No hate mail please let me just get this of my chest it would be good if I thought there was a God.
The fact some, once most religions can call for my death because I do not believe is worth considering, why?
We learn in School about history millions of years of evolution most believe in it but still in a host of Gods.
What one of the many Gods is the only one? why?
what about all those other Gods? who made those who follow them, what fate them, those who follow the wrong God?
Each book of God any God informs us if we only obey we get life forever, to do what? obey and serve?
Look into the night sky see all those stars and know they are endless or may as well be we will never see and end.
If man could write the great classics so very many of them why could he not produce those Holy books?
He did,
They stand between man being one or todays endless race toward dreadful wars.
Irony is the actions some take in the service of fables harms us all.
Over to you Boaz David.

If there is one Belly ,it is not a compassionate one that balances our deeds with the scale of some justice system.It is up to us to create justice and compassion.I think the reality will be slowly revealed through the evolution of our cosciousness.

Whether we can have an individual consciousness entity beyond this world is doubtful.Science seems to pointing to relationships between energy,matter,time and space that are pointing to a reality beyond our ordinary experiences.Already they are making things travel faster than light,which according to Einstein's theory is impossible.There is something magic about our universe and we are just beginning to scratch the surface.

If we don't all kill each other first fighting over religion,energy,resources and land,we may well achieve something that is special,that surpasses all our ideals of heaven.

Hi Belly.. Arjay..

I can say nothing more than Paul......

"If Christ is not raised from the dead.. we of all men are most to be pitied"....

Acts 14
19Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, thinking he was dead.

I often wonder what Paul was thinking when the rocks were being hurled at him at Lystra.... ? He surely would have re-thought his 'religion' ? I mean.. the feeling a rock being pelted at ur head and body, KAAAA---THUMP.. *ouch* to put it mildly.. you have to ask "Is it worth it?.. do I really believe this.. did I REALLY encounter Christ when travelling to Damascus"? He must have been pretty confident of that, because we read next:

20But after the disciples had gathered around him, he got up and went back into the city. The next day he and Barnabas left for Derbe.

I could point to personal experience.. others experience.. scripture.. miracle.. sign... etc.. history, archeology... all of which adds up to a very convincing case for Gods activity in the world, but I cannot stand in front of you and drag a spiritual rabbit out of a hat to prove "God".

I reflect on the Vietnam war and see the ugliness and sinfulness of man to his fellow man.. one of my peers, also in the RAAF at that time, looks at the same thing and says "DONT everrr talk to me about God..Ive been to Vietnam"...

We each respond to things according to our own hearts.

But to answer your question in the post..'YES' :)

Let Jesus Himself be the spokesman for this issue. (John 14)

8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

You ask "is there a God" and I point to Scripture.

"come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" Matth 11:28

I hope and pray that all of us on the forum will find that special rest in Him.

Hey Belly

I believe that there is a god of some sorts but not the one told in religious teaching such as you will find in Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam ect. Those gods were endorsed or had there teaching manipulated by people who want the ability to control the masses and using some higher state as their authorization.

Sure Jesus and the rest of them did exist but so did hundreds if not thousands of others who proclaimed they had been “shown the light” but their teaching never caught on in the main stream.

Is there a god? I guess in a way there must be something that all people consider “Godly” because without this godly thing why is there anything? Really there should be nothing!

So there must be something truly amazing that we are unable to comprehend.

I have heard a lot of theories and all are quite mind blowing but logical.

One goes along the lines of “well in the not to distant future we will have computers so powerful that we will be able a form a type of universe inside a computer.” I guess we do already in computer games but I am talking a lot more life like. If moore’s law is correct we will have computers more powerful then the human brain in a decade or two and who knows how powerful these computers will be in hundreds or thousands of years time. Its quite possible for a “Vanilla sky’s” scenario to occur.

You also have to wonder how many of these “universes” they would create? 1? 2? 1000? Then you must think well if we are creating these universes is it possible that we are also living in one created by some other form of intelligence? If we are playing god creating universes why cant something else do the same thing?
It is an out there theory but with the computing power which will soon be available I would think that it is a possibility.

Another way of looking at the god scenario is that we must first work out if the universe is a fixed size or infinite. It is a bit of a paradox because if either are proven to be true it will be difficult to understand or comprehend.

If it is a fixed size what defies the boundaries? (I have heard some theory that the universe is round or that it is able to spin)

If it is infinite in size then it must be by its very nature be full of infinite possibilities which include other universes which once again would be infinite in number. So with infinite numbers of universes and infinite possibilities it would be almost inconceivable for there not to be another universe or three EXACTLY like the one we live in.
So if the universe is infinite in size there is another EasyTimes or three on OLO arguing this very topic somewhere else in the cosmos right now.

A humbling thought.

Is there a god? Well I think it is more of a question of what form does god take?

David
You’re the master of forgiveness- and- some are the past masters of manipulation.
Still I am sure you can see through most things.

Belly

Relax belly I haven’t come in here to hassle you. There are many Gods according to millions of people but I think the key to all those people is to find it `within themselves.`

None of them seem to have shown much compassion for animals our most innocent I am afraid.
People largely make choices- animals are stuck with the choices we make for them.
I know you don’t care much about live exports or Animals. I can tell a man by his posts after a while.
You say you want peace- and your hurt and upset belly but on no less than three occasions I asked you to back off making snide remarks.
Ok ,Ok I said I wasn’t here to hassle or upset you a and I meant it.

It’s clear you opened this thread to sway David away from the other.
I don’t think David’s that fickle – but he’s genion in his compassion for people and I think you know that.
If David doesn’t mind perhaps you can use this thread as a healing for all of us.
We have offered this before however you have rejected it and got carried away with the support of others.
Its ok for them belly because lets face it they have nothing to loose. Your as loyal to your course as we are ours. We are the only real losers in the end
I have vast experience over years working with labour state Governments advisors etc.
NONE of my comments are about YOU.
When you attack- Naturally I defend.
Perhaps David can help us find a solution if he doesn’t mind
If you wish to- It’s my fourth olive branch and the last.
David Do you have any suggestions for belly and pale?
Ordinary stuff buddy- no bibles.
Yo
You’re going to love me soon
Ready to blow the lid on your pet topic
BIG TIME!
Stay well
You be good now belly.

Pale settle, I can not understand your post, and I know you do not either settle.
If today it was my job to invent a God I would want him/her to be a God for all humans.
I would use much of the Holy books of the worlds advice for good living and none of the threats.
My God would be our friend not our master, not demanding a life on our knees.
My God would teach us to treat all who are ill equally not based on cash, to educated every one who wants to learn , not just about God but his/her world as it truly is.
But my God would still be my invention and warts and all, much to achieve mans is now able to be his own God.
To stand and face reality and the challenges that brings.

belly
Why am I not surprised! - not one word for the Animals
You will be in good company in that case with all the other church Leaders.
To hell with your god.!

Hear hear PALE.

We can find the answer to this question by investigating nature itself. Certainly all living things must seek out food and safety; and every creature must hunt for nourishment and become aggressive in its own defense.

However, this is not the only principle at work. The great majority of creatures display selfless acts unequalled of devotion for their offspring and families, for other animals in the herd or in some cases, even for other species.

The animal kingdom often displays behaviors that reflect devotion and cooperation, solidarity and guarding one another's interests.

Humans who believe they have dominion over other species to do with as they wish, will not find spiritual enlightment or see the face of God.

After all, dog spelt backwards is GOD!

HA HA..Hey Belly..May I start?

As I said pale settle my best friend is my little dog.
The question is asked because it seems our Gods divide us, place some in lessor standing than others yes SPANKY GET INTO IT.

In the end the belief in God is a matter of faith (very reasonable faith). IT does however take a lot more blind faith to believe their is not a God. Just look at creation for a start. Read the words of Jesus and see that no human has been able to come close to His wisdom and ask yourself that if 500 people from different walks of life witnessed Jesus alive after being crucified you must conclude He is alive!

Gee Runner

Did anyone think to have the author of that fable, peer reviewed?

And how long after the resurrection did the author put pen to paper? (Or is that chisel to stone?)

Had the 500 witnesses already "carked" it, prior to the details of this revelation going to print?

Hi Belly, a French philosopher once suggested that you hedge your bets and err on the side of belief, because disbelief will go badly for you in the afterlife.
My personal experience is 37 years of non-belief Vs the last 4 years of radical change. God (the God of Boaz, amongst others!) is so amazing that he gives us the power of personal choice, and I fully exercised this option, all the while thinking I was basically a good person destined for heaven. But I have since discovered that true freedom of choice is found in embracing the truth in Christ.
When you look at all the religions, Jesus' claims were unique,and provable. Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, demonstrating his power over life, death, elemental forces, sickness, natural forces (feeding a multitude), blindness, muteness, lameness, spiritual and demonic foces, and the ability to predict the future accurately. Even the demons recognized him and were fearful! Modern science has had very limited success in taming these forces.
The prophets of the OT point to Jesus' arrival and His nature, eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life and deeds are found in the NT (the Gospels).
Mysteriously, when you do believe, it is God's will that you do!
God's greatest gift to humankind (and animalkind PALE!) is found in salvation through Jesus Christ. By grace we are saved, not through our own actions or choices. In your search for truth, do not overlook the NT as a source, and I encourage you to continue seeking until you know the source of my confidence.

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding". (Romans 1:7)

Christians are denigrated for prolestizing the faith, however, how can you make an informed choice if you are not given all the options?
In the end, it is up to you Belly, but before rejecting the one, true God, I urge you to spend some time getting to know Him through His word.

That's a very confused view, runner, if you don't mind my saying.

>>In the end the belief in God is a matter of faith (very reasonable faith)<<

Agree with the first part. Second part is obviously just your opinion.

>>IT does however take a lot more blind faith to believe their is not a God.<<

How does that work? It takes precisely no faith at all, not to believe in God. In fact, it is an absence of faith that defines a disbelief in God.

>>Just look at creation for a start.<<

Be more specific. In what way does creation support the belief in a God?

>>Read the words of Jesus and see that no human has been able to come close to His wisdom<<

That's kind of circular, don't you think? If I believed in a God, then there is a statistical chance I'd believe that Jesus is one too. But I don't so I don't, and the argument about the relativity of his wisdom is therefore moot.

>>ask yourself that if 500 people from different walks of life witnessed Jesus alive after being crucified you must conclude He is alive!<<

"If" is clearly the operative word here. If I did believe the stories about those 500 people, then I might also conclude that he was alive at that time - when they allegedly saw him. Regrettably, the sighting nearly 2000 years ago hardly guarantees that he is still alive today, does it? Even Noah only lasted less than half that.

I asked Boaz, and he carefully ducked the question - do you believe that Noah became a father at 502 years of age?

But I guess it has to be true that if you can stretch your mind around that one and still feel good about yourself, nothing's impossible.

Listen, there's this really neat bridge only 75 years old, going really cheap...

Pericles

You have caught me out as I have never done the maths on Noahs age when he had children. I do however believe that men and women lived for hundreds of years before the flood. So it could be very possible that Noah was 502 (I would need to look it up).

My wife says if you want to know if God is there, ask Him if He is. The Bible says that we can see Him in His Creation. It also says that if we zealously seek to find Him, we will. "Seek ye The Lord while He may be found" also suggests its wise to seek Him out before we pass on, for then its the Judgment. Confess the sin and invite Jesus in...is what its about. Get a relationship going with The Lord today. Him and you...you and Him. Its not to do with church or religious system. Him and you...you and Him.

The bible was written down about 200 years after the death of Jesus. So today’s equivalent is to try and write the history on the founding of Australia on what your mum, dad, grandma, grandpa and friends tell you. You have to give it to the blokes who wrote the bible they got an awful lot of detail from word of mouth of things that happened 200 years ago. You try writing about Captain Phillip and the early history of Australia asking everybody you know I doubt if you could get any more then a chapter let alone a book the size of the bible. For this reason you should be quite skeptical of the facts the bible tells you.

As I said before the only philosophy which I have heard which has any real credibility is the simulator theory.
Unlike Jesus, Mohammed and the rest of them this one in a way can be tested as to how likely it is to be true.

I guess in a way it is similar to the drake equation.

This is how it works. One of these 3 things MUST be true.

1. Humans never make to a post human civilization (we die out as a race)
2. Humans never bother creating computers which could simulate the past (nobody is interested in experiencing or seeing how there fore fathers lived)
3. Or they do create these machines and the question becomes how many. (If they create 1 I guess it is a 50/50 chance that we live in the real or the simulated environment. If they create 2 well it’s a 66% chance that we live in a simulated environment if they create 1000, well you do the maths.

Point 2 could also have added to it any civilization that exists in the universe has never attempted this. It does not have to be a human civilisation that creates this simulator

What are the chances of us living in a simulated environment well most people who have studied this theory give it from 20% chance to 99.9999999% chance.

Belly,

"The fact some, once most religions can call for my death because I do not believe is worth considering, why?"

No idea. I've heard that rumoured about only one religion but it is a highly controversial allegation. Are you sure that is even a fact?

"What one of the many Gods is the only one? why?"

Considering the level of sophistication of the debates on this type of topic between those who believe in different religions you can't expect this answered in here. It sounds more like you want reassurance for your disbelief when people don't deliver in 350 words or less. Are you having doubts about your faith that there is nothing to the extent that you feel a need to rationalize with this type of thing?

"what about all those other Gods? who made those who follow them, what fate them, those who follow the wrong God?"

Considering the level of sophistication of debate on this type of thing by great minds over thousands of centuries what are you expecting with the question? If you were seeking a religion you would need to invest a lot of time in working that out. You claim that you aren't seeking a religion. You claim that you don't believe in God. Accordingly, your perspective precludes dialogue on comparative merits of religions for someone who seeks faith. How can one thing you don't want to believe in sound better than something else you don't want to believe in? That doesn't make sense to me.

Do you want us to make you have faith in one religion when you choose to reject all? Noone can force faith upon another person. You can choose what you wish and so you will. Personally I'd love for you to experience the love of Jesus Christ but it has to be up to you. That is the way we are.

continued

"Each book of God any God informs us if we only obey we get life forever, to do what? obey and serve?"

I know in one religion it is an experience of perfect love. Framed that way it seems more appealing.

"If man could write the great classics so very many of them why could he not produce those Holy books?
He did,"

You were there? Wouldn't it be better to advance a theory that they could have rather than have faith that they did because you think they could have? If you really feel that way I withdraw my comment about your apparent doubts and note that I wish my faith was as strong as yours.

"They stand between man being one or todays endless race toward dreadful wars."

I admire your confidence in the human race. As we become increasingly secularised I presume war will increasingly fizzle out?

"Irony is the actions some take in the service of fables harms us all."

What I find really scary is atheist fundamentalism - particularly as demonstrated by its best known example. Having said that I find it curious that you preface your comments with an assertion that you want to avoid negative responses then you disrespectfully deride the belief of most of the world's inhabitants as "fables". Does that seem consistent to you? Do you think that type of approach toward other people and their beliefs will end all wars?

ET,

70-100 years not 200 wasn't it? So it is more like finding out about Australia in the 20th Century from your Grandfather.

"For countless centuries, scientists, philosophers, archeologists, and historians, have been pursuing the goal of revealing the truth about the events that happened before their birth.

"Multitudes of lives have been spent toiling over massive records of relevant episodes in the epic of man's existence. And yet, while the effort behind these actions has not been futile, has any common truth, or agreement on such a truth come into being?

"While these people have sought to eliminate all error from the accounts of specific events, have they succeeded in anything but incorporating the views of their own time into these precious recollections of history?

"It seems that if so much time and energy has been channeled into the preservation and reconstruction of this subject, a certain outcome of accuracy and fact should result.

"And yet, all that is said about any event that occurred in the past, be it the existence of King Arthur, or the fall of the Ming Dynasty, can be argued, debated, and ultimately, proven to be completely false.

"The quest for truth that inspires historians can be considered to be a foolish enterprise, as no truth is ever revealed. It is impossible to obtain a completely accurate account of any given event, as no human being is omniscient.

