make their mind up?

Maybe they are. All the stuff is out there but it's up to you to look for it. Science is supposed to be objective based on fact, theory, testing, experimenting. Religion has to be based on dogma and scripture which can never be questioned or tested. Both angles are represented. Unfortunately, science from christian apologetic websites, isn't really science and that is annoying. Maybe not you but I wish people would criticise science for what it is, not what it isn't.

Quote

I am not sure I can agree with you at all. Maybe God is the ultimate mathematician, the ultimate imaginer, the ultimate engineer, and the ultimate geometrist...and created levels upon levels upon levels, so that as one discovered that the earth was not flat, man then discovered that there was gravity; and then that discovery spawned many other scientific discoveries, such as molecules. Those i turn then discovered...and on and on until quantum physics and on and on until...as one of the scientists I quoted, the mind of God is discovered.

Nope, you lost me here. That's also one of my big problems with religion, I just can't make head nor tail of it.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Good grief. Teaches me to proof-read! LOL, yes, you're correct. What I meant to say was more along the lines of something on the order of 40% of scientists (that being a very broad brush, to be sure) believe in a deity, and that is a neat thing.

Now my namesake has already written some excellent responses to this but I'm also interested in why you find this to be so great. First off I'm assuming this survey covered active researchers/ professional academics and your link shows it was done in the US. In the US the amount of people that believe in the christian god alone is far greater than 40%, so it would seem that the percentage of scientists that believe is much lower than should be expected by looking at stats for the general population.

I am inclined to think that most humans are naturally inclined to believe in something, and the greatest influence on a persons belief is what their parents believe. Once those beliefs are ingrained in a kids head they will usually be carried through life with the core elements intact. We can assume that the scientists polled were raised in average households, so somewhere in the order of 80 - 90% of them will have been raised to have a belief in a god. That means that through the course of their lives in science that fully half of those scientists who were raised with belief have now relinquished that faith.

How interesting is that?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

I am inclined to think that most humans are naturally inclined to believe in something, and the greatest influence on a persons belief is what their parents believe. Once those beliefs are ingrained in a kids head they will usually be carried through life with the core elements intact.

Interesting point here, and can be clearly seen in the way that religious types label and segregate their children.

Children are not labelled by what political party their parents follow, and we don’t send them to schools based on this. For example we don’t say be a good labour child and send them to a labour school, as it is generally excepted that children are to young to understand politics.

Yet it is quite normal to label children with their parent’s beliefs and separate them from other children whose parents have a different belief structure, by sending them to Christian, Islamic or Hindu schools.

Why is this?????

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[Zenister 0]

Quote

REALLY??!?!?!?! Try me! (I'm practically broke.) How many bibles DO you have in the room with you?

somewhere in the realm of 30 (I'll count when i'm home again)on the Christian shelf alone, and a few more in boxes elsewhere, depending on what you qualify as a "Bible" some wont pass muster for 'official christians' but i take each text for what it is and the insights it may contain.....

Quote

24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now....."

if you cannot see how blatantly 'politically' motivated this is.....

what is truly ironic is how Christians fail to recognize that the crux of this statement APPLIES TO THEM, their Church, their culturally limited beliefs, and even the Text itself....

"ohhh he meant all those OTHER religions... but ours is True..." never mind that the Christian Mythos and belief has clearly been 'designed' by the 'skills' of its writers and editors...

i dont "follow" ANY of man's religions.. i study the practice and principles of all (i can find) Man's religions to learn more about Man, more about his relationship with Divinity, and more about Divinity itself....

Divinity really has no need or care for the majority of issues the Christian Bible spouts. Man however cares a great deal about the most inconsequential things, and has proven perfectly willing to condemn, persecute and kill anyone who disagrees, with his political agenda while claiming God's will......

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you think it is possible that Christians, through studying the teachings of Jesus Christ, might develop a larger capacity to love others.

Yes. But they might also develop a larger capacity to irrationally hate another group of people too.

From Jesus???

Most Christians i've met learned more from their Church, their pastors and their sunday school teachers than they ever did from Jesus, and learning from the text itself is rather limited when their understanding is filtered through the first three...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

its sad that your christian apologetics at CARM cant use consistent rational thought process or critical analysis, but then that is what makes them believers and not historians or scholars..

Quote

he book of Acts is a compilation of the early church's history. One would think that it would naturally include the death of such important figures as James, Paul, and Peter if it were written any time after their deaths.

absence of an 'expected' occurrence or event is in no way evidence of timeline.. Real Historians know this, and accurately place the Gospels where they belong WELL AFTER the events they claim to record would have occurred... Christian Apologists ignore this and make up facts and supposition to fit their beliefs and deride real scholars who base their statements on Historical Evidence instead of belief driven supposition

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Now we need hairyjuan to post some link to some NewAge BS & then we will all be enlightened.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Mockingbird 0]

Cool, then you owe me a jump ticket. But I'll take cash.

So Paul's "sermon" was politically motivated, huh?

What does "divinity" have to do with politics?

I don't think you're going to find out anything about divinity by looking at man's religions, as that would be on a par with looking at man himself, who intrinsically holds no answers. He was meant to, I believe-- I think that's why God made man in His image-- to reflect God. But that was forfeited long ago, as anyone can see. Why not go to the source of divinity? Is it because you don't know the source? or is it because you're only willing to believe what doesn't pose any discomfort or threat? This isn't an accusation... if there's another option, let me know.

I think that if you really want to know the truth, even if it hurts, God will see to it that you discover it. In fact, He has made us that promise. But then again, if you don't believe in this God, or you don't believe His promises can be found in the bible, then it's a moot point, isn't it?

[JackC 0]

Quote

I don't think you're going to find out anything about divinity by looking at man's religions, as that would be on a par with looking at man himself,
[snip]
But then again, if you don't believe in this God, or you don't believe His promises can be found in the bible, then it's a moot point, isn't it?

You owe me a new irony meter. Mine just exploded.


Luckily, my God-O-Meter is still working.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

You owe me a new irony meter. Mine just exploded.

I had to read that post quite a few times to try and see if the joke was intentional. Guess it really was said with a straight face though.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

I had to read that post quite a few times to try and see if the joke was intentional. Guess it really was said with a straight face though.

They do say the darndest things

[jakee 1,489]

Now thats good comedy!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?