Why why why! ;)

[xubis]

Why is the universe here, why is there just... well, nothing at all...
That question has been driving me crazy! ;) No, i don't expect an answer, just something for you to think on

[YODA]

Because if it wasn't then there would need to be something else. And that something else would be the same thing :D

[Knight_Errant]

Because if it wasn't, then you wouldn't be able to ask that question :)

[Adam]

42

[TheBorderer]

As was used on me...

Why not? :D

[Kwajman]

And where would Yoda go to teach the Jedi Knights?

[nzric]

"...Because if it wasn't, then you wouldn't be able to ask that question..."

Knight Errant ... thank you!!! finally a voice of sanity.

Xubis - we're a mistake. All we are is a combination of chemicals that is able to control it's own growth in a very limited way (as in brain development/memory, not physical growth). Not too romantic huh.

In 50 years, when the first conscious machines start asking themselves the same question - what will your answer be to them?

[YODA]

Originally posted by nzric


In 50 years, when the first conscious machines start asking themselves the same question - what will your answer be to them?


You WILL be assimilated!

[xubis]

Originally posted by YODA
Because if it wasn't then there would need to be something else. And that something else would be the same thing :D No there wouldn't, why does something exists... why isn't there just nothing, at all, anywhere, not even space... no one can provide an answer for that. :P

[Kenshi]

because even nothing is something.

so even if there was total notingness you would still have something that being total nothingness

[Paratus]

I think thats more an argument of semantics Kenshi

[Kenshi]

could be but whos to say

[MichaelV]

Originally posted by xubis
No there wouldn't, why does something exists... why isn't there just nothing, at all, anywhere, not even space... no one can provide an answer for that. :P

If there was Nothing, there there would be no one to provide an answer for why there was Nothing. If Something didn't exist, then the question couldn't be asked. The only reason you can ask why there is Something is because there is Something.

[xubis]

Um... yeah, and I am asking why.... not what would happen if there wasn't anything. So really, all you lot are saying everything exists so I can ask this question? ;)

[inacan]

Why is the Universe here?

Possibly because we acknowledge that it exists and therefore it exists. If we chose to deny it, perhaps it wouldn't exist anymore?

[Kenshi]

good point

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by xubis
... why isn't there just nothing, at all, anywhere, not even space...

Because God IS. Whatever we choose to think, or believe, doesn't change the fact that He exists.

....And since He is a creator, it makes sense that He would create something. In this case.....LOTS of things.

Richer question: Why did God choose to create the universe He did? This question gets to the purpose for the universe, and our part in that purpose.

Food for thought.....

[inacan]

Why was god created? this question must be answered first before we can tackle why he in turn created the universe?

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by inacan
Why was god created? this question must be answered first before we can tackle why he in turn created the universe?

That's the point----God IS. He wasn't created. Wasn't ever a time when He did not exist. In fact, TIME was one of the things He created.

[MichaelV]

Originally posted by xubis
Um... yeah, and I am asking why.... not what would happen if there wasn't anything. So really, all you lot are saying everything exists so I can ask this question? ;)

No - it's the other way around; you're asking the question because everything exists. The question (and therefore the answer) is completely unimportant and even nonsensical.

I was kind of getting into this existential conversation, but due to the recent influx of religion, I think I'll stop.

Isaac Asimov:
You can't very well reason with someone when their whole argument is that reason doesn't count.

[inacan]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
That's the point----God IS. He wasn't created. Wasn't ever a time when He did not exist. In fact, TIME was one of the things He created.

But something cannot just come into being it has to have a catalyst, so even if God wasn't overly created by some force, what elements got together to create such a force?

[Shade]

Which god?

[natxanadu]

whats makes you so sure it does it exist

[inacan]

Which God? who knows, that is really up to each person interpreting the question. For the sake of this discussion, I say we make God a non denominational entity not associated with any particular faith.

I don't know if it exists or not, but for the sake of the majority here who do believe in a god, we will assume that he/she exists. People who are athiest tend not to get as offended as ones who believe.

So with the non denominational faith, we can include pantheons, old gnostic traditions and such.

[Shade]

inacan, amen to that my friend :D

[Tireces]

Originally posted by nzric
In 50 years, when the first conscious machines start asking themselves the same question - what will your answer be to them?

I'll tell them the following:

cout>>"I am not a person, I am a machine.";

Or, if I feel like having a little fun at their expense:

cout>>"Kick me";

[YODA]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
In fact, TIME was one of the things He created.


How long did THAT take I wonder? :p

[Alias]

That is one of the fundamental questions of existence, isn't it?

And I have the answer. If you too wish to know the answer, meditate for forty-eight hours straight, pray to Yahweh or Allah or Krishna or whoever, and send me a cheque. Remember: how much you pay determines how much enlightenment you get. Basic karma 101.

Originally posted by inacan
Why was god created?

Because primitive human beings needed to explain the world around them. Why does the sun come up in the morning and go down in the evening? Goddidit. God was created to explain every kind of natural phenomena. As we have discovered laws of nature and slowly begun to understand our world and the universe, the domain of god has gradually shrunk to what it is today: a quaint idea. Nietzsche pronounced the god-idea dead over one hundred years ago; I say let it rest in peace.

Originally posted by Capt Ann
That's the point----God IS. He wasn't created. Wasn't ever a time when He did not exist. In fact, TIME was one of the things He created.

'Creating time' is a contradiction.

To create (anything), time must exist: creation is a temporal process. To have god create is to have god perform an action which requires the existence of time.

Hence, time existed before god.

Originally posted by MichaelV
No - it's the other way around; you're asking the question because everything exists. The question (and therefore the answer) is completely unimportant and even nonsensical.

"Sum Ergo Cogito." "I Am Therefore I Think."

Originally posted by inacan
People who are athiest tend not to get as offended as ones who believe.

I do, however, have a gripe about the spelling of a particular word ;).

[xubis]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Because God IS. Whatever we choose to think, or believe, doesn't change the fact that He exists.
Yes, yes it does. Equally I could argue that God doesn't exist, whether we choose to belive or not, doesn't change the fact that he doesn't exist

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Alias
Nietzsche pronounced the god-idea dead over one hundred years ago; I say let it rest in peace.

Funny, I'd have to point out that God pronounced Nietzsche dead over 100 years ago.

To create (anything), time must exist: creation is a temporal process.
No, x-y-z-time is a four-dimensional vector space. It all began together.

And it makes sense. God made rational beings (us) with the freedom of will to make moral choices (looking at some of the things chosen, we all might debate just how rational humans are, but that's for another thread). However, we all uniformly have made bad choices (all jokes aside, I seriously doubt anyone here can say that they have never done something they knew was wrong). God in His love and mercy provided a simple way to return to Him: admit those things were wrong and receive His payment for those wrongs: the death of Jesus Christ on our behalf. He made this path so simple that no one could boast about how much God "owes" them, and no one could argue that God made it "too complicated" for anyone to follow. That choice (receive Jesus as God's payment for the things we know we've done that are wrong, or reject God altogether) could take all of 3 seconds. But because God created us as rational beings, He created time, so we could see, hear, ask, experience, and for anyone interested enough to check and ask Him, find sufficient reason to believe that He is deserving of the trust He requires.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shade
Which god?
There is only one. (I know this is very discomfitting to many, but oh well, you asked.) His name is Yahweh.....interesting in light of the discussion on "time", that His name means "I AM". He created all that exists (including time), and therefore He owns all things, and has a right to our destiny. He has offered us peace and a father/son relationship with Him through Jesus Christ.

{Who is Jesus? Go ahead and ask next post, but don't be upset if I answer ;) }

[Shade]

No its ok Capt Anne, Jesus is some prophet in the Koran.

And yes to the many millions of muslims in the world there is only one god and he's called Allah.

Whereas Hindu's seem to have several (Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva to name three).

One thing that I wonder about is that people from their own respective religions all believe (as well they might) that their gods are the only one/s. How do any of them know that they are right? They cant all be right?

I have no discomfort in you saying there is only one god. I hope you have no discomfort if i say there are many ;)

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Shade
One thing that I wonder about is that people from their own respective religions all believe (as well they might) that their gods are the only one/s. How do any of them know that they are right? They cant all be right?

Kudos, Shade!! Thank you for not having that patronizing (i.e. condescending) nonsense that, "what you believe is good for you, and I'm happy for you", or that "all roads lead to the same place." You are absolutely right--all religions cannot be right. It's logically possible that we're all wrong, or that AT MOST one religion is right. I'll leave it to you, if you're interested to "do the research" to figure out which. If you really want to know, ask God (wherever/however/whoever He might be) to please show you. I don't think God is offended or intimidated by that kind of prayer, especially if done in earnest.

I have no discomfort in you saying there is only one god. I hope you have no discomfort if i say there are many ;)

No, Shade, I take my beliefs and opinions very seriously, and I am willing to believe that YOU do the same. Even if I disagree with your conclusions, I trust that you have what you believe to be valid reasons for holding them. I'm always willing to discuss those reasons, though.

.....'Tis the season! Merry Christmas!

[Shade]

Happy holidays to you too Capt Ann :)

First thing saturday morning is not the best time for me to be all philosophical :D

[inacan]

Speaking of saturday mornings, I have a exam today at 8am!

I so hate the establishment!

[xubis]

Gah! Lock the thread! This is getting too annoying with all this talk of who is god ;)

[Alias]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Funny, I'd have to point out that God pronounced Nietzsche dead over 100 years ago.

You could, sure, but that in no way rebukes my argument which is this: primitive human beings created god to explain the world around them. As we have refined our method of gathering knowledge about our world into the methodology known as science, phenomena thought to be controlled by god(s) has become less and less.

When Nietzsche pronounced the god-idea dead, he meant that the shared cultural belief of European culture (the Christian notion of God) was unbelievable and, importantly, that the culture itself no longer believed. He wasn't saying this as a personal statement, he was making an observation about the culture he lived in.

No, x-y-z-time is a four-dimensional vector space. It all began together.

I do not understand. If we go from zero (non-time) to one (time), we have a change of state, hence, a change of time. To go from time-not-existing to time-existing requires a change of time which is predicated on time already existing, which means that the entire proposition of 'creating time' falls apart: it is a contradiction.

God in His love and mercy provided a simple way to return to Him: admit those things were wrong and receive His payment for those wrongs: the death of Jesus Christ on our behalf.

If He loved us and was merciful, wouldn't he just accept us as we are? After all, He created us this way. Wouldn't it have been better to create us without that troublesome free will?

That choice (receive Jesus as God's payment for the things we know we've done that are wrong, or reject God altogether) could take all of 3 seconds.

Again, I do not understand. If a child molesting serial killer accepts Jesus he is saved, but a non-believer/muslim/hindu/buddhist who has never harmed another human being is not? What about newborn babies who die without having a chance to accept Jesus?

But because God created us as rational beings, He created time, so we could see, hear, ask, experience, and for anyone interested enough to check and ask Him, find sufficient reason to believe that He is deserving of the trust He requires.

I, among others, have not found one single reason to believe that Yahweh exists let alone is deserving of the trust he requires.

I take my beliefs and opinions very seriously...

I take my lack of belief seriously and my opinions with a pinch of salt. Like Bertrand Russell, I would not die for my beliefs because I may be wrong.

I look forward to many discussions in the future with you, Capt Ann :).

And I do not think we should close this thread yet, at least not until it deteriorates into flaming ;). So far everyone has been respectful and I have managed to keep my arrogance in check. Any OP that asks for reasons as to why the universe exists is going to centre around questions of god.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by xubis
Gah! Lock the thread! This is getting too annoying with all this talk of who is god ;)

Well, X, let's find something we can all AGREE on:

Who is God? Answer: It sure ain't me!
Anyone else want to add their name to the list?

[inacan]

I"ll add my name to the list, afterall whose heard of "god in a can?"

[Shade]

Alias, something you said in your last post was exactly what was going on in my head last night when I was trying to get to sleep.

If a child molesting serial killer accepts Jesus he is saved, but a non-believer/muslim/hindu/buddhist who has never harmed another human being is not?

I find this somewhat perplexing also.

I don't know if it has made international news, but anyone in the UK will be all too aware of a certain Mr Ian Huntley who has just been given two life sentences for the murder of two young schoolgirls.

If both Mr Huntley and someone who has lived a decent life were to die tonight in their sleep, but just before going to bed Mr Huntley said sorry for his sins and repented, he gets into heaven but the other person burns in fire for all eternity. This doesn't feel right.

What if Hitler repented his sins just before blowing his brain out in his bunker? Will he go to heaven with the blood of x millions on his hands? But Mrs Jones from No 42 who never said boo to a goose goes to hell?

This is probably the main thing that confuses me so much.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by inacan
Why is the Universe here?

Possibly because we acknowledge that it exists and therefore it exists. If we chose to deny it, perhaps it wouldn't exist anymore?

The universe may be real or not. If it is an illusion, it is a very painful and pleasurable illusion.


The Why is answered in the existence of the universe itself, which is the creation and the reflection of the will of the Creator if you believe in one or more Creators. The will of the Creator is the WHY. The older original text of the Bible refers to WE.

If you don't believe in a creator than the universe is without a purpose or will except for the existence of the universe itself. There essentially is no WHY.

Both in some way merge into the WHY being reflected in the the great sea of existence our universe is a part of.

Is the universe the great soul that we flow through with the other unknown voyagers in the unknown infinity of space and time (Is time real?).

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Shade
No its ok Capt Anne, Jesus is some prophet in the Koran.

Jesus is also described as a prophet in the Bible, as well as the Son of Man and the Son of God


And yes to the many millions of muslims in the world there is only one god and he's called Allah.

Allah in Arabic, God in English.


Whereas Hindu's seem to have several (Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva to name three).

In Vedic and Buddhist traditions all Gods were created from and must return to the One Great Source.

One thing that I wonder about is that people from their own respective religions all believe (as well they might) that their gods are the only one/s. How do any of them know that they are right? They cant all be right?

Frank

Why can't they? Couldn't each religion and faith only described on fascet of the infinite reality they call, god, allah or what ever.



I have no discomfort in you saying there is only one god. I hope you have no discomfort if i say there are many ;)

Frank

Even in the ancient text the Bible came form it said humans were created in OUR image.

[Shade]

I have seen websites that quote passages from the bible that suggest there is more than 1 god, and that these outwiegh the number that suggest only 1 god.

There are also sites that suggest that these references to multiple gods are not really talking about real gods, rather man made ones.

My comment about not all religions being able to be right could be true if there really is only 1 god. For example, suppose that christians are right. Come judgement day there we all stand before the christian god. Anyone who has lived by that gods rules enters heaven. everyone who did not cannot enter.

What if there are 2 gods. Say the christian god and a hindu god. The christian god wants to send all the hindu's to hell, but the hindu god says no they come with me. Would there be some kind of fight between the gods?

And what if all the religions really worship the same god but under a different name? How does that work? They havent all followed the same rules, or lived by the same guidelines so there would be some mightly contradictions surely.

All very confusing to me still.

[inacan]

Well think of it this way, I came up with this last night, but I merely came up with it as a way to prove the existance of a god, I'll work on another one for the opposite side today.

God must existance, because millions believe he exists, and since when can a million people agree on anything together let alone a unifying all powerful force. Tis a miracle and that is a god's dept.

[YODA]

So Santa and the Tooth Fairy exist too then huh?

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by nzric

In 50 years, when the first conscious machines start asking themselves the same question - what will your answer be to them?

x=0;
do{
}while (x==0);

:D


Anyways,

Define existance.

"God is"

says nothing.

"why does the universe exist?"

"Because it does"

I don't call that a good explanation....

Plus then you first have to proove that God does exist. Thats been getting attempted unsuccessfully for a very long time. (good luck)

[nzric]

"...God must existance, because millions believe he exists, and since when can a million people agree on anything together let alone a unifying all powerful force. Tis a miracle and that is a god's dept..."

Inacan - thanks for that comment. You've just renewed my faith in slavery, ethnic cleansing, fascism and flat earth theory!

[xubis]

Originally posted by inacan
God must existance, because millions believe he exists, and since when can a million people agree on anything together let alone a unifying all powerful force. Tis a miracle and that is a god's dept. That proves jack **** that god exists, it shows people belive he does, not that he does, if I got a band of people to worship a lump of cheese shapped like a cell phone and claimed it was god, doesn't mean it is.

[Tireces]

The point that message was making was that you'd stand no chance in hell of actually getting so many people to believe something like that. The point being made was that it was so amazing that so many people could believe in such a thing, so there must be some validity to it.

[Alias]

Originally posted by Tireces
The point that message was making was that you'd stand no chance in hell of actually getting so many people to believe something like that. The point being made was that it was so amazing that so many people could believe in such a thing, so there must be some validity to it.

Originally posted by nzric
You've just renewed my faith in slavery, ethnic cleansing, fascism and flat earth theory!

The point of nzric's post was the fact that many people believe something does not make it so nor them right.

But it sure does amaze me that people believe such a thing.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Alias
You could, sure, but that in no way rebukes my argument which is this: primitive human beings created god to explain the world around them. As we have refined our method of gathering knowledge about our world into the methodology known as science, phenomena thought to be controlled by god(s) has become less and less.

Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't, then you're right, man must have created Him. If He does exist, then I'm right, He must have created us. As far as evidence, I'm not sure what you're looking for....if you want a lab experiment to "prove the existence of God", I'm sorry, you won't find one. A god that could be controlled to the extent of being made to respond to the same set of conditions repeatedly would not be much of a god, and would certainly not be deserving of worship. If you'd accept the kind of evidence given in a courtroom, maybe I can offer some. I may not be an "expert", but I can be a witness of what I've seen and heard first-hand. I can tell you how I've spoken to God, and how He has spoken to me. I can give specific cases of when He has told me where to go, who to see, and what to say. I can provide "circumstantial evidence" of changes in my life, and in the lives of others, and historical evidence of things that have actually happened in recorded history.

BTW, it was a popular theory in years-gone-by that religious belief "evolved" from magic and spiritism into organized belief in one God. Problem is, the anthropological evidence points the other direction: over 90% of all tribal peoples have a monotheistic belief. As cultures move away from this primary belief, they devolve into spiritism and a plurality of gods. It's as if God wrote on the human conscience the fundamentals of Who He is, and what He requires. For instance, the oldest form of religious worship in Korea is NOT shamanism, or Buddhism, or Taoism, but belief in one true God named Hananim (the Honorable One), creator of all that is, rewarder of those who do well, and punisher of those who do evil. This belief predates Buddhism in Korea by at least 2500 years. Because I'm in TKD, I'm mainly interested in the religious and philosophical history in Korea, but the pattern is repeated in cultures around the world. If you're interested, check out "Eternity in Their Hearts" by Don Richardson from the local library. Excellent book (in desperate need of a good re-edit, but excellent, anyway).


When Nietzsche pronounced the god-idea dead, he meant that the shared cultural belief of European culture (the Christian notion of God) was unbelievable and, importantly, that the culture itself no longer believed. He wasn't saying this as a personal statement, he was making an observation about the culture he lived in.

Well, I'd have to say that Christianity is NOT unbelievable (obviously, since I believe it), but you are right about Europe losing the shared cultural belief of Christianity. It's a shame that the cultural belief that resulted in the world-wide end of slavery, the foundation of democracy, and the concept of individual rights was jettisoned by a whole continent. Nietzsche died in 1900. The following century marked Europe with the greatest bloodshed and loss of human life in history, all in the name of god-less humanistic utopianism.


If He loved us and was merciful, wouldn't he just accept us as we are? After all, He created us this way.

As soon as I read this part of your post, my first thought was, "Aha!! Alias must be from the Coast, US (mid-Atlantic, NE, or California)". I was really surprised to see that you're from Australia. I thought us Yanks had the handle on blaming others for all our problems and faults! Regarding your post above, God did NOT "create us this way". He created us with sense, an innate understanding of the difference between right and wrong, and the ability to choose. In other words, I can't say that the reason I'm such a jerk is because God made me that way......if I'm a jerk, I have to admit it's because I've CHOSEN to be that way. God's under no obligation whatsoever to accept anything we choose, especially when it's contrary to His express will.


Wouldn't it have been better to create us without that troublesome free will?

A fair question. But then even I can build a computer. There is no virtue in doing exactly what you're programmed to do. Nothing worthy of condemnation, true, but nothing worthy of praise, either. Are there people in the world you admire? If so, why? They must have made choices that you respect.


Originally posted by Shade
quoting Alias: Again, I do not understand. If a child molesting serial killer accepts Jesus he is saved, but a non-believer/muslim/hindu/buddhist who has never harmed another human being is not? What about newborn babies who die without having a chance to accept Jesus?


I find this somewhat perplexing also.

I don't know if it has made international news, but anyone in the UK will be all too aware of a certain Mr Ian Huntley who has just been given two life sentences for the murder of two young schoolgirls.

If both Mr Huntley and someone who has lived a decent life were to die tonight in their sleep, but just before going to bed Mr Huntley said sorry for his sins and repented, he gets into heaven but the other person burns in fire for all eternity. This doesn't feel right.

What if Hitler repented his sins just before blowing his brain out in his bunker? Will he go to heaven with the blood of x millions on his hands? But Mrs Jones from No 42 who never said boo to a goose goes to hell?

This is probably the main thing that confuses me so much.


Alias, Shade, this is a very good post, and a very good question. It starts with an unspoken assumption, though. The assumption is that certain people are really "pretty good". But, remember that the standard is not Adolph Hitler, but God Himself. Are any of us "good" like God is good? Can you imagine if I stood before a judge in court and said, "Your Honor, I should not be sent to jail, because I am not really that bad. After all, I only killed one person. Look at all the people that I did NOT kill! I certainly killed far fewer than Adolph Hitler!" Do you think I'd get off? You might argue that you (and I, in case you were wondering) had never actually killed anyone at all, but we're talking about eternity here...an eternity determined by a simple choice of the heart attitude. Do you think it is really any different from murder than to hate someone in your heart, or wish them ill, or even to put your own interest and comfort above their well-being? Many people do not kill, or steal, or cheat on their taxes because they lack the opportunity, or because they are afraid of the consequences. The intent of the heart is still there. That's why Jesus said that anyone who looks after a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart, and that the one who is angry with his brother is in danger of hellfire; and James said that the one who hates his brother is a murderer.

Ever notice that Jesus hung around with prostitutes, robbers, tax-cheats, and rebels? Ever notice that the people who gave Him the most grief were the "respectable" religious folk? We all like to think of ourselves as "pretty good" (or to be honest, that at least we're "better than xyz down the street"). But it's only the people who know that they are wrong that can truly repent. The prostitutes, robbers, and rebels didn't have to be reminded that they were "sinners". The religious folk, on the other hand, wouldn't dare admit it. That's why Jesus said that the healthy people didn't need a doctor, only the sick people did. He came to call sinners to repentance, not "righteous" people. Anyone unwilling to admit he's been wrong disqualifies himself from accepting a savior.


I look forward to many discussions in the future with you, Capt Ann :).

And I do not think we should close this thread yet, at least not until it deteriorates into flaming ;). So far everyone has been respectful and I have managed to keep my arrogance in check. Any OP that asks for reasons as to why the universe exists is going to centre around questions of god.

Thank you for the vote of confidence! I'm enjoying the discourse, and I look forward to future discussions, too. In the meantime, G'night and God bless to all!

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by nzric
"...God must existance, because millions believe he exists, and since when can a million people agree on anything together let alone a unifying all powerful force. Tis a miracle and that is a god's dept..."

Inacan - thanks for that comment. You've just renewed my faith in slavery, ethnic cleansing, fascism and flat earth theory!

Millions believed Hitler was a just and great leader.

Millions believe in Santa Claus and Tooth fairies.

Millions believe you can see the Great Wall and the pyramids from the moon.

Ignorance is a universal trait of humanity and blind belief is the vehicle.

[Tireces]

Originally posted by Alias
The point of nzric's post was the fact that many people believe something does not make it so nor them right.

But it sure does amaze me that people believe such a thing.

I was referring to the message by inacan that xubis replied to. And no, I don't agree with that viewpoint. I believe in God not because other people do, but simply because I want to. If someone else doesn't want me to, that's just too bad.

[Shade]

Capt Ann,

very good points.

Regarding the assumption thing, lets say yes for a moment in so much as Mrs Jones from no 42 has never broken any of teh original 10 commandments. A pretty tall order of course (seeing as one of them is as simple as lying) but what then?

Although I appreciate that the bible tells us that if someone of the ilk of Hitler, or Stalin, or Idi Amin, repents their sins and accepts jesus as the true saviour, that they will walk with him in heaven, it just doesnt feel right that we should join him in tossing poor Mrs Jones off the cliff into a lake of fire.

That in itself feels like murder.

[Alias]

Hm, it seems we are getting a bit of cross-posting happening here. Capt Ann, several of your points I responded to in the 'God?' thread, and several of my points in that thread have been responded to in this thread! :D

I must go to work now, but I will return. Goodnight all.

[Tireces]

Mrs. Jones wouldn't get tossed into the lake of fire. If she followed all ten of those commandments to the letter, little doubt remains she'd make it to heaven, unless she turned out to be like the pharisees and the like in the new testament. They were quite obedient to the letter of the law as well, but had no compassion, and would forgive no infraction. And if some evil dead dictator saw the error of his ways, he could get into heaven too. But first he'd have to go through purgatory. Just what happens there, I can't really say. Give me a hundred years or so, maybe I'll be able to fill you in on it.

[Shade]

Tireces, I dont think Mrs Jones should be tossed into the lake of fire, but christianity seems to suggest that even if she followed all 10 commandments to the letter that she would burn UNLESS she also accepts jesus into her heart etc.

That just strikes me as god being vain, but the bible does make mention somewhere of him being a jealous god (dont ask me where i just seem to recall someone saying that in this or the God thread) so that would make sense of that then.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Shade
Tireces, I dont think Mrs Jones should be tossed into the lake of fire, but christianity seems to suggest that even if she followed all 10 commandments to the letter that she would burn UNLESS she also accepts jesus into her heart etc.

Tireces is right on this one. Mrs. J. would NOT go to hell if she kept all the commandments perfectly. (Someone asked Jesus exactly this question, as a matter of fact. Luke 10:25-37, if you're interested.)

So, Shade, you actually have two ways to get to heaven, if you'd like:
1. keep all the commandments, OR
2. Admit you haven't, repent, and receive Jesus as savior.

I've already blown #1, so I'll opt for #2.

[Shade]

I dont have a bible in my house so looked up luke 10: 25-37 on the internet, and it appears to be the story of the good Samaritan.

Maybe im being nitpicky but Jesus doesnt appear to actually say the samaritan will go to heaven.

i thought the new testament came in place of the old testament, in which case entry to heaven is supposed to be through jesus only and not via the old ways of teh ten commandments, but if either actualy applies this at least makes a bit more sense to me.

[nzric]

Tierces. Thank you - you are the first person who has mentioned purgatory in all these marathon God threads. I have been asking many leading questions but I've left it unsaid as most Christian posters on this site seem to believe in the black/white of heaven or damnation (which I understand is very much in vogue in the US).

Purgatory is a very interesting one, and it opens up many possibilities. Personally I think the Christian idea of purgatory is very similar to Buddhist reincarnation beliefs. After death you are able to learn the error of your ways, so you progress slowly up each level until you climb/reincarnate to nirvana/heaven.

I don't believe any of it myself, but it makes a lot more sense than the obvious contradictions that are present in the heaven/hellfire beliefs.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Shade
Maybe im being nitpicky but Jesus doesnt appear to actually say the samaritan will go to heaven.

A young man asked Jesus what he had to do to get eternal life. Jesus asks what he read in the Bible. The young man lists some commandments. Jesus responds, "Do this (i.e., keep the commandments) and you will inherit eternal life". The second part (about the Samaritan) came up because the guy who asked to begin with wanted to justify himself (that he was really a "pretty good guy", even though he wasn't too keen on Samaritans).

[snailfist]

Can people please refer to the God?... thread? We are in danger of replicating it.

I'd also point out that xubis willl find the answer there :D

[shunyadragon]

It would be difficult to address the Why, why, why . . . why . . . . woa? question without crediting, blaming or at least implicating God as a codefendent in the case.

[snailfist]

Exactly. Because (expressed slightly more forcibly):
The question "WHY?" is a question of intent.
Intent implies a creator, because it infers a conscious decision to create.

(I was gona leave this one until an atheist responded, but as Frank brought it up i thought I'd say my bit.)

[nzric]

Get out of the city, find a hilltop with no lights around on a clear night. Lie down and look at the stars. think about how many people there are in the world, think about how little time you are alive for, about how huge the world is, then about how tiny Earth is compared to the sun, the sun to the milky way, the milky way compared to the millions of galaxies that are out there, the billions of years going by in the universe.

Try to imagine the Void. We will never come close to understanding the scale, but just try to imagine your own tiny insignificance in it all. Really consider what it means to be one of billions of creatures alive for an instant on a tiny dust mote within a group of dust motes in an unimaginably huge expanse of absolutely nothing.

Could you handle it if there wasn't a Why? if it all simply was? That's the first step to enlightenment - not looking for explanations or purpose and accepting that the universe Just Is.

[Alias]

I will respond to most of the points made about God in the 'God?' thread.

Originally posted by Capt Ann
It's a shame that the cultural belief that resulted in the world-wide end of slavery, the foundation of democracy, and the concept of individual rights was jettisoned by a whole continent.

Mm, not sure I agree that Christianity caused the end of slavery, the foundation of democracy, and the concept of individual rights, unless you meant indirectly. As far as individual rights goes, people such as Voltaire, David Hume and Thomas Paine (his works, 'The Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason', are a must-read), off the top of my head, had more to do with bringing respect to an individual's rights than the church. They each launched stinging attacks on organised religion and are required reading.

Originally posted by Capt Ann
The following century marked Europe with the greatest bloodshed and loss of human life in history, all in the name of god-less humanistic utopianism.

I think you are mistaking correllation for causation. Both WW1 and WW2 were non-religious wars, yes, but the biggest reasons for the carnage were the highly destructive weapons available and the rapidly globalising world: war was no longer regional.

I thought us Yanks had the handle on blaming others for all our problems and faults!

No, I'm an expert ;).

Originally posted by Tireces
I was referring to the message by inacan that xubis replied to.

Oops. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by nzric
Get out of the city, find a hilltop with no lights around on a clear night. Lie down and look at the stars. think about how many people there are in the world, think about how little time you are alive for, about how huge the world is, then about how tiny Earth is compared to the sun, the sun to the milky way, the milky way compared to the millions of galaxies that are out there, the billions of years going by in the universe.

It is a good idea to get a perspective on the universe. I'll paraphrase two passages that were written by the late, great Carl Sagan:

"Our star (the sun) is one star out of four hundred billion stars in our galaxy. Our galaxy is one galaxy out of four hundred billion galaxies in the known universe. And our universe may be one universe out of an infinite number of universes."

"The next time you are on a beach, take up a handful of sand. There are about 10'000 grains of sand in your hand. Now realise there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand in all of the beaches on this planet."

The universe is about 15.8 billion years old. The planet earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Homo sapiens sapiens first appeared about 120'000 years ago.

That's perspective for you. If the universe had a Creator and this Creator wants us to worship Him, I will say this: He is patient.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
A god that could be controlled to the extent of being made to respond to the same set of conditions repeatedly would not be much of a god, and would certainly not be deserving of worship.


Do you agree that God has it in his power to make his existance known?

If he does exist, and did want us to worship him would he not do so?

Is a God that demands worship a being that deserves it?


If you'd accept the kind of evidence given in a courtroom, maybe I can offer some. I may not be an "expert", but I can be a witness of what I've seen and heard first-hand. I can tell you how I've spoken to God, and how He has spoken to me. I can give specific cases of when He has told me where to go, who to see, and what to say. I can provide "circumstantial evidence" of changes in my life, and in the lives of others, and historical evidence of things that have actually happened in recorded history.

"The voices in my head" is not good court room style evidence in my opinion.... maybe it's just me....

We got all sorts of historical evidence for all sorts of things. Depending on how you interpret it you can provide "evidence" for just about anything.


BTW, it was a popular theory in years-gone-by that religious belief "evolved" from magic and spiritism into organized belief in one God. Problem is, the anthropological evidence points the other direction: over 90% of all tribal peoples have a monotheistic belief.


Please state a few independent sources for this. Or even just name some tribes.

A singular, omnipotent, omniscient God is unique to western religion. In fact it's a fairly recent development. The God of the old testement is not the same as the God people worship now.



As cultures move away from this primary belief, they devolve into spiritism and a plurality of gods.


State your sources.


It's as if God wrote on the human conscience the fundamentals of Who He is, and what He requires.


Freud said something similar. Except he said it was the mind creating the God based on inner desires....


For instance, the oldest form of religious worship in Korea is NOT shamanism, or Buddhism, or Taoism, but belief in one true God named Hananim (the Honorable One), creator of all that is, rewarder of those who do well, and punisher of those who do evil.


Ok, that is ONE culture...


This belief predates Buddhism in Korea by at least 2500 years. Because I'm in TKD, I'm mainly interested in the religious and philosophical history in Korea, but the pattern is repeated in cultures around the world.


Umm.... you let martial arts dictate your religious views...?



If you're interested, check out "Eternity in Their Hearts" by Don Richardson from the local library. Excellent book (in desperate need of a good re-edit, but excellent, anyway).


More sources please. One book means nothing.

Preferably some primary sources.