'"Whoever wants the total reality," writes Jacques Barzun," must first gain access to the mind of God".'

"The error that so many consider to be the ultimate flaw of history is indeed history in itself. We cannot escape our nature. To be human is to err, and to form bias, and make mistakes.

"Even when one attempts to obtain pure knowledge, one is already bound to a certain opinion of the subject, regardless of one's wishes.

The reason history exists is to provide inconsistent, flawed accounts of the conflicts that lead up to the current state of affairs.

runner, on the 500 witnesses, I have a vague recollection that one of the passages describing the period after ressurection said (I'm paraphrasing) "It didn't look like Jesus but she knew it was him" and from memory "she" was Mary of Magdelene. I know I'm displaying my ignorance, but if I'm correct in that memory, how is that accounted for by the witnesses.

Dear friends.. the guiding principle for all of us should be:

"am I doing to others, as I wish/accept them to do for me"?

So for Belly and PALE..this is the guide. When it comes to specifics, and specially to animals.. I think you both would agree "Avoid Cruelty" so..problem solved :) The difficulty then arises about 'greatest good' when economic circumstances enter the picture. This is something we have to humbly determine with our best information. I would just add "Greatest good with the least pain..all round" I doubt we will ever find an ideal mutually satisfying solution to the problems you 2 discuss. So, respectfully agreeing to disagree might be the best course.

I do want to address 2 other points. Pericles.. yes..I totally have no problem with the age of Noah when he fathered children. Why ? because I don't project backwards our current life spans into past history. I notice a gradual decrease in the life spans of the characters in the old testament.. you might like to examine this some time. It explains a lot.. including how so few people could populate the planet so quickly. I have zero scientific information on this. It just does not particularly bother me.

RELIGION FOR POWER/CONTROLLING THE MASSES.. this one usually crops up. If I look hard enough, I can find a few sections of the NT which 'might' at a stretch be deemed of that nature, but definitely the only 'power' the early church was allocated was the issue of dealing with sin. If a member of the fellowship was a)Claiming to live for Christ, and b) Indulging in immorality..he/she was kicked out.. disciplned.

The kind of power and control which is referred to by easytimes, is political. You can only want to control 'masses' when there is power and territory at stake.. usually greed plays a big part.

I totally reject the idea that such things are taught in the Gospels or Epistles..totally. The early church survived difficult persecution, and there WAS no 'power' OR 'masses' to be manipulated. They were little groups which met in upper rooms etc.

CONSTANTINE.. started the problem of 'manipulation of the masses'.... by legalizing Christianity and once it became fashionable to be 'Christian' it also became fashionable to be BIG Christians... top dogs.. king pins.. and that is the beginning of DEPARTURE from the sound new testament prinicples of humility in leadership.. "First shall be LAST" said Jesus.. "He who would be first among you must be servant of all"...how hard is it to grassssp this :)

That old Persian poet Omar had it in one .

" Make the most of what we yet may spend ,before we too into the dust descend ".

I have a friend who is currently undergoing a crisis of faith and she has become unsure of whether there is a God or not. This is a serious matter for her, as religion has been a central plank of her life for the last 30 years. Certainly, she has decided that she no longer believes in an interventionist God. But she feels that even if she no longer believes in God this won't actually change the way she lives (except that she'll spend less time on religious observance).

In "What is an Agnostic", Bertand Russell answers the question "Are you never afraid of God's judgment in denying Him?" Russell says "Most certainly not. I also deny Zeus and Jupiter and Odin and Brahma, but this causes me no qualms. I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence."

Heresy, I know, but does it really matter whether God exists, or not?

Hey Boaz I never meant to infer that religions sole purpose is to manipulate the masses what I was saying is that it is used as a tool to do it. That’s why so many powerful people get deeply involved in religion and use the word of god as a reason to commit evil

Does anyone know how the ww2 cargo cult of Papua came about?
Have you after a storm seen the mystical rainbow serpent? rainbow to us?
Such is the Gods we invent hear the story's about ww1 battle Field Ancient British knights seen over the Battle fields?
After the death of a loved one have you felt them right there with you?
Do you understand it is not possible according to the Christian Bible, that until Jesus come the dead remain dead?
Can it be someone sees this thread as a reason to insult one religion but build up another?
Islam would call for my death, I do not believe.
Once Christians would too, is it not true like it or not we are one race one people?
I once was saved, born again Christian my life was saved, not however for long.
In my once Gods name a group in my new found Church,never far from mainstream Christians prayed for three days that God would heal a child's broken arm, before taking him to a doctor.
Some Christians and I think followers of most religions hide crimes carried out by ministers because they are Gods men? all religions not just one.
Why would we have many races but only one true God? why not more?
Do not feel sorry for me, no hell awaits me and no heaven awaits those who believe.

Belly ,the "cargo cult" I thought would be self expalainitory.Aust & Allies used to drop supplies to the Aussies in New Guinea during WW2 and the Papuans also bebefited from the drops of food and clothing.Thus the natives thought that the planes were gods who dropped the cargo.Hence the name "Cargo Cult".

EasyTimes,
The text of the Bible was not written from memory 200 years after the events. The fact is we have copies from origin documents and sources written 200 years after the events. The original sources have been lost or fell apart from continual use. The fact is there is no original texts of secular contemporaries to the new Testament writers, and no one challenges secular events of the same period. The challenge is Jesus confronts us because of our unforgiven sin.

However God is not found in mere ink, but in admirable character, pure attitudes and selfless behaviour reflected through human incarnation. The message of Christ is no matter how evil one's past has been it can be forgiven upon repentance and accepting the spirit of Christ into ones life to now reflect the true character of Christ.

The problem with the bible it has been re hashed re written, interpreted into a new languages and “edited” on so many occasions and usually by an interest groups an individual or a select few with out any sort of cross referencing. The bible can not stand up to rigorous scientific testing due to the shabby way it has been put together over the centuries. The fairy tales it tells of people walking on water, turning water into wine and the blind have fish scales fall from their eyes and being able to see again are about as believe able as someone telling you that there are fairy’s at the bottom of the garden.

People believe in god because they want to find meaning in their life and a reason for everything and until something better comes up blokes Jesus and Moh will have many willing followers.

Arjay I am aware of that my point is left alone that cult would have evolved into a new religion, it lasted at least into the 1960,s.
I we think not very deeply we will find other examples, some very big religions seem to have roots in fictional books, man seems to want to believe he is not capable of looking after his own fate.
If Shakespeare could write his books could
he or some one else not write a Bible?
We should not underestimate mans ability's, if we can make our city's we can make anything.

JohnJ one of the tragedies of 'religion' is when we have an image or personal understanding of "God" which differs from the revealed God.

Once our own ideas of Him a) Differ and b) Become settled in our minds, and a real world event goes contrary to that condition, we can have a crisis of faith. But that crisis is in reality with our 'own' version of God, not the God of the Bible.

There is a verse in the New Testament.. where Jesus says

12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. 13 “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

PROBLEM .. without pastoral guidance, (to give the BIG overall picture) you can imagine a naive person running with this verse as follows:

1/ OOOOh.. this is FANtastic...
2/ They come across a poor child with Cancer.
3/ They Pray "Oh Lord.. please HEAL this innocent child"
4/ The child is not healed..but dies within a week.
5/ Potential crisis of faith.

Rather than try to explain the full background to Jesus statement, I suggest a liberal use of Google to see what comes up.

One thing often neglected in seeking to understand the above is the very next verse.

15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

AAAH.. now this is part of the problem. Can we expect the Lord to work through us dramatically while we wallow in sin like a pig in mud?

Then there is the issue of "What we ask..IN His name." well surely 'healing of the sick' is....getting rain for desperate farmers.. bringing WORLD PEACE....errr..etc.. and so it becomes clear that if we take a literal face value meaning for those words without qualification.. we can get into all kinds of trouble.

Easy Times,
What is your meaning for life in the context of this time and universe? Are you saying in this - [quote] "People believe in god because they want to find meaning in their life and a reason for everything and until something better comes up blokes Jesus and Moh will have many willing followers." Are you stating that your life is meaningless and you have no answers. If otherwise you have the answers - then lets hear them!

/continued....

Imagine Paul.. who experienced dramatic miraculous healing of blindness, and also healed others.. if he applied these words to every aspect of his life.. when he was being shipwrecked he would have yelled out 'BE CALM' to the storm.... etc.

EASYTIMES.... I think we can help you on this issue of 'the documents' which you described as having been:

-Re-hashed
-Re-Written
-Interpreted into new languages
-Edited

But if you consider each of those points, they are not neccessarily negative.

1/ Re-Hashed. Well.. a great deal of effort by a great deal of highly qualified people.. scholars, archeologists, linquists etc over along period of time..has gone into ensuring the docuements are as accurate as possible based on the amazing abundance of documentary resources and evidence.

2/ Re-Written..... well refer to point one above. If a document comes to light (maybe even a secular one from the NT period) which sheds more light on the meaning or use of a word than we had up to that time... it can help to 'perfect' the meaning in English or other non Greek languages.

3/ Interpreted into new languages. Yep indeedy :) Jesus is called the 'PIG' of God in some cultures where they have never ever seen a 'sheep' :)

4/ Edited. Refer to point 1 and 2

Finally, the evidence for the reliability of the NT is very very strong. MUCH stronger than for other figures of history of that time.
Please read this...http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

and if you can find a copy of 'Evidence which demands a verdict' by Josh McDowell... have a read also.
An opposing view is found here.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

I've had a look at this, and its pretty 'lightweight' in terms of 'threat' :) but I link it for purposes of balance

Cause and effect Belly. Before the beginning was some sort of Cause. And causes create effects. Beyond this,what attributes we give to this conceptual figure are determined by culture,experience,ideals and dreams.

Universal concepts of all knowing,all loving and all powerful Gods are fine with me.

Maintaining that there is only one god,and trying to force this on others is pretty lousy tho'. This scarcity of gods makes people cling to the one theyve got too hard, and ultimately they will fight to protect that endangered god. Having lots of gods would fix this.

And Belly, God,religion and spirituality exist as ideas outside the material world. Any Materialist is by definition blind to spiritual experience, and could never get the sort of 'proofs' they might need before they could believe.

This scarcity of gods that makes people anxious about their God, and prepared to fight and die for their god, makes religion far too serious. We should all lighten up on the subject and go and play with our dogs.

Boaz
This is one thing in the NT which caught my eye and was put forward as fact in the bible but has yet to be proved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents that is the killing of all male children when Jesus was born by King Herod.
What I am saying is that how many people back in the early years of the church were capable of reading and writing and interpreting. How much of the text did they corrupt? I have lost count of the number of times “the holy sprit” influenced writing. The Holy Sprit would appear in the dreams of those chosen by god. Very convenient if you ask me, anybody can say they have been chosen by god and that the holy sprit is talking to them.

Philo
I am still looking for the meaning in my life, I am looking down all avenues and I may never find it. One thing I am sure of is that I was not put on this earth just so I could die and then go to heaven or hell. That concept makes the least amount of sense of all. People want there to be meaning in their lives and they use the god heaven hell scenario as that meaning. People turn to religion because they want hope when a loved one has died or they want to feel as though some one is “listening” to their prayers and thoughts.
The more I read about science the more amazing and complicated the universe appears to be. The more we learn about it the less in an overall prospective do we understand about it

From the link Boaz posted, the classical historian F.F. Bruce writes:

The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this.

…To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

'The interval then between the data of original. composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scripture have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'

Belly, again from personal experience, my child (4) was run over by a 4WD in March. Ambulances were called, emergency crews were mobilized. While the very competent medical team demonstrated care and professionalism, it was news that most of the congregation had been contacted and were praying that provided the greatest comfort. Traumatic as it was, this was a life and death situation, not a broken arm.

As Christians, we need to allow God to work through his servants and not demand signs and miracles as evidence of His existence.

My prayer, as for others that day, was that God’s will be done, and that we could accept the outworking of His plan for us. I saw the accident, the evidence of my own eyes was that my little one could not possibly survive.

God answered. In the end, the medical crew had stabilized my child only to discover no brain damage, later, we found no broken bones, no serious injury. The neurologists and paediatricians called him a miracle.

Even the experts fell back on the spritual to describe my child’s recovery. It is good to acknowledge God’s existence when it is so demonstrably obvious. Take the rainbow you mentioned. Another visible sign of God’s loving and merciful hand over His creation, or the twofold infraction and dispersion of sunlight…

Attention david boaz
a philosopher may write:
Idealism can never survive on an evolving planet if the idealists in each generation permit themselves to be exterminated by the baser orders of humanity.
And here is the great test of idealism: Can an advanced society maintain that military preparedness which renders it secure from all attack by its war-loving neighbors without yielding to the temptation to employ this military strength in offensive operations against other peoples for purposes of selfish gain or national aggrandizement?

But maybe today's Father based person would add:

National survival demands preparedness, and religious idealism alone can prevent the prostitution of preparedness into aggression.

Only love, brotherhood, can prevent the strong from oppressing the weak.

Perhaps there are many mansions in a Fathers house for logic to be classed as wise:

http://www.urantia.org

20 years ago a group was returning from a Christian revival meeting, full of the holly spirit and happiness.
The road was heading for a T intersection and had been there for more than 40 years unchanged.
They sailed on blindly into another car, a T bone at the T intersection.
The letter they wrote to the editor of a country paper warned us the devil had been behind the wheel, but God had saved his children.
Luckily he saved the victim in the destroyed car too.
You can find such proofs of God ? every day.
Or be brave and confront the fact man has many Gods ,why is it we fail to understand half of the world is not Christian?
Do we say, are we saying only we are worthy of having the right God.
My God? it is man himself the inventor of all Gods spend just a minute looking at the stars tonight and tell me God made all that so we can spend eternity on our knees serving him.

Belly

You write 'it is man himself the inventor of all Gods spend just a minute looking at the stars tonight and tell me God made all that so we can spend eternity on our knees serving him.'

I think it was Bob Dylan who said you gotta serve somebody. In actual fact we all do either serve ourselves which if done exclusively leads to misery or we serve God by serving others which brings contentment. You are right that the God of the bible did create the stars and the sun and the moon. Our human minds are far to limited to fathom God's greatness. That is why we come up with pathetic alternatives such as evolution in order to explain our existence.

it is man himself the inventor of all Gods spend just a minute looking at the stars tonight and tell me God made all that so we can spend eternity on our knees serving him.
The frightening[which is actually lack of imagination]aspect of a God--
is that when we look--we should also enquire.
So like our friend with his evolution must be wrong--the answer to the star service dilemma--is nobody was born to kneel.
So why be so ignorant of what inhabitants of other planets might be evolved to.
An expanding Universe perhaps...

So many ideas on this subject.

I will only answer a couple of points – ‘IT does however take a lot more blind faith to believe their is not a God’ – how does that work? If I see no proof, I do not believe.

‘if you want to know if God is there, ask Him if He is’ – tried that in my most desperate times. No reply. Maybe I had the wrong number. That certainly cured me of any beliefs.

‘the God of the bible did create the stars and the sun and the moon’ – never heard of physics? The birth and death of stars etc has been clearly detailed by the scientific community.

‘we come up with pathetic alternatives such as evolution in order to explain our existence’ – what rubbish. It’s a case of, if science can’t explain it, it must be supernatural.
Creationism vs evolution. Why did God make flies? Cockroaches? Sharks? Seperate races (unless he wanted to watch conflicts)? Why are the fossils older than God's Earth?

As I said to door-to-door holies, ‘I won’t be disappointed when I die, I know that nothing waits for me”.

BELLY..... just after I had presented the Gospel to my extended family one time.. (at their request)... they began to discuss things..and one point arose.. 'The Bishop of this area.. was driving along one day, and killed in an accident... why did God let that happen"?

This is the point where we try to "invent" a God of our convenience.
I imagine either the bishop or some other driver did a silly thing or there was a mechanical failure and life took its course.

Yes, there are times when God for His own reasons intervenes dramatically in human affairs, but most people don't see them, and the reason is.. they occur at the coal face of the kingdom of God..
in direct connection with evangelization of the world.

Looking at individual anecdotes and seeking to draw from them evidence for OR against God's existence if pretty futile.

Instead.. we should focus on what God did in Christ, and the testimony thereof.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY... INVENTED BY ...GOD :)

Or.. 'God the first Unionist' ? :) I found this today in Deuteronomy.. thought you might like it:

Deut22:8 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.

Not bad eh :)

JohnJ: Tragedy – war, famine, disease, death, global warming, natural disasters – very present and visible in our world but NOT the work of a righteous and wrathful God? How satisfactory are these explanations: fate, bad karma, bad luck, mother nature, a fickle deity/deities, human error, or consequences? The world is a very confusing place in the absence of faith in a God in whose image we were created (the interventionist God mentioned above).

AK47: Proof of God’s existence can be found in the great variety and complexity of His creation, from the micro to the macro; the logical nature of the world and yet apparent chaos; the deep longing in our hearts to know Him and the nagging question that keeps popping up (thanks Belly!); the fact that where human society exists there also exists a yearning to explain the spiritual.

EasyTimes: God’s divine purpose for His people is not that we simply live and die. We are designed for relationship with our Creator, and with each other.

Belly: “…man has many Gods” & Palimpsest: “…Having lots of Gods would fix this”

Belly, I think we agree that all people were created equal, even if we can’t agree on by whom.

Accepting the existence of one true God, precludes any other contenders. One persons claims are blasphemous to another, mutual exclusiveness appears to condemn most of the human race. On the other hand, many thousands of people, followers of Hinduism, for example, worship many Gods, without being subject to the judgement of any.

Trendy pluralists, under the guise of tolerance and peaceful coexistence, claim that all paths lead to the same God. A conciliatory position which keeps theology at arms length, so that adherents are unable to recognise that this supposition is equally unattractive to both monotheists and polytheists. (Baha'i's 'oneness of religion' aside)

It is my sincere hope that we can accept all people, regardless of belief, while being able to choose and practice our own beliefs openly. This is not to be confused with acceptance of all beliefs.

Boazy,

"CONSTANTINE.. started the problem of 'manipulation of the masses'.... by legalizing Christianity and once it became fashionable to be 'Christian' it also became fashionable to be BIG Christians... top dogs.. king pins.. and that is the beginning of DEPARTURE from the sound new testament prinicples of humility in leadership.. "First shall be LAST" said Jesus.. "He who would be first among you must be servant of all"...how hard is it to grassssp this :)"

Interesting that as a Christian you think that masses are now manipulated although I guess there are some clear examples in recent history. I have always seen this as an aberation rather than the rule. You sound negative toward Constantine. Don't forget that he stopped Christians from being fed to the lions. You make it sound like Christianity generally went wrong a few centuries in just because it wasn't oppressed. The idea that Christianity went wrong in the early centuries is ironically very similar to the Muslim view.

Have you answered the last sentence in ET's King Herod paragraph addressed to you?

ET,

Many people thirst for truth and understanding. I guess if you are not interested ... to each their own.

palimpsest,
The evidence there is but one God is the fact the universe is a cosmological unity. It all started from one mind behind the design. There are not conflicting sciences in understanding the universe, though extremely diverse it operates as a unity.

EasyTimes,
It is important we recognise our lives have value in our living historical setting. Living has little to do with the afterlife and it is more about the present. God is revealed in the living not in the dead. The character and attitudes of the living remains frozen at death. It forever cannot be changed.

katieO,
I might mention Professor FF Bruce was no casual researcher, he was head of the Department of Biblical History and literature in Sheffield University whose credibility is second to none. Any serious scholar of Biblical texts will have copies of his research on their shelves.

mjpb, in the 47th post to this topic, asks BOAZ_David "Have you answered the last sentence in ET's King Herod paragraph addressed to you?". (ET is an unofficial abbreviation for EasyTimes.)

That last sentence in the 'King Herod paragraph' was "Very convenient if you ask me, anybody can say they have been chosen by god and that the holy sp[i]rit is talking to them." (I have assumed it was an 'i' missing, not an 'e' at the end of the word. If it was the latter, we would be waiting to hear from OLO user Cuchulhainn, wouldn't we?)

I am not going to presume that I know how B_D would respond to this sentence, nor attempt to answer for him. I have, however, read the Wiki reference provided, and it touches upon some of the relevant aspects of the historical context of this incident of infanticide under Herod 'the Great'. Life and times were exceedingly turbulent and capricious in Judaea during the last years of Herod, if Flavius Josephus, the near-contemporary historian is to be believed. Unravelling the chronology of events of those last years of Herod from Josephus is quite a challenge. That Josephus (whos primary source was Nicholas of Damascus, Herod's biographer) fails to mention the slaughter of the innocents is hardly surprising.

Against the scale of what Herod planned at the time of his death, that incident pales into insignificance. Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews", in Book 17, Chapter 6, recounts Herod's intention to have one of every family of the nation slain upon the event of his actual death, in order that there should be genuine mourning at his passing throughout his kingdom.

The slaughter of the innocents, within a year of the Census, is recounted alone by St Matthew. Matthew was a 'publican' before becoming a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. For 'publican' read Roman tax agent, collaborator, Quisling, traitor to his nation. As such he would have likely had 'inside information' on public affairs that was simply not available or known to other writers.

How many Gods has man had? a thousand? ten thousand? the Mayan God was one of blood, young men had to die women and children too for that God.
Like every God I have so far heard of his servants lived a life of power and privilege.
And those lower down? fear and slavery.
Our science gave us planes and cars power to homes we learned to build every thing we have man and his sciences gave us.
But some insist in God who looks after us ,who visited in the flesh but is busy at present and cannot spare the time to slip back and say Gday.
We have no problem in saying other Gods are just a mith but seem unable to confront the fact they all are.

KatieO, 'Proof of God’s existence can be found in the great variety and complexity of His creation, from the micro to the macro; the logical nature of the world and yet apparent chaos' is an example of blind faith. Most of the above phenomena have been explained by science. All else will be explained in the future.

Didn't our ancestors think that the sun rode a chariot across the sky? Didn't they believe that a god caused thunder?

Even the early Christians beleived the Earth was flat and the sun went around. These theories were done away with as will creationism as science proves more on evolution. Religion will have to make way for the truth again.

I have no spiritual 'yearning'. Not everyone needs a crutch.

As for, 'I think we agree that all people were created equal, even if we can’t agree on by whom.', nice thought, but doesn't work in reality. If everyone was equal, there would be no wars.

There are alot of things here tha we can not be sure of but one thing I can be sure of and so can all of you that in the not to distant future (I doubt any of us here will see it but our great grandchildren may) that humans become almost godly. They will for all practical purposes cure all diseases and live forever. Once this occurs I am sure you will see a big shift in religion. Once death is taken out of the equation religion will quickly loose its appeal

Herod 'the Great' had built a winter palace at Jericho. He was living in it just before his death according to Josephus.

Joshua 6:26 says: "And Joshua charged them all at that time saying, Cursed before the LORD is the man who rises up and builds the city of Jericho. He shall lay the foundations of it in his first-born, and in his youngest son he shall set up the gates of it."

A matter of a few days before his death Herod ordered the execution of Antipater, his first-born son, at Jericho.

Some little time beforehand, Herod had executed his youngest son, Aristobulus, together with his brother Alexander, at Sebaste. This had largely been brought about by Antipater's intrigues, according to Josephus in Book 16, Chapter 11, of the Antiquites.

The scriptures record the birth of Jesus of Nazareth as having occurred at the occasion of the census ordered by Augustus.

It would be very interesting to know whether, at the moment of census registration by Joseph, Jesus had been born. My suspicion is that he had not, inasmuch as Jesus was in the royal line (by his mother's side?), and as a descendant of the house of Jesse in accord with the award made by Saul many years before in respect of the slaying of the giant, Goliath (as it transpired, by David, 8th and youngest son of Jesse), was to enjoy tax-free status in Israel. I Samuel 17:25 refers. I am prepared to bet Jesus was not counted in that census!

Tax, not surprisingly, interested Matthew. Matthew 17:24-27 seems to confirm this intended tax-free status of Jesus. It also says other things about the legitimacy or otherwise of certain authorities at the time.

It would also be very interesting to know how the birthdays of persons born during the periodically intercalated month of Ve-Adar in the Jewish calendar were conventionally handled. There were, I think, three Ve-Adars in every 11 years. Perfect cover, perhaps, for someone male born in Bethlehem of a certain age?

Runner
“In actual fact we all do either serve ourselves which if done exclusively leads to misery or we serve God by serving others which brings contentment.”

Not necessarily, individuals whom have achieved self actualization have overcome misery through self analysis, through introspection, by understanding oneself, and by emphasizing ones uniquness. Dr A Maslow, in formulating his needs hierarchy, contended that there are two processes necessary for self-actualization, exploration and action, the deeper that self exploration, the closer one comes to self actualization.

Hermits, for example, including Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem said in the year 212, ‘Weary of the world’s slanders against him, he retired to the wilderness’, where through becoming a stranger to the world, he was ultimately rewarded with inner peace.

The Hindus in one of their oldest myths say that the world was created because the Original Being was lonely, and is an idea that’s been tried by almost every civilization with Buddha, a self imposed exile, being the most recognized.

Atheism ultimately stands for the doctrine of the ‘personal god’ (as belly highlighted) “who is the ultimate principle of the universe, the primordial guardian of moral values, and lastly the highest object of our religious worship”, and is undoubtedly rooted in the ideal of realism, and the recognition of the 'real' existence of the world and its objects.

Religion is simply a poorly substantiated form of moral dictatorship.

Belly, how do you know that all gods are a myth? Boaz' God really exists for him. We all anthropomorphise(?) our dogs don't we? Mayans lived and died for their Gods. They didn't think for one second that they were deluded. Ill warrant that their gods gave them order and understanding of the world they lived in.

Religion can be different things to different people, an ethical guidebook, a power trip, a serious of ordained observances, a spiritual thing etc.; but if you don't ever conceptualise a god or the soul first then you can never find them.

We do create our gods, but that doesn't invalidate the possibility of a Supreme, creating being. And it does not make believers wrong either.

Philo, if we accept that the universe is a cosmological unity etc, who is to say that it was not designed by a committee? a sisterhood? or brotherhood of naughty gods?

The dogmatic view of the one-god religions is far too precious.

Where is StevenLMeyer?

If you value your God above all others why?
why are the other half or more of mankind wrong?
Islam has many more followers than the Christian God are numbers the measure?
Would heaven have enough room? would our parents find time for theirs in heaven?
Would we want to spend time with our very different great grand parents?
Why did God not know Australia?
Man is one one day if he still needs him the God he invents for us all will be one.

Belly ,
Hey , Good stuff, let's get our minds on the important - what really counts , and away from the Election .

Let's think about the Future !

PS . Fifty Seven years without winning a Grand Final and all those people in town that go to church .

We All had better have a serious yarn to the Boss.

Cheers ,Jim .

EasyTimes,
You assume things by dreaming will come true. This quote "Once death is taken out of the equation religion will quickly loose its appeal."

Please tell me how the universe will loose its organic nature of decay and become a stable state. Humans are made of the substance of the earth that requires food and water to maintain life. Tell me how the removal of this might occurr?

The reality of Christianity is that the spiritual is eternal, and never changes or ceases. You are more than organic chemistry, that changes and decays. You are character, attitudes, motives, relationships etc that is the real you, and your time in history forms the real you that evaluates who you are. Your chemistry will disapear, your spirit is set in eternal history. God is the Spirit set in eternity who is pure, moral, admirable and holy. He ought to be incarnate in your life if you wish to perceive him.

Palimpest,

“We do create our gods, but that doesn't invalidate the possibility of a Supreme, creating being. And it does not make believers wrong either.”

Of course not. To know that they are wrong requires faith.

“Mayans lived and died for their Gods.”

Not all Mayans died for their gods. Aztecs didn’t have to die for their gods. They appeared to be wiping out the entire South American population for their god but didn’t have to die themselves. They lived in a thriving metropolis with hunters continually capturing people from other tribes. They believed that the sun would go out if they didn’t offer continual sacrifices. Ironically the hunters became the hunted. Greedy explorer Cortez massacred them to get their gold and put an end to their routine. Given the small populations in those days and their need to continually acquire South Americans, if Cortez hadn’t arrived they might have run out of other people to sacrifice. They then might have used their own and thus died for their gods but that is hypothetical.

Belly,

“Islam has many more followers than the Christian God are numbers the measure?”

I read something a few years ago about how Islam was growing and expected to outnumber Catholicism in the near future. So it has overtaken has it? What are the current numbers?

“Our science gave us planes and cars power to homes we learned to build every thing we have man and his sciences gave us.”

And of course Christianity gave us science and Jesus gave us Christianity. Everything good always points back to God.

FG,

Thanks for all that.

THIS IS AMAZING... what ? Well..the depth of inight, the open-ness of hearts, the genuine inquiry and the overwhelming level of rich information that this thread has brought to the surface.

APOLOGIES to anyone who, in the middle of their posts, has addressed any question to me which I've missed. MJBP thanx for the prod about ET's..

Did anyone read Forest Gumps wealth of historical info there ? fantastic!

ET.. refer FG's info on Herod.. there isn't any specific information that I'm aware of regarding that massacre. Given that massacres were not an unusual thing in those days, it might have been eclipsed by something of more interest to nationalist-zealots in the history writing.

KatieO.. wonderful piece :)

Palimp.. Mcpherson.. "Is man the inventor of all gods"?

This question needs to be aproached with reason and logic.

"IF".... man is going to invent a god... reason says "He will invent one which will be an extension of natural human behavior and desires.

The invented god will:

"Fight wars to give you more territory and power"
"Give you plenty of good sex...lots of women, wives concubines and not lay down barriers to your physical fulfillment"
"Protect you against other gods and peoples"
"Give you plenty of moral latitude, not interfering with your own natural desires"

Now.. all I can say is that if you read the Old testament, and see what it really does say..you will find the God of the OT is not the god described above.

If He was..then the people of Israel would have not yeilded to the tempation of gravitating to the Baals and Ashtoreth's and various pagan gods.. with the associated practices such as infant sacrifice.

It's impossible to encompass the whole issue here.. but a good read of the OT in relaxed manner would probably help :) see you in 6 months.

CONCLUSION. Invented gods= Baal, Ashtoreth, Moloch,Dagon.Queen of heaven etc.

http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=1619

More straw-man arguments, Boaz? They're becoming highly predictable, but remain unconvincing.

>>"IF".... man is going to invent a god... reason says "He will invent one which will be an extension of natural human behavior and desires.
The invented god will:
"Fight wars to give you more territory and power"
"Give you plenty of good sex...lots of women, wives concubines and not lay down barriers to your physical fulfillment"
"Protect you against other gods and peoples"
"Give you plenty of moral latitude, not interfering with your own natural desires"<<

Your view of the incorrigible imperfection of humanity, Boaz, is coloured by something particularly nasty. I hate to think what that might be.

But surely, if you were to be logical, rather than polemical, gods would be invented in order to provide additional, external support to a society-based ethical platform that enables people to live harmoniously together. N'est-ce pas?

Tribal living needs some form of agreement on the laws that should be obeyed - it is the absence of those laws that generates the behaviours that you describe.

The creation of gods - along with all the abrogation of personal decision-making that such a move entails - is simply a support mechanism for people without sufficient internal resources to come to terms with their existence and the world around them, on their own.

It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever if a family, group, tribe, community or even nation were to invent the kind of religion you suggest. In fact, it would have the exact opposite effect, wouldn't it - it would divide the society into anarchic factions which would ultimately wipe each other out.

So, I'm with Palimpsest on this: all/any gods are the invention of man. And as such, it behoves no-one to denigrate the religion of another, since it is as much a part of them as their choice of morning newspaper.

p.s. Palimpsest, I have tried over-writing your posts, but without success.