Well, I'd have to say that Christianity is NOT unbelievable (obviously, since I believe it), but you are right about Europe losing the shared cultural belief of Christianity. It's a shame that the cultural belief that resulted in the world-wide end of slavery, the foundation of democracy, and the concept of individual rights was jettisoned by a whole continent. Nietzsche died in 1900. The following century marked Europe with the greatest bloodshed and loss of human life in history, all in the name of god-less humanistic utopianism.


There have been a lot of wars fought in the name of Christianity.

Reason it had so many deaths? more people to kill, bigger weapons to do it with.

The planets population is bigger, and we can fight over bigger areas, and with more destructive weapons.

Remember them Crusades? How many people died then? What was the reason for that? Who started it?

Oh wait... I remember.... THE POPE


If He loved us and was merciful, wouldn't he just accept us as we are? After all, He created us this way.

As soon as I read this part of your post, my first thought was, "Aha!! Alias must be from the Coast, US (mid-Atlantic, NE, or California)". I was really surprised to see that you're from Australia. I thought us Yanks had the handle on blaming others for all our problems and faults! Regarding your post above, God did NOT "create us this way". He created us with sense, an innate understanding of the difference between right and wrong, and the ability to choose. In other words, I can't say that the reason I'm such a jerk is because God made me that way......if I'm a jerk, I have to admit it's because I've CHOSEN to be that way. God's under no obligation whatsoever to accept anything we choose, especially when it's contrary to His express will.


Got nothing to do with blaiming others.

Or do you deny that God is omnipotent and omniscient?

If he is both, he knew exactly how things would turn out, and had the power to make them turn out any way he wanted. he CHOOSE this way. God could have created the world in a way in which you would not have choosen to be a jerk, but he didn't, he choose this way.


Wouldn't it have been better to create us without that troublesome free will?

A fair question. But then even I can build a computer. There is no virtue in doing exactly what you're programmed to do. Nothing worthy of condemnation, true, but nothing worthy of praise, either. Are there people in the world you admire? If so, why? They must have made choices that you respect.


Proove that we have freewill.

A computer makes all kinds of choices. There are programs that make good choices, and programs that make bad choices. But they wtill make a choice. Given there design they could not have choose otherwise. Are we any different?




Alias, Shade, this is a very good post, and a very good question. It starts with an unspoken assumption, though. The assumption is that certain people are really "pretty good". But, remember that the standard is not Adolph Hitler, but God Himself. Are any of us "good" like God is good?


No, very few people have wipped out the entire human race with the exception of two people who where to start over.

Hitler tried to do something similar on a much smaller scale though.

:eek:


[/B][/QUOTE]

Can you imagine if I stood before a judge in court and said, "Your Honor, I should not be sent to jail, because I am not really that bad. After all, I only killed one person. Look at all the people that I did NOT kill! I certainly killed far fewer than Adolph Hitler!"
[/B][/QUOTE]

And God, don't forget God ;)


That's why Jesus said that anyone who looks after a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart, and that the one who is angry with his brother is in danger of hellfire; and James said that the one who hates his brother is a murderer.


Wait... thats human nature... where did we get that from?

[nzric]

Can I remind you that the catalyst for WW1 was in the balkans (Serbia), where the root of the region's problems is predominantly religious and family feuds.

Also, although WW2 wasn't fought in the name of religion, the Axis powers used nationalism to whip people up into a frenzy and label themselves as the "Chosen people" (esp. Nazis and Japan). That sounds fairly religious to me (e.g. the 10,000 years of the Reich...).

Religion is a method of state control - I have no doubt that if it would've been useful, Hitler would have used religion as the basis for his campaign (as he did to a large degree to segregate Jews and use pseudomysticism (forging Nostradamus, etc) to prophecise his coming).

It is interesting to note that many of the major commentators on the current wars and US campaign, are noting the "crusade" language of the US and the predominance of fundamentalist christians in power who are noted for their belief in the "end times" (clash of civilisations, etc). I have sources for that, but they're paper-based - I'll try to track down some internet sources.

Politicians and dictators need to control the masses. Religion is one method to manipulate consent. However, there are a lot of other ways that have been more useful recently.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by nzric
Can I remind you that the catalyst for WW1 was in the balkans (Serbia), where the root of the region's problems is predominantly religious and family feuds.

Frank

Good comment. Much of the patriotic slogans, songs on all sides to support the war had an obvious religious tone.


Also, although WW2 wasn't fought in the name of religion, the Axis powers used nationalism to whip people up into a frenzy and label themselves as the "Chosen people" (esp. Nazis and Japan). That sounds fairly religious to me (e.g. the 10,000 years of the Reich...).

Frank

I think WWII was fought in the name of religions.

Japan fought the war in the name of the Shinto cause and the Shinto Emperor. In Shinto prophecy and belief the line of Shinto emperors were the world saviors.

In Russia the religion was atheism and the war against other religions including the Jews.

Hitler declared his on religion and his Bible was the Mien Kampf.


Religion is a method of state control - I have no doubt that if it would've been useful, Hitler would have used religion as the basis for his campaign (as he did to a large degree to segregate Jews and use pseudomysticism (forging Nostradamus, etc) to prophecise his coming).

Frank

It is best to say religion is often used as a method of stste control.

Hitler did indeed use religion. He relied on Christian antisemitism in hisdrive to exterminate the jews. In reality he was the savior of an atheist religion and Mien Kampf was his Bible.


It is interesting to note that many of the major commentators on the current wars and US campaign, are noting the "crusade" language of the US and the predominance of fundamentalist christians in power who are noted for their belief in the "end times" (clash of civilisations, etc). I have sources for that, but they're paper-based - I'll try to track down some internet sources.

Frank

Actually some of the language used by Bush and other leaders themselves had strong and very obvious religious overtones. Islam was described as evil by one of the high ranking generals in the war. Bush's heaviest support for the war is among fundimentalist Christians.

On the other side Isreal and Islam have essentially declared Holy War in this conflict. Many Islamic nations, groups and divisions of Islam have declared Jihad on Isreal and the western nations that support Isreal. It is important to note that the conflicts in the Holy Land have essentilly been a religious conflict for over 2000 years. Even in WWI was a part of this conflict.

'Onward Christian soldiers forward as to war.'

In this conflict there are no angels or saviors.


Politicians and dictators need to control the masses. Religion is one method to manipulate consent. However, there are a lot of other ways that have been more useful recently.

Frank

Yes, but people also create religions like Hitler. Not all believers of religions have fought wars in their name. Buddhism, Taoism and Bah'a'i have not been used to motivate people for wars.

[Alias]

Originally posted by nzric
Can I remind you that the catalyst for WW1 was in the balkans (Serbia), where the root of the region's problems is predominantly religious and family feuds.

The catalyst of the First World War may have been the Archduke's assassination, but the origins can be traced back into the late 1800s to the Franco-Prussian War and its aftermath, particularly the animosity between France and Germany.

WW1 was not fought in the name of religion, hence, I do not term it a religious war.

Also, although WW2 wasn't fought in the name of religion, the Axis powers used nationalism to whip people up into a frenzy and label themselves as the "Chosen people" (esp. Nazis and Japan). That sounds fairly religious to me (e.g. the 10,000 years of the Reich...).

The Nazi belief that they were the "Chosen people" does not qualify as religious. That is an ideology, even though it may have approached religious fervour in its intensity.

Hitler intended the Third Reich to last for 1000 years (the Thousand Year Reich), not 10'000.

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Japan fought the war in the name of the Shinto cause and the Shinto Emperor. In Shinto prophecy and belief the line of Shinto emperors were the world saviors.

Japan entered the war in 1941 because the U.S., the U.K., and the Netherlands placed an oil and steel embargo on Japan to discourage their war efforts on China. Japan saw this as an act of aggression and attacked Pearl Harbor. Their Shinto beliefs may have influenced Japan's decisions and policies, but this does not a religious war make.

In Russia the religion was atheism and the war against other religions including the Jews.

The USSR was a communist country (although an argument can be made that it was a *******ised version of communism) and communism is secular, yes.

But, irregardless, atheism is not a religion :mad:. One more time:

Theism = belief in a deity or deities
Atheism = without belief in a deity or deities

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Buddhism, Taoism and Bah'a'i have not been used to motivate people for wars.

Actually, yes they have, but mostly civil wars. Buddhists persecuted Chinese and Korean Confucianists when they were in power (....and when Confucianists had the ascendancy, they repaid the favor to the Buddhists). Today, Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim nationalists are some of the strongest persecutors of religious minorities (most notably indigenous Christians) in their respective countries.

ASIDE: I don't believe "religion" promotes wars, as much as it has been one manifestation of a 'neo-tribalism' (one of many ways to distinguish "us" from "them"). As an example, the recent Balkan wars involved fights between nominally Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs, and Muslim Bosnians. I say 'nominally' because none of them were particularly observant, or even knew most of the tenets of their own faiths. The division between Catholic and Orthodox traditions came about the 5th century AD, over a dispute about one line in the Nicene Creed: Did the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, or from the Father and the Son? Now, does anyone here seriously believe that the Serbs and Croats were killing each other over this so-called "Philioque debate"? No. See above comments on tribalism.

[Capt Ann]

Thank you, Andrew, for telling me how you think my views are total b******t, but doing it with such finesse. But, it is the right of skeptics to be skeptical, and the responsibility of those who have beliefs to provide the proof and references, if requested.

With apologies to everyone else following this thread, Andrew has requested references for my assertions, and again with apologies, I am providing some. Mercifully, some of the references are online, so I can provide links.

Originally posted by Andrew Green
quoting sections from Capt Ann post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, it was a popular theory in years-gone-by that religious belief "evolved" from magic and spiritism into organized belief in one God. Problem is, the anthropological evidence points the other direction: over 90% of all tribal peoples have a monotheistic belief. As cultures move away from this primary belief, they devolve into spiritism and a plurality of gods.

It's as if God wrote on the human conscience the fundamentals of Who He is, and what He requires.

For instance, the oldest form of religious worship in Korea is NOT shamanism, or Buddhism, or Taoism, but belief in one true God named Hananim (the Honorable One), creator of all that is, rewarder of those who do well, and punisher of those who do evil. This belief predates Buddhism in Korea by at least 2500 years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please state a few independent sources for this. Or even just name some tribes.

The 90% quote is from "Eternity in Their Hearts" by Don Richardson, Regal Books, 1984 rev. ed., pg 51. Richardson is a cultural anthropologist/linguist/missionary with several decades field experience working among tribal peoples. (To be totally honest, so that there is no semantic confusion, the 90% quote refers to belief in a Supreme Being, not necessarily the same as "exclusive monotheism".) I recommend this book precisely because of the extensive footnotes and primary research. Relevant sources (several hundred) are footnoted and/or included in the bibliography.

Examples of independent tribal beliefs in one Supreme Being:
Ancient China: worship of Shang-Ti, the Lord of Heaven, dating to at least 2500 BC (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics)
Gedeo people of Ethiopia: Worship of Magano, creator of all that is ("Run While the Sun is Hot", Fuller)
Santal of northern India: Thakur Jiu (literally, the True God), Lars Skrefsrud, "Traditions and Institutions of the Santal", 1887
Iriquois of the Northern Americas: worship of the Great Spirit, creator of all, incomprehensible to man. (A summary of Native American Religions, article by David Ruvulo, WVU, available at http://are.as.wvu.edu/ruvolo.htm, although I tend to disagree with this article's description of Sioux beliefs).
Incan belief in Viracocha, All-powerful Creator of All Things (Metraux, History of the Incas). Note: Later Incas worshipped the sun, but the earliest Incan legends and hymns describe one Creator.
Aboriginal Australian beliefs: Belief in the All Father (Native Tribes of South-East Australia, Howitt)
Hebrews of Ancient Near-east: Belief in Yahweh, the eternal, uncreated, all-powerful, unseen Creator and Sustainer of all that is. (Note: Those who argue that belief in one supreme God is a 'western' phenomena forget that the Judeo-Christian tradition formed in the ancient near east, before most of Europe even had a written language.)

That covers at least one tribal people for each continent. Others include The Kachin and the Lahu of Burma, The Mbaka of Central Africa, the Kul of Thailand, the Lisu of China, the Naga of India, most native north American tribes, and almost every native African tribe. ("In all these societies (i.e., over 300 tribal groups that Mbiti included in his study), without a single exception, people have a notion of God as the Supreme Being." John S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1969)

Anthropologists writing about the time of Darwin's Origen of the Species (such as Herbert Spencer, E.R. Tylor) tended to extrapolate evolutionary theory to try to explain the development of religion (since religion was on every continent, in every tribal people, in every century in recorded human history). Overlapping this time-frame, Scottish anthropogist Andrew Lang began to document the near-universality of belief in a single creator-God as the earliest belief in almost ALL cultures and tribes. (See "Myth, Ritual, and Religion", available in e-text from Project Guttenburg at http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/pg/etext01/1mrar10.txt). Today, other secular anthropologists widely accept the near-universality of this belief, and refer to the phenomenon as "the Sky-God". (NOTE: A search in Altavista on "sky god" will yield many references of varying perspectives, ranging from "See, this prooves that God is universal and reveals Himself to all who will listen", to "See, this prooves there is nothing unique about Hebraic monotheism." The point, however, is that the truth of one supreme Creator-God is written across the earliest history of every nation on this earth.)

An excellent (i.e., one-page) web-summary of the characteristics of this sky-god can be found at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pballard/skygod.html
This post is a summary, not primary material, but it does include some very relevant quotes from respected anthropology texts. To anyone actually still reading my post at this point, I highly recommend you click on a link to this page, for a quick summary.

OTHER REFERENCES: The Encyclopedia Britannica 2003 Student Edition offers the following:

"Polynesian myth tells how the supreme god, Io, created the world. In the beginning there were only waters and darkness. By his word and thought Io separated the waters and created Earth and sky. He said: “Let the waters be separated, let the heavens be formed, let the Earth be.” These creative words, the Polynesians believed, were charged with sacred power and therefore were recited on significant occasions to guarantee the success of an undertaking."

Another good summary of the debate between the two dominant schools of the development of religion (i.e. from spiritism/animism to monotheism, or from monotheism to spiritism/animism), along with tribal evidence for the near-universal belief in one Supreme Creator-God is available in the article "The Gentile Names of God", by Gordon Frazer, published in a compendium by Baker Academic Books. It is available online at http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp5no1.htm
I respectfully ask that you not let the title of the Symposium turn you off or prejudice you against reading and checking out this very good article.


Originally posted by Andrew Green
A singular, omnipotent, omniscient God is unique to western religion. In fact it's a fairly recent development. The God of the old testement is not the same as the God people worship now

As can be seen from the above, a singular,omnipotent, omniscient God is neither unique to western religion, nor is He a recent development. Not only is the God of the old testament the same God in the New, He is the same God who has written knowledge of Himself in the hearts, minds, and cultures of people on every continent, in every age.

This is not just some vague notion that "There must be a god out there somewhere". This knowledge that God has given is often extremely detailed (or as detailed as it needs to be for us to accept it). Please read everything you can about the Karin tribe of Burma (alternately spelled 'Karen'). The Karin believed they were decended from people that knew and had a friendship with the supreme God, Y'Wa, the perfect, all-knowing, eternal, Creator of all things. But their first parents were tempted by a deceiver to disobey Him. The woman ate of the forbidden tree in the garden where Y'Wa had placed the couple, then she gave some to her husband. As a result, both were cursed, and would grow old and die. The Karin believed that Y'Wa had given them a book to teach about Himself, but because they disobeyed, they lost their copy. Karin tradition taught that one day, their light-skinned younger-brother would visit them and bring a copy of the book. They eagerly awaited the day when Y'Wa Himself would restore His friendship with them. (See website at http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/monotheism.htm . The article is poorly written IMHO, but the bottom of the page contains some actual hymns to Y'Wa composed and sung by generations of Karin before they had contact with any Europeans)

When a young missionary named Adoniram Judson arrived in Burma in 1817, 3 million peole were waiting to receive word of the True God, contained in a book. In his lifetime, Judson saw tens of thousands of Karin accept Jesus as the long-awaited path back to friendship with Y'Wa. They immediately set out to tell other Burmese tribal peoples, who had similar beliefs in one true God. As a result, Burmese Christianity added about 250,000 Kachin natives within the next century. (multiple sources, but the Richardson book has the best summation)

Do you agree that God has it in his power to make his existance known?

If he does exist, and did want us to worship him would he not do so?

Yes, He has it in His power to make Himself known. I believe He does make Himself known, and continues to do so. THAT was one of the main points of my post. He has written knowledge of Himself on the hearts of men in every race, culture, continent, and time. Belief in an almighty supreme being is almost universal among tribes, cultures, and peoples throughout history.

I believe in something called "Presuppositional Apologetics". ('apologetics': the methods of making a defense of the faith; "presuppositional": assuming certain things are already known). In other words, I believe there are certain things God has 'hard-wired' into our make-up; there are certain things that we cannot possibly NOT know. That's why I don't spend a lot of time with the questions of "what about the heathen in Outer Mongolia who never heard of Jesus?", or "how can we know that there is truth?" God has provided enough information about Himself so that we could reasonably be expected to look. And He has promised that if we look, we will find.

A lot of folks on the thread have hypothesized about the "good decent person" or the far-away tribe that never heard. Obviously, God is more than able to reveal Himself to that far-away tribe, or that "good person". The more pertinent question is, "What about you?" You have heard about Yahweh. You have heard about Jesus. You live in a country with a church in almost every town. You have Internet access, for goodness sake! You have all the information you need. Are you willing to look for God yourself?

"Ask and it shall be given to you. Seek and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened; for everyone who asks shall receive, and everyone who seeks shall find, and to everyone who knocks it shall be opened."


Originally posted by Andrew Green
Proove that we have freewill.

A computer makes all kinds of choices. There are programs that make good choices, and programs that make bad choices. But they wtill make a choice. Given there design they could not have choose otherwise. Are we any different?

We are different than computers. Scientific proof of a free will requires an experiment that yields the same repeatable result for all experimenters. There is no such experiment. Perhaps THAT is the proof. If everything we did were determined, and we could only 'choose' according to how we were programmed, the experimental results would always be the same. But they're not. Unlike computers, or atoms, or balls dropped from towers, or springs, or pendulums, human beings are the only subjects of experiments, that I can think of, where the result of your experiment can change if you tell the subject you are doing an experiment! Tell a pendulum you are experimenting on it, it will still move with a period related to the root of the length/g. Now go outside a retail store, where studies show that 80%+ of all people entering will look down and to the right as they enter. Tell customers entering that you are doing an experiment on their free will, and you believe that 80% of the time they will enter the store and look down and to the right.....and see what happens. Keep statistics.

Free will is one of those presuppositional things. You know YOU have one, even if you don't admit it as a general truth for all humanity. Or at least you live as if you have a free will in practice. You feel guilty when you know you've done something wrong. You admire certain individuals. You don't admire others as much. You probably believe criminals should go to jail, and that murderers should be punished. None of these things makes sense without presupposing free will.

Other presuppositional truths: Universal truth exists. Morality exists. Therefore, God exists. Based on these truths, you can derive the truths that God has moral standards, that we are accountable for conforming to these standards, and that we have not conformed to these standards. These truths are available to all people, and are known as "General Revelation". These are the types of general beliefs that show up time and time again in people groups and tribes around the world.

What do you do in light of these truths? Answer: Look for "Special Revelation", those times when God has specifically made Himself known, so that we can understand how to respond, in light of the fact that we have failed to meet His moral standards. He has promised He would make Himself known to those who would diligently search for Him. God could have revealed that, to turn to Him, we would need to learn to speak Sanskrit while gargling peanut butter (or gargling Vega-Mite for the Aussies reading the thread). As God, it would be within His right to make whatever requirements of us He desires. But He has revealed that we should come to Him through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. That's part of being God--you get to make the rules. And it's part of true worship of God that you acknowledge that He gets to make the rules, not that we can demand God accept us any other way.

Wow! That was a bunch of typing! Please, if you respond, don't expect any replies till after Christmas. And I sincerely wish each and everyone of you a very merry Christmas, at that!

In Christ's love,
Ann

[xubis]

ouch... what did I create!

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt Ann
[B]Actually, yes they have, but mostly civil wars. Buddhists persecuted Chinese and Korean Confucianists when they were in power (....and when Confucianists had the ascendancy, they repaid the favor to the Buddhists). Today, Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim nationalists are some of the strongest persecutors of religious minorities (most notably indigenous Christians) in their respective countries.

I disagree strongly with your interpretation of the events in Korean history. The civil war and conflicts in Korea's history were definitely along the lines of regional, family and ethnic divisions and not religious going back to the wars between the three kingdoms of Korea. The conflicts between the Chinese and Koreas were ethnic and not religious conflicts. I live in China and I have studied the relationship between the Koreans, Chinese and Japanese in great detail. What is your source. I'll do some checking and come back on this.

While your at it, here is an interesting trivia question for you. What is the relationship between Koreans and Japanese?

Hindus and Moslims are definitely aggressors in India and Pakistan as well as other places. Moslims top the list. What Buddhist country persecutes it's minorities?

You responces concerning monotheism in primative tribes of the world was good, but you botched this one.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Alias
The catalyst of the First World War may have been the Archduke's assassination, but the origins can be traced back into the late 1800s to the Franco-Prussian War and its aftermath, particularly the animosity between France and Germany.

WW1 was not fought in the name of religion, hence, I do not term it a religious war.



The Nazi belief that they were the "Chosen people" does not qualify as religious. That is an ideology, even though it may have approached religious fervour in its intensity.

Hitler intended the Third Reich to last for 1000 years (the Thousand Year Reich), not 10'000.



Japan entered the war in 1941 because the U.S., the U.K., and the Netherlands placed an oil and steel embargo on Japan to discourage their war efforts on China. Japan saw this as an act of aggression and attacked Pearl Harbor. Their Shinto beliefs may have influenced Japan's decisions and policies, but this does not a religious war make.

Very superficial view of Japanese culture, religion and history. The Shinto religion believed in the manifest destiny of world domination with the line of Emperors having the divine right to drive the foreigners out of the Pacific and the orient. There drive to modernize and build a great army began with take over by the Shinto in the 1860s. They had a very deliberate plan that resulted in the war with Russia, the invasion of China and Korea, and WWII with the ulimate goal of ruling Asia and the Pacific.

The USSR was a communist country (although an argument can be made that it was a *******ised version of communism) and communism is secular, yes.


But, irregardless, atheism is not a religion :mad:. One more time:

One more time. Atheism is a religion centered on the belief that there isn't a God. Many dictionaries describe a religion as USUALLY believing in one or more Gods, not always. The definition would include organised, unorganized and disorganized religions.


Theism = belief in a deity or deities
Atheism = without belief in a deity or deities
Also Deism, Agnostism, Humanism and other isms.

[shunyadragon]

Are Atheism, Agnostism or Humanism considered religious beliefs?

I primarilly go by a combination of how the words are commonly used and not my personal viewpoint. The following is a quote from the Unitarian Universalist website.

'At a Unitarian Universalist worship service or meeting, you are likely to find members whose positions on faith may be derived from a variety of religious beliefs: Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, naturist, atheist, or agnostic. Members might tell you that they are religious humanists, liberal Christians, or world religionists.'

[Alias]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Very superficial view of Japanese culture, religion and history.

It was a superficial overview, not an in-depth analysis. I have a great respect for the Japanese culture. In fact, I intend to teach English to students in Japan as part of the JET program in two years time. I was not trying to be offensive or flippant. I was trying to get to the heart of the issue.

The Shinto religion believed in the manifest destiny of world domination with the line of Emperors having the divine right to drive the foreigners out of the Pacific and the orient. There drive to modernize and build a great army began with take over by the Shinto in the 1860s. They had a very deliberate plan that resulted in the war with Russia, the invasion of China and Korea, and WWII with the ulimate goal of ruling Asia and the Pacific.

Japan's 'very deliberate plan' resulted in WWII? I disagree. WWII started when Germany invaded Poland in 1939, you know that, just as you know that Japan didn't enter the war until 1941. Japan's 'very deliberate plan' was merely colonialism, heavily influenced by the actions of 19th century European countries.

So, to the point of this discussion: WWII as a religious war. Neither Germany nor Italy were fighting a religious war. As for Japan and the Pacific side of WWII, I don't see how it fits a religious war. Perhaps you could define what you consider to be a religious war. As I am about to demonstrate, definitions are key to our current discourse.

One more time. Atheism is a religion centered on the belief that there isn't a God. Many dictionaries describe a religion as USUALLY believing in one or more Gods, not always. The definition would include organised, unorganized and disorganized religions.

I can see where this is headed:

Alias - 'Atheism is not a religion.'
shunyadragon - 'Is too.'
Alias - 'Is not.'
shunyadragon - 'Is too.'

Allow me to explain: atheism = without belief in a deity or deities.

That is it. Atheism is to be without a god-belief. That is all. What is your definition of a religion? Atheists don't go to an atheist church, we don't pray to nothingness, we don't perform any practices that would be associated with a religion. In fact, we don't do anything! What makes us atheists is simply lacking a god-belief.

Originally posted by me
Theism = belief in a deity or deities
Atheism = without belief in a deity or deities

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Also Deism, Agnostism, Humanism and other isms.

If I have read this right, you state that Deism is 'without belief in deity or deities'? No.

Deity = god
Deism = god-belief

Deism is an interesting belief, actually, and I will come back to that later.

Are Atheism, Agnosticism or Humanism considered religious beliefs?

No, no, and depends on which variant of humanism you refer to.

I primarilly go by a combination of how the words are commonly used and not my personal viewpoint.

Not a bad idea.

The following is a quote from the Unitarian Universalist website.

'At a Unitarian Universalist worship service or meeting, you are likely to find members whose positions on faith may be derived from a variety of religious beliefs: Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, naturist, atheist, or agnostic. Members might tell you that they are religious humanists, liberal Christians, or world religionists.'

Okay. This is where you found your definition of atheism?

You stated previous that you go by 'how the words are commonly used'. Now, what makes you think that a mere quote from a liberal Christian website is an accurate reflection of the usage of words in the modern world?

From my World Book dictionary:

'Religion - 1. Belief in God or gods; 2. worship of God or gods; 3. a particular system of religious belief and worship; 4. anything done or followed with reverence or devotion.'

Atheism does not fit any of those four definitions.

If you need some evidence for your own eyes, take a look at this
page on religion (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) at Wikipedia, an excellent online encyclopedia.

From this page:

A religion is defined as a system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to the supernatural.

Atheism? Sorry, no. Atheists are without/lack said beliefs.

Adherents of a particular religion tend to gather together to celebrate holy days, to recite or chant scripture, to pray, to worship, and provide pastoral and spiritual assistance to each other.

Atheism? Sorry, no.

Two identifying features of all religions are that to some extent they all (a) require faith and (b) seek to organize and guide the thoughts and actions of their adherents.

Atheism? Again, no. By definition, atheism is without faith.

But don't take my word for it, here is a definition (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) of atheism:

The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god or gods. The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist -- including both those who assert that no gods exists and those who, for whatever reason, do not make any assertion regarding the existence of gods.

Agnosticism a religion? I don't think so. From this page (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism):

The terms agnosticism and agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 to describe the philosophical and theological view that the truth of the non-existence or existence of God, immortality, and the like are inherently unknowable. People can have scientific or real knowledge of phenomena, but when it comes to what lies behind phenomena there can be no evidence that entitles anyone either to deny or affirm anything.


Humanism? Um, nope. From this page (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism):

Humanism is a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values, stressing an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason and other human skills. It usually rejects supernaturalism, but some religious people consider themselves humanists.

Perhaps you meant secular humanism? 'Fraid not. From this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism):

Secular Humanism can be (over) simplified thus:

Humans matter and can solve human problems
Science, free speech, rational thought, democracy and freedom in the arts go together
There is no supernatural

To be fair, humanism is a massive philosophical field, and one of its branches is religious/spiritual humanism (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism):

Religious humanism may be seen as a division of the philosophy of humanism that forms a counterpart to the more common example of secular humanism. While retaining a number of religious beliefs and/or practices, religious humanism still gives human interests, values, and worth a central place.

Deism? Finally, you hit the mark. From this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism):

Deism is the belief that the universe was created by a God who then made no further intervention in its affairs, often expressed by the metaphor of the "Divine Watchmaker" who created a mechanism so perfect as to be self-regulating. Deists do not believe in miracles or revelations. Because of their rejection of revelation, they attempt to infer their theology entirely from philosophical arguments.

Check out this website (http://www.deism.org/) if you are interested.

Merry Xmas and have a safe new year.

[Shade]

Personally I had always thought that Atheists were non-religious. That was the hole point, having some name to give to people who do not follow any religion.

Isnt that a common view?

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
I disagree strongly with your interpretation of the events in Korean history. The civil war and conflicts in Korea's history were definitely along the lines of regional, family and ethnic divisions and not religious going back to the wars between the three kingdoms of Korea.

I was referring to the period post-three kingdoms, during the times of a single united kingdoms: Buddhist domination of Confucianists in the Koryo Dynasty, and Neo-Confucianist persecution of the Buddhists during the Yi Dynasty (starting about 1300 AD).

Hindus and Moslims are definitely aggressors in India and Pakistan as well as other places. Moslims top the list. What Buddhist country persecutes it's minorities
Myanmar (Burma) and Viet Nam, both overwhelmingly Buddhist countries, always makes the annual list by Persecution Watch for the top 25 worst nations on earth for human rights violations and religious persecution. North Korea always ranks in the top three, but it can be argued that's because it is a Communist regime (still, the people and culture are overwhelmingly Buddhist). Christians and other religious minorites are also routinely persecuted by Buddhists in Sri Lanka.

What is your source.
Noooooooooooo!!!!! PLEASE not another request for references!?!? :eek:

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Alias
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quoting ShunyDragon
The Shinto religion believed in the manifest destiny of world domination with the line of Emperors having the divine right to drive the foreigners out of the Pacific and the orient. There drive to modernize and build a great army began with take over by the Shinto in the 1860s. They had a very deliberate plan that resulted in the war with Russia, the invasion of China and Korea, and WWII with the ulimate goal of ruling Asia and the Pacific.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Japan's 'very deliberate plan' resulted in WWII? I disagree. WWII started when Germany invaded Poland in 1939, you know that, just as you know that Japan didn't enter the war until 1941. Japan's 'very deliberate plan' was merely colonialism, heavily influenced by the actions of 19th century European countries.


Please do a check on the Japanese annexation of Korea, the conquest of Manchuria, and attacks through much of China, all prior to Hitler's forrays into Poland. SD is right on this one. Japan was very much at war long before the Germans; 1941 was just when they decided to bomb the US.

BBC article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/223038.stm documents the Japanese massacre of 250,000 to 300,000 civilian men, women, and children in a four-month period starting in December of 1937, during the infamous "Rape of Nanking". This was after the Japanese had conquered the then-capital of China. More information on this event, from a Chinese perspective, available at http://www.tribo.org/nanking/

Whether this makes WWII a "religious" war is up for debate. Shintoism definitely shaped Japanese cultural attitudes towards war and conquest, and Japan's readiness/willingness to fight a world war. My points are that 1.) religious belief does shape culture to a large extent, and 2). we ignore its particular influence on a people/culture to our own peril (like when we pretend that "all religious beliefs are equal", and "Islam is a peaceful religion").

Good post, Shunydragon!

[shipto]

why does there always have to be a reason couldnt it just be: in the words of the late and great Bob Ross a happy accident

[Alias]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Please do a check on the Japanese annexation of Korea, the conquest of Manchuria, and attacks through much of China, all prior to Hitler's forrays into Poland. SD is right on this one. Japan was very much at war long before the Germans; 1941 was just when they decided to bomb the US.

From an earlier post of mine:

Japan entered the war in 1941 because the U.S., the U.K., and the Netherlands placed an oil and steel embargo on Japan to discourage their war efforts on China.

I have never argued the fact that Japan were at war prior to the beginning of WWII.

I have argued that WWII is generally acknowledged as beginning when Germany invaded Poland, triggering a reply from Britain (and France, probably) and all the colonies across the world, making it a global conflict. I have argued that Japan didn't enter WWII until 1941 (although it was in 1940 that they signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy to form the main hub of the Axis).

I guess this comes down to distinctions, nothing more. I am of the opinion that WWII started in 1939.

Shintoism definitely shaped Japanese cultural attitudes towards war and conquest, and Japan's readiness/willingness to fight a world war. My points are that 1.) religious belief does shape culture to a large extent, and 2). we ignore its particular influence on a people/culture to our own peril (like when we pretend that "all religious beliefs are equal", and "Islam is a peaceful religion").

Agreed on all points, except that I was under the impression that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because they knew they couldn't defeat the U.S. in a prolonged war. Hence the devestating attack on Pearl Harbor. It was hoped that the U.S. would cave.

Again, this could be wrong, and probably deserves its own thread, but if this is wrong, I am happy to be corrected.

Originally posted by shipto
why does there always have to be a reason couldnt it just be: in the words of the late and great Bob Ross a happy accident

Makes more sense to me than an all-powerful creator.

Humans are used to cause-effect. Universe = effect. What is the cause of the universe?

Often, the argument goes like this:

-Every effect must have a cause. The universe is the effect, therefore God is the first cause of the universe.

What caused God?

-God is eternal.

If God is eternal, why can't the universe be eternal?