Some quotes by famous people from between 250BC to modern times.

"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature."

"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?"

“God - a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive."

"When we talk to God, it’s prayer. When God talks to us, it’s schizophrenia."

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means."

"Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities."

"Man is a marvellous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea."

"Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, [the] attempt to offer a comprehensive view of reality."

“The difference between a religion and a delusion is the number of people who share it.”

“Religion: The manufacture and supply of easy answers to unanswerable questions.”

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.”

In a post above I quoted my view Islam had more followers than Christ, not to defame just numbers.
A poster asked a question of me that seemed to miss understand my words I did not mean Catholics alone but all Christians.
I question the threats and controls in mans invented religions holy books all of them.
But not the underpinning good ways to live.
In fact apart from the self interest on show by every Gods close salesmen the holy books mostly prove man is indeed something to be proud of warts and all.
However I doubt it was any harder to write a holy book than it was to write the works of Shakespeare.
To claim every thing is Gods creation, every God is quaint but unproven.

Love that, Wobbles!!

I couldn't even begin to read each and every post for this one question. I was 'tired' after the first half dozen or so. What amazes me is the HUGE response such a question evokes, whether people wish to defend Christianity or not for starters. To some readers I'll be a back slider but for me, I am now in a more comfortable position, having made a life style choice rather than following some god or manmade person's cult. I have the light of freedom of choice. I feel religions with God's are all MANMADE. It is a faith/belief as there is no sure evidence otherwise. I feel religion is oppressive. I think this life of ours is about how we lead our life and not which God. So many cults exist out there and I include the main stream religions here if one defines a cult as 'a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc (dictionary.com).
I am here to say there are too many people trying to persuade another person one way or another to their way of thinking. I laugh about those who think they are doomed if they haven't spent 'x' amount of hours a week 'converting' people! Anyway, instead and surely, isn't it about a WAY OF LIFE. I learned that more travelling overseas. I visited Vietnam (now twice), and I don't see poor oppressed people so much as I see people very happy with 'their lot', a simple life with no neglected elderly (look at our society; we could learn a lot there!) and with a way of life that is amazing. I certainly didn't see gods worshipped as a distraction to getting on with day to day life. For the Vietnamese it is about how you treat another, how you conduct your life but more so it is the way of life that counts.

Philo I just think the constant advancement of technology will eventually render religion obsolete. I would think when people celebrate the year 3000 more likely then not the life expectancy will be possibly unlimited. The only problem we will face are accidents and even these we will possible find ways around. To see what I mean look back 100 years to the year 1907 and see how much things have changed. We are only just starting the great genetic revolution and the possibilities are endless.

EasyTimes,
Talking about genetics. Gene technologists tell us the human gene is becoming weaker and more disease prone. Probably because people are having children later in life, and their fertility rate is poorer due to a sedant lifestyle.

It is obvious from these posts that many of the contributors are too self righteous to see the need for a Saviour. They themselves are enough evidence of the corrupt nature of man. It is amazing how accurate Jesus and the apostles spoke and wrote about these scoffers and mockers. Thank God that He sent Jesus to save us from such denial.

Runner,
I don't think there are so many scoffers as there are skeptics.

When we see so many of the powerfull religious hardliners from so many Faiths failing to abide by any of the Ten Commandments, it's very understandable that religion must argue it's case for todays thinkers.

Blind Faith for many people is now a quickly receding part of history, not the present .

Philo – What doctors will be able to do in the not to distant future will put all your worries about gene’s becoming weaker and more disease prone to sleep forever.

Runner – Your dogmatism is in a way sad. But if it makes you happy and gives you hope and it does not affect anybody else well who am I to be critical of your ways. You feel you know the truth in the same way as the Muslim the Hindu and the Jew seem to think they know the truth. But all of you cant be right!

Runner..Amen brother!

Easy times,
You're right, so many people, so many religions, beliefs.

Makes one wonder who DID in actual fact create heaven and earth, does it not?

We all question the what if's, the why's and get told the answer is in the bible, if we do not find it and dare to ask where it is, we get shown a passage that only resembles the answer we are looking for.
Should we god a question and we do not get an answer, we get told "the lord works in mysterious ways.

It's an individual thing.

Cakers interesting post, but you do miss something if you do not read every post.
In my view it is worth while and on returning we should read every post after our last, it keeps us from silly replies to miss understood posts.
Some posters on both sides have lets say blamed the other for this debate.
I question why in some circles we are told we should never discuss religion?
Is it fear we may learn something?
I also find no reason people should not be free to practice religions, any of them.
But question the blindness that says my God made all things.
Who made the other Gods?
The immense, huge question, is in the beginning what was there?
I am not getting down on my knees for a God that openly says his people are not mine, but the people of Israel.
Again I think man is one ,without Gods to divide us we could achieve much.
My dad is better than your dad is a child's game.

As an atheist, the various quotations provided by wobbles collectively come closest to my personal perception of "God/s". I particularly liked this one:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.”

Exactly!

Belly mate....

when God called Israel to be his chosen people.. they were chosen for a reason..'not' because of anything virtuous about themselves, but in order to bring the light of Salvation to the world....

They were appointed to a task....not to specialness in its own right.

I note CJ is still beginning with his conclusions, and concluding with his presuppositions :)

wobbles and CJ, what's wrong with my hair colour?

Maybe I should pray for a change.

Pericles,

“It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever if a family, ... were to invent the kind of religion you suggest. In fact, it would have the exact opposite effect, wouldn't it - it would divide the society into anarchic factions which would ultimately wipe each other out.”

You are absolutely correct with your observation. How do you explain atheism and the increasing tendency to do just what Boazy said? You are correct that it doesn’t make sense but you need to realize humans do not always do what make sense and can’t be relied upon to invent a sensible God.

Wobbles,

Your favourite quotes do point to a sound byte society increasingly saturated with information with less time to reason. That clearly works against religion. Why wonder about the meaning of life when you can scoff with a cute quote?

Belly,

I was a little over focused on a statistic that I had heard. The big numbers are in that denomination so if that gets overtaken there isn’t much distance left to travel. I was attempting to politely hint that there might not be vastly greater numbers of people in the Islamic faith if it was outnumbered by a single denomination fairly recently.

I’m glad that you are open to the good in religions. I agree with you that most religions tend to have a good in them to be located.

Cakers,

Funnily enough I think of Vietnamese as being Christian. Is my stereotype reasonable from the stats? Do you know one way or another?

Kartiya Jim,

If you don’t see any scoffers look at Wobbles post and your last sentence. Not to mention the dogmatic pronouncement of Pericles:

“The creation of gods - along with all the abrogation of personal decision-making that such a move entails - is simply a support mechanism for people without sufficient internal resources to come to terms with their existence and the world around them, on their own.”

Maybe I am wrong we all can be you understand, but it seems Christianity in this country is a bit part time for most.
That the commitment is just not there as it once was, and that many have left forever.
Islam is a demanding religion and at least in part A political one, and no harm meant just an honest observation one driven by highlighting the differences in those who are not followers.
We are seeing growth in other religions and I find it hard to find fault in some middle eastern ones, while holding on to my belief they are all crutches man made himself.
If we truly hold a view my God is the only one, others do not exist, my view man can be one is challenged.
We must remember cave man truly believed in his Gods too, sun moon stars and even animals I know an old bloke who today thinks the sea is God,
I remain convinced man is able to stand alone and wonder what is life all about?

"...it seems Christianity in this country is a bit part time for most.
That the commitment is just not there as it once was, and that many have left forever."

I believe that the statistics would support that. Interpretation of course could vary.

"Islam is a demanding religion and at least in part A political one, and no harm meant just an honest observation one driven by highlighting the differences in those who are not followers.
We are seeing growth in other religions and I find it hard to find fault in some middle eastern ones, while holding on to my belief they are all crutches man made himself."

Is there any reason to maintain the crutches view as dogma? If there is no other basis to your hesitation isn't the rational approach to gather information and make an informed choice? Obviously I am biased so I'll add the request that once (if) you throw off that dogmatic crutch you keep reasoning and don't get bogged down at any stage. It is my belief that reason can ultimately lead you to Christianity.

"If we truly hold a view my God is the only one, others do not exist, my view man can be one is challenged."

I'm guessing that is more a feeling or desire rather than a literal belief. Clearly it is hard to view humans as being literally omnipotent.

"We must remember cave man truly believed in his Gods too, sun moon stars and even animals I know an old bloke who today thinks the sea is God,"

Again how to view this will vary depending on perspective.

"I remain convinced man is able to stand alone and wonder what is life all about?"

You make an excellent point. Standing alone and reasoning is a very good starting point. Scoffing goes nowhere. Personally I can't understand people who don't want to know what life is about.

I do not scoff at your views I just do not share them.
I think nature is great, life is great and I know evolution did play a bigger part in us being here than some want to concede.
Every blade of grass is wonderful to see and every scientific fact we learn tells me nature is great .
If you wish to call your God nature ok by me but why ,tell me, has man so very many Gods?

"I do not scoff at your views ..."

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I actually thought your suggested approach was a good idea and didn't think you were scoffing. I mentioned scoffing to contrast it with your suggestion of standing alone and reasoning. Standing alone and thinking about things I contrasted with the scoffers who don't seem to care what life is about. I don't understand those people.

"I think nature is great, life is great and I know evolution did play a bigger part in us being here than some want to concede.
Every blade of grass is wonderful to see and every scientific fact we learn tells me nature is great."

You are asking me a question in your next paragraph and I'll ask you one about this. All scientific facts and evolutionary theory are from science. What religion produced science? What religion are the concepts of science based on and thus what religion does the success of science support?

"If you wish to call your God nature ok by me but why ,tell me, has man so very many Gods?"

That can only be guessed by anyone. I believe that there aren't as many as you would think. For example Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are either the majority of major religions or close to it. They all have the same God.

Anyway, given my belief about where life came from I suspect that we are made with an interest in God and if we turn our mind to the bigger questions and can't source the answers then our mind will point us to something similar because there is a trace of God in all of us and an interest or awareness. That God may have a human personality like the Greek Gods or be quite hostile like the Aztec Gods but we figure there is something. Historically there has been no committment to atheism so we were always open to the idea that there must be something. People lacking the benefit of divine revelation want the something to suit them but "know" there was something.

Come on guys/gals. Talk to HIM. Push on in and ask Him if He's there. Use the name of Jesus. Push on in. Seek Him out.

Why so many Gods? Maybe because at different times and in different cultures Belly, our ability to conceive of the creation of the universe and of life is limited by our understanding of the world around us, and of life itself, in that time and place.

Many disparate cultures in different times created their god(s) to explain life in terms relevant to their times, but its curious how so many came to similar conclusions.

My God is an abstract thing, a First Cause, and very different from Boaz' and runners. I cannot anthropomorphise him/her as they do; and I reject big R religiosity outright for myself.

Gibo,
I do not know to which god you praise,"push on him","push on in and seek him out"?

Come on, you make this sound like a bingo hall or a clothing sale, These are the reasons why we have so many gods,(sorry, one god to those who are adamant there is only one god) The churches today allow anything and everything, instead of being staunch the way they used to be, staunch never killed anybody.

The different ways and methods of praising the all mighty, are astounding, some go to church dressed to kill and others rock up at church in jeans and t-shirts, it's a farce for some and for others it's something to believe in, somewhere and something to do on a Sunday morning.
Have respect for other religions, thats fine by me, to ridicule anothers religion the way some people do is beyond me.

The reason I'm pointing out the latter, is to highlight the question put forward "Is there a God?" To those who believe, yes there is a God. For those who are sceptic, no..there is no God, there, simple as that. To the people who go to church, dressed as though going to a disco, is this to entice the opposite sex whilst in church?...shame on you, but then again, if this is acceptable in their church, then so be it, but I still think it's a farce nowadays.

Now all I need, is some burk showing me something extracted from a bible that tells us "the Lord tells us to dress comfortably whilst in church" B+LL+CKS!

Talk to him? like the bloke who has never been to church but asks hewy to look after him as death approaches?
We must face the truth that not believing is not just a right, it is just maybe the next step in mans evolution.
Now note explanations are given for so many Gods, I agree.
It was my intention to say just that, remoteness from other people, a need for comport, saw many Gods developed.
Why is it so easy to cast of most Gods but not mine?

There probably is a God but let me tell you there definitely IS a GODDESS!

Gibo: "Come on guys/gals. Talk to HIM. Push on in and ask Him if He's there. Use the name of Jesus. Push on in. Seek Him out."

Sounds like the public bar of my local pub on a Friday night.

You know, blokes pushing in to the bar, singing out "Where the hell are you Kev, fer chrissakes?"

When Kev is behind his bar, he truly is God.

Spanky,

You make a lot of good points for the Christian religion. I suspect the casual clothes thing is a backfiring sales pitch that works for some but not most. The expectation is that, if the Church is relaxed and laid back, people will be attracted because it is non threatening. The irony is that in our culture we show respect with our clothes so it looks to outsiders like Christians don’t respect God. If Christians don’t why would anyone else? Such Christians would probably dress better to go into the Prime Minister’s presence.

People worshipping in a mosque on the other hand, (I suspect numbers of whom been growing faster), young and old, in any country of the world dress in special clothes and prostrate themselves. It stands to reason that people think they believe more in their God and are more likely to convert.

You think the Christian situation is a farce. I can see why it looks that way.

“Now all I need, is some burk showing me something extracted from a bible that tells us "the Lord tells us to dress comfortably whilst in church" B+LL+CKS!”

I believe that this is another problem facing contemporary Christianity. There seem to be people telling you virtually anything and claiming that the Bible says so. Up front as sincere as JW’s are I believe their understanding of the Bible is way off the mark. However they get people from other Churches calling themselves Christian and convince them that JW beliefs are the true Bible beliefs. Shortly after the reformation when protestants started to take opposing views on Bible interpretation Luther pointed out that it would make Christians the laughing stock if that continued. He was right and it hasn’t just continued it has exploded. That doesn’t add to credibility.

Belly,

Why is it so easy to cast of most Gods but not mine?

It can be a question of habit or upbringing or a question of reason or propaganda. It all depends.

C J,

“When Kev is behind his bar, he truly is God.”

LOL. Good one!

If it seems that my “cute quotes” earlier were “scoffing” then they probably were because this is a discussion that will never be resolved.

How amazing to be able to condense the unfathomable mystery of all creation into an easily-digestible, one-size-fits-all package and to use this knowledge to control and compel others to do as you command.

It’s a little smug or arrogant to present “God-on-a-stick” like some sort of commodity to be used to assert moral superiority over non-believers or to think that God would rearrange the universe in response to a prayer is a bit of a stretch for me.

I have found that the more devout many followers are, the closer they are to some sort of previous addiction (drugs, sex, crime, whatever) or personal tragedy. If you get personal comfort or relief in this way, then more power to you!

However, the relationship I have between myself and whatever I conceive “God” to be is entirely my own, as will be any consequences.

I don’t need a middle-man to re-interpret and explain this relationship for me, any more than I need a real Estate Agent to sell me my own house - because that is what organised religion essentially is.

I also reject the notion that I am not capable of telling Good from Bad and those who determine that difference are historically just as likely to send me to blow myself up or slaughter others on their behalf as circumstances demand.

If the act of standing in a Church or Temple automatically makes me a better person, then standing in a garage would make me a car.

I think there has to be a God but the old man with the telescope keeping tabs on everything I think or do doesn’t work for me. That’s what my conscience is doing for me all the time.

If I end up being “beaten and sodomised by demons on the desolate shores of the Lake of Fire for all eternity” for thinking this way then the joke’s on me. At least I’ll be in good company.

wobbles: “God-on-a-stick”

That'd go well with the old Pope-on-a-rope, wouldn't it?

See you lakeside :)

Wobbles,
Whooaa...hold on a minute,"beaten and sodomised on the shores of the lake of fire"? Sounds like the wish of a dominatrix.

Lets not take this out of context here,..Christians were not mentioned in my last post and looks like they were pinpointed for the roles outlined on the topic of dress code.