-:confused:

Although, for the record, I don't know why the universe exists. It existed before I was born, and in all likelihood will exist when I die. All I can do is make the most of my time here. :cool:

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
I was referring to the period post-three kingdoms, during the times of a single united kingdoms: Buddhist domination of Confucianists in the Koryo Dynasty, and Neo-Confucianist persecution of the Buddhists during the Yi Dynasty (starting about 1300 AD).

Frank

This where I disagree with you most. The civil wars and conflicts after the Korea became united were Feudal in nature, and between ethnic and regional powers and Chinese against Korean and not religious in nature. Powerful feudal families played a very strong role in conflicts among the Koreans during this time.


[QUOTE] Myanmar (Burma) and Viet Nam, both overwhelmingly Buddhist countries, always makes the annual list by Persecution Watch for the top 25 worst nations on earth for human rights violations and religious persecution. North Korea always ranks in the top three, but it can be argued that's because it is a Communist regime (still, the people and culture are overwhelmingly Buddhist). Christians and other religious minorites are also routinely persecuted by Buddhists in Sri Lanka.

Frank

The recent governments of this countries have been secular in recent history and not Buddhist. The populations may have been predominantly Buddhist but the persecution you speak of was by secular governments. This most strongly the case in Vietnam, since the Buddhists in this country have historically opposed such conflicts. I will give more information on this, but for a war, civil conflict or persecution to take place in the name of religion the religious leaders themselves and the followers have to have supported this in the name of religion as is clearly the case in the classic conflicts in Islam, Judism and Christianity.

There may be case for Taoism in China leading or encouraging persecution of Buddhists. This in a way did happen when certain religious leaders and powerful figures using the rivilry of influence to encourage persecution. I probably should not have included Taoism as not persecuting or attacking Buddhists in China.


Noooooooooooo!!!!! PLEASE not another request for references!?!? :eek:

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alias
[B]It was a superficial overview, not an in-depth analysis. I have a great respect for the Japanese culture. In fact, I intend to teach English to students in Japan as part of the JET program in two years time. I was not trying to be offensive or flippant. I was trying to get to the heart of the issue.

Japan's 'very deliberate plan' resulted in WWII? I disagree. WWII started when Germany invaded Poland in 1939, you know that, just as you know that Japan didn't enter the war until 1941. Japan's 'very deliberate plan' was merely colonialism, heavily influenced by the actions of 19th century European countries.


Frank

Japan's government was religious and not secular. The motives of Japan were similar to the German and Italian motives, but Japan's were far more religious in nature.

You may interprete Japan's motives as reacting European Colonialism, but that neglects Japan's cultural and religious history going back to before European colonialism. Japan clearly had a plan for the domination of the orient and the Pacific rooted in the historical conflict between China, Japan and Korea. The plan to wage a war against the US and the Commonwealth was a long time in planning.

This simplistic cause-effect analysis can be used to say the origins of Christianity are not religious, but purely political founded in Jewish rebel movements against Rome.



[QUOTE] So, to the point of this discussion: WWII as a religious war. Neither Germany nor Italy were fighting a religious war. As for Japan and the Pacific side of WWII, I don't see how it fits a religious war. Perhaps you could define what you consider to be a religious war. As I am about to demonstrate, definitions are key to our current discourse.

Frank

Actually I do consider many of the motivations in Europe as religious, but the political element is the powerful Caesar complex to restore the Roman Empire in Europe and the Mediteranian.

The interpretation that Hitler was a messiah-like figure and he used religion in his efforts to conquer Europe is not a far stretch. His Aryian manifest destiny approach to justify his desire for world conquest portrayed in Mien Kampf had strong religous overtones.

The messiah complex has both strong religious/political/philosophical roles through out history. The use of this tool by charismatic leaders to inspire devotion is important and their religious/political/philisophical nature cannot be easily separated.

In fact in Islam and Isreal thay are one and inseperable. Many if not most Jews in Isreal deny that they belong to a religion and that there motives are religious.

Part of my viewpoint comes from this desire by many people to put artificial boundaries for their own comfort.

[Alias]

shunyadragon, before we go any further I must request your definition of a 'religious war'. Our discourse cannot progress if our definitions are different.

Perhaps 'religious war' has no true definition. Yet we know a religious war when we see one: the Crusades, for example.

To be clear, when I say religious war, I mean Holy War. I use them as if they are interchangeable, but perhaps they are not.

Holy War - A war declared or fought for a religious or high moral purpose, as to extend or defend a religion.

If you agree with this definition, explain how Japan's actions in WWII fit.

Also, can I take it that you concede that atheism is not a religion? If you disagree, please state the premises supporting your conclusion that atheism is a religion.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Alias
shunyadragon, before we go any further I must request your definition of a 'religious war'. Our discourse cannot progress if our definitions are different.

Perhaps 'religious war' has no true definition. Yet we know a religious war when we see one: the Crusades, for example.

To be clear, when I say religious war, I mean Holy War. I use them as if they are interchangeable, but perhaps they are not.

Holy War - A war declared or fought for a religious or high moral purpose, as to extend or defend a religion.

If you agree with this definition, explain how Japan's actions in WWII fit.

Frank

When the Shinto overthrough the Feudal Buddhist government in the 1860's it was in fulfillment of Shinto prophecy and the coming of the Shinto Messiah (The reincarnation of the Most Great Shinto God) who would fulfill the manifest destiny of the Japanese and led the Japanese people to world domination. The first goal was achieved with the overthrough of the Buddhist governments of Japan and Korea. The emperor and all the emperors that followed were considered to be the reincarnation of the Shinto God or messiah. At that time of the prophecies the world for the Japanese was the orient and Korea was important. Of course the goal was to drive the barbarians out of the Orient and the Pacific. The modernization and militerization that began in the 1860s was in preparation of this goal followed by the war with Russia, invasion of China and Korea, and the attack on the US and the Commonwealth.

There is an interesting side note to this story. The Japanese are for the most part descendents of Koreans. Between about 300 and 500 AD Koerans from the Koguryo Kindom migrated to Japan and pushed out the Stone Age Jomon to the last island in the north and they became what is known today as the Ainu. In about 676 AD Korea was united under the Silla and the Koguryo were defeated. The remnants joined there relatives in Japan, vowing to return.

The Silla Kingdom becamed highly influenced by China and Buddhist. The Koguryu that went to Japan kept there primative warrior Shinto religion and distinctive language. Later Japan became mostly Buddhist during the Tang Dynasty, but the Divine manifest destiny to return under the promised reincarnation of the Most Great Shinto God remained.

In 1910 when the Japanese returned to Korea they declared that they had fulfilled there divine right from antiquity.

NOTE: This version of history is very, very unpopular in Japan.


Also, can I take it that you concede that atheism is not a religion? If you disagree, please state the premises supporting your conclusion that atheism is a religion.

Frank

No I still believe that Atheism is a religion. The Longman dictionary states that it USUALLY not always believes in a God or Gods and I demonstrated that others also describe Atheism as a religion. We may not agree, but I presented my case. In my view I don't distinctly separate religion/philosophy/politics as clearly as you and for good reason. In reality in the world they are not separate. I gave the examples of Islam and the rejection of 'religion' by many people who obviously are religions like the Jews of Isreal and many Millenial Churches in America.

The separation of religion/politics and philosophy in the USA is a rather foggy issue.

[Brad Ellin]

The countries of Myanmar and Viet Nam may have a mostly Buddhist population, but their governments are not Buddhist. They are a military dictatorship and a communist government. These are the forces persecuting the minorities. Please don't drag religion into the picture when it is the people in government that do the persecution.
Likewise with Islam. It is not the religion, but a few fanatics (some of whom happen to be in charge of the government) spreading their narrow minded view of what Islam is. Most of the time it is not even Islam, but tribal custom and plain old fashioned "I'm a man, what I say, goes".

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Kurohana
The countries of Myanmar and Viet Nam may have a mostly Buddhist population, but their governments are not Buddhist. They are a military dictatorship and a communist government. These are the forces persecuting the minorities. Please don't drag religion into the picture when it is the people in government that do the persecution.
Likewise with Islam. It is not the religion, but a few fanatics (some of whom happen to be in charge of the government) spreading their narrow minded view of what Islam is. Most of the time it is not even Islam, but tribal custom and plain old fashioned "I'm a man, what I say, goes".

Frank

I agree with you completely on Myanmar, Vietnam and by the way Sari Linka (sp?) and I made that point in my post.

But I'll have to disagree with you on the issue of Islam. The curent religious wars may not be in the spirit of true Islam, but the war on Isreal, between Pakistan and India, the religious attacks on Christian and Buddhist populations have been apart of Islam for many years and they have wide spread popular support with the people and in countries like Indonesia. The historial religious conflicts between Shiite and Suni is another example of the unfortunat violance of Islam. When the moslems conqueres northern India they virtually exterminated all the Buddhists and leveled all the temples and monasteries. JIHAD is very real in Islamic history.

The Black Moslem movement in America is another example of violence to the name of Islam and racial prejudice. The original spirit of Islam knew not the color of the human skin.

I believe Mohammed is a prophet of God, because I am a Baha'i, but the flame of the spirit does not burn today. It has been extinguished by the flames of religious hatred and conflict.

[Brad Ellin]

While I agree with your last paragraph, having lived in a few Middle Eastern countries and having seen both sides of Islam, I can't agree 100% with the rest of your statements... but hey, that's me and what I have seen.
My wife is Indian and Muslim, and have not felt anything but acceptance and love from her family.. which is quite huge with several devout Muslims among them (read the book The Fall of a Sparrow by Salim Ali), and I'm a Buddhist. I spent several years in Turkey, predominantly Muslim, and never once encountered hatred, prejudice or any adverse emotions or feelings because I am not a Muslim. Saudi Arabia, different story. The better educated, the more tolerant of other religions. And let's just leave it at that.
Have a wonderful day Frank!

[Capt Ann]

Alias: I misunderstood your comments on the start of WWII. Our disagreement is only a minor one on what constituted the "start" of WWII. I tend to see it as a continuum, going back to WWI. I apologize. It's not a big deal.

Kurohana: I certainly did not mean to imply that all Moslems are evil violent people. Certainly, as with any group, you will have people kind and cruel, peaceful and violent. Unfortunately, the violent component in Islam is NOT a small fringe. About ten percent of all Moslems worldwide are Wahabists, a sect that views it as the religious duty of all Moslems to practice physical armed jihad against "the house of war" (i.e., anyone in the world who is non-Moslem). This belief sees the property of non-Moslems as theirs by divine right, and that Islam is destined to rule the world through a universal application of Shar'ia law. This means there are over 100,000,000 people who view it as their religious duty to see the demise of my nation and way of life. That's about (+/- 10%) the entire population of England, Australia, and Canada.

Alias and Shunyadragon: Dictionary at my house defines 'religion' two ways. ONE: "a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped..... etc." (It seems that this is the definition that Alias is using, and by this definition, Atheism is NOT a religion.) TWO: "any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy." (It seems that this is the definition that Frank is using, and by this definition, Atheism IS a religion, whose system of belief, worship, etc.' is that no god exists, and therefore none should be worshipped.)

I think this is the only thing you guys are disagreeing about. But your underlying ideas are much more interesting. I'm only surmising, based on reading your posts. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but Alias, it appears very important to you to stress that you have no belief in a god/gods, and to distance yourself from 'religion' (definition ONE above), probably because you view it as unsupportable, superstitious, and unscientific. Frank, it appears important to you to include Atheism as a religion (definition TWO above), because you view Alias' non-belief in god/gods as a system of thought that is just as much based on opinion and belief (as opposed to scientific/historical proof) as any other classical 'religion'.

Just some thoughts (Hey, Christmas dinner is over, and its either think about things like this, or wash dishes!)

God bless, and Merry Christmas to all!

PS: For the record, if I ask, "What is your religion?", I am asking for information on your belief system. 'Atheism' is an acceptable response to the question.

[YODA]

PS: For the record, if I ask, "What is your religion?", I am asking for information on your belief system. 'Atheism' is an acceptable response to the question


*Applause :D

Put me down as Humanist :D

[Yama Tombo]

So whats the debate here?

[Capt Ann]

Question for Shunyadragon:

Frank, you mentioned that you are B'ahai, but I notice from your posts and profile that you are from PRC. I am very curious.

I know the situation in China varies greatly, depending on the exact part/province you are in. Please tell me, what has been your personal experience with acceptance/persecution of your religious beliefs in China?

[Brad Ellin]

Quoted by Capt Ann:
" About ten percent of all Moslems worldwide are Wahabists, a sect that views it as the religious duty of all Moslems to practice physical armed jihad against "the house of war" (i.e., anyone in the world who is non-Moslem). This belief sees the property of non-Moslems as theirs by divine right, and that Islam is destined to rule the world through a universal application of Shar'ia law. This means there are over 100,000,000 people who view it as their religious duty to see the demise of my nation and way of life. That's about (+/- 10%) the entire population of England, Australia, and Canada."

Hi neighbor! (I'm in La Plata). While it is true about the pecentage of Wahabists, it is not true that it is their duty or goal to practice armed jihad against the rest of us. 99% of Saudi Arabians are Wabahists. As I said the better educated among them are very tolerant people. What they believe is that it is the duty of every Muslim to try and convert a non-Muslim by education and lectures, not force. Most of the lesser educated (for lack of a better word) frankly, they want to come to America and experience our freedom. You have maybe 2% of that, that are fanatics or fundamentalist, that have a small but vocal and sometimes violent following that want what you described. But, hey, most parts of the world have cliques or groups or sects that have that kind of power over the people. Control the media, control the religion and you control the people. The average Muslim could care about anything but getting his/her family thru the day, kids an education and raising their families. Just like you and me. Jihad means struggle. Not armed struggle, but spiritual struggle. Emotional, struggle. Please, don't fall into the trap of thinking that most Muslims want to convert us, that's what they think about the rest of the world. That Christians want to convert them, by force if neccessary. Remember, I lived in Saudi for 5 1/2 years. I have seen and heard both sides. Met all 3 types.
Personally I think it's people that mess up religion, not religion that messes up people.

Y'all have a wonderful day!!

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Kurohana
Hi neighbor! (I'm in La Plata).

Small world! I'm in Lusby (now up to FOUR (count 'em.....4) full traffic lights!), just north of Solomons.

Where do you train?

[Brad Ellin]

In Bowie, one hour to get there, 50 minutes back to the house. I know Lusby okay, not great, been thru a few times to Chesepeake(sp?) Ranch Estates.

[Capt Ann]

Lived in Bowie for about five years...husband and I lived there after we first married and moved from Calif. (Saw on one of your other posts that you had been in the AF...us, too. That's where we met and married).

We live in the Ranch Club...bring lots of breadcumbs to find way in/out. Have to have you visit some time.....Lusby may only have four traffic lights, but it actually has TWO decent restaurants ;)

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Question for Shunyadragon:

Frank, you mentioned that you are B'ahai, but I notice from your posts and profile that you are from PRC. I am very curious.

I know the situation in China varies greatly, depending on the exact part/province you are in. Please tell me, what has been your personal experience with acceptance/persecution of your religious beliefs in China?


Frank

Actually I am from Rockville, Maryland. but my home has been the world for many years. I have lived in China about six years studying Arts of the Way and jade culture.

Actually the Chinese State laws governing religion are uniform except for certain autonimous ethnic regions. There are State recognized religions under state control for Islam, Christianity, Taoism and the many different branches of Buddhism. Other groups outside the state controled institutions are not allowed to have houses of worship, organized congregations or institutions.

There are Chinese Baha'i groups in all the major cities, but we do not have institutions of faith except for Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. The structure of the Baha'i Faith is elected without clergy and we don't have structured ritual. For the most part the Baha'is meet for social activities and share there faith on the personal one to one level. This is legal in China and basically how it is done world wide.

[Buddroux]

I have an answer... but because i am christian u are not going to like it probably... because God wanted there to be a universe /God Created it.. if u have access to a KJV bible read Genesis 1... if u think the Bible is a fairy tale then i guess u have something to flame me with..:p

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Buddroux
I have an answer... but because i am christian u are not going to like it probably... because God wanted there to be a universe /God Created it.. if u have access to a KJV bible read Genesis 1... if u think the Bible is a fairy tale then i guess u have something to flame me with..:p

Some may like your answer, some may not. To me it is simply your answer based on faith and most likely what your parents taught you.

The same goes for what is in the KJV. The original stories of creation were handed down from generation to generation going back to the Babylonians, Gigamesh and before.

[shunyadragon]

Hi neighbor! (I'm in La Plata). While it is true about the pecentage of Wahabists, it is not true that it is their duty or goal to practice armed jihad against the rest of us. 99% of Saudi Arabians are Wabahists.

Take a closer look at the nature and teaching of the Wahabists. The teachings of the founder and their doctrine reflects a Holy War Jihad to purify the world. This is primarily why Saudi Arabia restricts and prohibits all other religious activities and immigration. This also applies to other moslems.

In their law and doctrine the purity of the Saudi Kingdom must be preserved as in the doctrine of the Wahabists. Remember in most Islamic countries politics and religion are one and they same. They view the Christian countries and Isreal in this way also with good justification.

As I said the better educated among them are very tolerant people.

As for education, the terrorists that flew the planes into the world trade center and the pentagon all had college degrees and they were from good families. The terrorism has been funded primarilly by well educated wealthy Arabs like Ben Laden.

Jihad means struggle. Not armed struggle, but spiritual struggle. Emotional, struggle.

I agree with you in principle, because of my views as a Baha'i, but in reality the Holy War jihad is very real in history and today.

Please, don't fall into the trap of thinking that most Muslims want to convert us, that's what they think about the rest of the world. That Christians want to convert them, by force if neccessary. Remember, I lived in Saudi for 5 1/2 years. I have seen and heard both sides. Met all 3 types.
Personally I think it's people that mess up religion, not religion that messes up people.

I agree in principle that saying 'ALL' or 'MOST' should be used cautiously and not as stereotyping believers of any religion. But ALL believers of every religion and doctrine should take responsibility for the separation and violence that rises from the beliefs and doctrines of the religion they belong to.

By the way, conversion is OKAY and if you believe in something strongly it is normal to want to spread your faith to others. The methods of conversion are what has been a significant problem in history. It is obvious that the doctrine of most religions is to spread the word around the world. What is lacking in almost all moslem countries is the freedom to chose your own faith. Most if not all moslem countries prohibit moslems from convering to another religion and the punishment is death to convert.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Yama Tombo
So whats the debate here?

I think the debate revolves around the different beliefs of those that post here and WHY? they believe the way they do, the WHY? of God vs. no God, WHY? people believe differently, and my favorite WHY? are religons so violent in the history of the world.

Reasoning WHY? is a modern belief in the west that developed since the Renaissance, with early roots in Greco-Roman philosophy. In Islam wHY? did become a question of exploring the physical world in the early universities, but not a popular religious question in main stream Islam, until formation of some sects in recent history. Buddhism, Hinduism and particularly Taoism the question of WHY? is rarely asked.

As with the simple statements of faith expressed by strong Christians on this and other threads, most fundimentalist Christians are not comfortable with the WHY?

The bottom line answer to WHY? do people believe the way they do is obvious by the fact that 98%+ of the people of the world today believe the same or close to the way their parents believe. Most westerners may change churches on occasion, but they rarely change religions. In the rest of the world people rarely change anything today.

In the past conversion to religions like Christianity was mostly forced in much of the world up until the twentieth century.

[Brad Ellin]

"As for education, the terrorists that flew the planes into the world trade center and the pentagon all had college degrees and they were from good families. The terrorism has been funded primarilly by well educated wealthy Arabs like Ben Laden"

College education does not neccessarilly mean educated. Nor does a good family ensure a good upbringing. You are right about the funding, which I believe is how most of these college degrees were obtained.

Otherwise, very good points brought up in the rest of your post. True, I didn't meet every Saudi nor every Turk. Just going by the good and bad experiences I had. Want to hear an interesating conversation, you should have heard me trying to explain Buddhism to a devout (yet open minded) Muslim. He tried to convert me, but respected me and my beliefs enough to back down. Nor did he have me arrested )Islam does not recognize Buddhism as a religion).

"I agree with you in principle, because of my views as a Baha'i, but in reality the Holy War jihad is very real in history and today.

I agree with you here, Holy War Jihad is very real in history and today. And I believe it is going to get much worse..

Side note: in Saudi Arabi one does not convert to Islam, one returns to it. Saudi's claim that all men are born Muslim and that it is your family upbring that force you to become Christian or Jew or whatever. And yes, penalty for converting to another religion from Islam is punishable by death in Saudi.

[Alias]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
When the Shinto overthrough the Feudal Buddhist government in the 1860's it was in fulfillment of Shinto prophecy and the coming of the Shinto Messiah (The reincarnation of the Most Great Shinto God) who would fulfill the manifest destiny of the Japanese and led the Japanese people to world domination. The first goal was achieved with the overthrough of the Buddhist governments of Japan and Korea. The emperor and all the emperors that followed were considered to be the reincarnation of the Shinto God or messiah. At that time of the prophecies the world for the Japanese was the orient and Korea was important. Of course the goal was to drive the barbarians out of the Orient and the Pacific. The modernization and militerization that began in the 1860s was in preparation of this goal followed by the war with Russia, invasion of China and Korea, and the attack on the US and the Commonwealth.

One query: "The modernization and militerization that began in the 1860s was in preparation of this goal followed by the war with Russia, invasion of China and Korea, and the attack on the US and the Commonwealth".

The attack on the US was in 1941, that is 80-odd years. Was this plan followed by the Japanese government for this time?

This bothers me:

NOTE: This version of history is very, very unpopular in Japan.

Why is it unpopular? And who accepts it (apart from yourself, obviously ;))?

No I still believe that Atheism is a religion. The Longman dictionary states that it USUALLY not always believes in a God or Gods and I demonstrated that others also describe Atheism as a religion. We may not agree, but I presented my case.

You demonstrated that a religious website considers atheism a religion. One source, and not an authority on the subject either. From the FAQ (http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html) at www.uua.org:

At a Unitarian Universalist worship service or meeting, you are likely to find members whose positions on faith may be derived from a variety of religious beliefs: Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, naturist, atheist, or agnostic. Members might tell you that they are religious humanists, liberal Christians, or world religionists.

How does this demonstrate that atheism is a religion? All it demonstrates is that the UUA wishes to portray atheism as a religion, but that doesn't make it a religion, and it does not make them right. I can think of a couple of reasons that a religious website would wish to portray atheism as a religion:

Atheists are not looked on kindly by other religions, obviously: we deny the existence of what they hold to be True. Defining atheism as a religion does many things:

It is tantamount to disparaging atheism and atheists. Reducing it to "you rely on faith just as much as we do" allows believers to view atheists as hypocrites.

It places atheism on par with all other religions. Believers then need not justify their own personal choice. If everybody has a religion, then it's simply a matter of "mine is better than yours. Mine is the one true religion. I need not make any logical arguments to justify my belief, since your belief is by definition as irrational as mine."

Originally posted by shunyadragon
I gave the examples of Islam and the rejection of 'religion' by many people who obviously are religions like the Jews of Isreal and many Millenial Churches in America.

There is a difference between your examples (Islam, Jews of Isreal, Millenial Churches) and atheists: your examples worship a deity and follow a specific system of belief. They are clearly religions, even if they claim not to be.

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Dictionary at my house defines 'religion' two ways. ONE: "a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped..... etc." (It seems that this is the definition that Alias is using, and by this definition, Atheism is NOT a religion.) TWO: "any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy." (It seems that this is the definition that Frank is using, and by this definition, Atheism IS a religion, whose system of belief, worship, etc.' is that no god exists, and therefore none should be worshipped.)

Your definitions fit with the World Book definitions I gave:

'Religion - 1. Belief in God or gods; 2. worship of God or gods; 3. a particular system of religious belief and worship; 4. anything done or followed with reverence or devotion.'

1. Atheism lacks a belief/does not believe in a god or gods
2. Cannot worship what is not believed in
3. See 3
4. There is nothing done in atheism. Atheists do not revere the lack of belief/no belief nor devote themselves to no-god.

Yet, still, how does atheism fit your second definition?

"Any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."

Look at your example: "Atheism is a religion, whose system of belief is that no god exists, and therefore none should be believed".

Belief system? What you are saying is that atheism is a non-belief system. That makes no sense.

"Atheism is a religion, whose system of worship is that no god exists, and therefore none should be worshipped".

How does one worship nothing?

There is no specific system to atheism. At its core, atheism is about a single (non)belief and does not constitute a system. The only thing specific about it is a lack of belief, there certainly is no system to it.

There is no code of ethics to atheism. It is,as I keep repeating, a lack of one belief.

The philosophy depends upon the individual. I read different philosophers and so do other atheists I know. We do not follow one philosophy.

I think this is the only thing you guys are disagreeing about. But your underlying ideas are much more interesting. I'm only surmising, based on reading your posts. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but Alias, it appears very important to you to stress that you have no belief in a god/gods, and to distance yourself from 'religion' (definition ONE above), probably because you view it as unsupportable, superstitious, and unscientific.

And dangerous.

Frank, it appears important to you to include Atheism as a religion (definition TWO above), because you view Alias' non-belief in god/gods as a system of thought that is just as much based on opinion and belief (as opposed to scientific/historical proof) as any other classical 'religion'.

Here's the thing, Capt Ann: atheism is not a 'system of thought'. As I said above: at its core, atheism is about a single (non)belief and does not constitute a system.

PS: For the record, if I ask, "What is your religion?", I am asking for information on your belief system. 'Atheism' is an acceptable response to the question.

So is 'football', but I wouldn't call it a religion.

As someone once said, "If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair colour."

"If atheism is a religion, then 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby".

"If atheism is a religion, then clear is a color."

If atheism is a religion, then what is the word for a person who does not have a religion?????

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Alias
One query: "The modernization and militerization that began in the 1860s was in preparation of this goal followed by the war with Russia, invasion of China and Korea, and the attack on the US and the Commonwealth".

The attack on the US was in 1941, that is 80-odd years. Was this plan followed by the Japanese government for this time?

This bothers me:

Germany's plans for the domination of Europe go much further back and resulted in more than two wars.

The bombing of Pearl Harbor was not specificall in the plan, but expulsion of the barbarians from Asia and the Pascific was. The plan to recapture the original Kingdom of Koguryu was in the plan after it was totally lost in about 676 AD. This was the original Crusade of prophesy to return the Kingdom. The resulting expansion of Japan into northeast China was similar to the region of the maximum extent of the ancient Korean Kingdom.

Why is it unpopular? And who accepts it (apart from yourself, obviously ;))?

This view is accepted by Koreans

The thought that Japanese are desendents of Koreans doesn't go well in Japan.

Recent genetic studies show the Japanese and Koreans are closer related than other oriental peoples like the Mogols and Chinese, in fact there brothers and sisters. The fact that Japan suddenly went from a Stone Age culture to an Iron Age culture with irrigation and writing in a few hundred years or less about 400 AD.

Iwill give you a specific source or two later, but you can do some searching yourself if your interested in the history and culture of the orient.

You demonstrated that a religious website considers atheism a religion. One source, and not an authority on the subject either. From the FAQ (http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html) at www.uua.org:

How does this demonstrate that atheism is a religion? All it demonstrates is that the UUA wishes to portray atheism as a religion, but that doesn't make it a religion, and it does not make them right. I can think of a couple of reasons that a religious website would wish to portray atheism as a religion:

Atheists are not looked on kindly by other religions, obviously: we deny the existence of what they hold to be True. Defining atheism as a religion does many things:

It is tantamount to disparaging atheism and atheists. Reducing it to "you rely on faith just as much as we do" allows believers to view atheists as hypocrites.

It places atheism on par with all other religions. Believers then need not justify their own personal choice. If everybody has a religion, then it's simply a matter of "mine is better than yours. Mine is the one true religion. I need not make any logical arguments to justify my belief, since your belief is by definition as irrational as mine."

Faith by the definition provide by Capt Ann and I is not necessary. In fact to rely on know faith is apparently your doctrine of thought. You must consider atheism superior or 'better than yours' if you don't wish to be on a par with others. I believe I have a religion and I don't consider it better than others and very much on a par with others.



There is a difference between your examples (Islam, Jews of Isreal, Millenial Churches) and atheists: your examples worship a deity and follow a specific system of belief. They are clearly religions, even if they claim not to be.

My point was the denial of being a religion or religious does not prove anything.

Yet, still, how does atheism fit your second definition?

"Any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."

Often does not mean always. to have a code of ethics or philosophy is not necessary to fit the definition.

"Atheism is a religion, whose system of worship is that no god exists, and therefore none should be worshipped".

This would qualify as a definite doctrine of thought.

How does one worship nothing?

Easy ask some Taoists and Buddhists. Some not all.

There is no specific system to atheism. At its core, atheism is about a single (non)belief and does not constitute a system. The only thing specific about it is a lack of belief, there certainly is no system to it.

There is no code of ethics to atheism. It is, as I keep repeating, a lack of one belief.

[QUOTE] The philosophy depends upon the individual. I read different philosophers and so do other atheists I know. We do not follow one philosophy.

The code of ethics is not necssary in the definition since it only says 'often'.Some atheists have more of a system of belief than others. You apparently have one and deny it is a system, but some atheist do. Particularly those afiliated with the UU.

And dangerous.

The atheist doctrine of Hitler was as dangerous as any belief in God.

Here's the thing, Capt Ann: atheism is not a 'system of thought'. As I said above: at its core, atheism is about a single (non)belief and does not constitute a system.

Your statements defining atheism may not qualify as a belief, but it can be basis of a system of thought. Many Christians do not consider themselves to have a system of thought or belief like you. Sound odd?.


[ If atheism is a religion, then what is the word for a person who does not have a religion?????

For some to believe their is neither no God nor God? What is it like to truely believe in nothing? Interesting question. Sounds like a Taoist or Buddhists puzzle or koan. But to believe in something as strongly as you would make that quest difficult.


More on religion and atheism

Well your background fits the 98%+. Our debate on the unfortunate step child of the English language and semantics, the word religion. The lack of the teaching of religion had the same result as if you were taught.

It is unfortunate that this word has become one of the stones to throw at people and to build walls. In the following I will describe some of the difficulties of limiting a word to one's own 'comfort zone'.

It is common for people to define their belief as not a religion with the conotation that the beliefs that are religions are in some way lesser, evil or wrong. This is one of the sources of separation that causes violence that I object to. It is like the one thing that many beliefs that are hostile to each other have in common. They stone each other with the wor 'religion. I've talked to Jews, many Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus and others who claim that what they believe is not a religion. It is what others believe is what they call religions. Some throw other stones and call others 'organized religion.' Are they disorganized or unorganized religions?

It is like the word 'superstition'. In mainalnd China they say the people from Hong Kong are superstitious. The Chinese from Hong Kong say the people from China are very suprstitious. The reality is they are all very Chinese and none of them would ever have '444' in their phone number, but hey will pay thousands to have '999', '333' or other 'special' numbers.

Capt Ann came up with another definition for religion which obviously includes Atheism.

Taoism is sometimes described as Atheist, Agnostic, Deist and Theist and others will say 'none of the above', but in most academic sources call it a religion. What is it?

Confucism on the other hand is some times described as a religion, but here is where I will draw the line and say no. This may help you understand how I am using the religion.

Confucism is a philosophy that does not make any statements on the existence or non-existence of God. It primarily deals with the ethics, manners and ideals of the role of people in the family, government and business, but I live some room here that others may call it a religion and not be wrong.

[CKava]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Frank:
Japan's government was religious and not secular. The motives of Japan were similar to the German and Italian motives, but Japan's were far more religious in nature...That is complete and utter, ahem, lets just say wrongness. The Government of Japan that took it into war was COMPLETELY secular! Read any and I mean any book written by any decent scholar of Japan and you will find that the whole Shinto thing was merely a front, an ideological tool! Ive already mentioned in another thread that State Shinto was abolished after the war, but yet as you pointed out Shinto is still around today and that is because State Shinto was and is not Shinto! State Shinto was invented by the government to suit its needs, it took certain aspects of Shintoism distorted them and then invented the illusion of a grand history behind them. If your going to lump all of Shinto under that one distorted form, what about the fanatical Buddhist temples who, desperately trying to get back in favour with the government, where some of its most loyal supporters? Do they represent the entire Buddhist religion too?

You also seem to be suggesting (in many of your posts) that Japan was/is a very religious society and I would like to know where you get that idea from? Religion is a foreign term imposed when viewing Japan because things were/are not seperated the same way as they where/are in Europe. Hence why again as Ive said before its possible for a Japanese person to go to a ceremony at a Shinto shrine when their born, have a Christian wedding and get taken to a Buddhist temple when they die... and yet the person would very likely tell you they werent at all religious!

Japan clearly had a plan for the domination of the orient and the Pacific rooted in the historical conflict between China, Japan and Korea. The plan to wage a war against the US and the Commonwealth was a long time in planning.This sounds like a conspiracy theory Hitler would be proud of!

If your actually interested in the role of religion in Japan or where I get any of my information from I suggest you read any of the following:
Ian Reader- Religion in Contemporary Japan
Herbert P. Bix- Hirohito and the making of Modern Japan
Joseph Kitagawa- On Understanding Japanese Religion
Flyod Ross- Shinto: The Way of Japan

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by CKava

This post is ah . . . difficult to respond to.


[QUOTE] That is complete and utter, ahem, lets just say wrongness. The Government of Japan that took it into war was COMPLETELY secular! Read any and I mean any book written by any decent scholar of Japan and you will find that the whole Shinto thing was merely a front, an ideological tool!