We have those who worship earthly commodities, for the likes of trees,air,water,fire and those who refrain from eating the flesh of pork, due to the animal being seen as a filthy beast, although prooven to be more cleaner than a cow, but we drink cows milk and eat it's flesh.
The bible was written by man, in a language long dead and probably translated in those days by some half-wit who's worldly knowledge ended at the edge of his village boundary, even before he knew the world was flat, never mind round!

When we say some of us will burn in hell, it's nothing more than a euphamism, conjured in the minds of men, as with heaven, we would all like to go to a better place when we pass-on and "heaven" has a nice ring to it. Lets face it, whether we derived from apes, fish or frog spawn, it makes no difference, after all, we evolved from something smaller than a gnats left testicle and like everything else, we get old and simply die, together with all our worldly knowledge.

"beaten and sodomised on the shores of the lake of fire", where do I sign up?

Guilty, I have been a follower of a Goddess or two, cost a lot but my reward did not have to wait for death.
Not at all interested in that lake however, if I went to hell my punishment would quite probably be trying to unionize Howard's Cabernet.

Oh-oh, Belly just mentioned the government thing again, I think belly had better start unionising the cabinet on the shores on the lake of fire!
I d'no, someone will mention the "burning bush" bit and the next thing we know, the whole damn mountain will be ablaze.

Anyone for marshmallows?

Yes a bit flippant wasn't it SPANKY but a leopard can not change its spots.
Man bought much with him from the caves, including survival instinct, and maybe a sixth sense.
We all , or most of us have had that feeling of not being alone when in fact we know we are.
At a funeral or soon after felt a person we know is dead beside us, maybe our brain protects us in ways we do not understand.
The Christian Bible tells us this can not happen, that the dead are dead till the return.
We however persist in saying he/she is up in heaven looking down at us?
I believe this instinct is real , but no God drives it ,however I understand the need some have to believe.
One day after we learn to read the whole hard drive that is our brain we may understand .
One day we may Begin to find the things that bring men together not divide them.
or is that hard drive indistinctly telling us we must have some to hate?
And you can not trust that mob in the cave next door, they are after our food?

Where are the aspirants for a better and more glorious World? The off-handed attempt at homour indicates we fail to deal with our personal situations with intelligent rigour. That we do not like the reality so create a diversion in our own minds. Their god is an emotional cosy, or an indulgence in some form of lust.

Most views of God posted here are merely immature unintelligent childhood impressions from people who have not studied or experienced an intelligent devotion to the ideals of human character and relationships. God is revealed in human character, attitudes, behaviours and wisdom. Until we seek God in these expressions we will never perceive Him. All people are basicly self-centered, envious and lustful and it is adiction to these attitudes that keep us from knowing God. Their gods are their self centered appetites.

What does an atheist, dyslexic, insomniac do?
Give up?
He lies awake all night wondering if there really is a DOG!

Well yes, one could read all the posts if one had time. I have a job!
To answer about the Vietnamese, it is a mostly Buhddist society and it is a way of life more than a 'religion'. I don't practise a religion so much as I stay away from all cults. God following is a cult and think about the meaning of the word, 'cult'. Look up its definition some more for it certainly applies to so many of the belief systems out there. They are all 'beliefs'. A faith only. Who has got it right. After death we'll know? My last comment would be to say that one day, sure as death and taxes we'll all know who had it right!

Did you hear about the dyslexic devil-worshipper who sold his soul to Santa?

How many animals of each type did Moses lead onto the ark?

Cakers thanx for the statistical perspective and education.

Belly,

“The Christian Bible tells us ... dead are dead till the return.”

Like I said I don’t accept the JW take on things. Sorry if that has some historical significance to you.

Wobbles,

You did have that stuff about the beaten etc. coming.

Perhaps it won't resolve but similar discussions have resolved many many times.

”How amazing to ... to use this knowledge to control and compel others to do as you command.”

Less amazing if descriptions are based on reality not caricatures.

A genuine attempt to share love is not arrogance or something to flaunt as a badge of honour. If God is the creator wouldn’t it make sense that God might like to hand you things on a stick? A creator is analogous to a parent. Do you have children? Would you like them to learn the easy way or in the school of hard knocks?

”I have found that the more devout many followers are, the closer they are to ... “

Nah those who have that background just have more inspiring stories so you hear them more.

”However, the relationship I have between myself and whatever I conceive “God” to be is entirely my own, as will be any consequences.”

Basically you associate God with free choice but you aren’t Christian are you?

”I don’t need ... any more than I need a real Estate Agent ...”

To each there own. I use agents because they tend to know who is selling and I can get the house I want quicker.

”... are historically just as likely to send me to blow myself up or slaughter others on their behalf as circumstances demand.”

Not as likely but I think most religious people would point out that the act of standing in a Church or Temple doesn’t automatically makes you a better person. It only gives opportunity.

” That’s what my conscience is doing for me all the time.”
A well formed conscience is often valued by religious people.

Thanks for your comments.

mjpb,
Actually I was raised as an Orthodox Christian so (for what it's worth) I guess my religious heritage even pre-dates Roman Catholicism.

Many of the finest and kindest people I know and associate with regard themselves as Christians. This also goes for most Muslims, Jews and Buddhists I know.

I even spent a year happily sharing a flat with two recently "born-again" Baptists.

However I put this down to their innate personal nature rather than their readiness to comply with some set of written instructions on how to behave.

I concede that organised religion provides personal comfort but seems to go seriously awry when practiced on a global scale and divides more than it unites.

The Jesus I think of would be very disappointed (and more than a little angry)in how things have turned out and what has been done in His name.

By the way, unfashionable as it seems, the medieval "Hellfire" analogy is still seriously tossed around in various Churches, particularly in the US Bible belt, as this satirical site demonstrates - http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

Some good jokes there - but none as funny as Philo's "homour" neologism :)

It could be a useful word if it wasn't inherently ambiguous: does it mean gay humour, jokes about homosexuals, or perhaps jokes made by Homer Simpson? Perhaps it was prompted by the idea of eternal buggery by the burning lake.

Supposedly more seriously, Philo says "God is revealed in human character, attitudes, behaviours and wisdom. Until we seek God in these expressions we will never perceive Him. All people are basicly (sic) self-centered, envious and lustful..."

So he's saying God is "revealed" as "self-centered, envious and lustful". Which is interesting, since these are highly adaptive traits for species that survive and evolve, as humans have.

Man created God/s in his own image to provide meaning, comfort and moral authority over others. I have no objection to them in general, except when other people's god/s intrude on my life - indeed, there is a direct and inverse relationship between my tolerance for religions and the degree to which they impinge on my existence.

For example, Buddhism seems to be a thoroughly unobjectionable religion. I wouldn't even know it existed in Australia if I didn't travel to the Byron Bay area regularly. You don't get Buddhists banging on your door or writing hateful tripe on Internet forums etc, so my tolerance for Buddhism is very high. Islam has virtually zero impact on my life, beyond an indirect enrichment of my diet and the fact the largest employer in my town is a halal mutton and goat exporter, so I guess my business indirectly benefits from Islam somewhat :) Allah Be Praised!

Scotty will pleased to know that I made a point of having a nice doner kebab for lunch today, with EXTRA TABBOULI!

The post not far up the thread that seems to think only the JW,s think the dead remain dead is a grin!
To think some one can enter the debate not having read the Bible, or even used it to prop up a chair with one short leg.
The dead are dead until Christ comes again!
I am unconcerned but interested in the mild attempts at force used to convince me I am bad for not further contemplating God.
Having an understanding, once been a time wasting born again I have gathered my information and made my choice.
I am no better or worse than any human for having done so.
No God exists for me I need non no hell no heaven just live to standards that give you joy and no other person harm and it will be a good life.
May I ask a favor of those who believe? next time your religious leader breaks those rules to live by , even some terrible acts can we all remember to bring them to task?

Time for some serious Theology .... out of the early Church, and the emergence of some heavy duty thinkers (like Athanasius, Tertullian, Jereome, Augustine etc) we see the various creeds of the Church....

NICENE CREED.

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

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

The single phrase which divided Eastern Orthodox from Catholic was in the last paragraph about the Holy Spirit "from the Father AND the Son"

Wobbles,

Interesting site.

God is a person/concept that needs a regular look at just in case we can get some clarity on Who holds the Keys .

Some God fearing and powerfull older Baptists seem very anti Aboriginal in our small farming town .

We have been trying to get a modern Interperative Centre with the emphasis on European/Aboriginal shared history in the interest of Indigenous Reconciliation up and running and have received a lot of criticsm for our efforts - some of it has been extremely racist .

I suspect God is not impressed but then, who would really know?

Wobbles,

“However I put this down to their innate personal nature rather than their readiness to comply with some set of written instructions on how to behave.”

Of course it would be hard to know which came first. Some people get religious already being of kind character. Some people shape up after discovering religion like those from criminal or drug addict type backgrounds, and some people consider themselves religious but don’t embrace the religious teachings about being kind.

“I concede that organised religion provides personal comfort but seems to go seriously awry when practiced on a global scale and divides more than it unites.”

This impression is of course in the context that it is hard to separate the human factors from the religious factors and extremely large groups of people have sustained a reasonably undivided background for up to centuries at a time coming to grief most prominently when people became less attached to their religious heritage eg. Christian Europe. Religion is often used by power brokers as an excuse when they not the religion cause the conflict.

“The Jesus I think of would be very disappointed (and more than a little angry)in how things have turned out and what has been done in His name.”

Probably yes but also no. I presume he would be very pleased with many of the things and many of the people. People like St Nicholas, St Francis or Mother Theresa.

Belly,

That would be me…

Sorry if you are looking for mild attempts at force and read it into my comments. It makes you sound like you were traumatised by your past. That is not good. Did they initiate you with unfriendly chair comments?

There is no need to bring religious leaders to task if they break the rules. The media make a sport of it. I’d be better off seeing them as an imperfect humans.

mjpb,

You say of religious leaders who... " break the rules, I would be better off seeing them as imperfect humans. "

Now what is that all about??

KJ,

Re: who would know?

I think a reasonable inference can be made from the Bible and Christian history that racism is inconsistent with the Christian religion.

Re: imperfect humans

I believe that the media will gleefully ensure that any Church leader who steps out of line gets very publically and thoroughly brought to justice at the very least. I don't have to lift a finger for that outcome.

Rather, I'd see my role as to consider that people make mistakes and not to assume I know all their circumstances. I'd be better off praying that some good comes from their exposure. Someone has to do it and it ain't gonna be media brother.

Wobbles
please forgive off post everybody however -
Wobbles you left a post for us quite some time back that we did not see until too late. I left a reply but possibly you did not go back there.
As you pointed out you didnt always agree with pale but--
It was a nice message and more so because you dont always agree with us.

Thats made it especially nice and even kinder of you.


We have been looking for the right thread to butt in on to say 'Thank You Wobbles` your clearly a nice person.

I hope this is the thread since God is so forgiving and all that but I am not so sure belly will be for crashing his thread.

Sorry Belly and everyone.

We just wanted to say 'Thanks Wobbles

[ You watch our old belly now he might be trying to start a union church.

just kidding belly- A joke ok

PALE,
Things that make you go...hmmmm?

Wobbles,
"Raised as an Orthodox Christian"
"Roman Catholisism"
"most muslims,jews,buddhists I know",/ "shared a flat with two born- again baptists"
"Medieval hellfire analogy"...even more hmmmmmmm?

katinya jim if you will let me I think I will sit by your fire for this conversation.
Boaz David I am not part of your we in your last post, I have no God and am unafraid to stand alone.
Back to Jim ,you and I know sometimes the press is not highlighting crimes church leaders commit.
Not just one church not just church leaders, elders have committed great sins against children too, not all not most few in fact.
But covered up.
Being a man of God is no reason to hide such crimes.
Is it not clear? surely it is? if a crime is committed press are doing what we ask of them in uncovering it?

Surely David you would agree with me? your God will condemn those who do these acts ?
Well sadly he/she will not.
While I like the idea from another religion about Kama I doubt some who are so truly worthless will ever be punished.
Jim I would not be allowed to publish my ideas of the real damage the church sometimes did to your people.
You do not share my view some of the stolen generation needed to be taken to a new chance ,but as a white Australian kid I know the church sinned greatly against the poor white or black.

Belly,

I may not be invited but I'll need to sit somewhere since you are telling me that media cover up crimes of Church leaders. What are you talking about? You certainly have my attention.

Unafraid of God or unafraid to stand (or sit) alone generally?

"Not just one church not just church leaders, elders have committed great sins against children too, not all not most few in fact.
But covered up."

I have seen a few stories of JW elders interfering with kids. There isn't the same media construct as with Roman Catholics so you don't get as much fuss and repetition but it gets reported. I am still curious.

"Being a man of God is no reason to hide such crimes..."

Given the media furore over those type of things my curiousity keeps increasing particularly given the lack of reporting when people are convicted on a daily basis of such crimes but aren't involved with Churches.

"Surely David you would agree with me? your God will condemn those who do these acts ? Well sadly he/she will not."
? So you think God likes that? No wonder you left your born again ways.

"Jim I would not be allowed to publish my ideas of the real damage the church sometimes did to your people."

The Church or the bad exceptions within the Church. Honest answer please. Why can't you publish? You mean illegal?

It is Very interesting reading the posts when one has been on both sides, both in a cult and now standing outside of it. Cults they all are; these 'religions', these brainwashing manmade ideas you try to impose on another mans' thinking. Like someone in an above post (?Belly), I too have tolerance for Buddhism as they do not doorknock nor bother others. If we want we'll go get. What gives another person the right to hound another into a thinking they don't want. You are saved and so be it; it is your believe/your faith. Can you make another 'have faith' without it being a brainwashing. Hmmm. If in the end, one 'thinks' the same, it is merely the gullable, the vulnerable and brainwashing that did it. Back off! Live a life of being good to yourself, to your family, to all others as you'd have them do for you. Heard that somewhere before. Respect and you'll be respected.
By the way, it wasn't Moses who lead the animals into the ark, it was Noah. Good gosh I am an educator.

mjpb do not take it personal, let me tell you a few things my birth was in the bush, my education in life both Sydney streets and most Australian city's.
Jim and I clash often yet we both think we want a better life for Aboriginals.
In asking can I sit At your fire? I was highlighting at that point in the debate my place was with him.
You are hurt ,it shows in your posts , that I ask the question over and again is there truly a God.
And maybe my view that man made all Gods offends you, sorry but I value the prospect of man standing up for himself.
Of ,not the lie we constantly say but is not yet true all men are equal, one race no need for religion based differences.
And no God to separate us.
Name any of the Gods man has worshiped tell me that one is the only one.
Then I ask why did he not destroy the rest?
Why did he not make himself known to the other half or is it two thirds of humanity?
In this final day of the world did your God save all those wrong believers to take their enternal sole as proof he/she is all powerful?
mjpb I stand not alone but firmly with humanity , not in my view fables.

DavidBoaz and co. can you let me know what your take on the soul is? I'm curious about the Christian take on this, and the way Christians talk about their soul as if it was something separate from themselves. Eastern religions and new age spirituality talk about self and soul as one and the same.

Belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, as against a spiritual rebirth betrays a confusion that began with the Gnostics v. the early Christians and is still an issue today.

Science and a materialistic viewpoint have no more validity with their explanations of our origons than religion. The Big Bang may well explain the beginnings of this universe but does not even begin to answer the 'before' question, or even address the idea of life, opinion and thought etc. Hypothetical spontaneous combustion of life from a swirling soup of chemical is as far fetched as any religious doctrine.

Cakers,
Just for your info, the ark thing was done on purpose!

And again the question is raised, according to some of these threads,
some of us relate to the Lord as he/she, where does it actually state in the bible what sex the Lord is?

Belly,

“Jim and I clash often yet we both think we want a better life for Aboriginals.”

I didn’t know the background. I’ll drop that if you like.

I don’t feel offended by even the fable comment. I have seen worse. But I will call a spade a spade if you make an unkind comment.

They say it takes a big man to admit he needs his friends. Sometimes admitting a dependence isn’t as weak as you think. Sometimes acting overly brave is a bluff. Just a thought.

The religious belief is not a case of God destroying the rest because the belief is that there are no rest. However with Christianity the God gives us free choice for belief. That doesn’t negate truth. But we have the choice. What large chunk of humanity has never heard of the Christian God?
How do you know it is the final days? Why can’t it get worse? Noone knows the hour? Sorry to say this but it sounds very JWish.

Spanky,

“And again the question is raised,... where does it actually state in the bible what sex the Lord is?”

Does it really matter? What if the Lord is neither? Jesus was male but God in heaven spirit - men and women made in the image of.

Cakers,

“ I too have tolerance for Buddhism as they do not doorknock nor bother others. If we want we'll go get. ... Back off! ... Respect and you'll be respected”

So how many Christian denominations door knock and are any accepted as mainstream? Respect and you’ll be respected but for some Buddhist extremists in some countries being Christian is equivalent to a death sentence. I’m just suggesting it would be worthwhile considering the issues a little more.

It would be unfair to most Buddhists to label them killers due to some Buddhist extremists but you are using a minority within(?) a religion to criticize the majority is not fair. JW's don't believe that Jesus is God yet you use them to criticize Christians.

mjpb: "Respect and you’ll be respected but for some Buddhist extremists in some countries being Christian is equivalent to a death sentence."

I don't suppose you'd like to give an example? Which Buddhist extremists in which countries?

I criticise the whole lot whether doorknocking or not. There is inconsistencies within the whole lot. Jesus was meant to be of a 'perfect' god yet mankind's biggest wars have been in the name of religion. Freedom of choice was 'given' to man some say. They say you have this as a Christian but I say you have more freedom outside of the circle looking toward the all the groups/cults caught up in a one track thinking. At least I have explored it all to see the why they do it. The hypocrisy in the Christian churches is rife as I had seen a person turned away though had attended the church for years. And the 'ideas' JW's and Mormons have are so manmade it is ridiculous. Who started these groups but one solitary figure, and haven't they got a lot to answer for. A Joseph Smith amongst them; puleeze! So many people get sucked into these 'ideas' from the constant ear bashing toward the vulnerable, and sometimes at the doorstep if you let it. The rounded clear thinking person will not entertain such absurdity. Think very carefully about and stay away from all cults and remain free.

Cakers,
I was referring to the general wording used, ie "him" "he", never "she" "her"...sheeesh!

Unneeded Goddess but you prove first impressions are often true.
First true heated post in a long thread and we all should be thankful we can debate without that.
I know and understand some can not except my views, ok by me I know once we thought Aboriginals first came here 40.000 years ago we are now told it was much further in the past.
We are told man first came from Africa, not too far from the birth place of Jewish, Christian,Islam, three of our many religions.
Many sit or once did in school learning those things, without much doubt in that story.
Oh even me at that age told God in our quite moments we loved him , but we though if space men did not change us we developed as Darwin said.
I still do, think Darwin had it right.
Share this with me please forgive, if I could believe in the God of my birth, it would be heaven!
To think I never had to carry my own bag, that no effort to see a better world was needed God would fix it.
Sadly condemn me to a non existent hell if you wish ,I must be responsible for my own actions.
I in no Way hold others as lessor people for not sharing my views
regards

palimpsest,
The soul is the self, the spiritual life expressed in attitude, actions, character and wisdom etc. It is distinct from the natural chemistry and is who we really are apart from the body. God took natural chemistry and implanted into it a copy of himself. The best expression of himself is Jesus Christ and that is why Christians admire and emulate the character of Jesus.

Though people talk about their soul as if it is another part of themselves. It is every part of themselves except the decaying chemistry of matter, however only in the body is the life expressed.
Genesis 1: 26 - 30

The Bible teaches man rebelled against God and acted outside the character and behaviour of the image of God and thus is considered in the Bible sense spiritually dead, as he serves only his body needs and has little regard of his spiritual. Christianity is intrinsicaly about reconciliation from the enmity between God and man.

Christianity is about the inward relationship of one's spirit to the purity of God and the outward expression into community of how God is manifest. Buddaism seems to is about the discovery of self, there is no idealism of the divine nature of God or his character or spirit or reference to God.

Errr...Godess and R Mugabe.... being that I'm one of Ginx primary targets.. I think I can speak up :)

I recognize the psychotic nature of some of his/her posts, but to me this is a cry for help.. and I try to minister to that need.

We don't need to get too frothy and foamy in our talk.. even when ceaselessly picked on and abused as I am by Pericles, CJ Morgan, Ginx, Bugsy, West,Alanpoi and a few hundred others :)

When people resort to personal attack.. we all know what that means.
-Point weak..ATTACK the messenger.
-Helpp...'notice me'
-I'm just a ratbag :)

Well.. the last one is less likely.
Still, we should try to engage on issues and if we disagree, either don't say anything or engage.. Attacking other posters is never productive.

MJBP.. Jesus more than any other condemns mistreatment of children by so called Christians. There is no valid reason whatsoever to hide such abuse.

Caker asked ? 'What is the soul' ? Do a google in the Christian position. "Man 'is' a Soul" Man 'has' a spirit. At resurrection, we receive a new body not subject to decay. Spirit and new Body re-united. Happy happy happy :)....4eva

Belly...errr..Whatabout meee?

Ginx..get off that high horse, you are starting to live up to your thread name.

R. Mugabe..I hope you are not your namesake..if you are..err..g'bye!

CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF DISCUSSION!

Philo, thanks for the great answer, very clear. As I understand it Buddhism has the same regard for mankind as eternal spirit as you have expressed, without an explicit God; but with a more explicit awareness of self as spirit or soul.

Buddhists and others think of themselves as imperfect but alive souls, not as you say dead, and awaiting rebirth as souls. Curious too, the apparent need of a new,eternal body in heaven.

I take your point on the difference between the spiritual and the material; this is a more fundamental requisite for religion than the Is there a god? question itself. Religion can exist without gods, but not without the idea of the spiritual.

SPANKY well said!
regards

“MJBP.. Jesus more than any other condemns mistreatment of children by so called Christians...”

I know that Boazy. The belief that children should not be mistreated is a part of any Christian belief unless you are in the Jim Jones brand or something.

C J Morgan,

I guess I must have said something politically incorrect. No offence intended. It is interesting that the PC view rules out Buddhist violence when most martial arts were developed by Buddhists. Are the Tamil Tigers Buddhist?

I had in mind an article I read yonks ago and haven’t had any reason to keep. I think Burma has the most of this type of problem these days. So I did a google search.

I found something on the human rights abuses of the Democratic Kayin Buddhist Army.

http://www.hri.ca/forthereCord1998/vol3/burmatr.htm

See the Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution, Special Rapporteur on: (E/CN.4/1998/68, paras. 14, 17, 39, 57, 63, 72; E/CN.4/1998/68/Add.1, paras. 283--288) section.

There seems to be an issue in Thailand where the Buddhist army are engaging in executions at refugee camps. It doesn’t specifically refer to Christians in the summary but it might mitigate the PC Christian bad Buddhist perfect expectation.

Here is an article on a Buddhist majority forcing Christians and Muslims to convert. I didn’t see anything specifically about killing but it is a very long article so I didn't read it all.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/13868.htm

eg. “Forced Religious Conversion
Since 1990 government authorities and security forces, with assistance from monks of the Hill Regions Buddhist Missions, have sought to coerce Chins, including children, to convert to Theravada Buddhism.

According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, there are credible reports that hundreds of Christian tribal Nagas in the country have been converted forcibly to Buddhism by the country's military. The persons were lured with promises of government jobs to convert to Buddhism, while those who resisted were abused and kept as bonded labor by the military.”

Do you want me to keep looking?

I've just deleted a number of posts if you wonder why the thread just above appears a little disjointed. We have a few "sock puppets" on the site who object to having the rules enforced against them. If you see anything that looks suspicious, please click on the "Report Comment" button and let me know. I'm suspending anyone who tries to avoid the limit on posts by using multiple identities indefinitely, and without explanation - they know what they are doing.

mjpb it is true that many different religions try to enforce their views on other ones.
It is also true that some non religious people try to stamp out any religion.
My views about Christians covering up crimes against children is based on evidence.
Some have done just that, believing a man of God would not do that, or even thinking it is Gods will such men should be forgiven.
I have no doubt at all other religions do the very same thing, quite wrong and against the teaching of that God surely?

David,
You wrote "At resurrection, we receive a new body not subject to decay. Spirit and new Body re-united. Happy happy happy :)....4eva"
I'd say we'll all know one day. How do You know bearing in mind you haven't seen the other side and bearing in mind as you answer that this poster has 'seen the light' and come out of anything cultic.

I am glad you feel this for your own peace but it isn't for certain.
How does anyone really know about after death. We ain't been dead ;)
Words men put in the book, The Bible, is one belief system only. What you are saying sounds all too familiar teaching from my 'old Christian days', but now I think no one has been found in this state of non decaying forever. There is surely a longggg wait for some people when you look at the expanse of time that has been.

It is comparable to 'near death experiences', one has to have been dead and come alive to tell the tale. There are too many 'stories' and not enough hard evidence here either. I look for evidenced patterns; there are a lot of attention seekers out there as well. I want to reitterate that all this is matters of 'faith and a belief system indoctrinated from someone and somewhere' that has made up an individuals' mind.

Hence from my other postings my previously used word, 'cult'. The following are all cults by definition:
religions/belief or faith/astrology/cards/idol worship, and so on are just 'distractions' to feel better, to feel a purpose and hope. Has gone on for thousands for years; all for there own.

Yes, there is a God, at least he thinks he is one and gives himself constant permission to be one. He knows who he is.

Frankie boy I doubt you meant that? do you truly want me to believe the post?
I do not see the person you aim your thoughts at.
And in truth as one who does not believe I do not feel threatened by those who do.
Maybe my view man can stand on his own is not for every one yet.
It has for the most part been a good honest debate, well done every one.

Belly,

“mjpb it is true that many different religions try to enforce their views on other ones.

It is also true that some non religious people try to stamp out any religion.”

Yes I call the latter group atheist fundamentalists. Admittedly I didn’t invent the term.

“My views about Christians covering up crimes against children is based on evidence.

Some have done just that, believing a man of God would not do that, or even thinking it is Gods will such men should be forgiven. I have no doubt at all other religions do the very same thing, quite wrong and against the teaching of that God surely?”

I’d certainly hope that it was against the teaching of any God. The Christian God would condemn that. I thought you said media covering up the crimes? If it is a case of Christians…then according to media JWs (who call themselves Christians) have it as virtually official policy. Obviously there were Bishops in the Catholic Church who did the same for those cases between the 60s and 80s. Those denominations are centralised so it is easier to catch them out. Many local Churches are very independent from others in their denomination so a cover up within the Church would be invisible unless someone inside it owned up. Hopefully it isn’t happened but it could be happening every day of the week effectively invisibly. Chances are though to some extent it would happen somewhere in Christian and other religions.

“It has for the most part been a good honest debate, well done every one.”

Boazy who believes in the Christian God (Yahweh/Jesus etc.) made a similar comment and I made a similar comment privately. It is definitely a refreshing change for a discussion about God.

Belly,
About a week ago, someone knocked on my door and presented me with a pamphlet on JW.
As much as I kept telling this person that I was not interested and the fact of my Father-in-law being a preacher, she was adamant in forcing her religion on me and doing the same with my neighbours after I had to almost introduce her to my Alsation-cross-Pitbull to escort her off the property! (joking)
In any event, this forceful method of conversion, really should have some law against it.

Yes, it's called prvate propery followed by please leave.
They have tried every trick in the book to get to me including the sweet little old lady knocking on the door.
I have also suggested they give me their address so I can come around to their house and shove my religion down their necks.
Both approaches work well.

Cakers :) ... we only know of how Paul described it.. and he declares that he received revelation from the risen Christ.

Hence.. I think it's more than just words in a book. Look at 2 Corinthians. ( I won't tell you which chapter so it means you have to read until you find it :) haha..

SPANKY.. "can I borrow your dog" ? :) sounds like a beauty.

The JW's I encounter are well chosen. Often it is the 'cute young chick' with the 'mature woman' covers the full spectrum eh.

Whatever you do, don't tell em "goto hell"..they are already on that bus.

I would simply recite the Nicene Creed to them.... then shut the door.

If you don't shut the door, after mentioning something spiritual they will begin with "But..did you know the Bible is often misquoted about such and such" ?......

cheers all.

The afterlife is a spiritual state where God is all, and in all of that reality. There is no organic chemistry or matter, it is purely a spiritual state. Paul explaining to ordinary people talks about a spiritual body. To often people equated it to their present natural body. It is nothing of the kind - it is the real person transported into the presence of the eternal. All that does not reflect the character of God is destroyed - the NT uses the analogy of fire as it cleanses and renews.

My friend told me that when he decides not to wash his football shirt his team never loses. Another friend told me that if he decides not to walk under a ladder his day is filled with good luck. Superstition is so powerful it has lasted since the evolution of Homo Sapien. The bible has served us well written by human and is revered as a form of Constitution that guides us well. No any clear thinking person knows privately that there is no God. Perhaps there was a Jesus Christ who was perhaps the first Socialist who was excecuted for speaking out against the evil rulers of those days. No question we have evolved and magic did not happen to create us.

If believing is good for your soul each to their own.
I believe in a tolerant society where each individual has a right to believe what they want to believe. In Religous Schools children are taught that there is a God so be it. On the other hand in secular schools I believe that all children should be taught all beliefs but most importantly be taught the science of evolution and how we have all been evolved or had to adapt through the ages. Are miracles logical and is it practical to walk on water or part the waves of the Oceans.

AMEN
and so let it be
Halelujah

Hey Guys!
Who ruffled who's feathers? This is supposed to be a friendly topic of discussion and all I see is a bunch of bickering neanderthals.
Relax max, take a chill pill!

SPANKY we should not be too concerned with Frankie boy, it seems the views highlighted are not held by many here.
To believe or not to is every ones right.

Bronco Lane,
Great to see you are thinking clearly in the quote below by addmitting that thinking people know privately there is a God. "No any clear thinking person knows privately that there is no God." The use of the double negative comfirms your faith in the reality of God. Welcome brother as a believer! Then perhaps you are confused or uncertain and not thinking clearly so admitt that such confused thinking persons know privately there is no God.

Well that might identify the depth of your thinking, by the following quote that gives evolution of itself power and design capacity but deny God has anything to do with matter or DNA. Your quote, "No question we have evolved and magic did not happen to create us."

Evolution that denies design and cause and effect has more to do with fable, myth and magic than the reality of directional design that involves a superior mind outside the DNA of the creature or the ionic nature of matter.

Tell me Philo what one of the great numbers of Gods is he?
What if its one you do not follow, let us for a short time say it is not that one.
Would you execpt that?
Would if it was your God the rest of humanity be able to execpt the loss of theirs?
Why, yes have asked it without answer, has the one true God let so many beleave in the wrong ones?

God is in all the beautiful things around us, in nature and in the somewhat rare glimpses we get of perfect beauty in humanity.
Anyone who makes a conscious effort aily to be decent to others has a little of Him in them.

Philo, Christianity's insistence on Creation 5500 odd years ago and its denial of evolution are major hurdles for many. Doesn't the basic theology of Christianity, (God/spirit/physical) work better if Creation is timeless and we accept that God created life and life has evolved as it may?

This does not invalidate the basics of Christianity, nor the role of JC; even if it requires a non-literal view of much of the dogma.

On a different tact, can any of the non-believers advance an explanation of Life, of awareness of self, that is any more plausible than the religious answer?

Wobbles,

God, or equally the Gods, must surely be enjoying the debate.

However when Faith believers say they have the Answers well that's when I head for the grandstand [no pun intended].