Your putting a value judgement on Shintoism (merely a front?, ideologial tool?) That describes it as a religion in a negative way. In my view Shinto was the State religion of Japan before the war and I think that's clear in history. You put labels on it. I prefer to be more objective.


Ive already mentioned in another thread that State Shinto was abolished after the war, but yet as you pointed out Shinto is still around today and that is because State Shinto was and is not Shinto! State Shinto was invented by the government to suit its needs, it took certain aspects of Shintoism distorted them and then invented the illusion of a grand history behind them. If your going to lump all of Shinto under that one distorted form, what about the fanatical Buddhist temples who, desperately trying to get back in favour with the government, where some of its most loyal supporters? Do they represent the entire Buddhist religion too?

More contradictions and value judgements. Not good when dealing with the history of a foreign culture and people. You refer to State Shinto here and than you say the Japanese government was secular.

Distorted form? I view Shintoism as simply the native religion of Japan, probably evolved from the Korean Koguryu Kingdom religion. Buddhism was brought to Japan by the Chinese.

You also seem to be suggesting (in many of your posts) that Japan was/is a very religious society and I would like to know where you get that idea from? Religion is a foreign term imposed when viewing Japan because things were/are not seperated the same way as they where/are in Europe. Hence why again as Ive said before its possible for a Japanese person to go to a ceremony at a Shinto shrine when their born, have a Christian wedding and get taken to a Buddhist temple when they die... and yet the person would very likely tell you they werent at all religious!

Of course religion in Japan is different than in Europe and western culture, but that doesn't mean it isn't religious.

They may tell you they aren't at all religious, but the Christian in the US, the Jew in Isreal and the Moslem in Saudi Arabia may tell you the same thing.

What do you call a religion? Are not Shinto, Buddhism and Christianity religions?

You describe the pre WWII government as SECULAR. The emperor is the reincarnation of the Most Great Shinto God. Who was in charge of the SECULAR government.



Ian Reader- Religion in Contemporary Japan
Herbert P. Bix- Hirohito and the making of Modern Japan
Joseph Kitagawa- On Understanding Japanese Religion
Flyod Ross- Shinto: The Way of Japan

I've read these, but they are by far not the only sources. They are okay, but they sure, don't put the value judgements you put on Japanese history.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
.............As with the simple statements of faith expressed by strong Christians on this and other threads, most fundimentalist Christians are not comfortable with the WHY?
.................................
In the past conversion to religions like Christianity was mostly forced in much of the world up until the twentieth century.

OUCH!!! Yikes, Frank! Please take another look at what you wrote. I don't know what your particular beef is with Christians/Christianity, but methinks you'd never consider saying something like that about Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Taoists, etc.

If by "Fundamentalist Christian", you mean someone who believes the Bible is true, Jesus is God, we are sinners, we deserve hell, we can be rescued by faith in Jesus Christ alone, Christianity is right and other religions (or non-religions for Alias;) ) are wrong, then I'm a Fundamentalist Christian. Personally, I can't find a more interesting, more worthwhile, or more gratifying question than "Why?" That's why I went into science. That's why I join discussion boards. That's why I read others' posts to understand how they think and try to see through their eyes, and that's why I take time to think and write responses (and usually, but not always, I sincerely try to do the 'thinking' part BEFORE I do the 'writing' part).

As far as 'forced conversions' in Christianity, that is simply not true in any sense. For the first three hundred years, Christianity was the most persecuted religion in the world. It spread throughout the then-known world, not by force, but by persuasion, IN SPITE of physical attacks against it. (Remember the Colisseum in Rome? Lions vs. Saints?) Even after Constantine converted to nominal Christianity in the 4th century AD, the Roman empire didn't force non-Christians into conversion, it just spritzed some "Christianized Spray Paint" over some existing pagan holidays and ceremonies. Today, the spread of Christianity continues the same way as in the first century AD, with individual believers bringing the word of God into different areas of the world, often under great personal hardship and danger. Most of the world' Christian population lives in areas of the world where persecution for faith still exits and is strong.

Oh, and FYI, I did some more checking on Buddhist nations and religious persecution. Sri Lanka does have Buddhism as the official state religion, and the majority Sinhalese Buddhists do persecute non-Sinhalese AND non-Buddhists. Also, Bhutan's official state religion is Bhuddism, and they persecute everybody. Non-adherence to Bhuddism there is treated much the same way as religions other-than-Islam in Saudi Arabia. I found nine nations world-wide that have a majority Buddhist influence, and out of these, only two have true religious freedom as we would understand it in the west (Japan, which is mostly secular-Buddhist, and Thailand). Not to be 'down' on Buddhists/Buddhism, just the observation that no 'group' is immune from falling into the "us"-vs-"them" trap. I tend to agree with Kurohana on this one, when he said "Personally I think it's people that mess up religion, not religion that messes up people."

[Shade]

Regarding the persecution of Christians, I read that even Eusebius only confirmed a total of 9 bishops punished with death and just 92 martyrs in Palestine.

As for spritzing spraypaint, was that was happened to the Gnostics? They were just spraypainted away?

I also read that on 16 June 391 Emporer Theodosius issued an edict that closed down all Pagan temples. An imperial decree apparently demanded 'Burn all books hostile to Christianity lest they cause God anger and scandalise the pious'.

That sounds like forcing christianity to me.

[Shade]

I forgot to add that I also read that in the reign of Constantine Christianity had been accorded equal status with the Pagan religions of the Empire. Just half a century later, in the reign of Theodosius, Christianity was declared to be the ONLY religion that a person was permitted to practice.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
I view Shintoism as simply the native religion of Japan, probably evolved from the Korean Koguryu Kingdom religion. Buddhism was brought to Japan by the Chinese.

Frank, this has been a very interesting thread on the history of religion/philosophy/people in Korea and Japan. I am enjoying it immensely. I will do some more checking, to verify some sources, by if you are right, this clears something up that I always wondered about.

Pre-WWII Shintoism saw Japan as the "Chosen People" destined to inherit the world, descended from the Gods on the holy mount (Fuji?). While this may/may not be the view of current Shintoism, it was the view that, prior to WWII, enabled the development of a kind of "master race" theology in Japan that put the Nazis to shame. My question was, "How come this type of thought never developed in Korea?" I don't know if you are familiar with the founding legends for Korea (the Tangun legends), but they are remarkably similar to the Japanese legends that gave rise to Shinto. Your opinion that the Japanese and Koreans are one-and-the-same people makes sense in light of this....please provide some links so I can check this out further. Thank you!

The only (and the important) difference I can see in the Korean Tangun legends and the Japanese founding legends are in purpose (appropriately enough for this thread..... the 'WHY' question). According to the Tangun legends, Korea was founded for two reasons. They are hongik-ingan and jaese-ihwa (literally, the universal benefit of mankind, and to instruct in the ways of Heaven). So, instead of viewing it as their divine destiny to rule, the Korean culture sees its purpose in service to others on behlaf of God. WOW!! How cool is that?

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Shade
Regarding the persecution of Christians, I read that even Eusebius only confirmed a total of 9 bishops punished with death and just 92 martyrs in Palestine.

As for spritzing spraypaint, was that was happened to the Gnostics? They were just spraypainted away?

I also read that on 16 June 391 Emporer Theodosius issued an edict that closed down all Pagan temples. An imperial decree apparently demanded 'Burn all books hostile to Christianity lest they cause God anger and scandalise the pious'.

That sounds like forcing christianity to me.

Re: Eusebius, sorry, no, the crucifixions, burnings, beheadings, starvations, mutilations, and throwing to lions and gladiators numbered in the thousands. Of course, that doesn't include those condemned to chattel slavery on galley ships, in salt mines, in brothels, or sold as slaves into foreign lands, but who's counting?

Re: Gnostics, no, they were'nt spritzed (or killed by Christians, either, for that matter). Other than debates much liike what we're having now, the Christian community pretty much left them alone. Like most minorities in the history of the world, they would be persecuted... unfortunately that's the way mankind tends to be. But please don't assume "non-Christian" + "Persecuted" = "Persecuted by Christians".

Re: Theodosius, you are absolutely right that he tried to "force Christianity", which is very odd, especially considering he wasn't one himself. Once the Roman empire found it could use a universal religion to help control people, it did. A later example is Charlemagne's "Holy Roman Empire", which was neither "holy" nor "roman", but it sure sounds good, huh?

I would not dare to contend that people calling themselve "christians" never tried to persecute others, or extend their religious/political sphere of influence through force. I will say, though, that for the most part, the largest group of victims of those claiming to be christians persecuting others was......... Christians. My original post was in response to a claim that Christianity spread mostly by "forced conversion" until the 20th century, and this claim is simply not true.

[Shade]

I dont 'assume'anything.

The Gnostics WERE christians themselves. In fact many believe they were the original christians.

I read that Theodosius passed over 100 laws against Gnostics declaring their beliefs illegal. Their meeting houses were ordered to be forced over to the Catholic Church.

In 381 AD Gnostic writings were apparently forbidden, and destroyed (although thankfully some remained which were discovered in 1945).

Theodosius was Catholic and received baptism at the hands of bishop Acholius of Thessalonica during the autumn of 380, so I am not sure about your comment of him not being a Christian.

[CKava]

In my view Shinto was the State religion of Japan before the war and I think that's clear in history. You put labels on it. I prefer to be more objective.I dont see how 'Shinto= the state religion of Japan before the war' is not a label. However I really think trying to discuss anything without using concepts or labels might be a bit difficult? So I have no problem with labels, what I have an issue with is when a label is used as if it refers to one whole thing when really it only applies to one small part- like looking at an elephants trunk (State Shinto) and describing it as the entire animal (Shinto)!
Your putting a value judgement on Shintoism (merely a front?, ideologial tool?).As for the value judgements fair enough I do think State Shinto was not that great specifically because it was created with the sole intent of being a way of ideologicaly controlling people- but I dont regard that as being a religion. I think its actually a bit more negative to lump the incredibly multifacted 'religion' of Shinto into the rather unflattering form the governemnt decided to package it as. That form didn't even exist for a 100 years- but Shinto has existed for much, much longer than that!You refer to State Shinto here and than you say the Japanese government was secular...You describe the pre WWII government as SECULAR. The emperor is the reincarnation of the Most Great Shinto God. Who was in charge of the SECULAR government.The government was indeed secular regardless if they used a religious ideology to legitimise their actions. Just because the WWII government may have said this is for the glory of the Kami does not mean it was not really for economic resources and there is tonnes of evidence to prove this (see the previous list of books). The emperor myth was never such a predominant feature in non State Shinto (incidentally he wasnt a reincarnation he was supposed to be a direct descendant of Ameratsu: but now im just being pedantic).

As for having read the books I mentioned... as they are ok and there are much better books, which others would you recommend then, any in particular where I'll find information that backs up what your saying? I thought the Pullitzer prize was usually awarded to decent books- however I may be wrong.

[Alias]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Faith by the definition provide by Capt Ann and I is not necessary. In fact to rely on know faith is apparently your doctrine of thought.

Do not confuse faith with knowledge. Faith is belief in spite of the lack of evidence. After all, if there was evidence, why would faith be needed?

You must consider atheism superior or 'better than yours' if you don't wish to be on a par with others. I believe I have a religion and I don't consider it better than others and very much on a par with others.

This is a good example of your method of taking my points out-of-context and then responding.

Originally posted by me
(Defining atheism as a religion) places atheism on par with all other religions. Believers then need not justify their own personal choice. If everybody has a religion, then it's simply a matter of "mine is better than yours. Mine is the one true religion. I need not make any logical arguments to justify my belief, since your belief is by definition as irrational as mine."

See the difference? By ignoring the points following the first sentence, you evade the main argument. The most important point, to me, is that defining atheism as a religion allows believers to avoid justifying their own personal choice and remain content in their faith, whereas all the atheist is asking for is a reasoned argument and evidence for the existence of a god or gods. By defining atheism as a religion, the believer avoids presenting said reasoned argument or evidence.

Until I am presented with evidence supporting the existence of a particular god, then of course I consider it the superior position to hold, but it is only that: a position. Present me with evidence and I will change my position.

What is religious about that? It's common sense to me.

Originally posted by shunyadragon
The atheist doctrine of Hitler was as dangerous as any belief in God.

What atheist doctrine? I have yet to see it demonstrated that Hitler was an atheist.

For some to believe their is neither no God nor God? What is it like to truely believe in nothing? Interesting question. Sounds like a Taoist or Buddhists puzzle or koan. But to believe in something as strongly as you would make that quest difficult.

Who said atheists believe in nothing?

In regards to atheists, belief or nonbelief is only used in reference to the god-idea. What I lack a belief in is the god-idea. This does not mean I believe in nothing. I believe in a lot of things, but this does not make a religion.

The question was not intended to be taken literally. It was an exercise in rhetoric to demonstrate how nonsensical it is to define atheism as a religion.

Well your background fits the 98%+. Our debate on the unfortunate step child of the English language and semantics, the word religion.

Wait a sec ... my background?

The lack of the teaching of religion had the same result as if you were taught.

It did? Thanks for clearing that up, Doctor Freud.

For your information, although I was an agnostic from about age 13, I still searched for answers. It was only this year, 12 years on, after a fruitless search, and learning some crucial critical thinking skills that were not taught in primary or secondary school, that I decided I was an atheist.

By the way, that is as offensive to me as my saying to you that you believe in god for no reason other than you were raised Catholic, and that your journey through Buddhism and on to the Bahai faith is little more than a continuation of the indoctrination and brainwashing from your childhood.

But I wouldn't say that, because that is offensive, not to mention presumptious.

Capt Ann came up with another definition for religion which obviously includes Atheism.

No, it doesn't. I demonstrated this.

"Atheism is a religion, whose system of worship is that no god exists, and therefore none should be worshipped".

This would qualify as a definite doctrine of thought.

How does one worship nothing?

Easy ask some Taoists and Buddhists. Some not all.

Big difference. Also, do Buddhists worship nothing? You stated that you have studied Buddhism, so tell me, do Buddhists actually worship nothing? How do they do this? Anybody else have views on Buddhists worshipping nothing?

Buddhists have a whole system of belief. In fact, I suspect there are more than a few people here who could give me a quick sketch of the Buddhist doctrine. Anyone care to tell me the atheist doctrine? There is none, and if there is, I am not aware of it. I guess I am a bad atheist, because I thought being an atheist meant lacking a belief in the god-idea. I did not realise there was more to it than that. Okay, then, if atheism is a religion, then I am not an atheist. I am without religion too.

Please tell me the word for a person who lacks a belief in god and practices no religion.

Some atheists have more of a system of belief than others.

Now its 'some atheists'? Okay, so 'some atheists' are religious, but not all atheists? Doesn't this kind of put a kink in the idea that atheism is a religion?

Confucism on the other hand is some times described as a religion, but here is where I will draw the line and say no. This may help you understand how I am using the religion.

Confucism is a philosophy that does not make any statements on the existence or non-existence of God. It primarily deals with the ethics, manners and ideals of the role of people in the family, government and business

Interesting in light of your statement that religions usually but not always need believe in a god or gods to be considered a religion. Confucism does, however, fit Capt Ann's second definition of a religion of which you are so fond:

"Any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."

Maybe now you can understand how I am using the word religion. Confucism deals with ethics and such, does it? Is there a particular system to it? Are there particular beliefs to it? As I have said, there is no system to atheism, and there are no particular beliefs central to atheism, there is only one: the lack of/no belief in the god-idea. Hence, it is not a religion.

This is as simple as I can make it. If you define atheism as a religion, then you should also define theism as a religion. I would argue that point too. Here's why:

Theism is simply a belief in a god. That is not a religion. It may be a defining characteristic of the vast majority of religions, but in and of itself, theism is not a religion.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief/no belief in a god. That is not a religion. It may be a defining characteristic of very, very few religions (you mentioned Buddhism), but in and of itself, atheism is not a religion.

Then (for argument's sake, consider Buddhism as an atheistic religion): every buddhist is an atheist, but not every atheist is a buddhist.

Does that make sense? Buddhism is the religion, not atheism. They are not synonymous.

Originally posted by Capt Ann
If by "Fundamentalist Christian", you mean someone who believes the Bible is true, Jesus is God, we are sinners, we deserve hell, we can be rescued by faith in Jesus Christ alone, Christianity is right and other religions (or non-religions for Alias;) ) are wrong, then I'm a Fundamentalist Christian.

I was going to ask you this question, Capt Ann, but my attention was taken up with something else ;).

Do you believe the Bible is the literal word of God?

The reason I ask is this: the list of Biblical errors and contradictions is very long. The sole source of Christianity is the Bible. Your faith is essentially based on this book. If you believe the Bible to be absolutely correct, yet major parts of it are shown to be false, would this cause you to re-examine your faith?

Originally posted by CKava
As for the value judgements fair enough I do think State Shinto was not that great specifically because it was created with the sole intent of being a way of ideologicaly controlling people- but I dont regard that as being a religion.

Good luck arguing that point :p.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Shade
I dont 'assume'anything.

The Gnostics WERE christians themselves. In fact many believe they were the original christians.

Well, that's an example of what I consider an assumption, right there. The Gnostics were NOT Christians...they were gnostics.

(so, now we can get into a discussion that goes like this:
Shade: Yes they WERE Christians
Capt Ann: No they were NOT
SHade: Yes they WERE
Capt Ann: No they were NOT
etc....)

Perhaps a side discussion, should be about what constitutes "being a Christian", but I don't want to gum up the thread for now. For now, let's just say that I disagree with your assumptions about Gnostics and Roman emporers, and leave it at that. :D

[Shade]

Well they believed in and worshiped Christ. But if that doesnt make them christians then i guess you arent one either.

This is very very basic common history and i am astounded that you dont know this.

If you want to talk about assumptions, just look at the Bible. Its got lots of them.

Do me a favour, as you are so informed about what is absolute fact and what is assumption, please go to this site and tell me the answers to every question raised.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/jesus_myth.htm

And please dont insult me by saying that you cant be bothered, or that this is all old stuff and has been answered before by others, or because the bible says x it must be true.

Answer me with all the points raised and I just might start to believe that the stuff you spout about your faith has some bearing.

[Shade]

On the subject of Gnostics, here are a few sites to start you off.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/heretics.html

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html

I fully appreciate that you can come up with countless sites that give an oppossing story. Bearing in mind that the Roman Catholic Church buried Gnosticism that is hardly surprising.

Perhaps we should let their own writings speak for themselves, as so many Christians expect with the Bible. It cannot be one rule for one and another for everyone else.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Frank, this has been a very interesting thread on the history of religion/philosophy/people in Korea and Japan. I am enjoying it immensely. I will do some more checking, to verify some sources, by if you are right, this clears something up that I always wondered about.


The only (and the important) difference I can see in the Korean Tangun legends and the Japanese founding legends are in purpose (appropriately enough for this thread..... the 'WHY' question). According to the Tangun legends, Korea was founded for two reasons. They are hongik-ingan and jaese-ihwa (literally, the universal benefit of mankind, and to instruct in the ways of Heaven). So, instead of viewing it as their divine destiny to rule, the Korean culture sees its purpose in service to others on behlaf of God. WOW!! How cool is that?

This shift from service to humanity to the divine destiny to rule is not uncommon in history.

I took a course once one Japanese religion and culture. It was some years ago that I studied Japnese culture and history in detail. But I occasionally cruise for articles. The following one may give you a starting place.

Japanese Roots by Jared Diamond in the June 1998 Discovery.

I'll check for more.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Shade
Well they believed in and worshiped Christ. But if that doesnt make them christians then i guess you arent one either.

This is very very basic common history and i am astounded that you dont know this.

If you want to talk about assumptions, just look at the Bible. Its got lots of them.

Do me a favour, as you are so informed about what is absolute fact and what is assumption, please go to this site and tell me the answers to every question raised.

My, aren't WE feeling arrogant this evening! ;-)

The "Christ" of the gnostics was viewed as a spirit that possessed a physical body, not as the one true God who entered the human race and experienced life, suffering, and death with us. Gnostics denied Jesus' true humanity, denied His death, denied His resurrection. So, I must ask, what exactly is "Christian" about their Christ? It's cetainly not the Jesus that I know.

Gnostics believed that, in addition to the teaching of scripture, they had "secret" knowledge, that the non-initiate couldn't get, except through them. Christians generally believe that God made salvation so easy that anyone could understand and receive it, by faith in Jesus. Gnostics believed in a very radical dualism of spirit and body. They viewed the body as fundamentally evil; therefore, Gnostics felt they could sin freely and engage in all kinds of immorality because it was only physical and could not affect their spiritual well-being.

The earliest manuscript fragments of Gospel of Thomas are dated to around 200 AD, while the earliest complete copy (Nag Hammadi) is dated to 350 AD. All of the Canonical Gospels (the writings accepted as Biblical and reflecting first-century Christian belief) were finished by 120 AD (Note: this is a very liberal date, accepted by scholars most unfriendly to Christianity. Most scholars accept that the bulk of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, while some believe that all New Testament writings were completed by this date). Why are so many people who are down on Christianity and the Bible so willing to accept as fact something written much later, and with far less corroberation?


re: the link you posted
Answer me with all the points raised and I just might start to believe that the stuff you spout about your faith has some bearing.

I copied the page to read after you first posted the link in another thread. It is very difficult to go point-by-point because it meanders, and doesn't list 'points', as such. Still, if you are being honest, that you will consider my faith if I answer this article's propositions, I will try.

This very rambling account starts by assuming that, if it's in the Bible or recorded by a Christian from the first or second century, it must be wrong. I can't see how you can possibly justify that line of reasoning, when you refuse to accept Christians who argue that if it's in the Bible, it must be true. Or, as you said in a prior post, "Perhaps we should let their own writings speak for themselves.................. It cannot be one rule for one and another for everyone else." With that, I will gladly answer the "points" raised.

The author of the net article dismisses Gospel of Luke as being based on Josephus' writings; however, the earliest manuscript fragments containing parts of Luke date to 70 to 80 AD. Luke could NOT have used Josephus as a reference, when Josephus didn't write until 92-93 AD. Josephus (secular, non-Christian historian) mentions many facts about Jesus. So did Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus. Conveniently, your article dismisses all these as having been real historians, but with the parts about Jesus being added many years later by Christians. (I see, the parts that disagree with my pet theory are wrong, the other parts are OK).

Josephus, in his history, 'Antiquities of the Jews' wrote, "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.." In the Arabic text (not likely to have been "altered" by Christians), Josephus reports, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many peole from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." Note that Josephus reports in a news-style, without commenting on if he agreed or disagreed (He was called Christ. He was known to be virtuous, he had followers, he was executed, and his followers reported seeing him alive afterwards).

Tacitus is written off as a historian by your article because he reports that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius (your article claims that Tacitus would only have gotten his information from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, already in wide circulation at this time [around 112 AD]) [Please keep in mind for later reference that this means your article, as hostile as it is to Christianity, confirms that these gospels were written and widely distributed before this date]. However, the Christian Justin Martyr, in making his defense of Christianity to Emporer Antoninus Pius refers to these same facts as available for any to see in the governmental writings concerning Pontius Pilate. (Many of the ancient secular writings describing these events are long lost, but quotes from them and references to them are often still available. Certainly, the details about Pontius Pilate were available to the Roman Emporer.)

Tacitus is further written off because he describes myth as true, unfortunatley something often done in ancient histories. However, your article never actually quotes what Tacitus wrote, so here it is:
"Hence to suppress the rumor (i.e. that Nero had started the great fires of Rome), he falsely charged with the guilt and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also."
Note that this brief statement attests to these facts: Christ lived in Judaea before the time of the great fires, Christians were already established at Rome during this time, Nero tortured and murdered Christians, Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, the religion was suppressed by the crucifixion, but then resurged in Judaea and elsewhere. Note also that, the most logical explanation for why a religion worshipping a crucified dead man could resurge during the lifetime of those who witnessed his death, would be that the same people witnessed his resurrection.

Your article does not refer to Lucian of Samosata, a second-century satirist who despised Christians and Christianity. He described Jesus as, "the man whom was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world." He also said of Christians: "their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws." (Note that the most common accusation against early Christians was that they were 'atheists', because they denied the Greek gods.)

The article flatly states without proof that miraculous events and beliefs contained in the Bible weren't 'added' to the Christian religion until after 70 AD. This is demonstrably false, since we have in existance, manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark dated before this time. It also ignores the whole subject of hymnology -- the earliest Christian teachings were not carried as widely by Greek books, as by hymns and memorized creeds. One of the earliest, dated to before 50 AD, is "Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the scriptures. He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve." Most Biblical scholars believe that John 1: 1-18 is another such Hymn. If so, this shows that the very earliest teachings of Christianity, within 20 years of Jesus' life, included the worship of Jesus as God, and His death, burial, and resurrection. This is confirmed in the very article you quote-- the article writes off Pliny the Younger as not providing evidence of Jesus, but admits he wrote in 110-115 AD (actual date probably 112). Part of the quote from Pliny not contained in your article is the following:
"They (i.e., Christians being tried) affirm, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certian fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud,theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust.." Note that even at this early date, it was common knowledge that Jesus was worshipped as God.

About the arguments in the Mishnas/Talmud, these were finished and edited long after Jesus lived (Mishnah 200 AD, Talmud 400-600 AD), and were very derogatory of Christians and Christianity. The whole arguments about Pandera/Pantera derive from a blasphemous account that tried to find some alternate explanation for Jesus' birth, besides a virgin one. "Pandera' was supposed to be the father. There is no historical evidence for this at all.

The article you describe claimed to "disprove" the historicity of Jesus. However, it was written to defend rabbinic Judaism from Christians using historical and Biblical evidence to point Jews to Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. This is hardly a neutral position. A far more neutral review of all the evidence can be found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which, in describing these and other independent accounts of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, states:
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

In all these cases, it should be remembered that the chief claims of Jesus were that He was the promised Messiah, the Lord, the King; that He was God come to redeem us; and that He would be crucified and rise from the dead. He staked His claims on the fact that He would rise from the dead. The gospel writings and early Christian teachings were available for all to see within the lifetimes of those who saw and heard Jesus alive. Why didn't any of the adversaries of Christianity ever produce a body? Why didn't someone (anyone?) alive at the time of Jesus stand up and say at the time, "No, that's not what He said!" All of Christianity hangs on the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Prove to me that He didn't, and I will join you in your skepticism. However, I cannot disprove it, and the evidence points to it as a fact of history. Therefore, I cannot deny it.

If you have specific questions about the article not addressed above, please let me know. I will do my best to provide some response.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Alias
Until I am presented with evidence supporting the existence of a particular god, then of course I consider it the superior position to hold, but it is only that: a position. Present me with evidence and I will change my position.
.................................................. .............
.................................................. .............
I was going to ask you this question, Capt Ann, but my attention was taken up with something else ;).

Do you believe the Bible is the literal word of God?

The reason I ask is this: the list of Biblical errors and contradictions is very long. The sole source of Christianity is the Bible. Your faith is essentially based on this book. If you believe the Bible to be absolutely correct, yet major parts of it are shown to be false, would this cause you to re-examine your faith?


Alias, I will try to get back to you on this later. Took a little too much time answering another post. Very good questions, as usual.

[shunyadragon]

If you have specific questions about the article not addressed above, please let me know. I will do my best to provide some response.

An several points bother me in your recent posts. Here are the first two.

(I) If I'm correct you stated that Gnostics aren't Christians. Why? How do you define a Christian?

(II) You site laborous reference to people writing of Jesus after the fact. Is there something you are trying to prove? Josephus was the first to record a few notes on Jesus. The source we have of Josephus is shaky and not an original text. There are absolutely no historical references outside the Bible to Jesus during his life time. It is foolish to believe Josephus was a source for Luke. Most historians believe he referred to Jesus, but they also believe the text was altered too.

Some historians believe the Gospel of Thomas is older than 120 AD.


I believe Jesus was a real person and lived about the time most people believe, but I don't accept the Roman version most churches believe today. I don't need historical evidence outside the Bible, because ther is none. In fact the best evidence we have is the present day gospels are cut and past from an earlier Gospel missing today.
For more more references about the early history of the Japanese people check out the ARCHEOLOGY magazine website and Search Ancient Japan. They have articles and references to books on the subject. They refer to the historical evidence and controversy. They also refer to the Genetic evidence.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
(II) You site laborous reference to people writing of Jesus after the fact. Is there something you are trying to prove?
Shade posted a link to a website that denied a historical person named Jesus ever existed. He asked me to respond. That's all. My post only makes sense if you waded through the link that he posted. Apologies to everyone else reading the thread.


It is foolish to believe Josephus was a source for Luke.
I agree completely. The website Shade referenced claimed this, not me.


Most historians believe he referred to Jesus, but they also believe the text was altered too.
We actually have two versions available, one obviously altered, and one from an early Arabic translation that is probably very close to what Josephus actually wrote.


There are absolutely no historical references outside the Bible to Jesus during his life time.
That's the problem with ancient history: no daily newspapers; no Internet blogs. There are also no historical references to Plato, Aristotle, or almost any other author of antiquity, within their lifetimes, either. There were contemporary historical references to Jesus, though, and even though these materials are no longer available, other manuscripts that quote them are.


Some historians believe the Gospel of Thomas is older than 120 AD. Some do. Most don't. I did a search through as many references of different perspectives as I could, within a reasonable amount of time. Earliest fragments of Thomas are still dated to 200 AD, while the earliest manuscript fragments of Mark are dated to 66 AD. When you are talking about trying to sift history from legend, that's a huge difference.


If I'm correct you stated that Gnostics aren't Christians. Why? How do you define a Christian?
A legitimate question. And a fairly touchy issue. After all, who am I to judge who is and isn't a Christian? My opinion is that the only one who can define what it means to be a Christian is the One we claim to follow, and that is Jesus Christ. There are not many issues set in the Bible that are essential, that's why most Christians don't mind disagreeing on non-essential matters with other Christians, and even enjoy discussing them. I've heard many people describe "lists" of what it takes to be a Christian. I've only found these very few things that the Bible itself (or specifically the words of Jesus) describes as essential:
There is only one God.
That One God became man in the person of Jesus Christ.
Jesus was truly human (He really came in the flesh)
Jesus was truly God (that One and Only God)
Jesus died on the cross for our sins
Jesus physically rose from the dead
He is both Lord (the One to whom our total allegiance must be) and Christ (savior of all who believe in and truly know Him)

Everything else is of secondary importance. These are the only things I can find in the Bible that are described as essential to salvation, and even number one I have a hard time pointing to an explicit example. This definition, though, includes members of every Christian denomination (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, independent, charismatic, fundamentalist, mainline, or fringe), and excludes all the major heresies of the first 2000 years of Christian history (Arians, Docetics, Gnostics, various polytheistic splinter groups, etc.) It also excludes some individual members of every Christian denomination, since belief and relationship with Jesus are a personal matter (not a matter of belonging to the right 'club', or having the right membership certificate).

Out of this list, the Gnostics are wishy on number one, deny numbers two, three, four, and five, and have some stressed definitions for number six.


For more more references about the early history of the Japanese people check out the ARCHEOLOGY magazine website and Search Ancient Japan. They have articles and references to books on the subject. They refer to the historical evidence and controversy. They also refer to the Genetic evidence.
Doing that now. Thanks again!

[Capt Ann]

Hey, Frank!!

Had a hard time finding anything online in Archaeology Magazine on the Korea-Japan connection, although I did find some other websites showing historical ties during the Paekche era, and one really cool article about Japanese literary classics that, by the meter, phrasing, and aliteration, some scholars are suggesting were origianlly written in Korean. Can send link, if you'd like.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Hey, Frank!!

Had a hard time finding anything online in Archaeology Magazine on the Korea-Japan connection, although I did find some other websites showing historical ties during the Paekche era, and one really cool article about Japanese literary classics that, by the meter, phrasing, and aliteration, some scholars are suggesting were origianlly written in Korean. Can send link, if you'd like.

Please send what you found. In Archeology they had a short article and a reference to several books on the famous Stone Stella of Korea and the Genetic evidence as well as a few articles.

I may have to check which archeology magazine I'm referring to, but none the less in is pretty much accepted by everyone, but the Japanese, that between 300 BC and 400 AD migration of Korean to Japan took over the Islands and formed the first Iron Age Kingdom in Japan.

[Capt Ann]

Ahhhh......

All three children gently tucked in bed for the night. A steaming cup of green tea and honey at my side (all out of chamomille), and a chance to relax and post for a while.

First, I want to thank all of you for the (generally-speaking) kind and respectful manner in which you've handled these posts. It's obvious that we disagree on many things. King Solomon had a proverb about "iron sharpening iron", and your posts and comments help me to think about the things that I believe and understand other points of view. I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am.

I promised I'd give some thought to a few posts, so here goes.


Originally posted by Alias
I was going to ask you this question, Capt Ann, but my attention was taken up with something else ;).

Do you believe the Bible is the literal word of God?
Do you honestly expect me to answer that with a simple yes/no? :D

My view is a little more complicated. I believe that the Bible, in the original languages, was and is the inspired word of God. I believe God allowed those people to whom He gave His word to use their own personalities to express what He said, but that He, being sovereign, used even those personalities for His purpose. I don't believe that the Bible was written as a science text, which is why I don't get into the creation/evolution debate (You can be a Christian and believe/disbelieve in evolution), but it does include eveything we need to know God and live in relationship with Him.