The thought that we mere mortals,believers or not, who basically are a result of our reactive history and environment that is in perpetual motion, can honestly say they KNOW what is going on in the world and WHO is responsible for it's future is beyond me.

I believe they are deluding themselves.

Could it be the Gods decided it was time for another debate to see if we have any more insight into why we are here ?

palimpsest,
Where did I mention 5,500 years? God is Eternal - timeless.

Philo, you didn't, but that is the accepted Christian timeframe. Is your number different? Agree that if religion is real then God is timeless, but that you and me must be eternal and timeless as well. Death or belief would be irrelevant, but conduct most important.

I am not so sure who are for and against here.
Could each author please state clearly on their first line whether they are Aethiest, Agnostic, and then denomination. to answer one of you who is not addressing the issues.-
"Great to see you are thinking clearly in the quote below by admitting that thinking people know privately there is a God."
MY OPINION IS THAT A PERSONS PERSONAL LIFE CANNOT BEGIN UNTIL THE INDIVIDUAL HAS RID THEMSELVES OF ALL RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE.
"No any clear thinking person knows privately that there is no God."
SELF EXPLANATORY IT IS QUITE CLEAR WHAT IS MEANT.
"The use of the double negative comfirms your faith in the reality of God. Welcome brother as a believer!"
TWO NO'S MAKE A NO. WHAT PART OF NO DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ?
"Then perhaps you are confused or uncertain and not thinking clearly so admitt that such confused thinking persons know privately there is no God."
FROM THE AGE OF FIFTEEN I WAS SURE IN MY MIND THAT THERE IS NO DIVINE BEING. NOBODY SHOULD BE PLACED ONTO A PEDESTAL. THAT IS OBSCENE FROM THE START TO PLACE A DIVINE ONE ON TO A PEDESTAL.

"Well that might identify the depth of your thinking, by the following quote that gives evolution of itself power and design capacity"
Evolution that denies design and cause and effect has more to do with fable, myth and magic than the reality"
FABLE, MYTH, MAGIC, MIRACLE, SUPERSTITION IS THE BIBLE. CONTINUED FROM WHEN MAN COULD FIND NO RHYME OR REASON FOR DISASTERS THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND. KARL MARX WAS SPOT ON WHEN HE DESCRIBED IT AS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE. TAKE THEIR LAND AND IN RETURN GIVE THEM THE BIBLE. EVEN TODAY IT DIVIDES THE LABOR PARTY AND DIVIDES ALL PEOPLE. WHILE THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR TRUE GOD. THE POOR BECOME HUNGRY AND FAMINE IS RIFE. ALL IRELAND WANTED WAS TO BREAK AWAY FROM BRITAIN YET THE CHURCH CONFUSED THE ISSUES.

HAS Anyone noticed the absence of some frequent posters? Hmmmmm.....

Please forgive me me for this small side track to the thread.
This working class man, a term that truly describes me, this unionist knows beyond and doubt God is not a communist.
He is not a Socialist.
He is unlikely to be rich.
But the worker enslaving communist/socialist system is not a product of any God.
I think nature is so wonderful some think it is God.
We see the most beautifully flowers and forget a thousand generations have crafted that flower to bring a bee to fertilize it.
No God, no God with time to be involved in every flower every thing but not enough time to sit us on his lap and show us why it is like that, just evolution.
No hijacked science saying evolution was a product of a God just the mystery of chance.

Dear Belly not a God.
An Idealism a utopia that can be reached, no greed, no selfishness, no capitalism.
John Lennon's song Imagine.
No borders the world and it's people united working for each other for the benefit of all. no dictator, no divine one. A set of laws and rules that makes all people equal it will happen if al participated.
No nuclear power, no nuclear weapons, no guns, no weapons of mass destuction, no religioun, would this fit into the way you would like to see it ?

Bronco Lane,

"Could each author please state clearly on their first line whether they are Aethiest, Agnostic, and then denomination. to answer one of you who is not addressing the issues.-"

Sure!...DOMINATRIX!

Bronco start another thread and I will come, John was not the Lennin from communism you know that do you?
Cheap shot that, my posts answer your question.
As we drift away from thread the debate runs out of air we never changed one mind but I like to think we talked mostly without insults.
My view, it may be wrong but I think not , in my lifetime we have found many leaving the Christian church to explore other Gods and even cults.
Not always a wise choice, less of us go to church, those that do often appear to be no different than those who do not.
Islam is growing all over the world and appears to outnumber Christianity?
And not unlike any time in history religion has the potential to dived us more than unite.
Yet I will not walk away from the fact most who truly believe live life without inflicting pain on others.

Dear Friends..(and enemies :)
I continue to rejoice in the vigour and passion of this discussion..
If I may, I'd like to share with you something which might take a bit of 'research' to verify (shock horror..HOMEWORK)

Our source for the 'Christian' faith and belief is the New Testament primarily. The Old Testament cannot be separated, because the New, is connected to and relies on the Old.

CLAIMs
1/The Gospel of Luke was written by a man who was personally in the company of Paul.
2/ Thus, we would expect, that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles (also written by Luke) would show strong evidence of Pauls 'revelation' and striking theology.
3/ Such is not the case. Luke's Gospel is very much in the character of the 2 other synoptics (Matthew and Mark) but is unlike John.

EVIDENCE.

1/ Acts 16 begins with an account of Pauls journey....

"He" came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived"

Verse 8 says "So THEY passed by Mysia and went down to Troas."

verse 11 says "From Troas WE put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace

That is the point where LUKE begins to accompany Paul...in person.

2/ and 3/ In order to validate this claim, you would all need to have a read of say Romans.. and get a feel for Pauls 'theology' and then.. read Lukes Gospel.. and compare the two documents.

CONCLUSION. Luke says at the beginning of his Gospel (In classical Greek)

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

He then continues in ordinary Greek.. with the Gospel.

After a glimpse of the post above, I now think this thread is wayyy longggg enough. That last post didn't answer if there is a God; it makes a reader tired. Made this reader switch off big time. Is just the usual theological carry on. Unless we are dealing with Belly's original question, moving on pullleeeze! Time to start a new thread; I know 'who has had a near death experience'.

Belly, what is your view on life, just a chemical accident or coincidence? Science differentiates between life and matter, and plenty of scientists are Believers. Scientific hypotheses on the origin of life is just that, hypotheses, and are unproven.

Evolution is still a belief, unproven and not demonstrated; no matter how logical, how widely agreed upon or how well it explains things to us.

Belly, didn't you a while back post your musings on things mystical in your life?

Bronco Lane,
Obviously you have done a lot of research into the reality of God? You made that conclusion at the end of your research at when? Fifteen? Most 15 year olds are scatterbrained rebels. Your conclusion was not more than an immature reason to live without conscience or meaning.

Philo, what if one comes to their ultimate conclusions about the reality of god when they are 34? Would that make any difference to you? Didn't think so.

Bronco lane,
Do you not find you are still living in the 70's?
I mean..John Lennon?...Imagine? Lennon didn't worship anything, unless it had a leaf (or two) attached to it and I don't mean trees!

Does "wacky-backy" mean anything to you? I'm damn sure John Lennon did!

In any event, the God is the God you choose and the one you choose is the one you praise and exhalt. There is no choice as to whom or what a person holds high in esteem, it all boils down to individualism, if one prays for money (which is in any event wrong)then he believes he will get rich and if he does get rich, thats the God he will praise for the rest of his life, you can believe that one! We are afterall...only human. Pray for rain, pray for a full crop, pray for love, pray for anything you like and when it comes into being, you will always praise that one God, doesn't this all sound very familiar?

To answer a question yes I did post in a thread about my mystical experiences.
Like others, well is it not true like all of us I wondered what may behind near death experiences and such.
Thought we came to a conclusion just maybe our brain is far greater that we know, and looks after us in ways we do not yet understand.
No offense meant but can we look at, well should we look at one of our newer religions?
Had to re write that, we are not free to look too close at some religions.
But some are clearly in most minds inventions, what will people in 200 years think?
Why have so many here failed to address numbers of followers?
Count the populations of Indonesia, Malaya, all the Arabic country's, China, how many are Christian?
Can it be that all those are wrong and we alone right?
Life remains a mystery to me death sometimes seems to leave a shadow is it our mind? or our wish to think we see or feel the dead?
IT is not Christianity the Bible reminds us the dead are dead until some day in the future.

Holy cow, Belly!

I do believe you could be in the running to receive the trophy for the longest debate on "General" OLO.

Hasn't your topic simply exposed the fact that most humans simply fear death and the threats of damnation which the religious often proclaim awaits the "wicked?"

Doesn't this lengthy debate expose the fact that the religious live in fear of offending "God" (if there is one) and anxiously hope for salvation in the afterlife - if there is one!

Perhaps someone should open a thread to assure readers that death is part of life and that we really should be more accepting of the fate that awaits us all. Afterall, we celebrate birth, why not death?

Conscience is my God. "Only to do the right and to love goodness" is all that one should aspire to - not the dogma force-fed to others by those who, unable to substantiate their claims about their beliefs in the super-natural, continually proclaim that their God is the only true ONE. This simply defies logic and reasoning - does it not?

dickie I find nothing to differ with you yet debate we do still.
In truth I see no harm, other than my few cheap shots, in the debate.
For me at least it is hard to think like those who are truly committed to a God, yet I find no fault in them.
It is clear some pity me, some dislike the thread and the fact it questions them.
I am surprised we humans let the boogie man that we should not discus politics or religion so often stop us each sharing our thoughts.

Dickie!
Where the heck have you been? long time no hear!
Welcome to one of the longest threads in this category!

We have still not,as yet,had evidence of a "God" but watch this space....

Dickie to base.......I read you Spanky.

Touche Belly!

A thought for the day:

“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"

Priest: "No, not if you did not know."

Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"

CAKERS.......

sorry to bore you to tears mate..but I have to reject the 'just the usual theological' thing...

I gave you some very well documented reasoning, and provided sources.
I know it's not 'friday night with the fish and chips' reading.. but it is a serious issue.

You suggested it did not answer Bellies question...but think.. If I came to you with the

-Telelogical argument
-Argument from design
-cosmological argument
-Moral argument
etc etc......

you and about a hundred others would be clawing your way up my leg with bared teeth yelling "Those arguments have been debunked ages ago"....(my cat does that...without the speech bit :)

I hope you will revisit what I presented..and look at it in detail..as an alternative to the 'hackneyed' arguments/proofs... and see what the situation is.... it's quite compelling from an evidentiary point of view.

The ultimate evidence..is the Resurrection of Christ. Best argument of the lot. But evidence for 'that' evidence ? is...the Gospels....
so it leads to the obvious issue of ....'reliability' of those as sources.
Paul had it well nutted out.
Resurrection.. we have hope...
No Resurrection..

1Cor 15:32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die."[

Unsurprisingly Boaz, your "argument" falls at the first fence.

>>I gave you some very well documented reasoning, and provided sources.<<

But Boaz, using the gospels as your source is simply providing a circular reference.

Let me explain.

If I were to tell you that the earth was at the centre of the universe, you would tell me I'm crazy - despite the fact, incidentally, that your religion clung to the theory for a very long time. In support of my arguments I would of course point you to the works of Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy etc., who produced some compelling fictions, based upon what we now know to be a hollow lie.

Each time you challenge my logic, I simply point you back to the same material, with occasional diversions into Tycho Brahe etc.

Now, feel free to scoff. But this is precisely how I see your reasoning. Whenever it is pointed out to you that, for example, there are absolutely no contemporary references to the life of Jesus, it takes you but a millisecond to refer me to another part of the gospels, as if that is the most incontrovertible truth available.

Does this resonate at all?

So, when you say stuff like:

>>Acts 16 begins with an account of Pauls journey...."He" came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived" Verse 8 says "So THEY passed by Mysia and went down to Troas." verse 11 says "From Troas WE put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace That is the point where LUKE begins to accompany Paul...in person. 2/ and 3/ In order to validate this claim, you would all need to have a read of say Romans.. and get a feel for Pauls 'theology' and then.. read Lukes Gospel.. and compare the two documents.<<

... it comes out as the most incomprehensible gibberish. Statements like these do not, and cannot, form any component of a proof, of any kind. Nor do they, as you would have us believe, justify your claim to have given "very well documented reasoning, and provided sources""

Boaz,

What if the God or Gods of Indigenous Societies teach via their oral traditions ,that if you behave and don't cause trouble and respect their teachings, you too WILL get to "Heaven".

Just how will they fare today in your world of Religion and Salvation , War and Peace ?

What are their chances of living in Your Heaven that you say is the ONLY Heaven?

Will your God say "No Folks - You will have to convert and read the Bible to join Me"!??

Perhaps he might have to have a yarn to that old crew across the street that have been there for thousands of years to find out what THEY are on about .

The missionaries go forth to Christianize the savages - as if the savages weren't dangerous enough already!

It appears the only time atheist go to Church is for the funeral of a friend or family member. Hence they conclude Christianity is all about death and the anxiety death causes. I only wish they had a balanced view of life. Christianity is about living life to the max, not about cringing in fear.

Death is a natural part of life as Solomon states in Ecclesiastes 3:1 - 9 "1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven: 2a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 3a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

Paul states the fear of death is unforgiven sin. The NT teaches a spirit of fear is bondage and the Spirit of Christ frees us this bondage [Hebrews 2:15; 2 Timothy 1: 7].

The Christians I admire are the ones who take risks for the blessing of others. Like a 26 year old girl from my Church who trained in physiotherapy practise who a month ago left to work in a hospital in India with patients with severe trauma injuries.

Then there's Fred Hollows, Philo. On his death, the Aboriginal, Vietnamese, Nepalese, Australian and Eritrean flags draped his coffin - a legacy of his good work during his time on Earth.

Now that's a man we can all admire.....a bawdy, tough human being whose desire to assist his fellow humans in need was truly ecumenical and performed without a belief in God.

Frank Hardy, who delivered the second eulogy at Fred's funeral underlined, in a dignified manner, that Fred was in fact a Marxist and a non-believer.

Philo
like the ones according to you that do no harm by sending Australias live Animals off in ships to those savage Muslims- According to you that in your own words on the other thread are so cruel.
Has it ever occured to you while you are bagging the Muslims for their treatment of Gods creatues that we the good Christians actually are the ones responsible because we send them- According to you?
Please dont give me that garbage again that Muslim require Animals Alive for Ritual Services philo We have shown you the oficial media R from muslim Leaders informing the public that is a lie and asking the media and government to at least tell the truth in reporting on live exports.
Is There A god?
Indeed Thats a question you so called good Christians and Church Leaders should think hard about before turning your back on Gods Creatures and putting the blame on the Muslims for goodness sake.

Another lurch away from the thread but let us move on I have not seen my questions about other Gods get much of a mention.
Have we the right to devalue others Gods?
Can it be true that of all mans Gods only the one you believe in is true?
Why?

Good questions Belly. But to the already-religious, the answer is self-evident.

Believing in a God is all about faith. Faith in the sense that you believe in something in spite of the lack of evidence for it - or to be more specific, the lack of evidence comprehensible to you.

Electricity is something that we are all familiar with. We "understand" that it does a heap of things, from lighting torches with a couple of AA batteries, to killing you if you touch the live rail in the London Underground. Very few people actually understand the process that causes these things to happen, but nevertheless observe that it acts in the same way, under the same conditions.

"Believing in" the power of electricity is an act of faith. We don't fully understand it, but we know that it exists.

Religionists have the same attitude. They have become convinced that the world cannot exist without there being a comprehensible underlying reason or rationale, and under the right conditions will decide that this missing piece is in fact a God.

But to reach that conclusion, it is far easier to concentrate on a specific manifestation of that God than just to say "God did it". The narrative needs a whole lot of back-story in order to be at all convincing, and each religion has its own version of this.

Once hooked on one particular version of this story, it becomes difficult to accept that a) it is just a story and b) there are many other stories that say the same thing.

The chances of the adherent of one religion accepting that another one of these stories might be "right" would undermine the entire foundation of their original belief, and exposure to that thought is therefore to be avoided. It would be like telling them "actually, they lied, electricity acts differently for different people - here, touch this..."