The reason I ask is this: the list of Biblical errors and contradictions is very long. The sole source of Christianity is the Bible. Your faith is essentially based on this book. If you believe the Bible to be absolutely correct, yet major parts of it are shown to be false, would this cause you to re-examine your faith?
The only direct contradiction I know of is a numerical quote in one of the books of Samuel that is contradicted by a quote of the same number in one of the books of Chronicles. It is an obvious copying error (the numbers in Hebrew are one stroke different, but an order of magnitude off), but it still caused me to reevaluate my position on the Bible. That's why I say that the Bible is accurate and the word of God in the original languages. It still raises questions about why a sovereign God would allow a single simple copying error like that, but it also speaks highly of the integrity of those who copied scriptures by hand for centuries....since any one of them could have easily "helped God out" and changed the number back.

If a body of facts were presented that showed that major portions of the Bible were simply wrong, would this cause me to reexamine my faith? At this point, it wouldn't cause me to change my faith in Jesus Christ, but it would cause me to reevaluate my view of the role the Bible plays in it. You said that my faith rests entirely on the Bible. That's actually not true. When I started a walk of faith it did, but now I have history. I know Jesus. I've walked with Him, talked with Him, seen His faithfulness in many situations, gotten to know more of His character. The closest thing I could compare it to would be if you showed me absolute proof that there were major discrepancies in my husband's birth certificate. It might change the day we celebrate his birthday, but I would never seriously doubt that he had really been born, and really existed. I know him, and live with him, and love him.

As an aside, there are two words for "word" in the ancient Greek. One is 'Logos', which means an actual written word. The Bible is made up of a string of Logos. This word is very concrete. The other word is 'Rhema', which means the spoken word. I see it as more abstract, and more emphasizing that personal element of communication and conversation. When Jesus said that, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God", it's the word 'rhema' that is used. The apostles Peter, John, and James couldn't read the Gospel of Luke to decide if they believed or not, but they didn't have to....they were eye-witnesses to Jesus' life and resurrection. Now that I have seen so much and heard from Jesus Himself, I can be a witness, too, of what I have seen and heard.





Until I am presented with evidence supporting the existence of a particular god, then of course I consider it the superior position to hold, but it is only that: a position. Present me with evidence and I will change my position.
Do you really mean this? It is a noble position to take, and rare today, that someone would even admit the possibility that they could be wrong. I'm just one person, and I don't pretend to be an expert on anything, but you are more than welcome to whatever little bit of experience, insight, thought, research I might have, to throw into the mix as you look at other possibilities.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Ahhhh......

All three children gently tucked in bed for the night. A steaming cup of green tea and honey at my side (all out of chamomille), and a chance to relax and post for a while.

First, I want to thank all of you for the (generally-speaking) kind and respectful manner in which you've handled these posts. It's obvious that we disagree on many things. King Solomon had a proverb about "iron sharpening iron", and your posts and comments help me to think about the things that I believe and understand other points of view. I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am.

I promised I'd give some thought to a few posts, so here goes.



Do you honestly expect me to answer that with a simple yes/no? :D

My view is a little more complicated. I believe that the Bible, in the original languages, was and is the inspired word of God. I believe God allowed those people to whom He gave His word to use their own personalities to express what He said, but that He, being sovereign, used even those personalities for His purpose. I don't believe that the Bible was written as a science text, which is why I don't get into the creation/evolution debate (You can be a Christian and believe/disbelieve in evolution), but it does include eveything we need to know God and live in relationship with Him.


The only direct contradiction I know of is a numerical quote in one of the books of Samuel that is contradicted by a quote of the same number in one of the books of Chronicles. It is an obvious copying error (the numbers in Hebrew are one stroke different, but an order of magnitude off), but it still caused me to reevaluate my position on the Bible. That's why I say that the Bible is accurate and the word of God in the original languages. It still raises questions about why a sovereign God would allow a single simple copying error like that, but it also speaks highly of the integrity of those who copied scriptures by hand for centuries....since any one of them could have easily "helped God out" and changed the number back.

If a body of facts were presented that showed that major portions of the Bible were simply wrong, would this cause me to reexamine my faith? At this point, it wouldn't cause me to change my faith in Jesus Christ, but it would cause me to reevaluate my view of the role the Bible plays in it. You said that my faith rests entirely on the Bible. That's actually not true. When I started a walk of faith it did, but now I have history. I know Jesus. I've walked with Him, talked with Him, seen His faithfulness in many situations, gotten to know more of His character. The closest thing I could compare it to would be if you showed me absolute proof that there were major discrepancies in my husband's birth certificate. It might change the day we celebrate his birthday, but I would never seriously doubt that he had really been born, and really existed. I know him, and live with him, and love him.

As an aside, there are two words for "word" in the ancient Greek. One is 'Logos', which means an actual written word. The Bible is made up of a string of Logos. This word is very concrete. The other word is 'Rhema', which means the spoken word. I see it as more abstract, and more emphasizing that personal element of communication and conversation. When Jesus said that, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God", it's the word 'rhema' that is used. The apostles Peter, John, and James couldn't read the Gospel of Luke to decide if they believed or not, but they didn't have to....they were eye-witnesses to Jesus' life and resurrection. Now that I have seen so much and heard from Jesus Himself, I can be a witness, too, of what I have seen and heard.






Do you really mean this? It is a noble position to take, and rare today, that someone would even admit the possibility that they could be wrong. I'm just one person, and I don't pretend to be an expert on anything, but you are more than welcome to whatever little bit of experience, insight, thought, research I might have, to throw into the mix as you look at other possibilities.

I have no problem admiting the possibility that I'm wrong. It is distinctly a part of the 'Way' as I see it.

I haven't studied the Bible in a number of years Ann, because I shifted my efforts to oriental religions, Arts of the Way, eastern philosophy, jade and culture.

I can distinctly recall many glaring errors in the Bible. One particular one sticks out is the Geneology of Genesis. It does not fit anything we know now of Biblical history. I don't believe all the things I read in 'Jesus Mysteries' but they made many good points to make it difficult to consider the Bible close to a literal document.

You made a statement in a previous post that Baha'u'llah did not support science. Could you be more specific.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
You made a statement in a previous post that Baha'u'llah did not support science. Could you be more specific.

I didn't say that Baha'u'llah was in any way "anti-science", just that his philosophy and view of science did not seem to affect (pro or con) scientific development. There's never been a Bahai nation, as such, and there are very few Bahai worldwide, let alone Bahai scientists of renown. This makes it very hard to ascribe to Bahai major contributions to world culture.

FYI: Site on the Korean/Japanese connection: a very interesting article on linguistic and legendary roots, unfortunately with no footnotes:
http://www.koreamosaic.net/elp/extras/juniors/japkorr.htm

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
I didn't say that Baha'u'llah was in any way "anti-science", just that his philosophy and view of science did not seem to affect (pro or con) scientific development. There's never been a Bahai nation, as such, and there are very few Bahai worldwide, let alone Bahai scientists of renown. This makes it very hard to ascribe to Bahai major contributions to world culture.

FYI: Site on the Korean/Japanese connection: a very interesting article on linguistic and legendary roots, unfortunately with no footnotes:
http://www.koreamosaic.net/elp/extras/juniors/japkorr.htm

The history described in this article is basically the same origins of the Japanese people that I described from other sources. This one added a few details that I didn't know. Now it is easier to understand the Japanese Shinto prophecy that the Japanese were the 'Chosen People' to be lead by the reincarnation of the Most Great Kami in the restoration of the Great Kingdom and of course the world. There final limit of expansion in northern China was a little larger than the original maximum extent of the ancient Korean Kingdom.

There is a small coma shaped jade carving shaped like a fetus that is commonly found as royal adornments on crowns in ancient Japan and Korea. The earliest carvings of this type are from the Neolithic Hong Shan (Red Mountain) Culture of northeast China.

[Alias]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
My view is a little more complicated. I believe that the Bible, in the original languages, was and is the inspired word of God. I believe God allowed those people to whom He gave His word to use their own personalities to express what He said, but that He, being sovereign, used even those personalities for His purpose. I don't believe that the Bible was written as a science text, which is why I don't get into the creation/evolution debate (You can be a Christian and believe/disbelieve in evolution), but it does include eveything we need to know God and live in relationship with Him.

I asked in response to this statement you made earlier:

If by "Fundamentalist Christian", you mean someone who believes the Bible is true, Jesus is God, we are sinners, we deserve hell, we can be rescued by faith in Jesus Christ alone, Christianity is right and other religions (or non-religions for Alias ;)) are wrong, then I'm a Fundamentalist Christian.

As I understand the term, Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God; that is, they believe in a geocentric universe, creationism, our planet is between 6000 and 10'000 years old, there was a global flood, etc. By stating that you don't believe the Bible was written as a science text, and by implication accept that some of the 'scientific' statements made within the Bible are incorrect, I would say you are not a Fundamentalist Christian. And I think that's a good thing.

But herein lies the problem: if the Bible is the inspired word of a perfect God, then it follows that the Bible should be inerrant. You have already claimed that you believe God could work through people to express His purpose; if so, then that is another reason the Bible should be inerrant. Yet it isn't.

Now that I have seen so much and heard from Jesus Himself, I can be a witness, too, of what I have seen and heard.

My standards of evidence are quite high. Personal testimony does not pass. This is not intended as an insult, merely to help you understand my skepticism. It is easy to see why: people believe all sorts of weird things. Look at today's new agey beliefs. It seems people will believe anything. You say you have seen so much and heard from Jesus Himself, whereas someone else might say the same about Allah. Again, this is not intended as an insult, but to illustrate why personal testimony is not good evidence.

Do you really mean this? It is a noble position to take, and rare today, that someone would even admit the possibility that they could be wrong. I'm just one person, and I don't pretend to be an expert on anything, but you are more than welcome to whatever little bit of experience, insight, thought, research I might have, to throw into the mix as you look at other possibilities.

Of course I could be wrong; I'm only human. This knowledge of the fallibility of human beings plays a large part in my being an atheist.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Alias
As I understand the term, Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God; that is, they believe in a geocentric universe, creationism, our planet is between 6000 and 10'000 years old, there was a global flood, etc.
Actually, Christian Fundamentalism has a very specific definition. After a growing trend toward "theological liberalism", it got to the point where many professing Christians, even in seminaries and in pulpits preaching, denied basics of the Christian faith, like the deity of Jesus Christ, His resurrection, or even the fact that God existed at all. In the face of this trend, a group of evangelicals got together to see if they could agree on a list of "the basics" (i.e., the Fundamentals) of the Christian faith. Their consensus became the definition for Fundamentalism, which was immediately belittled in the press, so much so that it is fixed in most peoples' minds that anyone with that label is a narrow-minded, judgmental bigot.

I have tried to find the original statement they came up with online, but I couldn't. I did find a "Statement of Faith" from Bob Jones University (generally accepted as a "Fundamentalist" group), at http://www.bju.edu/aboutbju/creed/index . Note that what I said fits easily within their statement. Please not also that it says nothing about snake-handling, or 6 to 10,000 year age for the earth, or KJV-only, or any of the other things many people now think of when they hear the word "Fundamentalist".

I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but it says nothing about a geocentric universe. In fact I know of no one (Christian or otherwise) who believes this. I think some assume this must be in the Bible because of the Galileo-Catholic Church thing. [Aside, most people don't realize that the Catholic Church never established it as point of doctrine, one way or the other. The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and
Renaissance was a center of learning, and teaching. Like with any new idea, there were people in the Catholic Church who agreed with it, and who disagreed with it. Copernicus (developer of the Heliocentric theory) was a devout Catholic. Kepler (who devised the laws to understand planetary motion) was a devout Evangelical. All, including Galileo, believed in inerrant Scripture.] Also, the Bible says nothing about a young earth (this is actually based on a theory of one Pope from the late middle ages, who calculated the start of the earth at 4004 BC). A straight reading of the Bible is most generally accepted as describing a world-wide flood, although there are Christians who believe in an inerrant Bible who see it describing a widespread flood over the then-inhabited world only (there is some legitimate disagreement). Yes, it is clear that God created the earth, and that people were created by a separate divine act.



By stating that you don't believe the Bible was written as a science text, and by implication accept that some of the 'scientific' statements made within the Bible are incorrect, I would say you are not a Fundamentalist Christian. And I think that's a good thing.
I think purpose is important. I, mere mortal than I am, can write an inerrant grocery list. But don't try to read too much philosophy into it. If I use an analogy to explain something in a discussion, there will be a point where it stops describing whatever was intended. Psalms is a book of lyrical poetry; and it includes a description of an infant being formed "in the lower parts of the earth" (i.e., in the womb). Song of Solomon is a romantic epic, and it uses imagery of sheep, gazelles, pomegranates, and thread, all describing a woman. Proverbs includes wise sayings, and uses both humor and satire to get points across. Revelation uses symbolism. I've had examples from each thrown in my face as "inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible". None contradict, but they do give reason to stop and think, exactly what is meant by a ‘literal’ interpretation? Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were written as histories, and they include description of a pillar three times as far around as it is wide--to which skeptics say that if it were accurate, it would say it's 3.14159 times as far around as wide.

As far as me not being a Fundamentalist Christian, in all honesty, I think most who describe themselves as Fundamentalists would agree. I don’t mind using the label, though, just because I know that, for some reason, there are those who hate it so much.

[Capt Ann]

Alias,
I thought this part of your post was so interesting that it deserved a separate reply. I hope that’s OK.

Originally posted by Alias
My standards of evidence are quite high. Personal testimony does not pass. This is not intended as an insult, merely to help you understand my skepticism. It is easy to see why: people believe all sorts of weird things. Look at today's new agey beliefs. It seems people will believe anything. You say you have seen so much and heard from Jesus Himself, whereas someone else might say the same about Allah. Again, this is not intended as an insult, but to illustrate why personal testimony is not good evidence.
This reminds me of an old story I read. A man was accused of murder. The prosecution brought forward five eyewitnesses who swore under oath that they had seen the man commit the crime. In response, the defense presented 20 witnesses, who all swore under oath that they did NOT see the man commit the crime. Moral: some types of personal testimony are a little more applicable than others.

I can understand your skepticism, and I am not insulted at all. I’m also glad you used the example of Allah, because most Moslems would consider it blasphemous to say that Allah spoke personally to someone (since it is so central to their teaching that Mohammed was the greatest [and final] prophet). But I believe it is central to my faith, that God communicates today, as a Friend and Father, to the people He created. When I say that I have heard from God, I don’t mean that I got a warm feeling all over, or an internal assurance that something was right (although that has happened, too). I mean there have been times when I have heard specific instructions, like “Turn you radio on, NOW” (and when I did, I heard at that instant an announcer give a phone number and say, “I’ll take caller number five”. I won something that would help me out, just a few weeks after it came in the mail.) Or specific guidance (two different times for me, and once for my husband), on the NAME of the new church I should attend after a move (before I ever arrived where I was moving, so all I had to do was look for the name in the phone book when I got there). Or a detailed description of a person I had never seen or met (including what they would be wearing, and where they would be sitting), who was at a critical point in life, and needed to hear the Gospel. Or (my favorite), on whether or not I should marry a specific individual. (The exact quote was that I’d “have to be a jerk to let a catch like this get away.”) Not only is God alive, but there is one (and only one) specific God, and I know His name. (Would love to introduce you!)

Still, I understand your skepticism. You don’t know me as anything more than some text messages and posts. For all you know, ShunyaDragon, Shade, nzric, YODA, and I might all be the same person, just pulling your leg. But I don’t think so. You’ve seen personality and individuality displayed, even if they are veiled in these posts. You don’t know much about me, but you know that someone is out there. God is like that. He has personality. He is an individual--someONE. You can talk to Him and get to know Him.

I guess I have to ask, if not personal testimony, then what? What type of evidence is it that you are looking for? What type of evidence do you think you need, so that Jesus Christ is made real to you? Please let me know. Can’t promise I can provide it, but I’d love to try.

Well, for now, g’night, God bless, and happy New Year!
Ann

[Alias]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
I guess I have to ask, if not personal testimony, then what? What type of evidence is it that you are looking for? What type of evidence do you think you need, so that Jesus Christ is made real to you? Please let me know. Can’t promise I can provide it, but I’d love to try.

Start from here: I will try and put aside whatever preconceptions I have. Pretend I am a blank sheet :). Tell me what evidence you believe shows that your god exists (and, by definition, the other gods don't). That evidence can be empirical, biblical, and/or a logical argument.

I hope you had a wonderful new year, Capt Ann! Happy celebrations :cool:.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
[B]Actually, Christian Fundamentalism has a very specific definition. After a growing trend toward "theological liberalism", it got to the point where many professing Christians, even in seminaries and in pulpits preaching, denied basics of the Christian faith, like the deity of Jesus Christ, His resurrection, or even the fact that God existed at all. In the face of this trend, a group of evangelicals got together to see if they could agree on a list of "the basics" (i.e., the Fundamentals) of the Christian faith. Their consensus became the definition for Fundamentalism, which was immediately belittled in the press, so much so that it is fixed in most peoples' minds that anyone with that label is a narrow-minded, judgmental bigot.

I have tried to find the original statement they came up with online, but I couldn't. I did find a "Statement of Faith" from Bob Jones University (generally accepted as a "Fundamentalist" group), at http://www.bju.edu/aboutbju/creed/index . Note that what I said fits easily within their statement. Please not also that it says nothing about snake-handling, or 6 to 10,000 year age for the earth, or KJV-only, or any of the other things many people now think of when they hear the word "Fundamentalist".

I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but it says nothing about a geocentric universe. In fact I know of no one (Christian or otherwise) who believes this. I think some assume this must be in the Bible because of the Galileo-Catholic Church thing. [Aside, most people don't realize that the Catholic Church never established it as point of doctrine, one way or the other. The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and
Renaissance was a center of learning, and teaching. Like with any new idea, there were people in the Catholic Church who agreed with it, and who disagreed with it. Copernicus (developer of the Heliocentric theory) was a devout Catholic. Kepler (who devised the laws to understand planetary motion) was a devout Evangelical. All, including Galileo, believed in inerrant Scripture.] Also, the Bible says nothing about a young earth (this is actually based on a theory of one Pope from the late middle ages, who calculated the start of the earth at 4004 BC). A straight reading of the Bible is most generally accepted as describing a world-wide flood, although there are Christians who believe in an inerrant Bible who see it describing a widespread flood over the then-inhabited world only (there is some legitimate disagreement). Yes, it is clear that God created the earth, and that people were created by a separate divine act.

The straight reading of the Bible is what most fundimentalists believe. The inerrant straight reading they believe is that the world was created in 7 days or seven thousand years. The geneology in the Bible to them is inerrant and confirms the length of time since Adam. By the way the geneology sited in genesis is clearly in error and the people are not in the proper order and the time fram is a joke.

The geneology sited for Christ also has problems and if he was concieved of God and virgin born he could not fulfill the prophecy supported by the geneology.

Your example of the BJU creed is an interesting one. I worked in the area for a while in the seventies and knew some students. Despite the creed everyone I knew believed the Bible literal and without error. Simple creeds are often only the tip of the iceberg of what people believe.

The university and all I meet were very white and represented the racially separate nature of Christianity. In fundimentalist and liberal Churches about 90%++ are distinctly racially and ethnically separate. In the history of dealing with racial problems and the role of women in society has been a dismal failure.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Alias,
I thought this part of your post was so interesting that it deserved a separate reply. I hope that’s OK.

Or (my favorite), on whether or not I should marry a specific individual. (The exact quote was that I’d “have to be a jerk to let a catch like this get away.? Not only is God alive, but there is one (and only one) specific God, and I know His name. (Would love to introduce you!)

I guess I have to ask, if not personal testimony, then what? What type of evidence is it that you are looking for? What type of evidence do you think you need, so that Jesus Christ is made real to you? Please let me know. Can’t promise I can provide it, but I’d love to try.

Well, for now, g’night, God bless, and happy New Year!
Ann

What's Gods name?

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
I didn't say that Baha'u'llah was in any way "anti-science", just that his philosophy and view of science did not seem to affect (pro or con) scientific development. There's never been a Bahai nation, as such, and there are very few Bahai worldwide, let alone Bahai scientists of renown. This makes it very hard to ascribe to Bahai major contributions to world culture.

There are between 6 and 12 million Baha'is world wide. Ofcourse that is not many compared to other religions but it is more than 'very few'. There are National Spiritual Assemblys in ALL the nations of the world where they are legally able to form.

One of the reasons people don't notice Baha'is is they are not looking.

The role or effect of Baha'i on science and the world is an interesting one. Baha'u'llah's writings describe in great detail the principles and changes in the world and the sciences since 1844. The following are some of his principle's lacking in Christianity and other religions including Islam.

The following are only a few of the revelations of Baha'u'llah.

The geometric increase in the knowledge of the sciences and and communication, beginning in 1844.

The social equality of women and men would be the standard of the new age.

Slavery and indentured servitude were to be outlawed world wide. In 1844, both Christians and Moslems practiced slavery and indentured servitude. The lacked the guidance in their Holy Books to end it, and in their scripture allowed slavery to exist as a social institution.

Guidelines for universal standards for everything from communication to a universal language evolving to be spoken as a second language worldwide.

The blueprint for a world confederation submited to the World Court and the United Nations during the formation. Many, but not all these measures were adapted.

The Theory of Relativity (E=mc2) and the relative abstract relationships in nature was described rejecting the older Neutonian view of science, before science and math came to this conclusion in the 20th century. The nature and effect of things like neuclear fission were described.

The first religion in the world to detail the need for a concern for the environment and the consequences of human neglect.

Testimony:

The Supreme Court of India sited the Baha'i Faith as the ONLY religon or church in India actively working to end the suffering and religious strife of India more than once.

The only place Gandhi felt safe to meet with the Moslem leaders was in the Baha'i National Center (as reinacted in the movie).

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
What's Gods name?

Best to answer with His own words:

Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.

Exodus 3: 13-15, New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 . The Lockman Foundation: LaHabra, CA

Some notes about the English translation: "I AM" is from the Hebrew for the verb "to be", which is where (Hebrew) we get the name "Yahweh". In English Bibles, whereever it says 'the LORD', written in all capital letters in English, the original Hebrew uses the name "Yahweh". The name of God wasn't spelled out, out of respect (some ancient Hebrews considered it a sin to spell or even say "the Name"). Because Hebrew, Greek, and Latin used Y, J, and sometimes I interchangeably (likewise w and v), the name Yahweh is sometimes spelled today as "Jehovah", although this second spelling/pronunciation is not really correct.

Cool things to note from the above: The name God uses for Himself (I AM, or Yahweh) tells that God is eternal and unchanging. We can't mold God to the way we'd like Him to be. He is the way He is. He also says that His memorial-name to all generations is "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob". This tells me that, for all their faults, He is not ashamed of these men, and not at all reluctant to be known forever as "their God". Whatever they did or thought or believed, this tells me I can learn a lot about God through their lives.

Another really cool thing about God's name: God's name Yahweh is used throughout the Bible, and it is often used in a compound name. For instance, when His people needed healing, He revealed Himself as "Yahweh-Raifa" (from the Hebrew I AM healing). When David needed peace, God revealed Himself as Yahweh-Shalom (I AM peace). Jeremiah needed vindication, and saw God as Yahweh-Tsidkenu (I AM righteousness). Abraham knew God would take care of whatever was needed, and saw God as Yahweh-Yireh (I AM provision). At each point, God revealed Himself as the source of whatever His people needed. But mankind's greatest need was deliverance from sin. That name would be Yahweh-Oshea (I AM salvation). The contraction of that name is Y'shua, which is Hebrew for the name, JESUS. Salvation, actually, includes all the other things that were needed before, not just deliverance from sin, so the name JESUS (I AM salvation) sums up all the other compound names of God. I AM: God's name. I AM: Jesus' name.

That's why Jesus's words here are so important:
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 8:58, The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (electronic ed.) . Good News Publishers: Wheaton

He used God's proper name. He claimed clearly and unmistakeably, in the words God spoke to Moses, that He was God.

That's why there is such power when Jesus says "I AM"--He is declaring Himself equal with the same God, by name, as spoke to Moses. The Romans came to arrest Jesus, and He asked them, "Whom do you seek?" They said they were looking for Jesus, He said, "I AM", and they all fell backwards to the ground. (see John 18:4-8) If you're interested in this, you might get a concordance and look for all the places where Jesus said "I AM" to reveal His nature and character (I AM the good shepherd, I AM the way, I AM the truth, I AM the bread of life, etc.), and compare these to what we need, and how Yahweh revealed Himself in the Old Testament.

God's name in Hebrew: I AM, or YAHWEH
God's name in Greek: Jesus (from the Hebrew which means I AM salvation)

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
The university and all I meet were very white and represented the racially separate nature of Christianity. In fundimentalist and liberal Churches about 90%++ are distinctly racially and ethnically separate. In the history of dealing with racial problems and the role of women in society has been a dismal failure.

Excuse me, your Americanism is showing. ;)

As a culture, we tend to assume everything is the way we see it here and now. I love America (and some of my best friends are Americans :D), but on the whole, we have a lousy sense of history.

Christianity is in no way "white" or "racially separate". The majority of Christians world-wide are minorities, often persecuted for their faith, and people of color. It's just that since you and I see Christianity in America, we tend to think of what we see as "the way it is" for Christianity worldwide.

But let's look at just the "Western" brand of Christianity. The slave trade in the British Empire was ended by the work of just one man: William Wilberforce. He spent his entire life fighting against it solely because of his Christian faith, that saw slavery as morally repugnant (check his words).

In the US, many Christians were divided on slavery (that's why we had this BIGGG war!), but the whole country was divided. Of those who were against slavery, though, the overwhelming majority were Christians who fought against it because of their Christian faith. The Quakers, as a denomination, would not let any slaver stay in communion. They practically ran the entire Underground Railroad movement. One of my personal heroes, Charles G. Finney, was a fire-brand in the abolitionist movement. He probably saw more conversions to true Christianity than any other preacher in American history, and He included preaching against slavery and for women's and minority's rights in his preaching. He was president and founder of Oberlin college, which in the early 1800's admitted men, women, black, and white students on an equal basis, and which awarded the first college degree in the Americas to any woman of color. Graduates from his college furtherd the abolitionist movement; Finney preached a Christianity in which actions had to match beliefs. Harriet Beecher Stowe (daughter of one of the most famous Christian preachers of the day, Lyman Beecher), wrote "Uncle Tom's Cabin", and used the talents she had as a writer to decry the evils of slavery, again because of her Christian faith.

In the 1950's and 1960's, the entire Civil Rights movement marched forth from the Christian church. The names of the groups and leaders at the front of the movement reflect this (the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the REVEREND Ralph Abernathy, the REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King). The groups involved mixed black and white Christians, too (most people don't know about the deep personal friendship between the Rev. Dr. M. L. King and the Rev. Billy Graham, and their work together to foster interracial understanding and reconciliation).

This involvement of Christians in the Civil Rights movement, in the struggle to end slavery, in the banning of 'seti' in India, in the current-day struggles to stop slavery in Sudan and child-sex trafficking in Thailand, all make sense in light of the words of Jesus, who commanded us to remember "the least of these brothers of mine". Christianity, 1800 years before Baha'u'llah, proclaimed this truth:

"for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."
Galatians 3:26-29 (English Standard Version)

And again,

"Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him — a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcized, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."
Colossians 3:9-11, (New American Standard Bible)

The Gospel of Jesus Christ taught the universal brotherhood of mankind, ultimately because of the Fatherhood of God Himself. Let's pray we all do a better job of keeping peace in "the family" in the coming year.

[Capt Ann]

Alias,

Question: Do you think we should move this discussion to a separate thread, or do you think it still generally fits in the "Why" thread?

-Ann R.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
[B]Excuse me, your Americanism is showing. ;)

[QUOTE] As a culture, we tend to assume everything is the way we see it here and now. I love America (and some of my best friends are Americans :D), but on the whole, we have a lousy sense of history.

Christianity is in no way "white" or "racially separate". The majority of Christians world-wide are minorities, often persecuted for their faith, and people of color. It's just that since you and I see Christianity in America, we tend to think of what we see as "the way it is" for Christianity worldwide.

I did not say Chritianity was 'white' I said BYU was 'very white.' I did not refer to who were or are Christians. I refered to racial and ethnic separation in the churches. YES, the churches in the world are overwhemingly racial separate. In at least 90%++ churches world wide are racially and ethnically separte. I have been around the world and I have no problem with making this claim. IN CHRISTIANITY THE MAJORITY OF BELIEVERS OF DIFFERENT RACES AND ETHNIC GROUPS HAVE SEPARATE CONGREGATIONS WORLD WIDE.

But let's look at just the "Western" brand of Christianity. The slave trade in the British Empire was ended by the work of just one man: William Wilberforce. He spent his entire life fighting against it solely because of his Christian faith, that saw slavery as morally repugnant (check his words).

Rome was a slave Empire and the Christians of Rome owned slaves like everyone else. Christianity is basically a western and Roman religion and the modern Bible compiled by Romans reflects this.

Give me one reference, just one, in the bible that condemns slavery. In one of the letters in the NT the Chritian master is instructed to treat his slaves well. I don't have the specific quote, but I will get back to you on this. The division and conflict over various forms of slavery in Christianity is a result of a lack of guidance from the Bible.

In the US, many Christians were divided on slavery (that's why we had this BIGGG war!), but the whole country was divided. Of those who were against slavery, though, the overwhelming majority were Christians who fought against it because of their Christian faith. The Quakers, as a denomination, would not let any slaver stay in communion. They practically ran the entire Underground Railroad movement. One of my personal heroes, Charles G. Finney, was a fire-brand in the abolitionist movement. He probably saw more conversions to true Christianity than any other preacher in American history, and He included preaching against slavery and for women's and minority's rights in his preaching. He was president and founder of Oberlin college, which in the early 1800's admitted men, women, black, and white students on an equal basis, and which awarded the first college degree in the Americas to any woman of color. Graduates from his college furtherd the abolitionist movement; Finney preached a Christianity in which actions had to match beliefs. Harriet Beecher Stowe (daughter of one of the most famous Christian preachers of the day, Lyman Beecher), wrote "Uncle Tom's Cabin", and used the talents she had as a writer to decry the evils of slavery, again because of her Christian faith.

Yes individuals and groups opposed slavery, but they did so without guidance in the Bible. There is no place in the Bible that condemns slavery. In fact in the OT and the OT it acknowledges slavery as a legitamate social institution.

Up until the late 1800s child labor and indentured servatude were common in America, England and Europe. All these are a form of slavery. The movements oposing slavery primarilly came after 1844. There would not have been a problem if Christianity had a law against slavery.

No where in the Bible is slavery condemned.

The bottom line is the Baha'i Faith was the first religion to condemn slavery, including indentured sevitude and child labor as forms of slavery. Thus in the Baha'i Faith there was and is no division or conflict concerning the issue.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
"for in Christ Jesus . . . And again,

"Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him — a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcized, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."
Colossians 3:9-11, (New American Standard Bible)

The Gospel of Jesus Christ taught the universal brotherhood of mankind, ultimately because of the Fatherhood of God Himself. Let's pray we all do a better job of keeping peace in "the family" in the coming year. [/B]

Your quotes are selective. It is in the Letters from Paul to Ephesians and Colossians that slavery is acknowledged as a legitamate social institution and describes the proper relationship between master and slave.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
I did not say Chritianity was 'white' I said BYU was 'very white.'
I think we may be talking about two different things. I was talking about BJU, not BYU. BYU is a Mormon institution, named after Brigham Young (an extreme bigot who taught that dark-skinned people were under a divine curse.) Your point is still valid, though--BJU's student body is 'very white'.


I refered to racial and ethnic separation in the churches. YES, the churches in the world are overwhemingly racial separate. In at least 90%++ churches world wide are racially and ethnically separte.
Unfortunately, it is often true, especially in certain areas and denominations, but not because of the teaching of Christ. As I quoted in the prior post, the Bible condemns these divisions. Most interdenominational churches and independent charismatic churches are racially and ethnically mixed, and reflect the community where they serve. (Mine does) [ASIDE: where Christians have listened to and obeyed the teachings of Christ on this matter, it has brought remarkable healing. Apartheid ended in South Africa largely because there was one (and only one) place in society where blacks and whites met together as equals--within certain of the Christian churches. Right now, there is a small but growing movement to bring this kind of healing in Palestine--Arabic Christians and Jewish CHristians are working together for understanding and unity---a small glimmer of hope in a bleak situation. It seems Christianity works best in the world were it is actually followed and practiced.]



Rome was a slave Empire and the Christians of Rome owned slaves like everyone else. Christianity is basically a western and Roman religion and the modern Bible compiled by Romans reflects this.
Christianity is basically an eastern religion, and the Roman influence didn't come into play until the 4th century AD. Up until that point, and until the Islamic invasion in the 7th century AD, the center of Christian theology and study was in North Africa. The Romans had nothing to do with the compilation of the Bible. Yes, Romans, and even some Roman Christians, could own slaves.


Give me one reference, just one, in the bible that condemns slavery. In one of the letters in the NT the Chritian master is instructed to treat his slaves well. I don't have the specific quote, but I will get back to you on this. The division and conflict over various forms of slavery in Christianity is a result of a lack of guidance from the Bible.
The type of guidance in the Bible is the best kind--general principles that apply in all situations, not just the 'evil of the day'. Yes, slavery is wrong. So is indentured servitude (how my grandfather came to this country). So is working for substandard wages or in oppressive or unsafe conditions (what he did, once he got here). So is the "company store" system. The clearest guidance in all these situations is also the simplest: "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:21, New American Standard Bible)

The Christians who opposed slavery in the US and England did so, by their own words, because of their Biblically-based views and Christian faith, and before 1844. (I don't understand why you picked this date (?). Was this an important date in the founding of Bahai?). Even if you do not view it as clear guidance from the Bible, they did, so much so that many (Wilberforce, Finney, Stowe, Beecher, JQ Adams) dedicated their lives to the irradication of slavery. Even today, it has only been the Christian community worldwide that has been active in ending the slave trade in Sudan and Thailand (yes, it still exists today).

FYI: re: your other post on the sciences, Daniel prophesied the increase of knowledge in the end times, from around 600 BC. Christianity taught the social equality of men and women from about 33 AD. Biblical Judaism and Christianity both stressed 'stewardship' as humankind's God-ordained reponsibility for management of the earth's natural resources, from their earliest writings and teachings.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Your quotes are selective. It is in the Letters from Paul to Ephesians and Colossians that slavery is acknowledged as a legitamate social institution and describes the proper relationship between master and slave.

Slavery is acknowledged as an existing social condition, not necessarily a legitimate one. The Pharisees of Jesus' day asked about a very similar thing: divorce. The law of Moses allowed for a man to divorce his wife, and it was a big debate in Jesus's day, as to whether a man could divorce his wife for *any* reason, or for *no* reason at all. Jesus answered that God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts (sin in the world). Jesus made it clear, though, that in the beginning, God made one man to join one woman, and that, "what God has put together, let not man put assunder".

I believe slavery was much the same way. It existed in the world because of the hardness of men's hearts. So does oppression because people are greedy. Given that, how do we act? (See the scriptures you quote--which specifically describe slave and master as equal before God, and one day giving an account of their actions, including how they treated each other).

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann

I think we may be talking about two different things. I was talking about BJU, not BYU. BYU is a Mormon institution, named after Brigham Young (an extreme bigot who taught that dark-skinned people were under a divine curse.) Your point is still valid, though--BJU's student body is 'very white'.


[/B]
Unfortunately, it is often true, especially in certain areas and denominations, but not because of the teaching of Christ. As I quoted in the prior post, the Bible condemns these divisions. Most interdenominational churches and independent charismatic churches are racially and ethnically mixed, and reflect the community where they serve. (Mine does) [ASIDE: where Christians have listened to and obeyed the teachings of Christ on this matter, it has brought remarkable healing. Apartheid ended in South Africa largely because there was one (and only one) place in society where blacks and whites met together as equals--within certain of the Christian churches. Right now, there is a small but growing movement to bring this kind of healing in Palestine--Arabic Christians and Jewish CHristians are working together for understanding and unity---a small glimmer of hope in a bleak situation. It seems Christianity works best in the world were it is actually followed and practiced.]



[/B]
Christianity is basically an eastern religion, and the Roman influence didn't come into play until the 4th century AD. Up until that point, and until the Islamic invasion in the 7th century AD, the center of Christian theology and study was in North Africa. The Romans had nothing to do with the compilation of the Bible. Yes, Romans, and even some Roman Christians, could own slaves.


[QUOTE] The type of guidance in the Bible is the best kind--general principles that apply in all situations, not just the 'evil of the day'. Yes, slavery is wrong. So is indentured servitude (how my grandfather came to this country). So is working for substandard wages or in oppressive or unsafe conditions (what he did, once he got here). So is the "company store" system. The clearest guidance in all these situations is also the simplest: "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:21, New American Standard Bible)

General exortations don't work when there are specific directions in the Bible acknowledging the legitimacy of slavery.


The Christians who opposed slavery in the US and England did so, by their own words, because of their Biblically-based views and Christian faith, and before 1844. (I don't understand why you picked this date (?). Was this an important date in the founding of Bahai?). Even if you do not view it as clear guidance from the Bible, they did, so much so that many (Wilberforce, Finney, Stowe, Beecher, JQ Adams) dedicated their lives to the irradication of slavery. Even today, it has only been the Christian community worldwide that has been active in ending the slave trade in Sudan and Thailand (yes, it still exists today).

1840 to 1844 are a good date range, because iit was at this time that the first World conferences of Slavery and woman's rights. It was at this time Baha'u'llah and his herald the Bab said world conciousness on these and other issues would begin. It is the date Baha'is believe the modern world began with new spiritual teachings and principles governing humanity.

Even though it still exists today in places, It is acknowledged world wide as illegal. Under the religious laws before 1844 it was not acknowledged as immoral or illegal. I still stand on the statement that Christianity, Jewish scripture and Islamic scripture DID NOT outlaw salvery and they all acknowledged them as legitamate spiritual institutions.

FYI: re: your other post on the sciences, Daniel prophesied the increase of knowledge in the end times, from around 600 BC. Christianity taught the social equality of men and women from about 33 AD. Biblical Judaism and Christianity both stressed 'stewardship' as humankind's God-ordained reponsibility for management of the earth's natural resources, from their earliest writings and teachings. [/B]

From 600 BC? Maybe a few individuals, but Christianity especially the Roman Church never taught social and legal equality of women. I need a more specific reference to this. According to church doctrine up until the Quakers and UU began supporting removing the social and legal inequality of woman was not a significant movement of equality in Christianity. It was not until the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century that the movement was wide spread.

Even today the Roman Church refuses to acknowledge the equality of women in many situations. They have failed to support women on many issues in the past and even today including how rape is defined in courts in countries like Italy where the Roman Church is dominant.

Stewardship is not a correct word to describe the biblical descriptions of man's relationship to the world. Domination and control of the earth is a better description for the Biblical view. You will have tome up with better quotes if your going to take this view. The Stewardship concept of the Earth is a very modern concept in the Christian world and not supported in the Bible.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Slavery is acknowledged as an existing social condition, not necessarily a legitimate one. The Pharisees of Jesus' day asked about a very similar thing: divorce. The law of Moses allowed for a man to divorce his wife, and it was a big debate in Jesus's day, as to whether a man could divorce his wife for *any* reason, or for *no* reason at all. Jesus answered that God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts (sin in the world). Jesus made it clear, though, that in the beginning, God made one man to join one woman, and that, "what God has put together, let not man put assunder".

I believe slavery was much the same way. It existed in the world because of the hardness of men's hearts. So does oppression because people are greedy. Given that, how do we act? (See the scriptures you quote--which specifically describe slave and master as equal before God, and one day giving an account of their actions, including how they treated each other).

Slavery was clearly acknowledged as a legitamate institution. To say that it was in any way an illegitamate institution you have to come up with a quote to support that statement. It was not until the Baha'i fath outlawed the all forms of the institution, that your view became a world view.

The Bible did not view slavery as oppressive or it existed because of the hardness of human hearts. It did view the mistreatment of your fellow humans as oppression and a witness of the hardness of human hearts.

Many of your views are not 'Biblical' but more like Baha'i like many people in the modern age since 1844. The modern views of slavery, the role of women in society, and stewardship of the earth are a product of this age and before 1844 the hope of a select few.

[Alias]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Question: Do you think we should move this discussion to a separate thread, or do you think it still generally fits in the "Why" thread?

This thread has encompassed more than what the OP asked, I think. The mods don't seem to be keeping too tight a rein, so go ahead. Of course, if you wish to start a separate thread, that's fine too.

I'm easy :D.

[Capt Ann]

Sorry I've been "out of action"--busted my thumb. Bright side: shorter posts(??)


Found two websites you might be interested in on "Arguments for the existance of God" These are the 'classic' arguments, and rather than reprint them, I thought I'd just put up a link or two.

Outlines of three:
http://www.a180.net/godexists.html
Note: the arguments that really 'got me' aren't here.

Variations on a theme: 20 "arguments"
http://www.shakinandshinin.org/20Arguments.html
Very involved, some very detailed. Some good, some not good, some will hurt your brain. I enjoyed Descartes' reasoning (Figures! Another mathematician!), and variations on the arguments from beginning/origen (Kalam, and others).

With this as a background, I'd like to write more about why I personally find belief in God compelling, in another post.

[Kwajman]

Thats the same reason "time" is considered to be the fourth dimension now. Time exists because we choose to acknowledge the passage of time. If we don't acknowledge it, it doesn't happen.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann

Found two websites you might be interested in on "Arguments for the existance of God" These are the 'classic' arguments, and rather than reprint them, I thought I'd just put up a link or two.

Outlines of three:
http://www.a180.net/godexists.html
Note: the arguments that really 'got me' aren't here.

They are classical arguements and do not reflect modern theories of existence. I read the arguements on this site and found them 'circular'. In 'circular arguements the conclusions are the assumptions. In other words the main assumption that enities can not exist with out a source or creator. Thus the existence of God is assumed in the beginning. This is the main assumption atheist will argue that there is not any evidence for a source and the modern theories of math consider the dice loaded with the chaos theory and existence does have an underlying order to it that can be used to explain life in the universe and the universe without a creator or a source. The nature of existence is not 'random' and can be uncaused.

[Alias]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Sorry I've been "out of action"--busted my thumb. Bright side: shorter posts(??)

That's no good. Was it an injury sustained during training?

I've quickly glanced over the arguments and there are some of the 'classic' arguments I am familiar with. Pascal's Wager is flawed, as I have shown in the 'God' thread, but I will go over it again. I am in a hurry so I will post a proper reply tomorrow.

I look forward to your follow-up post. I hope your thumb gets better so we can return to your lengthy posts :D.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann

Found two websites you might be interested in on "Arguments for the existance of God" These are the 'classic' arguments, and rather than reprint them, I thought I'd just put up a link or two.

Outlines of three:
http://www.a180.net/godexists.html
Note: the arguments that really 'got me' aren't here.

The following was from the site.

'Unless there is a personal God who is the ultimate reality within which we exist – unless the ultimate source of all existence is at least as personal as we are – then humans are nothing more than absurd, tortured, freaks of nature – the product of a cruel cosmic accident.'

The concept of 'cruel comic accident' or 'freaks of nature' is in itself a loaded negative arguement and not logical. Modern science does not consider the universe 'accidental' by modern knowledge of the universe whether you believe in a God or not.

The other problem with these arguements is that the Biblical view of God as described in the OT is highly childish and illogical by any standards of arguement today.

In fact, the modern logical arguement is that if there is a God it wouldn't be a Biblical God.

What is the logical arguement for the Christian God as opposed to the way other religions believe?

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Alias
That's no good. Was it an injury sustained during training?
Sort of.....
I got promoted to "Most Junior of All Assistants for Instruction of Beginning Students". Was working with kicks on pads/paddles, and ended up using my hand for target practice.



I look forward to your follow-up post. I hope your thumb gets better so we can return to your lengthy posts :D.
Thanks! :D I needed the smile.

[Shade]

Lev 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

See it says in the Bible that you CAN have slaves.

And dont forget boys and girls that if it says so in the Bible then it must be true :D

Because it never contradicts itself so this must be LAW.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
I think we may be talking about two different things. I was talking about BJU, not BYU. BYU is a Mormon institution, named after Brigham Young (an extreme bigot who taught that dark-skinned people were under a divine curse.) Your point is still valid, though--BJU's student body is 'very white'.

Unfortunately, it is often true, especially in certain areas and denominations, but not because of the teaching of Christ. As I quoted in the prior post, the Bible condemns these divisions. Most interdenominational churches and independent charismatic churches are racially and ethnically mixed, and reflect the community where they serve. (Mine does) [ASIDE: where Christians have listened to and obeyed the teachings of Christ on this matter, it has brought remarkable healing. Apartheid ended in South Africa largely because there was one (and only one) place in society where blacks and whites met together as equals--within certain of the Christian churches. Right now, there is a small but growing movement to bring this kind of healing in Palestine--Arabic Christians and Jewish Christians are working together for understanding and unity---a small glimmer of hope in a bleak situation. It seems Christianity works best in the world were it is actually followed and practiced.

'Actually followed and practiced' is a concept I have frequently heard, but not the reality. Humans have weaknesses and in every religion and faith of the world people often fail to follow the spirit and guidance of their faith, but Christianity in history has definitely failed to provide the quidance to end racial separation. They were slow in taking a hard stance and divided on slavery and womans rights. Even today many churches like Islam fail to take a consistant stand on many social issues involving woman.

Christianity is basically an eastern religion, and the Roman influence didn't come into play until the 4th century AD. Up until that point, and until the Islamic invasion in the 7th century AD, the center of Christian theology and study was in North Africa. The Romans had nothing to do with the compilation of the Bible. Yes, Romans, and even some Roman Christians, could own slaves.

Christianity was basically a Middle Eastern religion up until the time the emperor of Rome became Christian. They definitely took control and it was the Romans that descided which books would be in the Bible and which books would not. The theology of Heaven, Hell and the defining the nature of Christ divinity definitely became Roman.

It was a rather brutal affair with some theologians killed and many books burned. The Bible was than interpretated mainly on Roman theology, which we inherited today. The Christianity of North Africa and other versions definitely became minor sects after that time.

[Alias]

First I need to state that none of these arguments implies the existence of a particular god. They argue for, if you will, a generic god.

From this site (http://www.a180.net/godexists.html):

Cosmological Argument

a) Argument from first cause

Premise one: There are entities in the universe.
Premise two: Entities can only be either caused by something other than itself or self-existent (eternal and uncaused).
Premise three: Caused (and thus contingent) entities cannot go back into the past ad infinitum.

Conclusion: There must be a self-existent (eternal) entity that was an uncaused first cause.

Premise two is confusing. Let's rephrase the argument:

There are entities in the universe.
Some entities are caused by something other than itself.
Some entities are uncaused and eternal.
Caused entities cannot go back into the past ad infinitum.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused entity that acted as a first cause.

This is still muddled. First premise states that there are entities in the universe. Of these entities, some are caused by something other than itself and some are uncaused. The conclusion states that an uncaused entity must exist to act as a first cause.

You realise that this argues for an entity that can only exist in the universe, by virtue of the first premise. Following on from the conclusion, the uncaused entity acted as a first cause only in regards to the entities which were caused by something other than themselves. This version of the first cause argument does not argue for the first cause of the universe, it argues for the first cause of the entities that exist in the universe. And if these entities are uncaused and eternal, then, in order to accomodate said entity, the universe must also be eternal.

What else can be defined as an uncaused and eternal entity, other than god? Because if nothing else can fit these parameters, then the argument becomes circular. This becomes the argument:

There are entities in the universe.
Some entities are caused by something other than itself.
God is an uncaused and eternal entity.
Caused entities cannot go back into the past ad infinitum.
Therefore, God acted as a first cause.

Clearly the problem here is 'some entities are uncaused'. This category is created solely for god. Nothing else fits the category. It becomes circular.

This is the format of the first cause argument that I am familiar with:

Everything has a cause.
Every event has a cause, and this cause, in turn, has a cause, and so on all the way back to the beginning of the Universe.
The Universe also has a cause.
This cause is God.
Therefore, God exists.

Begs the question: what caused God?

If God is without first cause, then the first premise, "everything has a cause", is false, and the argument fails.

c) The Kalam Cosmological argument

Premise one: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise two: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is a rejigged version of the first cause argument and can be a problem because of the wordplay. I am familiar with William Lane Craig's Kalam argument, which is easier understood as this:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

The problem lies in the pairing of the words 'everything' and 'universe'. Normally 'everything' and 'universe' can be used synonymously, however, in this case 'everything' is limited by the modifying phrase 'that begins to exist'.

Dan Barker (a preacher-turned-atheist who wrote the brilliant book, Losing Faith In Faith, I recommend it to all) wrote an essay on the kalam argument which I will try and find online. He included a quote from Bertrand Russell from a debate:

"I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all. . . . I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother--that's a different logical sphere."

Russell's example follows the same structure as the kalam argument and shows its flaw:

Every man who exists has a mother.
The human race exists.
Therefore, the human race has a mother.

It's comparing apples and oranges.

The Teleological Argument

a) Argument from design

Premise one: Design implies (even demands) a designer.
Premise two: The more intricate, complex, and extensive the design is, the more intelligence and/or ability the designer has.
Premise three: The world has intricate, complex, and extensive design.

Conclusion: There must be an intelligent and able designer who designed the world.

Ah, Paley's old watchmaker argument. Check premise one: Design implies (even demands) a designer.

Okay. But who designed the designer? It's begging the question again.

Also, premise three should read: the world seems to have intricate, complex, and extensive design.

Seems to have is not does have.

The Anthropological argument

This is an emotional plea, not an argument:

"Similarly, unless our environment is ultimately itself personal, rational, moral, loving, and meaningful, then everything that is essential to us is utterly out of place in this universe. Unless there is a personal God who is the ultimate reality within which we exist – unless the ultimate source of all existence is at least as personal as we are – then humans are nothing more than absurd, tortured, freaks of nature – the product of a cruel cosmic accident."

An appeal to consequences: there must be a god, otherwise nothing makes any sense. A logical fallacy.

Capt Ann, the other site has 20 arguments on it. 20! Geez-Louise, that's going to keep me busy. Please allow me another day or two for these.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Alias
First I need to state that none of these arguments implies the existence of a particular god. They argue for, if you will, a generic god.

From this site (http://www.a180.net/godexists.html):

An appeal to consequences: there must be a god, otherwise nothing makes any sense. A logical fallacy.

Capt Ann, the other site has 20 arguments on it. 20! Geez-Louise, that's going to keep me busy. Please allow me another day or two for these.

I looked at these arguements over the years and they all roughly follow the same logic and not worth the effort. They are 'circular' or 'selfish' arguements. The premises are primarily stagged to justify the result or they fail in the test of uniformity or any premise for an argument must apply in all cases.

For proofs, debates and arguements to be valid thay have to be tested from a skeptical point of view. Recently a Russian presented a mathamatical solution to a problem over a hundred years old. I think it is called the Poissin (sp?) problem. His result is being tested by math experts world wide.

Philosophical and religious arguements aren't subject to same proofs as math, but they are subject to pier review and debate in the world on the soundness of the arguements. You will not have a definitive proof as in math, which is never conclusive or final even in math. But you will have some concensous among philosophers and theologians that the arguements are sound. These arguements have mostly not been found sound.

Any premise proposed must apply in all cases.

For example: The premise that nothing can exist with out a source can not be used to argue for the existence of one God, because any God defined as a source must have another source, so the best conclusion is that if there is one God there are many Gods.

[Capt Ann]

Alias-

The list of 20 is actually much shorter (and better worded) than the summary of the "Big Three" arguments on the other web page. Most of the words, too, are more carefully chosen. The concepts "beginning to exist", "coming into being", etc., relate to things that have a 'start'. Think of it this way-----all things either a.) have a start, or b.) do not have a start. ANother way of saying this, they either had a beginning in time, or they are eternal (always existed).

The Kalam argument shows that the universe itself cannot be eternal, and therefore it must have been started by something else. The Kalam argument basically shows that you can't have an infinite number of non-eternal 'causes' (i.e., A caused B, which caused C, which caused D, etc. can't go back for all eternity). That means the very first cause could not have had a start (i.e., the very first cause must be eternal, or always existing).

Shuny-- it's not circular.....a difference is made between things that have a beginning, and things that are eternal, and this difference is made for a reason. You are right, though, to note that the only thing that could possibly be thought of as not having a beginning would be God.

[Alias]

Found the article: Cosmological Kalamity, by Dan Barker (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html). This article systematically takes apart the Kalam argument.

Originally posted by Capt Ann
The concepts "beginning to exist", "coming into being", etc., relate to things that have a 'start'. Think of it this way-----all things either a.) have a start, or b.) do not have a start. ANother way of saying this, they either had a beginning in time, or they are eternal (always existed).

From the linked article:

"The curious clause "everything that begins to exist" implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is equivalent to "everything except God has a cause." As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God's existence, and we are back to begging the question."

Also:

"To say that NBE must accommodate more than one item is not to say that it must contain more than one item. The set might actually contain only one of the eligible candidates. The cosmological argument could be made successful if it could be shown that NBE contains exactly one item from a plural set of possibilities, and if the winning candidate turns out to be a personal creator. The question of accommodation is not whether the set does not contain more or less than one item; it's whether it can not contain other than one. If it can not, then the argument is circular. It would be like a dictator staging an election that permits no other candidates but himself: it's rigged from the start."

The kalam argument doesn't cut the mustard.

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by Alias
Found the article: Cosmological Kalamity, by Dan Barker (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html). This article systematically takes apart the Kalam argument.



From the linked article:

"The curious clause "everything that begins to exist" implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God.
No, logically, everything CAN be divided into things that begin to exist or things that don't. It's a yes/no proposition. The question then becomes: is either set empty? If God ends up being the only entity in the NBE set, the argument is successful. We see that things exist, so they either did not begin to exist (they existed eternally), or they began to exist (had a beginning in time). 19th century naturalists and some ancient Greek philosophers believed that the universe itself was eternal. Therefore, those earlier naturalists saw the universe itself as in the NBE set. The NBE set could accomodate their definition of the universe. More modern science, though, has pretty much ruled out the 'eternal universe', partially because of the observation of causality. Most cosmologists today believe the universe began with a Big Bang.

To me, the intriguing thing about Kalam is the consideration that you cannot go back in an infinite sequence of causality. (See notes on Kalam in the "20 arguments" website). In an actually physically-existing system, there must be some cause that is 'first'.

[Alias]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
No, logically, everything CAN be divided into things that begin to exist or things that don't.

Yes, they can. But the question is, what else fits the NBE set?

"To say that NBE must accommodate more than one item is not to say that it must contain more than one item. The set might actually contain only one of the eligible candidates. The cosmological argument could be made successful if it could be shown that NBE contains exactly one item from a plural set of possibilities, and if the winning candidate turns out to be a personal creator."

The kalam argument would be successful if it could be shown that the NBE contains one - and only one - from a plural set of possibilities. What are the other possibilities?

"The question of accommodation is not whether the set does not contain more or less than one item; it's whether it can not contain other than one. If it can not, then the argument is circular. It would be like a dictator staging an election that permits no other candidates but himself: it's rigged from the start."

See? If the NBE set can not accomodate more than one item, then it is circular. What else, other than god, it a possible candidate?

The question then becomes: is either set empty? If God ends up being the only entity in the NBE set, the argument is successful.

Only if it can be shown that the NBE set accomodates the possibility of more than one choice. If not, the NBE set has been created solely for god, rigging the argument.

[Capt Ann]

Alias-

Finished reading the article you posted. Thanks for sending it.

I disagree with Barker's first premise (see above--other things 'conceivably' allowed in the NBE set). Also, if there were multiple eternal beings, or eternal objects, eternal waves, eternal forces, they could all be in the NBE set (from the meaning of 'eternal'). My premise in using Kalam....there is at least one eternal being.

The whole last third of the paper goes to great lengths to try to state the difference between "everything" and "the universe", and fails. Should have just left this off.

The middle section shows some good insight into the nature of time (i.e., like the idea that time had a beginning, that time is part of the cosmos/universe and thus would have also started with the Big Bang, that we cannot conceive of anything 'before time', or that temporal distinctions before the Big Bang are meaningless). Unfortunately, Barker doesn't always follow these thoughts through and apply them to the idea of a time-less God. "Outside of time" and "outside of space" are both totally reasonable to me, but in practice Barker doesn't allow for such things. This section is worth a second read.

[Capt Ann]

OK, (deep breath)...here goes....

I will try to start with a few reasons that I personally believe in God.

Post 1 of _____

Creation (all the stuff that exists) tells me a lot about God. Personally, I believe the best scientific evidence shows the cosmos started with a Big Bang that spread out into the still-expanding universe we know. This, irregardless of the Kalam argument, shows that the universe (all physical space, matter, and energy) had a beginning, at a specific point in time (call it 't = 0'). This beginning must have had a cause. What caused kick-off? What launched the Big Bang?

I can think of two methods of 'creation'. One is purely naturalistic--if I put H2 molecules next to O2 molecules, at standard conditions, I get H2O. The energy is in the components themselves, so they react. The other creation method is more personal--if one day you visit my house and see flour, eggs, oil, vanilla, mixing bowls, measuring spoons, etc., sitting on my kitchen table, you don't assume a cake will just appear. If you come back later and see a cake, you assume that I made it, and not that it just occurred because the right ingredients were sitting next to each other. I see it as more logical that the universe was 'created' in the second sense. Here's a few thoughts on why:

Either the pre-Bang original speck a). had everything in itself needed to kick-off itself, or b.) it did not have everything needed for kick-off. Start with the 'b' side:

If the universe did not have everything it needed to jump start itself, then something outside the universe must have kicked it off. Something outside all space, matter, energy, and time (definition of 'the universe'). Sounds like God to me.

Look at the 'a' side: If 'a' is true, then why didn't the universe start 2 micro-seconds earlier, or 3 years later, or 8 trillion centuries earlier? The universe started at a specific point in time (that's in the definition of 'having a beginning'). If I mix H2 and O2, they don't just sit and look at each other for a few millenia, then decide to react............NOW!! The forces governing their interaction are deterministic. If our universe is totally deterministic/naturalistic (no God), then the universe should have started as soon as all the ingredients were assembled. In other words, there could not possibly have been a 'cosmic egg' to begin with.

OK, so the universe had a beginning. Why did the universe start at THAT particular moment? Go back to my cake analogy. Right now in my kitchen, I have all the ingredients to make pecan pie (and I make a darn good one, if I do say so myself, and will have to invite you all over to try some:D ). But I don't have a pecan pie right now. Why? Because I haven't chosen to make one. If all the ingredients for the universe existed together in a cosmic egg, but that still did not of itself generate a 'Big Bang', then we're dealing with the idea of 'volition': choice; free will. In other words, the agent of creation must be a 'Who', not a 'what'.

What do I see from the physical universe about this Creator? (note: this part is not at all meant to be a rigorous logical argument, just some insights and gleanings that I see--they may or may not appeal to you). First, I see grace. Grace, as displayed by the Christian God of the Bible, means giving richly of things that we don't deserve. I see that in the extremely stable equilibrium of our world. Unlike most molecules, water doesn't become more dense as it gets colder (it is at its densest at about 4 degrees C). This simple fact keeps streams, ponds, and lakes from freezing solid in winter (top freezes, ice sinks, next layer freezes, sinks, etc), and literally allows life to exist. Move the earth a hair farther from the sun, all water freezes. Move it a hair closer, all water boils. Tilt the earth a little more, or make its orbit just a tad more elliptical....get both problems for the price of one. Change the gravitational constant, and the atmospheric density and constituents change, bathing us in (your choice) methane, amonia, sulfuric acid.... and a whole lot more similar examples. I see order, intricacy, attention to detail, and provision for our basic needs in the universe around me. I also see provision far above what is considered "basic need".

Why is there beauty? What purpose does it serve? If the universe is strictly naturalistic, then beauty must be caused by something. If the only force governing the development of life is Darwinian evolution, then only those things necessary for a "procreative advantage" would evolve. There would be no method, no pressure, no impetus towards development of anything not giving a procreative advantage. We would exist only at the lowest level necessary for survival of the species. So why do I find joy in listening to music? Why do I like Rossini more than Stravinsky? Why do I enjoy watching a sunset, or hearing the late October wind rustle through the last remaining leaves on the trees? Why is the color orange so beautiful? What is the purpose of a sense of humour? What is the "procreative advantage" of philosophy? Or chess? (Heck, philosophy or chess couldn't even get me a date!)

To create the universe, God must be external to it (i.e., not part of it). There may be other logical options to explain 'how', but the only one I can think of is for God to be eternal. If He is eternal, then He is changeless in eternity. After creating time, and me in it, He could choose to step into space/time, if He wished, to interact with me. If God really created me, then He created me with the ability to think about Him, to conceive of infinity, to think about eternity, and to ask the question "Why?". This gives me reason to think He does desire at some level to communicate with me, since He made me able to conceive of such communication.

I also see evidence of love--why else allow me to enjoy the beauty that serves no other purpose than.....to be enjoyed?

Anyone wise enough to design such intricacy into the universe, anyone strong enough to spin worlds into existance, is strong and wise enough to handle any problem I have.

So, what I see in the cosmos points me toward a God who is timeless, yet stepped into time, that made me able to think of Him, and desires me to know of Him, a God who enjoys sharing beauty, a God who is gracious, loving, ordered, rich in detail, and powerful. He provides for more than what I need, He loves me, and He even likes me. You might not agree, but this is what I see. It's sort of like one of those sketches with a 'hidden picture' in it....you don't see it at first, but once you've seen it, that's all you see (you can't NOT see it). Now, everywhere I look, this is what I see.

It's late, and that's enough for now. I've got three other major trains of thought that are pretty foundational to my personal beliefs in/about God. ....for another time.

Until then, God bless all
Whether you believe in Him or not, apparently, he believes in you :D

[Capt Ann]

Post 4A of _____________

OK, one more before bedtime.

I've had people tell me, "That's just your interpretation of the Bible." I'm curious. I'm not asking if you agree with this passage. Just, without any commentary from me, what do you think is the intended meaning of this passage?

"Who has believed what they heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.  He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.  Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.  But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

"Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (electronic ed.) . Good News Publishers: Wheaton

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann

No, logically, everything CAN be divided into things that begin to exist or things that don't. It's a yes/no proposition. The question then becomes: is either set empty? If God ends up being the only entity in the NBE set, the argument is successful. We see that things exist, so they either did not begin to exist (they existed eternally), or they began to exist (had a beginning in time). 19th century naturalists and some ancient Greek philosophers believed that the universe itself was eternal. Therefore, those earlier naturalists saw the universe itself as in the NBE set. The NBE set could accomodate their definition of the universe. More modern science, though, has pretty much ruled out the 'eternal universe', partially because of the observation of causality. Most cosmologists today believe the universe began with a Big Bang.

To me, the intriguing thing about Kalam is the consideration that you cannot go back in an infinite sequence of causality. (See notes on Kalam in the "20 arguments" website). In an actually physically-existing system, there must be some cause that is 'first'. [/B]

Science allows for the belief of an infinite existence without beginning or without and without God, which is the way atheists believe. Logic does not force a choice, because it is unknown. BUT, science also allows for the belief in God as a source.

First, I stated before that science considers the possibility of the existence of other universes and big bangs in a history with out the 'must' of anything. Science recognizes infinity, which may or may not include the belief of God. This is left up to the individual scientist to draw their conclusions. The problem is that Christianity and Islam in the fundimentalist form do not give science the freedom it needs to explore the universe.

I believe in God, without the logic of arguements. The best logical arguements are that if there is a compassionate God it is not the Biblical view of God. It is a God that shares what God has to say to all the people of the world all over the world and not in one place and two religions who disagree, exclude and make war on all who do not agree. The logical arguements fail when it comes to justify the theological view of Judism, Christianity and Islam.

[Alias]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
I disagree with Barker's first premise (see above--other things 'conceivably' allowed in the NBE set). Also, if there were multiple eternal beings, or eternal objects, eternal waves, eternal forces, they could all be in the NBE set (from the meaning of 'eternal'). My premise in using Kalam....[B}there is at least one eternal being.[B]

The NBE set can only contain one, right? This 'one' is to be considered the sole cause of the universe. But it must be selected from a set of eternal beings/objects/waves/forces. This is what Barker means when he writes: "The cosmological argument could be made successful if it could be shown that NBE contains exactly one item from a plural set of possibilities". What other possibilities are there? If there is only one candidate (god) for the set, then the argument is rigged. What are the other candidates (eternal beings/objects/waves/forces) that have been eliminated?

The middle section shows some good insight into the nature of time (i.e., like the idea that time had a beginning, that time is part of the cosmos/universe and thus would have also started with the Big Bang, that we cannot conceive of anything 'before time', or that temporal distinctions before the Big Bang are meaningless). Unfortunately, Barker doesn't always follow these thoughts through and apply them to the idea of a time-less God. "Outside of time" and "outside of space" are both totally reasonable to me, but in practice Barker doesn't allow for such things. This section is worth a second read.

You and I have discussed this before. Creation is a temporal process. To create requires the existence of time. 'To create time' is an oxymoron. 'God created time' doesn't make sense.

I think that this part of the essay is particularly powerful. Barker clearly explains the contradictions inherent in the idea of a time-creating being.

Creation (all the stuff that exists) tells me a lot about God. Personally, I believe the best scientific evidence shows the cosmos started with a Big Bang that spread out into the still-expanding universe we know. This, irregardless of the Kalam argument, shows that the universe (all physical space, matter, and energy) had a beginning, at a specific point in time (call it 't = 0'). This beginning must have had a cause. What caused kick-off? What launched the Big Bang?

The Big Bang is an incomplete theory, but the best we have so far. Who knows what launched the Big Bang? Perhaps it was another twist in the endless life of the universe. But positing a god-of-the-gaps argument ("I don't know, so goddidit") won't work.

Try to see it from my perspective: all I have are theories (Big Bang, Inflation Theory, String Theory) which our best minds have come up with. None of these theories suggests the existence of a god. In fact, they do fine without it!

What do I see from the physical universe about this Creator? (note: this part is not at all meant to be a rigorous logical argument, just some insights and gleanings that I see--they may or may not appeal to you). First, I see grace. Grace, as displayed by the Christian God of the Bible, means giving richly of things that we don't deserve. I see that in the extremely stable equilibrium of our world. Unlike most molecules, water doesn't become more dense as it gets colder (it is at its densest at about 4 degrees C). This simple fact keeps streams, ponds, and lakes from freezing solid in winter (top freezes, ice sinks, next layer freezes, sinks, etc), and literally allows life to exist. Move the earth a hair farther from the sun, all water freezes. Move it a hair closer, all water boils. Tilt the earth a little more, or make its orbit just a tad more elliptical....get both problems for the price of one. Change the gravitational constant, and the atmospheric density and constituents change, bathing us in (your choice) methane, amonia, sulfuric acid.... and a whole lot more similar examples. I see order, intricacy, attention to detail, and provision for our basic needs in the universe around me. I also see provision far above what is considered "basic need".

Let's go from this: grace = giving richly of things we don't deserve.

This is another twist on the teleological argument: our world appears to be designed with us in mind, hence there's a designer.

If the earth's orbit was a little different, we wouldn't be here. Do any of these things - "Change the gravitational constant, and the atmospheric density and constituents change, bathing us in (your choice) methane, amonia, sulfuric acid" - and we don't exist.

Why is there beauty? What purpose does it serve? If the universe is strictly naturalistic, then beauty must be caused by something.

Beauty is caused by nothing. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder', as the saying goes. Without the beholder, there is no beauty. It is a value judgement, and one that is almost completely subjective. An excellent example is how the 'ideal woman' has changed throughout history. Beautiful women in the renaissance were 'curvy', whereas today they are thin. Heck, fifty years ago Marilyn Monroe was the epitome of beauty, yet today she probably wouldn't be a movie star because she isn't thin enough.

Same goes with the environment. One person might consider a lush landscape to be beautiful, whereas another might find the skyline of Manhattan particularly engaging. It's all subjective.

If the only force governing the development of life is Darwinian evolution, then only those things necessary for a "procreative advantage" would evolve. There would be no method, no pressure, no impetus towards development of anything not giving a procreative advantage.

You state earlier that our "best scientific evidence shows the cosmos started with a Big Bang", yet you seem reluctant to accept "Darwinian evolution". Both theories were formulated via the same method: the scientific method.

We would exist only at the lowest level necessary for survival of the species.

Not unless developments such as increased brain size improved our chances of survival. From there it's a domino-effect.

I also see evidence of love--why else allow me to enjoy the beauty that serves no other purpose than.....to be enjoyed?

I see evidence of evil. How do you reconcile the two?

Anyone wise enough to design such intricacy into the universe, anyone strong enough to spin worlds into existance, is strong and wise enough to handle any problem I have.

If you accept the Big Bang theory, which posits the age of the universe at 15.8 billion years (give or take), how do you explain:

-Our evolution (modern humans are about 120'000 years old)
-The age of Christianity (nearly 2000 years)

See the time differences? God created the universe, waited 15.79988 billion years for humans to arise with self-consciousness, then waited another 118'000 years to deliver His word. At what point in our evolution from near-humans to humans was our eternal soul 'injected' into our material bodies? What happens to the humans who lived and died in the 118'000 years that god was silent? Do they burn?

So, what I see in the cosmos points me toward a God who is timeless, yet stepped into time, that made me able to think of Him, and desires me to know of Him, a God who enjoys sharing beauty, a God who is gracious, loving, ordered, rich in detail, and powerful. He provides for more than what I need, He loves me, and He even likes me. You might not agree, but this is what I see. It's sort of like one of those sketches with a 'hidden picture' in it....you don't see it at first, but once you've seen it, that's all you see (you can't NOT see it). Now, everywhere I look, this is what I see.

I must act as a mouthpiece for Richard Dawkins and repeat his famous quotation:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

Originally posted by shunyadragon
I believe in God, without the logic of arguements.

Then you must have some evidence upon which to base your belief, right? Capt Ann has stated hers.

Care to have a shot?

The best logical arguements are that if there is a compassionate God it is not the Biblical view of God.

Care to state these 'best logical arguements' which, as you state, you do not require in order to believe in god?

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Alias



Then you must have some evidence upon which to base your belief, right? Capt Ann has stated hers.

Care to have a shot?

Care to state these 'best logical arguements' which, as you state, you do not require in order to believe in god?


Capt Ann uses the logic that if certain conditions exist, then 'God' 'must' exist. In the Baha'i and Taoist view 'God' is unknowable by logic. Nothing from the the human perspective 'must' be.

I have sited the Indian tale of the blind men searching for God and finding the elephant. Each one found one part of the elephant and justified his view of God based on what he found. Of course the blind man who did not find the elephant did not find God.

Capt Ann uses her line of logic to seperate the creation from the creator. I do not. Existence and God are inseperable. To the Taoist it is like trying to divide the sea. 'To know the Tao is to not to know the Tao'.

I recognize that the belief of God is primarily based on faith.

My arguement for the Baha'i view of God is based on the following assumptions and beliefs and not 'proof'. As a scientist I clearly recognize the limits of 'proofs' even in science. Proof does not conotate an absolute.

(1) If God is a compassionate God, God does not give his messanger to one people only in one place. As Baha'i believes all the spiritual traditions of the people of the world and the other worlds are one. The compassionate God is a universal God.

(2) The most interesting of the arguement for the Baha'i view of God is the link between the prophecies of the different religions and faiths of the world and history.

The different religions and faiths of the world have prophecies of the coming of the next and other messangers. Many of the links cannot be easliy explained by coincidence.

The Zorastrian religion of ancient Persia. Zorastrian prophesy fortold of the coming of Jesus and the wisemen followed these prophecies to find Jesus. They fortold of the coming of the prophet Mohammod. His followers would be the ones to destroy the Zorastrian homeland. The prophecy includes the Baha'i Faith in 1844 and 1863. The Zorastrian system of astrology was used to prophesy these events. Her is a seperate religion with a Messiah, recognized in the OT and they gave refuge to the Jews in exile, because they recognized them as brother of faith. Many of the early believers of the Baha'i Faith were Zorastrian, because of these prophecies. The Baha'i Faith is the only religion any Zorastrians have ever converted to.

In Islam there were a number of 'prophets' arose making the claim of being the promised one based on their prophecies and lead armies to cleanse the world at the time of the 'judgement day'.

There are many prophecies in many religions and faiths of the world that indicate the year 1844 and 1863 as the time when the Messiah would return. The prophets of the Baha'i Faith, the Bab, the gate, in 1844 and Baha'u'llah in 1863 made the claim to fulfill these prophecies. These prophecies were concluded to take place at this time independently by many religions and beliefs all over the world as the time when the promised one would return. Millerites and other Millennial Christian faiths of the US and the Native American faiths also expected the coming of the promised one at this time. The 'Ghost Dance' and the Native Americans leaving their reservations in search of the promised one resulted in the Indian wars at this time and the battle of Bull Run.

Buddhist and the Shinto prophecies of the East also picked these dates.

The incarnation of the Shinto God as the emperor and world savior occured in the 1860's according to their prophecy and belief.

Buddhist prophecy states that Buddhism would first appear in in the west and then the Most Great Buddha would arrise in the west. The first Buddhist scripture to be translated into western languages was presented to the west in 1844. Many Buddhists have since looked to the west for the coming of the Most Great Happy Buddha. Movies like the 'Littlest Buddha' and others portray this expectation.

There is much more and I will give specific references to those who want to read them from Baha'i and non-Baha'i sources.

This is not 'proof', but it clearly demonstrates the link between the different faiths and religions of the world and extends back into antiquity.

[TigerAnsTKDLove]

where here cuz god put us here thats the reason why the universe is here to reproduce more beings... i think lol im stupid

[Capt Ann]

Good evening, all!
Just a little time for some short thoughts, before putting the kids to bed. Wanted to say, too, that I tested today for green stripe (6th Kup, WTF TKD Wahoooo!!). Exxxxhausted! I think I did well (well?), er, well enough to pass, but I'll find out Monday how I did on my kicks (felt a little rocky). Punches, blocks, forms, breaking tests all went well. Sparring was grueling. Two minutes against a blue stripe (4th Gup), three minutes against a brown stripe (2nd Gup). I was wheezing like the ol' lady that I am.

OK, back to the thread:

Originally posted by Alias
The NBE set can only contain one, right? .....<skip>If there is only one candidate (god) for the set, then the argument is rigged. What are the other candidates (eternal beings/objects/waves/forces) that have been eliminated?
If such things existed, they would be in the set. Kalam proves (in spite of Barker's arguments to the contrary) that whatever was the cause of those things that have a beginning (i.e., all those things in the physical universe), that cause must exist eternally. Objects, waves, and forces are all part of the physical universe, so we're left with the possibility of other eternal beings existing (Note, nothing in the argument demands a singular eternal being, only that at least one eternal being exists, and was the cause of the universe coming into being). Therefeore, there is a logical possibility of one or more eternal beings, besides God. Hmmmmm. I'll think about that one more later.

Meantime, given the logical possibility that there are multiple eternal beings in existence (i.e., multiple entities in the NBE set), what can we deduce about these possible beings? First, from the above argument we know that at least one exists. Secondly, we can adduce that there is exactly one Most High (by the definition of "most"; 'high' to be defined later). There is exactly one 'most' anything. For convenience of discussion, call that one "God". Q.E.D.



You and I have discussed this before. Creation is a temporal process. To create requires the existence of time. 'To create time' is an oxymoron. 'God created time' doesn't make sense.

I think that this part of the essay is particularly powerful. Barker clearly explains the contradictions inherent in the idea of a time-creating being.
I thought it was the weakest part of this section. Barker actually agrees with me that time was created (in the sense "came into being"). According to the article, time and space began to exist contemporaneously.

I know we disagree on this, but creation does not require the existence of time. Picture it as a giant stop watch, stopped at 00:00. The instant of creation, the clock starts. Creation is only a temporal process, if the process itself takes time (e.g., my pie-baking example).



But positing a god-of-the-gaps argument ("I don't know, so goddidit") won't work.
I agree, but I thought the idea of "a beginning" was fairly fundamental, and one we both agreed upon. Biblical views, the kalam argument, and the Big Bang all seem to agree on the fiundamental fact that the physical universe had a beginning. Therefore, it made a convenient starting place (no pun intended). Shunyadragon seems to disagree on the necesity of the universe having a beginning, but I think the 2nd law of thermodynamics gives strong evidence that it must have (otherwise, we would need to start with a zero-entropy universe, [problematic for a 'big bang'], and we should be at infinite entropy now).

You state earlier that our "best scientific evidence shows the cosmos started with a Big Bang", yet you seem reluctant to accept "Darwinian evolution". Both theories were formulated via the same method: the scientific method.
Just to be contrary, I'll throw a curve: Neither theory was formulated using the scientific method. Scientific method involves stating a falsifiable hypothesis, doing an experiment, measuring the results, and comparing them to the original hypothesis. Unfortunately, this hasn't been done (difficult to create another universe, or another species, in the lab). Both are possible mechanisms to try to explain the observations; at best, conjectures.

Anyway, like I said, Big Bang is the best we have. Darwinian evolution is now rejected by most serious evolutionary scientists. Current theories involve one of several options: 1. Punctuated equilibrium (rapid changes in a very short period of time, followed by long periods of no change or any macroevolution), 2. "Seeded" evolution (life did not originate on planet Earth, but arrived here from another location, and 3.) Intelligent Design (among theistic scientists, a divine act of creation; among naturalistic scientists, a deliberate act of "seeding" by a species from another planet). The last two theories are due to advances in information theory and structural analysis of DNA, that show conclusively that the estimated 4 billion years of Earth's existence is orders of magnitude too short to have permitted evolution of life. darwinian evolution was a reasonable assumption, given the state of technology in Darwin's day (simple amoeba, a mere 'blob of protoplasm', could easily be seen as arising from a primordial goo). Now, with advances in electromicroscopy and atomic force microscopy, single-celled organisms are seen to be anything but 'simple' (In Behe's words, "Irreducibly complex").



I see evidence of evil. How do you reconcile the two?
That's for the next group of posts. Remember, I said I had two or three more trains of thought that are very important to me as far as a basis for belief.



If you accept the Big Bang theory, which posits the age of the universe at 15.8 billion years (give or take), how do you explain:

-Our evolution (modern humans are about 120'000 years old)
-The age of Christianity (nearly 2000 years)

See the time differences? God created the universe, waited 15.79988 billion years for humans to arise with self-consciousness, then waited another 118'000 years to deliver His word. At what point in our evolution from near-humans to humans was our eternal soul 'injected' into our material bodies? What happens to the humans who lived and died in the 118'000 years that god was silent? Do they burn?
Some good questions.

Personally, I don't see a problem with waiting 15.79 billion years--after all, you've got eternity. What's the hurry?

As far as what happens re:souls at the near-human/human transition? I don't know. Of course, I believe that people were designed through a special act of divine creation, so in my case, it's a moot point. In your case, that'd probably be one I'd recommend filing under "Questions that are interesting to ponder but cannot possibly be answered in this lifetime", or add to your own personal "Questions to Ask God" list.

As far as what happened to people between existance of humanity and birth of Jesus, you have a few tacit assumptions in your question. First, what makes you so sure God was silent? I was just thinking about Genesis, where it repeatedly says, "And the LORD said to Abraham, ....." Since Abraham couldn't just look it up in the Bible, it makes me wonder what he heard, and how he knew it was God. The whole Bible is a history of God speaking to man. Who's to say that it is exhaustive? Next, it appears you view the plan of redemption as an isolated incident (Jesus dying on the cross roughly 2000 years ago). It's actually part of a very large picture. Most of the difficult things to understand in the Old Testament are pictures of what God was planning to do at one point in history, on the cross. God wrote it into the culture, literature, and heritage of the Jewish people so that it could be recognized when it occurred. More on that later. The question, though, is still valid: what happened to all those guys in the Old Testament before Jesus was born? What about Moses, David, Gideon, etc. ? Trust me, they're fine, but if you want specifics, I can go into it another time. Meantime, with apologies, this post is already way to long. I had to stop twice to put two sets of children in bed, now I can get some time with my husband.

Thanks, though, for being willing to read my posts on why I believe, and for taking the time to respond.

G'night to all.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Capt Ann

I agree, but I thought the idea of "a beginning" was fairly fundamental, and one we both agreed upon. Biblical views, the kalam argument, and the Big Bang all seem to agree on the fiundamental fact that the physical universe had a beginning. Therefore, it made a convenient starting place (no pun intended). Shunyadragon seems to disagree on the necesity of the universe having a beginning, but I think the 2nd law of thermodynamics gives strong evidence that it must have (otherwise, we would need to start with a zero-entropy universe, [problematic for a 'big bang'], and we should be at infinite entropy now).

No we don't have to start with a zero entropy universe, that is complete speculation. What I said was there may be an infinite number of universes in an infinite matrix of existence and science recognizes this possibility. Everything does not have to start with a big bang. Present day science as quoted by Dawkins does not have to have a known beginning.

Just to be contrary, I'll throw a curve: Neither theory was formulated using the scientific method. Scientific method involves stating a falsifiable hypothesis, doing an experiment, measuring the results, and comparing them to the original hypothesis. Unfortunately, this hasn't been done (difficult to create another universe, or another species, in the lab). Both are possible mechanisms to try to explain the observations; at best, conjectures.

Anyway, like I said, Big Bang is the best we have. Darwinian evolution is now rejected by most serious evolutionary scientists. Current theories involve one of several options: 1. Punctuated equilibrium (rapid changes in a very short period of time, followed by long periods of no change or any macroevolution), 2. "Seeded" evolution (life did not originate on planet Earth, but arrived here from another location, and 3.) Intelligent Design (among theistic scientists, a divine act of creation; among naturalistic scientists, a deliberate act of "seeding" by a species from another planet). The last two theories are due to advances in information theory and structural analysis of DNA, that show conclusively that the estimated 4 billion years of Earth's existence is orders of magnitude too short to have permitted evolution of life. darwinian evolution was a reasonable assumption, given the state of technology in Darwin's day (simple amoeba, a mere 'blob of protoplasm', could easily be seen as arising from a primordial goo). Now, with advances in electromicroscopy and atomic force microscopy, single-celled organisms are seen to be anything but 'simple' (In Behe's words, "Irreducibly complex").

No curve thrown, just more misinformation. Darwinian evolution has not been rejected by most serious scientists. The gradualism theory attributed to Darwin is not correct. Darwin left the this question of rate, time frame, etc, was open to speculation and future research. Punctuated equilibrium, which you did not describe well, is one of the modern concepts used to describe Darwinian evolution. The other theories are not seriously consideration by any evolutionary scientist that holds a post at a major university in the world. If you know of a major evolutionary biologist that believes in these other theories please let me know.

The 'time too short' you describe is a puzzle, current evolutionary Biologists do not consider the time too short. Can you quote a relatively recent source to support this (since 2000)?

The extraterrestial theory now common has to do with the origin of the proteins for life. It has been found that many of the proteins needed for life are found in meteorites and the number of meteorites stricking the earth at that time was much higher than now.

As I stated before, your knowledge of evolutionary biology is far behind that of present day science. Science has not answered all the questions yet, but they have demonstrated, using the the 'Scientific Method' most of the steps of evolution from the proteinsl sources to primordial forms to the simple forms of life and beyond.

As to the scientific method used to demonstrate the big bang and evolution you're out of touch and behind the times again. Much of the events of the big bang and evolution have been directly observed. Thanks to the speed of light we can look back in time by simply looking further out in to space and directly observe most, but not all the events that occured shortly after the big bang occured.

Modern genetics and sampling todays animal populations, recently extinct animals from museums and fossils of recently extinct animals like the horse we have directly obsreved evolution in recent history. Of course not all the evidence is in, but science's accumulation of evidence and the use of the scientific method to test evolution is increasing everyday. They have come a long way to actually recreating life in the laboratory in the conditions where it began in the Precambrian .

[Alias]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
(1) If God is a compassionate God, God does not give his messanger to one people only in one place.

If god is a compassionate god, he would not hide; in fact, why would he give his message to a select few?

This again brings into question your (Baha'i) conception of god. What attributes does this god have? Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence?

How are we aware of god's compassion, anyway? I ask because of, y'know, the Problem of Evil. Is this god an interventionist god? By that I mean, will this god intervene to stop a tragedy? If this god is not able nor willing, what sort of god is this? I'm sure you know the riddle of Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

(2) The most interesting of the arguement for the Baha'i view of God is the link between the prophecies of the different religions and faiths of the world and history.

From an article about Biblical prophecies:

"In order to prove--and I mean *prove*, not just surmise--prophecy fulfillment, one would have to establish four things: (1) the claimant of a prophecy fulfillment is properly interpreting whatever text he is basing his claim on, (2) the prophecy was made *before* and not after the event that allegedly fulfills the prophecy, (3) the prophecy was made not just *before* an event but far enough in advance of it to make educated guesswork impossible, and (4) the event that allegedly fulfilled the prophecy did in fact happen."

I would love to see you establish each of these four requirements for each prophecy.

The Zorastrian religion of ancient Persia. Zorastrian prophesy fortold of the coming of Jesus and the wisemen followed these prophecies to find Jesus. They fortold of the coming of the prophet Mohammod. His followers would be the ones to destroy the Zorastrian homeland. The prophecy includes the Baha'i Faith in 1844 and 1863. The Zorastrian system of astrology was used to prophesy these events.

Astrology? I'm sorry, but, ahhhh hahahahaha.

Since when has astrology ever been shown to be anything other than, well, bunk?

In Islam there were a number of 'prophets' arose making the claim of being the promised one based on their prophecies and lead armies to cleanse the world at the time of the 'judgement day'.

How does one distinguish between a true prophet and a false prophet? I wonder because I'm sure many christians would claim that Baha'u'llah was a false prophet.

There are many prophecies in many religions and faiths of the world that indicate the year 1844 and 1863 as the time when the Messiah would return.

Until you establish the four requirements to show that each of these prophecies have been fulfilled, the rest of your post is unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion.

There is much more and I will give specific references to those who want to read them from Baha'i and non-Baha'i sources.

Well, then, walk the walk, man. Show me these sources.

This is not 'proof', but it clearly demonstrates the link between the different faiths and religions of the world and extends back into antiquity.

Ah, wait a sec, you don't get off that easy. This is a rather tenuous link, at least to me, and doesn't prove a single thing, except your willingness to see connections where there may not be any.

[Alias]

Originally posted by Capt Ann
Just a little time for some short thoughts, before putting the kids to bed. Wanted to say, too, that I tested today for green stripe (6th Kup, WTF TKD Wahoooo!!). Exxxxhausted! I think I did well (well?), er, well enough to pass, but I'll find out Monday how I did on my kicks (felt a little rocky). Punches, blocks, forms, breaking tests all went well. Sparring was grueling. Two minutes against a blue stripe (4th Gup), three minutes against a brown stripe (2nd Gup). I was wheezing like the ol' lady that I am.

Let us know how you did. If you have the stamina to type these long posts of yours, I'm sure you had the stamina to get through your grading just fine :).

Objects, waves, and forces are all part of the physical universe, so we're left with the possibility of other eternal beings existing (Note, nothing in the argument demands a singular eternal being, only that at least one eternal being exists, and was the cause of the universe coming into being). Therefeore, there is a logical possibility of one or more eternal beings, besides God. Hmmmmm. I'll think about that one more later.

Meantime, given the logical possibility that there are multiple eternal beings in existence (i.e., multiple entities in the NBE set), what can we deduce about these possible beings? First, from the above argument we know that at least one exists. Secondly, we can adduce that there is exactly one Most High (by the definition of "most"; 'high' to be defined later). There is exactly one 'most' anything. For convenience of discussion, call that one "God".

What eternal beings? God is the only one posited, which is why Barker states that the set is a mask for god in the argument. No other eternal beings have been eliminated. It is assumed that god is the only one that fits the set.

I agree, but I thought the idea of "a beginning" was fairly fundamental, and one we both agreed upon. Biblical views, the kalam argument, and the Big Bang all seem to agree on the fiundamental fact that the physical universe had a beginning. Therefore, it made a convenient starting place (no pun intended). Shunyadragon seems to disagree on the necesity of the universe having a beginning, but I think the 2nd law of thermodynamics gives strong evidence that it must have (otherwise, we would need to start with a zero-entropy universe, [problematic for a 'big bang'], and we should be at infinite entropy now).

The theory is that the Big Bang was the beginning of this universe. It is entirely plausible that our universe is one of many (in a multi-verse) or one phase of the universe.

Darwinian evolution is now rejected by most serious evolutionary scientists.

News to me. Where did you read that? Our knowledge of evolution underpins all of modern biology and medicine. It certainly has not been rejected.

3.) Intelligent Design (among theistic scientists, a divine act of creation; among naturalistic scientists, a deliberate act of "seeding" by a species from another planet). The last two theories are due to advances in information theory and structural analysis of DNA, that show conclusively that the estimated 4 billion years of Earth's existence is orders of magnitude too short to have permitted evolution of life. darwinian evolution was a reasonable assumption, given the state of technology in Darwin's day (simple amoeba, a mere 'blob of protoplasm', could easily be seen as arising from a primordial goo). Now, with advances in electromicroscopy and atomic force microscopy, single-celled organisms are seen to be anything but 'simple' (In Behe's words, "Irreducibly complex").

Evolution is what happens to life forms. Darwin's theory of natural selection is an explanation of how the mechanism of evolution works. It was never - and has never - attempted to explain the origin of life.

Thanks, though, for being willing to read my posts on why I believe, and for taking the time to respond.

G'night to all.

And thank you for going to the effort of writing your posts. Sleep tight :D.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Alias
If god is a compassionate god, he would not hide; in fact, why would he give his message to a select few?

This again brings into question your (Baha'i) conception of god. What attributes does this god have? Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence?

How are we aware of god's compassion, anyway? I ask because of, y'know, the Problem of Evil. Is this god an interventionist god? By that I mean, will this god intervene to stop a tragedy? If this god is not able nor willing, what sort of god is this? I'm sure you know the riddle of Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Like the belief in the Tao and the Baha'i view of God evil does not in reality exist. It is vain creation of the selfish minds of humans. This a similar view as Buddhism. There is nothing to prevent evil, because evil does not exist. Existence is like the sea. You cannot divide the sea.

The compassion of God is like the earth beneith our feet. It is always their regardless of what we do and recieves us when we die.

The pain and suffering the message of the Baha'i Faith is focused on is that suffereing inflicted by humans on fellow humans and the environment, not an imaginary evil created as a scape goat by human averice and rivilry between humans. The natural suffering and death in existence is just part of the river and the natural way of existence. This true in the belief of Taoism and the the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith brought the first message of the importance of Environmental stewardship toward the earth. It was the first proclamation that humans could actually destroy the environment of the world and science was a double edged sword to either heal or destroy the world.

'We have met the enemy and he is us.' Pogo

From an article about Biblical prophecies:

"In order to prove--and I mean *prove*, not just surmise--prophecy fulfillment, one would have to establish four things: (1) the claimant of a prophecy fulfillment is properly interpreting whatever text he is basing his claim on, (2) the prophecy was made *before* and not after the event that allegedly fulfills the prophecy, (3) the prophecy was made not just *before* an event but far enough in advance of it to make educated guesswork impossible, and (4) the event that allegedly fulfilled the prophecy did in fact happen."

I would love to see you establish each of these four requirements for each prophecy.

Of course proof is allusive. I already stated that nothing is proven. You have to read the evidence yourself and then comment on the claims. The claims by many all over the world that the year of fulfillment was 1844 in Christian, Islamic, Zorastrian, the Native Americans and others were made independently and before the fact. The Bab and Baha'u'llah of the Baha'i faith made their claim without consulting the followers of the different faiths in the other parts of the world.

They predicted both world wars, the scientific discovery of the theory of relativity of Einstien and the terrible destructive energy of neuclear weapons, and many of the other changes in the world since 1844.

Astrology? I'm sorry, but, ahhhh hahahahaha.

Since when has astrology ever been shown to be anything other than, well, bunk?

The superstitious vain Astrology of today is both condemned in the Baha'i Faith and Zorastrianism.

The Astrology of Zoraster was based on the prediction of celestial events and time cycles for the future events of humanity. The Zorastrian wise men followed these predictions in the NT. Examples are the celestial events predicted are those that occured at the time of Christ, Mohammod and around 1844. These predictions did take place as they predicted in the time frame they sad they would take place. All Christians know of the bright star that shown at the time of Christ's birth. This was one of the celestial events predicted in Zorastrian prophecy.

Their Astrology was not to be used for the vain predictions of one's personal life.

How does one distinguish between a true prophet and a false prophet? I wonder because I'm sure many Christians would claim that Baha'u'llah was a false prophet.

Of course they do. The same way Jews viewed Christ as a false prophet. Many false prophets were ruthless, violent and abusive like the emperor of Japan in WWII, others encouraged their followers to drink poisons and do other stupid things. Others did very little or nothing. The judgement of who is false or not is up to the individual. You have apparently not read about the Baha'i Faith enough to judge for yourself.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah brought the message of the unity of humanity (The concern is more directed to the salvation of humanity and not the individual.), the universal declarations to end slavery (the first religion to do so by a law of scripture.), equality of men and women, the harmony of science and religion, an elected governing body for the faith and no clergy, paid or otherwise to name a few of their contributions to the modern world. They also proposed their system to the World Court and the United Nations. Unfortunately only some of the recommendations were accepted. The structure of the UN follows the Baha'i model except for one critical point; all the nations do not have an equal voice.

Until you establish the four requirements to show that each of these prophecies have been fulfilled, the rest of your post is unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion.

Well, then, walk the walk, man. Show me these sources.

Ah, wait a sec, you don't get off that easy. This is a rather tenuous link, at least to me, and doesn't prove a single thing, except your willingness to see connections where there may not be any. [/B]

You have neither read nor investigated the claims of the Baha'i Faith. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink. Blind skepticism is as bad as blind faith.

A bibliography of sources will be provided to those who submit their e-mail address and request them.

'If you split an atom, you will release a sun.'

Baha'u'llah in the 1860's (He didn't have a degree in Physics.)

[Mig]

I feel you are asking not why is the universe here? But rather, is the universe here for a reason? (If you could read this in the voice of Morpheus, that would help, thanks) You stuggle with the fatalistic attraction that is the burden of our race. Only when mankind has freed itself from the restraints of a summised destiny can its potential be truly tapped.:)

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Mig
I feel you are asking not why is the universe here? But rather, is the universe here for a reason? (If you could read this in the voice of Morpheus, that would help, thanks) You stuggle with the fatalistic attraction that is the burden of our race. Only when mankind has freed itself from the restraints of a summised destiny can its potential be truly tapped.:)

'Fatalistic attraction that is the burden of the (human) race.' Interesting statement, sounds like the ego. By a summised destiny I take you mean an assumed destiny. This varies from belief to belief. Need a little more details . . .

[Alias]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Like the belief in the Tao and the Baha'i view of God evil does not in reality exist. It is vain creation of the selfish minds of humans. This a similar view as Buddhism. There is nothing to prevent evil, because evil does not exist. Existence is like the sea. You cannot divide the sea.

I'm going to dub this tactic of yours the 'shunyadragon sidestep'. At first glance it seems you have responded to my question, but no. What you have done is evade the question.

As the word 'evil' is proving too problematic for you, let's instead use your own words, 'pain and suffering'. Pain and suffering exist.

Why would a compassionate god create a world with pain and suffering?

The compassion of God is like the earth beneith our feet. It is always their regardless of what we do and recieves us when we die.

Unsupported assertion.

The pain and suffering the message of the Baha'i Faith is focused on is that suffereing inflicted by humans on fellow humans and the environment, not an imaginary evil created as a scape goat by human averice and rivilry between humans. The natural suffering and death in existence is just part of the river and the natural way of existence. This true in the belief of Taoism and the the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith brought the first message of the importance of Environmental stewardship toward the earth. It was the first proclamation that humans could actually destroy the environment of the world and science was a double edged sword to either heal or destroy the world.

Again, why would a compassionate god create an environment that allows and beings that cause pain and suffering?

Of course proof is allusive. I already stated that nothing is proven. You have to read the evidence yourself and then comment on the claims. The claims by many all over the world that the year of fulfillment was 1844 in Christian, Islamic, Zorastrian, the Native Americans and others were made independently and before the fact. The Bab and Baha'u'llah of the Baha'i faith made their claim without consulting the followers of the different faiths in the other parts of the world.

Proof is not elusive. Establish the four requirements. That's all I'm asking.

Where do I find the evidence? As you should know, burden of proof is always on the claimant. You make the claim, you present the evidence.

They predicted both world wars, the scientific discovery of the theory of relativity of Einstien and the terrible destructive energy of neuclear weapons, and many of the other changes in the world since 1844.

Unsupported assertion.

The superstitious vain Astrology of today is both condemned in the Baha'i Faith and Zorastrianism.

The Baha'i want a monopoly on this pseudoscience, do they?

The Astrology of Zoraster was based on the prediction of celestial events and time cycles for the future events of humanity. The Zorastrian wise men followed these predictions in the NT. Examples are the celestial events predicted are those that occured at the time of Christ, Mohammod and around 1844. These predictions did take place as they predicted in the time frame they sad they would take place. All Christians know of the bright star that shown at the time of Christ's birth. This was one of the celestial events predicted in Zorastrian prophecy.

The astrology practiced 3000 years ago. So, what, because they practiced it a long, long time ago, then it's valid? What's that, an argument from antiquity? Zoroastrian astrology divined future events from celestial observations? Where is your evidence?

Their Astrology was not to be used for the vain predictions of one's personal life.

No, their astrology was used to make predictions so far off in the future that the people of their day couldn't test them, and hence couldn't show that they were lying out of their a*^#holes. Interesting, though, that 3000 years later there are still gullible fools who believe it.

Of course they do. The same way Jews viewed Christ as a false prophet. Many false prophets were ruthless, violent and abusive like the emperor of Japan in WWII, others encouraged their followers to drink poisons and do other stupid things. Others did very little or nothing. The judgement of who is false or not is up to the individual. You have apparently not read about the Baha'i Faith enough to judge for yourself.

Saying oneself is a prophet is an extraordinary claim. Therefore, the claimant must present some extraordinary evidence. That is how a judgement should be made. I should not need to read up on the Baha'i faith. You should be able to present the relevant evidence. Then, if that holds water, I will read on.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah brought the message of the unity of humanity (The concern is more directed to the salvation of humanity and not the individual.), the universal declarations to end slavery (the first religion to do so by a law of scripture.), equality of men and women, the harmony of science and religion, an elected governing body for the faith and no clergy, paid or otherwise to name a few of their contributions to the modern world. They also proposed their system to the World Court and the United Nations. Unfortunately only some of the recommendations were accepted. The structure of the UN follows the Baha'i model except for one critical point; all the nations do not have an equal voice.

Every religion brings the message of salvation of humanity in some form. Nothing special about yours.

You have neither read nor investigated the claims of the Baha'i Faith. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink. Blind skepticism is as bad as blind faith.

And I doubt you have seriously questioned your faith, either. Apparently you have never come across a true skeptic before. Now you have. Skepticism is a virtue. Try it.

Blind faith could be defined as believing in something despite the complete lack of evidence. Blind skepticism could then be defined as doubting something despite the abundance of evidence.

I am skeptical because all I see is unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion. You haven't led me to water, you have led me to a mirage.

A bibliography of sources will be provided to those who submit their e-mail address and request them.

I'm wary of spam. PM it.

'If you split an atom, you will release a sun.'

Baha'u'llah in the 1860's (He didn't have a degree in Physics.)

You've included this at the end of your posts several times. What is this, your mantra? Repeat it often enough and you'll believe it? That's how religions work, of course. Keep believing without questioning. Keep it up.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Alias
I'm going to dub this tactic of yours the 'shunyadragon sidestep'. At first glance it seems you have responded to my question, but no. What you have done is evade the question.

As the word 'evil' is proving too problematic for you, let's instead use your own words, 'pain and suffering'. Pain and suffering exist.

Why would a compassionate god create a world with pain and suffering?

Unsupported assertion.

Not a side step. I responded clearly. The natural birth, life, sickness and death in the world is not suffering or evil in the Baha'i or Taoist view, it is natural course of existence. The evil you speak of is what Christians believe causes the wars and suffering in conflicts between men and between men and nature.



Again, why would a compassionate god create an environment that allows and beings that cause pain and suffering?

Do you consider the natural cycle of life, sickness and death, pain and suffering that should be prevented?

Proof is not elusive. Establish the four requirements. That's all I'm asking.

Where do I find the evidence? As you should know, burden of proof is always on the claimant. You make the claim, you present the evidence.

I offered it and you called it spam and refused it.


The Baha'i want a monopoly on this pseudoscience, do they?

Meaningless statement.


The astrology practiced 3000 years ago. So, what, because they practiced it a long, long time ago, then it's valid? What's that, an argument from antiquity? Zoroastrian astrology divined future events from celestial observations? Where is your evidence?

No, their astrology was used to make predictions so far off in the future that the people of their day couldn't test them, and hence couldn't show that they were lying out of their a*^#holes. Interesting, though, that 3000 years later there are still gullible fools who believe it.

Blind skepticism.

Saying oneself is a prophet is an extraordinary claim. Therefore, the claimant must present some extraordinary evidence. That is how a judgement should be made. I should not need to read up on the Baha'i faith. You should be able to present the relevant evidence. Then, if that holds water, I will read on.

Every religion brings the message of salvation of humanity in some form. Nothing special about yours.

Again you did not respond directly to what I said. Not every religion brought the laws against slavery and the equality of mwn and women.



And I doubt you have seriously questioned your faith, either. Apparently you have never come across a true skeptic before. Now you have. Skepticism is a virtue. Try it.

Blind faith could be defined as believing in something despite the complete lack of evidence. Blind skepticism could then be defined as doubting something despite the abundance of evidence.

I am skeptical because all I see is unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion. You haven't led me to water, you have led me to a mirage.

I'm wary of spam. PM it.

Skeptics also investigate and respond rationally. I have been a subscriber of Skeptical Enquirer for more than fifteen years.

You've included this at the end of your posts several times. What is this, your mantra? Repeat it often enough and you'll believe it? That's how religions work, of course. Keep believing without questioning. Keep it up.

It simply explains the relationship between matter presented in E=mc2. Nuclear fission.

Alias, this post was the most difficult of all your posts to respond to. I made some notes, but I don't feel you responded honestly to mine.

[Mig]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
'Fatalistic attraction that is the burden of the (human) race.' Interesting statement, sounds like the ego. By a summised destiny I take you mean an assumed destiny. This varies from belief to belief. Need a little more details . . .

Yes, assumed and not summised, I knew there was a word that fitted.
When you say, sounds like the ego, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. But, if you mean don't try to sound smarter than you are.. then I'm guilty :o but you can't blame a guy for trying. :p
The basic idea was the question asked, 'why is the universe here?', and I figured that sounded like there was an assumption the universe was here for a reason / purpose. I've asked quite a few people about their beliefs in fate / destiny and have been found quite a few believe in same. I personally cannot reconcile my life with the idea of fate whilst understanding that there is a persuasiveness about the whole thing. This is the basis for the above quote. You ain't gonna know what you can do until you realise you are free to do anything.
Of course, when I started typing and realised it had a sort of sonorous, almost poetic quality to it... that was it, I just had to try and jazz it up a bit. Throw in Morpheus and I was quite pleased. :)
Then someone asks a question!!!!! Oy voy! It was only a generalised statement, honest.
I have tried honestly to give all the details and hope I've gone someway to answering your queries.
Oh, and thanks for taking an interest.
:) :) :)

[Alias]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Not a side step. I responded clearly. The natural birth, life, sickness and death in the world is not suffering or evil in the Baha'i or Taoist view, it is natural course of existence. The evil you speak of is what Christians believe causes the wars and suffering in conflicts between men and between men and nature.

Isn't there a difference between 'evil' and 'pain and suffering'? I don't consider them the same.

Do you consider the natural cycle of life, sickness and death, pain and suffering that should be prevented?

Me? I'm not god :). To the point:

You claim that a compassionate god exists and created the universe. The problem of pain and suffering, to me, jars with that.

If your god is powerful enough to create the universe, why would this being allow pain and suffering? Because that doesn't seem very compassionate.

I offered it and you called it spam and refused it.

I didn't refuse it. I told you to send me a private message. I don't like to give out my email address. I've heard too many horror stories. Call me paranoid, although I prefer to think of myself as cautious.

Meaningless statement.

Ah, the old 'two can play that game'. Yeah, it was a rhetorical question. But it isn't entirely meaningless. It does reveal my innate suspicion of religion.

Blind skepticism.

Ah, here I have to disagree. I prefer 'healthy skepticism'.

Again you did not respond directly to what I said. Not every religion brought the laws against slavery and the equality of mwn and women.

True.

Skeptics also investigate and respond rationally. I have been a subscriber of Skeptical Enquirer for more than fifteen years.

A fellow skeptic. Then you must understand how I view your claim about fulfilled prophecies. Naturally, I'm skeptical.

'Respond rationally' is interesting, though. Going by this logic, I gather you have investigated the claims that these prophecies have been fulfilled and that your rational response was to believe that they had, indeed, been fulfilled.

The problem I have here is: why aren't there more converts? I'm talking about agnostics and atheists here. An agnostic is undecided. Now, I'm sure that if they were presented with the evidence that has swayed you, then they would no longer be undecided. An atheist (usually) wants more evidence than what is usually provided. Fulfilled prophecies could be that evidence.

And please don't whip out your 95/98%+ chestnut as it is insulting and simplistic.

Alias, this post was the most difficult of all your posts to respond to. I made some notes, but I don't feel you responded honestly to mine.

I did respond honestly. A little too honestly, I think. Perhaps I should stop posting in these threads. I'm beginning to react with a little more venom than is normal for me.

Sometimes I forget that this is a martial arts site; we're all fighters here.

[Capt Ann]

Evening, All!!

Yes, I passed (yahoooo!), and I am now officially a green-stripe!!

Anyone who wants to come by the house within the next five minutes, beer's on me!

[Capt Ann]

OK....I promised I'd try to put in writing what reasons I have for (personally) believing in God. I have several trains of thought. I already described the argument from cosmology and our existence. Later, I will try to put some thoughts down on what I'll call 'the consistent world-view' (some of which will dove-tail into this post). Then, I'll go over some specifics from prophecy, history, testimony, and personal experience. Right now, though, I'm going to try to address a difficult subject, at least in small part.

Another deep breath, and I'll start the second train of thought of reasons I believe in God:

Post 2a: The Existence of Evil

Whoa! Now that’s a provocative title for an argument that God exists! Most atheists argue against God, along the lines, “How can a good God allow evil to exist?” I think the fact that we can agree that evil exists is a powerful argument that a transcendent God also exists. How else can we agree on a definition of evil, or that certain acts are evil? My contention is that we can only agree that certain acts are evil because there exists an objective standard that defines what things are good (and therefore, what things are evil).

As an example, in the US, we have governments on many different levels: city, county, state, federal. My city regulations don’t apply to people in the next town over, but the county regulations do apply. Each state in the US has different laws regulating everything from abortion to zoning, but only the federal laws and constitution apply equally to all US citizens. This is because the federal government has jurisdiction over all citizens, and the state governments don’t. Each state government has to answer to a higher law (the federal law). Even so, the US Constitution has no jurisdiction over other nations, or their citizens living in Australia, Great Britain, France, etc. A law that applies to all citizens of the world can only come from a higher jurisdiction. That people all over the world recognize the existence of such a higher jurisdiction became evident in the Nuremberg trials after WW II. The trials proceeded precisely because all the other nations recognized that, even without a written code, a higher law existed (higher than any national or cultural law), to which the Nazis could be held accountable.

Now, I know that there are some religions that teach that evil doesn’t exist (Taoism, Buddhism). Things are just “the way they are”. But even individual Buddhists and Taoists recognize that certain acts are morally evil, even if their religions teach that evil doesn’t exist. That’s why Taoist and Buddhist nations all have jails. That’s why individual Taoists and Buddhists can get outraged (and justifiably so) at moral injustice. These things, however (outrage at injustice, punishment of criminals, or even working to right an injustice), just don’t make sense if there’s no such thing as evil.

Others may argue that not everyone agrees on exactly what makes something ‘morally evil’—for instance, in spite of what the rest of the world thought, Adolph Hitler didn’t seem to have much of a problem with what he did. I have come to believe that everyone on earth has a certain moral compass that shows them the difference between right and wrong. This native sense of morality can be ignored, to the point where we can become anesthetized to distinctions of right and wrong (like murderers who report their second, third, fourth, etc. killing each becoming easier, or even the child who finds his “second lie” a little easier than his first). However, every people, in every nation, in every culture, in all times, has recognized the existence of right and wrong, and our obligation under a moral law to abide by the standards of right and wrong. To push the analogy a step further, a moral compass can only work if there really is a “North”. Moral law and our inherently-understood obligation to live under it can only exist if there is a transcendent (absolute) moral law. Transcendent moral law can only exist if there is a transcendent moral Law-Giver.

OK, religions/philosophies that deny the existence of evil, and Adolph Hitler and similar sociopaths aside, I must ask, “Do you personally believe that certain actions are immoral or evil?” If you do, than my argument applies (whether I’m right or not about everyone having a moral compass, YOU do). What’s amazing is that everyone (Taoists, Buddhists, Christian theists, and atheists) can all agree on what some of those “evil acts” are (our ‘moral compasses’ seem to point in the same general direction!). For instance, I don’t think that there is a single rational person reading this post that would disagree that what Adolph Hitler did to the Jewish people in Nazi Germany was evil. Likewise, no one would disagree that it would be evil for me to knock on my neighbor’s door in the middle of the night, and blow him away with a shotgun for no reason, as soon as he opened the door.

I am also confident that everyone reading this post has personally experienced some level of dulling of conscience, as I described above—there is something that you personally felt was morally wrong, but you did it anyway, then it felt ‘less wrong’ the next time you were confronted with the opportunity to do it. Hopefully, it’s not murder. But it might be something simple like overeating (going for that extra piece of Christmas fudge, or ‘Supersizing’ those fries), or lying to make yourself look a little better, or ignoring certain traffic laws, or cussing someone out, or retaliating when someone cuts you off in traffic.

Given that there is a way for each of us to lower our moral standards by violating them, there is no surprise that we won’t agree on what is morally right or wrong in EVERY case. What’s amazing is that we can agree on what is morally right or wrong in ANY case. We can agree, in spite of the fact that we’ve never met, never spoken, and live in different cultures on different sides of the earth. This is true precisely because there is a transcendent moral law (higher than our personal experience, culture, or national law), to which we are all accountable.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Alias
Isn't there a difference between 'evil' and 'pain and suffering'? I don't consider them the same.

I did respond honestly. A little too honestly, I think. Perhaps I should stop posting in these threads. I'm beginning to react with a little more venom than is normal for me.

Sometimes I forget that this is a martial arts site; we're all fighters here.

Alias and Capt Ann:

I checked what 'evil' means in several dictionaries. There are basically two ways 'evil' is used. (1) To refer to a supernatural power or entity like the 'devil' or evil spirits that do evil things and conspire to cause evil things to happen. They contest the will of God in the spiritual realms. They may tempt or trick humans into doing evil things or not so evil things like the story of Adam an Eve. (2) Very bad people like Hitler and criminals who commit great crimes against humanity and nature.

Some Jews, Christians and Moslems believe (1) is very real. Atheists, Taoists, Buddhists and Baha'is do not consider (1) real. They acknowledge (2) as what is evil in the world.

Pain and suffering is a very broad heading that includes many things to many people. I will devide it into two groups. (1) Pain and suffering that occurs as the natural birth, life and death cycle through out the history of existence. (2) The pain and suffering caused by humans against their fellow humans and nature.

No religion that believes in God has ever claimed that God will prevent 'evil' or pain and suffering in the physical or spiritual realms. Free Will is acknowledged in all religions as a part of human life.

This has just been a note to clarify the definitions and meanings of 'evil' and 'pain and suffering' for further discussions. Please comment to improve or ad to these definitions.

[shunyadragon]

Alias

I will respond to you on info in a PM in the future. Initially I didn't know what you were referring to as a PM.

[gooner]

why are you all arguing about why we exist. why doesn't matter, we simply exist

[Capt Ann]

Originally posted by gooner
why are you all arguing about why we exist. why doesn't matter, we simply exist

Read again. Most of the time, we're not arguing. By challenging each other's core beliefs, we can all grow, all better define what we believe, and each hammer out what really matters in life.

In short, we write because we want more out of life than 'simply existing'.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by gooner
why are you all arguing about why we exist. why doesn't matter, we simply exist

Sometimes it gets heated, but this is more debate and sharing information. Some people may not think it matters or care and they want to stand alone,'I am a Rock, I am an Island', but the reality of the world is not this. We grow and learn by sharing.

'What we have here is a failure to communicate. BANG!!!'

from 'Cool Hand Luck'

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by gooner
why are you all arguing about why we exist. why doesn't matter, we simply exist

Gooner

You didn't light your own candle.

[ap Oweyn]

Originally posted by xubis
No there wouldn't, why does something exists... why isn't there just nothing, at all, anywhere, not even space... no one can provide an answer for that. :P

I think your reasoning is all backward. Our definitions of 'something' and 'nothing' are based on our experience. We came up with those concepts to describe our condition. If our condition had been different, then the concepts would be different too.

Of course we exist. Because we made up the idea of existence specifically to describe what we do.

Unless you dreamt me up. In which case, I'm flummoxed.


Stuart B.

[alienladd]

OK, (deep breath)...here goes....

I will try to start with a few reasons that I personally believe in God.

Post 1 of _____

Creation (all the stuff that exists) tells me a lot about God. Personally, I believe the best scientific evidence shows the cosmos started with a Big Bang that spread out into the still-expanding universe we know. This, irregardless of the Kalam argument, shows that the universe (all physical space, matter, and energy) had a beginning, at a specific point in time (call it 't = 0'). This beginning must have had a cause. What caused kick-off? What launched the Big Bang?

I can think of two methods of 'creation'. One is purely naturalistic--if I put H2 molecules next to O2 molecules, at standard conditions, I get H2O. The energy is in the components themselves, so they react. The other creation method is more personal--if one day you visit my house and see flour, eggs, oil, vanilla, mixing bowls, measuring spoons, etc., sitting on my kitchen table, you don't assume a cake will just appear. If you come back later and see a cake, you assume that I made it, and not that it just occurred because the right ingredients were sitting next to each other. I see it as more logical that the universe was 'created' in the second sense. Here's a few thoughts on why:

Either the pre-Bang original speck a). had everything in itself needed to kick-off itself, or b.) it did not have everything needed for kick-off. Start with the 'b' side:

If the universe did not have everything it needed to jump start itself, then something outside the universe must have kicked it off. Something outside all space, matter, energy, and time (definition of 'the universe'). Sounds like God to me.

Look at the 'a' side: If 'a' is true, then why didn't the universe start 2 micro-seconds earlier, or 3 years later, or 8 trillion centuries earlier? The universe started at a specific point in time (that's in the definition of 'having a beginning'). If I mix H2 and O2, they don't just sit and look at each other for a few millenia, then decide to react............NOW!! The forces governing their interaction are deterministic. If our universe is totally deterministic/naturalistic (no God), then the universe should have started as soon as all the ingredients were assembled. In other words, there could not possibly have been a 'cosmic egg' to begin with.

OK, so the universe had a beginning. Why did the universe start at THAT particular moment? Go back to my cake analogy. Right now in my kitchen, I have all the ingredients to make pecan pie (and I make a darn good one, if I do say so myself, and will have to invite you all over to try some:D ). But I don't have a pecan pie right now. Why? Because I haven't chosen to make one. If all the ingredients for the universe existed together in a cosmic egg, but that still did not of itself generate a 'Big Bang', then we're dealing with the idea of 'volition': choice; free will. In other words, the agent of creation must be a 'Who', not a 'what'.

What do I see from the physical universe about this Creator? (note: this part is not at all meant to be a rigorous logical argument, just some insights and gleanings that I see--they may or may not appeal to you). First, I see grace. Grace, as displayed by the Christian God of the Bible, means giving richly of things that we don't deserve. I see that in the extremely stable equilibrium of our world. Unlike most molecules, water doesn't become more dense as it gets colder (it is at its densest at about 4 degrees C). This simple fact keeps streams, ponds, and lakes from freezing solid in winter (top freezes, ice sinks, next layer freezes, sinks, etc), and literally allows life to exist. Move the earth a hair farther from the sun, all water freezes. Move it a hair closer, all water boils. Tilt the earth a little more, or make its orbit just a tad more elliptical....get both problems for the price of one. Change the gravitational constant, and the atmospheric density and constituents change, bathing us in (your choice) methane, amonia, sulfuric acid.... and a whole lot more similar examples. I see order, intricacy, attention to detail, and provision for our basic needs in the universe around me. I also see provision far above what is considered "basic need".

Why is there beauty? What purpose does it serve? If the universe is strictly naturalistic, then beauty must be caused by something. If the only force governing the development of life is Darwinian evolution, then only those things necessary for a "procreative advantage" would evolve. There would be no method, no pressure, no impetus towards development of anything not giving a procreative advantage. We would exist only at the lowest level necessary for survival of the species. So why do I find joy in listening to music? Why do I like Rossini more than Stravinsky? Why do I enjoy watching a sunset, or hearing the late October wind rustle through the last remaining leaves on the trees? Why is the color orange so beautiful? What is the purpose of a sense of humour? What is the "procreative advantage" of philosophy? Or chess? (Heck, philosophy or chess couldn't even get me a date!)

To create the universe, God must be external to it (i.e., not part of it). There may be other logical options to explain 'how', but the only one I can think of is for God to be eternal. If He is eternal, then He is changeless in eternity. After creating time, and me in it, He could choose to step into space/time, if He wished, to interact with me. If God really created me, then He created me with the ability to think about Him, to conceive of infinity, to think about eternity, and to ask the question "Why?". This gives me reason to think He does desire at some level to communicate with me, since He made me able to conceive of such communication.

I also see evidence of love--why else allow me to enjoy the beauty that serves no other purpose than.....to be enjoyed?

Anyone wise enough to design such intricacy into the universe, anyone strong enough to spin worlds into existance, is strong and wise enough to handle any problem I have.

So, what I see in the cosmos points me toward a God who is timeless, yet stepped into time, that made me able to think of Him, and desires me to know of Him, a God who enjoys sharing beauty, a God who is gracious, loving, ordered, rich in detail, and powerful. He provides for more than what I need, He loves me, and He even likes me. You might not agree, but this is what I see. It's sort of like one of those sketches with a 'hidden picture' in it....you don't see it at first, but once you've seen it, that's all you see (you can't NOT see it). Now, everywhere I look, this is what I see.

It's late, and that's enough for now. I've got three other major trains of thought that are pretty foundational to my personal beliefs in/about God. ....for another time.

Until then, God bless all
Whether you believe in Him or not, apparently, he believes in you :D
You are of course "ASSUMING" that there was a BEGINNING!
The "BIG BANG" theory is also just that ....... a "THEORY" :)

[tekkengod]

ya know, Capt Anns a nice woman, but the more she posts on the subject of religion, the more i want to beat myself with a claw hammer. :D

i would like to spend a day in her shoes and dissect how exactly she views the world.

[Shrukin89]

Why is the universe here, why is there just... well, nothing at all...
That question has been driving me crazy! ;) No, i don't expect an answer, just something for you to think on

Nobody exactly knows the exact truth of how the universe got here or what started it. Ask God if it bugs ya ;).

Anyways my thought of why the universe is here. Is that it was to create a diversity of life, created by an unknown force. And well... It had to be incredibly insanely and many other words that can describe hot, and as the most largest super super mega super explosion ever, to create an empty expanding space with some added gas left over from the explosion. And assumed to call it a "Big Bang".

A Big Bang from God. :woo: BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And what I think what's outside of this Universe is more blackness, along with other Universes, that are sprouting up.


Something or someone made us exist, assumed that all life was started from fire. Unknown energy that created and thus expanded the empty black space, with gas left behind, that created the stars and other planets.

Since with all of the mix of hot gases and dense pressure forms a liquid, then forms a solid. It would be great to know how you could get either rock or metal, from gas. If anyone knows which gases could create that. :confused:

But above all of this, I still have absolutely no idea of how it got here, or how we became existant. Mysteries are still there, and we'll eventually come up with more clues of some object or thing from outer space that can tell the story of how the Universe was made, and everything else. Pile of blah!

[medi]

It would be great to know how you could get either rock or metal, from gas. If anyone knows which gases could create that. :confused:


http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=345

[[Capoeira] Mudo]

"This beginning must have had a cause."

Why? Prove it.

Give me an example of something being created...

...you cant put forward arguements based on things that dont happen and of which you have no proof.

Plus, quantum physics allows things to occur without cause.

[Capt Ann]

ya know, Capt Anns a nice woman, but the more she posts on the subject of religion, the more i want to beat myself with a claw hammer. Uhhhhhhh, you guys do realize that this thread has been dead for two and a half years, yes? :D

i would like to spend a day in her shoes and dissect how exactly she views the world. You're welcome to - and I think you will look quite stylish in some casual leather pumps :love:

Mudo']Give me an example of something being created...the pecan pie in my example.

Plus, quantum physics allows things to occur without cause.As a Quantum Physicist, I would have to disagree with you on this. Causation is still a foundational assumption to the scientific method, and has not been contradicted as long as information doesn't travel faster than the speed of light.

[LJoll]

the pecan pie in my example.

It isn't really "created" in the same way though. It is just putting things that already existed together in different orders.

[Battle Sword]

Dude, why ask why?
Just go with it!
:Angel:

[Shrukin89]

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=345

Thanks Medi :D

[[Capoeira] Mudo]

the pecan pie in my example.



You didnt create anything...you just rearranged some stuff and called what was left a pie. You didnt destroy anything nor did you create anything.

So how can anyone describe something like creation without any understanding of it ...or even any examples of it happening.

We have no creation events to observe.

So saying "creation requires cause" is totally unproven.

[cloudz]

Mudo']


Give me an example of something being created...



a baby ?

[cloudz]

It isn't really "created" in the same way though. It is just putting things that already existed together in different orders.


Hi zhan shi. "created" in the same way as what ?

[Capt Ann]

Mudo]Give me an example of something being created...
OK, how about my music, art, and poetry. This is much more in line with the original example anyhow, since the whole concept of volition (i.e., 'free will') demonstrates that God creates as an artist, and not as some impersonal force.

Despite the limited number of observed creation ex nihilio events, is there anyone with any knowledge of science on this thread who seriously doubts that this universe had a beginning or that the beginning required a cause? I hope everyone realizes that if you allow that the beginning of the universe might have been uncaused, that you have discarded the scientific method as a tool with any validity in exploring our universe.

[Johnno]

Perhaps the pecan pie analogy is a good one - if the elements were already kicking about and God then took them and used them to fashion the universe.

[cloudz]

I know a bit of science off tv & maybe the odd bit of reading here & there , can that qualify me to have an opinion about it ?

[cloudz]

Perhaps the pecan pie analogy is a good one - if the elements were already kicking about and God then took them and used them to fashion the universe.

Perhaps the ingredients could fashion themselves if they carry amongst them a fashioning ingredient.

If the ingredients can exist then why not a complimentary fashioning ingredient in amongst there.

[Polar Bear]

It's a question that is too big for me!
We have a good idea that there was a big bang but no idea of what caused it.
I have to admit I have a hard time conceptualising the no time/space before the universe. The Big Bang theory does lend itself to a guiding intelligence idea but only if there is something bigger than the universe/multiverse. Which in itself is a headf*** of an order of magnitude greater.

The Bear.

[LJoll]

Hi zhan shi. "created" in the same way as what ?

As in creating matter out of nothingness.

[LJoll]

Perhaps the pecan pie analogy is a good one - if the elements were already kicking about and God then took them and used them to fashion the universe.

If the elements always existed, would it not void the whole need for a creator in the arguament?

[Johnno]

Perhaps the ingredients could fashion themselves if they carry amongst them a fashioning ingredient.

If the ingredients can exist then why not a complimentary fashioning ingredient in amongst there.I suppose it boils down to whether you believe that the presence of all the ingredients (including the 'fashioning ingredient') for a pecan pie being present in the same kitchen will eventually cause a pecan pie to form, or whether the intervention of a cook is necessary.

[Capt Ann]

It would not negate the need. There is still the fact that the creation event occurred at a specific time (not before or after), and thus introduces the need for an agent of creation with a will.

Hey, two and a half years ago when it was active, this was one of my favorite threads on MAP. There are tons of good discussions on this thread, covering a lot more subtopics. Although it's pretty long, I recommend anyone with the time and interest to go back and read some more of the discussion.




And zendog, you can have an opinion on any topic you want ;)

[LJoll]

I suppose it boils down to whether you believe that the presence of all the ingredients (including the 'fashioning ingredient') for a pecan pie being present in the same kitchen will eventually cause a pecan pie to form, or whether the intervention of a cook is necessary.

That seems to be more like intellegant design that the "proof" mentioned earlier.

[LJoll]

It would not negate the need. There is still the fact that the creation event occurred at a specific time (not before or after), and thus introduces the need for an agent of creation with a will.

So in your opinion is creation just the triggering of the big bang.

Also, didn't time start at the big bang?

[Johnno]

Also, didn't time start at the big bang?Or maybe a minute or two after. ;) :D

[[Capoeira] Mudo]

It would not negate the need. There is still the fact that the creation event occurred at a specific time (not before or after), and thus introduces the need for an agent of creation with a will.[/i]

There is no need.

Poetry is no different to a pie. You're just choosing things that are difficult to define as physical...doesnt make any difference.

Wether the peotry is a piece of paper with words on, a recording, or a bunch of rearranged neurons in your brain (and probably other peoples too)...you havent created anything, you've just reclassified some stuff.

Saying that the universe requires a cause still isn't proven.

When you talk about creation of a pie or poetry it's a totally different concept to creation of the universe which people use to mean creation from nothing.

The word "creation" in linguistic terms implies a creator which i think is a problem. So i would say its the wrong word to use...a better term is came into existence.

We cant observe things coming into existence...so how can you jump to the conclusion that coming into existence requires cause? Plus using common sense to understand something that is obviously itself beyond common sense (ie creation from nothing) seems flawed.

In fact its been disproved. Though thats here nor there.

Why is it so difficult to handle one infinitesimal point of existence when the universe continues to exist at every moment of every day, whats the difference between these day-to-day moments and the moment of the big-bang?

[Capt Ann]

Mudo']Saying that the universe requires a cause still isn't proven.Causation isn't proven, either. Causation is an observed phenomenon, and it is axiomatic (i.e., assumed true as a first principle, without proof) to the scientific method.

You can't discount that the universe was caused because it can't be proved, unless you are willing to deny causation as a first principle and heave all of science onto the trash pile. Me? I'm not willing to do that. I see science as one more tool God has given us to understand the world that He created, and science (not religion) implies that this universe had a beginning and this beginning must have had a cause.

[Socrastein]

You don't have to deny causality to deny a first cause, I don't see how you're making that connection. There are a slew of problems with extending the parsimonious and pragmatic assumption of causality beyond the universe itself.

First of all, causality is only a macroscopic phenomenon, a manifestation of quantum probabilities being actualized and "averaged out". On the micrscopic scale, there is no causality to speak of. Quantum particles are not only observably random, they mathematically must be so.

Second of all, even if causality was universal, which it is not, it is a phenomenon we observe within the universe, there is no logical connection to be made between "Causality occurs within the universe" and "Causality acts on the universe as a whole". You've no reason to believe that our universe sits within some sort of meta-universe that obeys the laws of causality and that our universe is an effect of some meta-cause. It's the same misunderstanding that leads to people saying that inflation theory must be wrong because it predicts that the universe, in its first micro seconds, was expanding faster than the speed of light - and we all know that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. The key fact that's missed here is that C is an observed limit within the universe, within space-time. There is no known limit at which space-time itself can expand. Both situation are the same fallacy of composition, trying to apply observed traits of part of the whole to the whole itself without any logical or scientific justification.

Further, even if the universe does/did sit in some meta universe in which causality is a force as it is in our own, the beginning of the universe was a quantum event. Like I said above, on the quantum scale there really is no hard causality to speak of, so to apply macroscopic causality to microscopic events is misguided. The evidence we have suggests that the singularity that the universe started as was the result of a mathematically and theoretically random quantum tunneling of energy.

Finally, if that's not enough, there's of course the fallacy of special pleading you're committing when you argue that everything must have a cause, except the first cause. You can't make your argument without assuming that everything must have a cause (For if you deny this, then of course the universe needn't be an effect at all) but then you use this premise to draw the conclusion of an uncaused cause.

I'm afraid that the only one heaving all of science into a trash pile is anyone who insists that there must, "scientifically", have been a first metaphysical cause. You're ignoring what we know about quantum mechanics and not to mention logic itself to make your fallacious and unscientific argument.

Mudo was absolutely right - there's no proof that the universe needs a first cause. There's ample evidence and reason supporting that the universe is merely an event, not an effect, and that it arose naturally without any cause at all.

[cloudz]

The evidence we have suggests that the singularity that the universe started as was the result of a mathematically and theoretically random quantum tunneling of energy.

taking this as an example, can't it be that this is simply an action. Implying that within all action inherantly lies both discernable cause and effect ..

Or in other words energy is its own cause of action(effect). Energy can do nothing else but action I would imagine. sure randomly if you like..

Perhaps it randomly popped in from another dimension/place..( but I think you may have implied/ said this anyway in science speak ?)

Or are you suggesting it randomly tunneled from nothing?

Surely such tunneling would require something and not nothing, and you could call that something a cause I guess?

[[Capoeira] Mudo]

Surely such tunneling would require something and not nothing, and you could call that something a cause I guess?

It's easy for people to say that the universe can and must be created from an external thing...yet in the same breath use causality as a mechanism to describe the creation of the universe...even though causality is internal to the universe and cant be proven to be an external thing.

Theres no reason why causality would exist before the bigbang.

[Durkhrod Chogori]

Why is the universe here, why is there just... well, nothing at all...
That question has been driving me crazy! ;) No, i don't expect an answer, just something for you to think on


Have you ever thought that there is a Universe already inside of you. Then you might find an answer to your question. Meditate on that.


:)

[[Capoeira] Mudo]

Have you ever thought that there is a Universe already inside of you. Then you might find an answer to your question. Meditate on that.


:)


What does that even mean?

[cloudz]

Mudo']It's easy for people to say that the universe can and must be created from an external thing...yet in the same breath use causality as a mechanism to describe the creation of the universe...even though causality is internal to the universe and cant be proven to be an external thing.

Theres no reason why causality would exist before the bigbang.

But that is not a reason that it doesn't before a pop :) .

Hey I'm pretty much with you in what you're saying and have been saying on the thread CMudo. Am just not that comfortable ruling things out when the info available is limited and we're relying mostly on speculation.

I'm not a fan of beginning or first cause. But not so easy to dismiss causality altogether. So at the least cause could be the inherent behaviour of whatever is there, random or otherwise. If nothing there, then nothing I guess..

Regards zd

[[Capoeira] Mudo]

Just pointing out the contradiction of saying the universe requires an external force...then justifying that using an internal force.

People also (strangely) find it easy to cope with the idea that the universe has an outer edge beyond which nothing exists...yet have a hard time coping with the idea that it has a begining before which nothing exists.

Both are the same thing, just one is temporal and one is spatial.

[cloudz]

Mudo']Just pointing out the contradiction of saying the universe requires an external force...then justifying that using an internal force.

People also (strangely) find it easy to cope with the idea that the universe has an outer edge beyond which nothing exists...yet have a hard time coping with the idea that it has a begining before which nothing exists.

Both are the same thing, just one is temporal and one is spatial.


Yeah your probably right, but I'm probably one of those who is not too clear about it..

I do like this stuff though, it is very interesting and a little mind boggling, which is what makes it fun I guees :)

Could you explain what you mean by one is temporal and one is spatial - it sound interesting, but I am not sure of the distinction in this context.

You may have covered this.. but lets assume ok that there is a beginning - An absolute begining from nothing? Or are you saying that a singularity existed, and the beginning came from this, and nothing existed before it ?
I can get that idea. But the other angle, not sure about >

How do you get something from absolute nothing ? Even if you talk about stuff like random quantum tuneling of energy.

Nothing still equals nothing surely.

Or is that not what you are saying with the idea that it has a begining before which nothing exists.

cheers.

[[Capoeira] Mudo]

Saying "something cant grow from nothing" is like saying "roses cant grow in moon dust" without any moon dust to test it.

If the universe isnt infinite in space, then it has a border beyond which theres nothing. The farely easy to accept for most people. Yet the idea that a point in time exists as a border beyond which nothing exists is much harder to accept.

Something i was thinking about today: If you imagine a golf ball and draw an imaginary line through it, starting and ending outside of the ball.

If you follow that line, theres a point where the ball just comes into existence without any cause...the only cause is that its there...which is its own property. We percieve time as different than space...but thats just our perception, theyre otherwise the same. So coming into existence at a place (ie on our line) is no different to coming into existence at a time (ie on a time line).