The bit that I don't fully understand is why it seems to give each religion the right to slag off the others. After all, they should all be on the same side, shouldn't they?

Pericles,

“If I were to tell you that the earth was at the centre of the universe, you would tell me I'm crazy ... In support of my arguments I would of course point you to the works of Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy etc., who produced some compelling fictions, based upon what we now know to be a hollow lie.”

You have my attention. So what writings did Plato et al give that evidenced that the earth is the centre of the Universe and how does one witness that? I confess to a fairly skeptical nature.

You doubt the authenticity of Christian teachings. Surely they are the best historic record of the time available. Why would early Christians make up stories that would guarantee their execution and why eschew drunken debauchery for no reason? Martyring of early Christians was fairly routine and fornication is tempting to the flesh. What if they were telling the truth?

“The chances of the adherent of one religion accepting that another one of these stories might be "right" would undermine the entire foundation of their original belief, and exposure to that thought is therefore to be avoided. It would be like telling them "actually, they lied, electricity acts differently for different people - here, touch this..."”

Interesting. For people seeking the truth change seems possible if there is sufficiently compelling reason to change. People seem to convert within Christian denominations all the time.

”The bit that I don't fully understand is why it seems to give each religion the right to slag off the others. After all, they should all be on the same side, shouldn't they?”

Atheist fundamentalists seem to slag off more but to the exent that religious people do and it is a genuine attack not a defence I agree. This is particularly true within the same religion. However in practice, sadly, a lot of slagging goes on. The term shooting oneself in the foot comes to mind.

mjpb I have doubts you and I can agree on much on this thread.
I have however tried ,and I believe you have too not to be offensive to those who do not share my views.
Not fundamental anything, even ALP or union , I do however not believe in any God yet known to man.
I do want to point out some on both sides of this debate, not here in this thread condemn the other side.
Even claims of stupidity are often laid, My view is that is always wrong, often dogma driven and always wrong.
I will not concede evolution as Gods work, we could claim everything we like as such.
But in a world that has so many Gods, a post above gives good answers of why we do, it seems unwise to think a supreme being would only make himself known to some of us.
I am aware of some things we can not say, libel laws are harsh, but in the lifetimes of most who post here brand new religions have been born.
Shining new totally different Gods come to life.
More will follow you can bet on it.
5 or maybe ten generations from now may see more following one of those.
And just maybe a visitor from space may one day tell us of a far different God or that they have no God.
One day man will understand we will never truly understand, but locking our thoughts is unwise we should continue to ask questions of our selves.

Pericles..... I refer you to scripture because it has persuaded the likes of Simon Greenleaf (former atheist) who founded the Harvard law school.. as 'evidence'....CS Lewis... Malcolm Muggeridge and other luminaries of literature.

Now.. I'm not sure how high in your own estimation you are :) but the above is not just 'gibberish' and Greenleaf was no dill when it comes to law and the assessment of evidence.

In regard to documents, there is such a thing as 'external' evidence and 'internal'... the 'we' passages of Acts..when looked at objectively form weighty 'internal evidence' along with many other aspects which I don't have space to list. You might do well to consult even higher critical publications then have a look at more conservative and see which rings more true.

When it comes to evidentiary matters.. and even scientific.. we are always.. ALWAYS left with 'balance of probabilities'.. Judges ascribe weight to every aspect of a case..

I totally agree that there is the element of 'faith'.... but that faith simply connects us to (as West and others might say) our 'Imaginary Friend'... and the issue of the scriptures as evidence of factual happenings remains open.

BELLY.. other gods ? The central point of the Christian faith is that God has revealed himself in Christ... hence.. no other 'god' is admissable or real.

K. JIM.... That issue of 'those who have not heard..and who die never hearing' is a sensitive one.. and one which brings me humbly to the throne of grace. There is a concept of the elect.. who God foreknows... and rather than try to develop that.. I'll just say my confidence is that the God of all the earth will do rightly and justly. Read Romans chapter 1 and 2 for information.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=1&version=31

My own focus, is on the calling to proclaim Christ..and repentance and faith in Him..as the Messiah..the rest..is up to the Almighty.

BOAZ David do you understand the results of your statement? no
other God?
What is the end result if we say that is it Christ is the only God no other can exist?
Right now those living today who follow another God must go very close to out numbering Christians is that not true?
Tell me please why did Christ not make him self known to Buddhists? or in fact followers of every God ?
No offense but following your way we are just blindly following not thinking.

Perpetuating a few more myths, Boaz? You certainly are full of "received wisdom". Unfortunately, none of which you seem to check.

>>Pericles..... I refer you to scripture because it has persuaded the likes of Simon Greenleaf (former atheist) who founded the Harvard law school.. as 'evidence'.<<

Simon Greenleaf was an evangelical episcopalian his entire life. There was no "persuasion", because before he was at Harvard, he was already writing tracts for the American Tract Society, and heavily involved in the Massachusetts Bible Society. The story that he was challenged by his students to disprove the truth of the resurrection, is just that: a story. Just for good measure, the Harvard Law School was chartered in 1817, and hired its first professor, Joseph Storey, in 1829. Greenleaf himself was hired four years later, in 1833.

So, apart from the fact that i) he wasn't an atheist, ii) he didn't found the Harvard Law School and iii) he didn't suddenly become "persuaded" by the evidence of the Gospel, you have the story roughly right.

>>In regard to documents, there is such a thing as 'external' evidence and 'internal'... the 'we' passages of Acts..when looked at objectively form weighty 'internal evidence' along with many other aspects which I don't have space to list.<<

If I may paraphrase, this says "there is no actual evidence that can be objectively examined that is separate from the document itself, so we have to persuade ourselves by counting the number of occasions where one part of the text agrees with another part of the text."

Which is exactly what I was pointing out before: the arguments are always, and inevitably, self referential.

Perhaps you can come up with a more convincing explanation of the difference between "external" and "internal" evidence? If you can, I for one would love to hear it.

When discussing "internal evidence" Boazy, you are of course meaning "internal consistency" are you not? Because internal inconsistencies are often used to discount an articles or stories validity. It unfortunate (for Christianity) that it doesn't work in the other direction, ie confirming or endorsing an articles validity.

Boaz , your lack of knowledge of whether God chooses to take in unbelievers or those who haven't heard the word , is not surprising.

Who would really know ?

Even as a humble Agnostic, I agree with you that decisions on whom we assume will get a ticket, is best left to to the Gatekeeper.

However,if you need a Heaven, my guess is that a heathen who gives all those around him due respect and kindness , probably stands a better chance of getting to the front of the que than a lot of others about here today .

Allll of you,
Give it a break and lets talk about something else like fat content in fast food or Britney Spears
Geeeez!

Tobias find a way to stop that dangerous PC of yours taking you to threads you do not want to read.
And in time after you control it please consider was that post the best you can do?
Rationale debate is not helped by such unwanted impulse posting.
And your profile here is questioned by it.

Tobias...Take a hike!

Boazy: "Pericles..... I refer you to scripture because it has persuaded the likes of Simon Greenleaf (former atheist) who founded the Harvard law school.. as 'evidence'"

Pericles: "..apart from the fact that i) he wasn't an atheist, ii) he didn't found the Harvard Law School and iii) he didn't suddenly become "persuaded" by the evidence of the Gospel, you have the story roughly right."

I see that Boazy is maintaining his usual standard of truthfulness in his arguments. While I'm sure that his frequent mendacity is entirely unintentional, it does call into question his capacity to comment sensibly about what constitutes credible "evidence".

Hi Pericles and CJ...

I'm not privy to the best sources it would appear Pericles.. please provide you links.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/ChristIsRisenIndeed.htm
These links need to have a coffee with your Pericles. The 2nd one states 'developed the Harvard law school' If your sources are more reliable.. clearly that is a half truth.

"Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen."

Here is his treatize..might make good reading for you blokes who feel the Gospels are not adequate testimony.. BUGSY.. you might benefit also mate.
http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html

I would think that someone setting out to 'disprove' the resurrection would do so from an atheist standpoint ?

Can I suggest....that more benefit would be derived from a study of his treatise than of 'my biographical notes' of the man?

But I welcome the additional information you provided.. I'd like a reference though Pericles.. a source. a link.. if you don't mind.
Kind thanx.

K.JIM It is not my 'lack of knowledge' at work there..it is my desire for you to search it out for yourself mate.
I prefer not to set myself up as the judge of large chunks of humanities eternal destiny. I can speak firmly though of those who outright 'reject' the Biblical Savior... they have judged themselves.

Guys,
Does this one take the trophy as the longest running discussion?
Lets just say everyone has their own ideas and get on with it.

"I prefer not to set myself up as the judge of large chunks of humanities eternal destiny. I can speak firmly though of those who outright 'reject' the Biblical Savior... they have judged themselves."

Hey Boazy.......lighten up mate!

Remember what George Burns said:

"The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending, then having the two as close together as possible."

Now I get it, Boazy. You posit a half-baked argument or historical story, deliberately get the facts and details wrong, just so we go and look them up and can tell you about it. Very clever.

Doesn't make an 18th century lawyer any more right about anything though. And that tract written by Greenleaf doesn't look like it was written by an atheist, how many assumptions can one preacher make? Do you even read your own links?

Tobias please tell me what makes you think you have the right to tell us what to think and say? even do?
Are you fairdinkum? why would you highlight your bad manners?
The posts before and after yours have been interesting why do you intrude?

Boaz,
You say : It is not your "lack of Knowledge" [ex kj] and "they have judged themselves".

This is the amazing thing about so many religious faiths, their adherents can not help themselves from becoming judge and or jury on everything and everyone at any time -their faith can lock them in .

"My Faith makes me Right" is a very dangerous position to take - we see the destruction to the planet and loss of innocent lives this causes every day .

I prefer "On the balance of Probabilities" and am prepared to be a bit more flexible.

Should a man, woman, teenager or child utter the words, "I don't believe what I read or for that matter see" these days, how can this mean anything else in the scheme of things other than their experiences ,influences etc,etc up to that instant in time have moved their neurons around in their brains to take that particular position or decision ?

To say that the Spirit can take the place or position of the High Court Judge defies ALL logic.
But then Logic doesn't seem to a necessary decision making tool for a large percentage of society these days.

Belly,
This individual "Tobias" is obviously someone who wandered onto this thread without an inkling of what this is all about.

Maybe he/she feels the need to experience some derogative remarks thrown his/her way...Sorry Tobias, are you he or she..or both?

You sound like both, only screaming queens have the gumption to interupt a long standing thread like this one and the audacity to blatantly shout the odds as though you really have nothing else to do in your little bubble.

Please, if you feel the need to go boil an egg or two, feel free to do so and stop irritating the cr@p out of the rest of us!

God bless you and take care.

Thanks SPANKY like every thing in life I come here to learn.
Having zero interest in that subject while at school it drives me now.
Truly I want to understand why we have Gods, and why , sorry just my view they are generally divisive.
Yes life has told me man is while not one, not too different , other than religions.
No intent to hurt anyone but could we not solve many of our problems if we only had one God or none?
That will bring heated reminders we already do, but that is reason for conflict not answers.
It could be fear of answers that drives Tobias to rudely instruct others.

You spout about faith and a God you do not even understand.
I hope you have the slightest understanding of what you have just said and ask him for mercy.

I guess the question fro the modern age is: do sock puppets have a soul?

I have a feeling that on one level they do, but on another level they should probably be kicked from the server and refused to be reborn as stupid new entities.

A sock asking for mercy is like a fundamentalist asking for tolerance and understanding.

For me the evidence that natural chemicals operates within consistent boundaries demonstrates that reality has unity and is the product of one mind. Believe it or not? For me there is one Creator of the physical universe.

However God is also the expression of Spirit demonstrated in the moral purity or a person of character, attitude, and action that enhances life and advances goodness and blessing of a community and a nation.

Yes this is a belief system and for me it is the most coherent faith in advancing society and community. I find most atheists negative, rebellious, and advocates of moral impurity, mainly for the reason it allows the denial of a moral conscience.

Because atheists have no moral conscience or respect for the sanctity of human life they believe they can destroy a human foetus without consequence. That they without conscience may cross breed human embryos with animal sperm supposedly for the advancement of their view of science. That they cannot believe death and deformity of an individual is natural, and prefer to believe they can outsmart what is natural [allowed by God] by destroying healthy human cells and cross breeding them with lower living species [a practise that is morally condemned].

Pilo you defame me, not taking offense but it is just that.
How can you say I , yes me would say it is ok to kill an unborn child?
Tobias old sock! so it is fear driven! your rude intervention telling us what to think what to say.
You fear being asked to justify your beliefs.
Now followers of some Gods are known to have far more money than us, and to use it in law cases against those who question the God they follow, just for a few minutes forget Jesus.
Let us explore other Gods,say a new one, or one that did not exist in mans mind 100 years ago.
Now remember we are bound by defamation laws and respect for this forum.
Most know such a God I not for a second believe it is other than a well written story.
What right have we to impose our thoughts on this religion?
Apart from over active defense systems that may damage us is it our right to say my God no others?
Why is asking a question, seeking answers often for some believers such a sin?
I question any God that both wants us to spread his story around the world.
Yet needs socks such as Tobias to say free speech and ideas are wrong.
Or one that needs Pilo to invent crimes to place on the heads of those who inquire without being on their knees.
In fact in my view such is the tool so many use to defend God I am forced to question why? a God could defend himself without such threats.

DICKIE :)

verrry good call.. about sermons.. yep..I rather like that one.

Jesus was excellent at this.. he spoke in little stories mostly.. OHHHHHH that Pastors and preachers would follow his example :)

Just imagine if the disciples had said to Jesus. "Now Lord.. we have 45 minutes to fill please don't finish early or the cakes will not be ready".....

Bugsy.. I was accused of falsely representing Greenleaf, I provided sources which support my main contention.. I was asking PERICLES .. who disagreed with me to provide his sources..not you.

In anycase.. you are sounding like the Muslims who rip into Jay Smith about his claims that the Quran includes many stories picked up from 2nd century Judaism.. they don't respond to the charge they just go on and on about Jays 'not quite finished' Phd..and then accuse him of lying.. forget the ISSUE.. no..just try to crucify Jay....

I get that a lot :) 'ducks back..water'.. you know how it goes.

cheers.

K.JIM..... mate..what has high court judges got to do with 'Is there a God' ?
Keep in mind.. how we Christians view mankind.. is not a LAW.. its faith..
cheers 2

I don't think that it is up to me to provide links,Boaz, at least, not yet.

Let's go over your claims one more time.

>>...Simon Greenleaf (former atheist)...<<

You made this claim, Boaz, I think that it is up to you to substantiate it. Not by mindlessly quoting others who use the same phrase, but by providing more specific evidence. I pointed out that "Simon Greenleaf was an evangelical episcopalian his entire life... before he was at Harvard, he was already writing tracts for the American Tract Society, and heavily involved in the Massachusetts Bible Society."

If you can find a source that demonstrates this to be untrue, I will present my sources and we can compare them. Otherwise - and you have done this on more occasions that I can count - you will simply change the subject and move on.

It is about time you became a little more accountable for your casual, off the cuff "facts", Boaz, and here would be a good start.

I notice that you have already changed your tune from "Simon Greenleaf... who founded the Harvard law school" to agreeing with me that he was "one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School". That's good. Far more accurate, but carrying considerably less impact.

Nobody doubts that Greenleaf wrote a screed that is now desribed as having the intention "to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

However, given the awareness that he was a lifelong and devout Christian, exactly how i) surprising and ii) credible is this "evidence"?

Further, if you wanted to be thorough in your assessment of the piece (which of course you don't), you would find that he dashed off this piece of self-serving polemic as an afterthought to his major works on the nature of evidence. He was, in fact, testing the work he had just completed by applying it to one of his favourite topics, to see how it shaped up.

And as Bugsy has already pointed out, it smells of a pre-judgement of the outcome, all the way through.

Belly,
I am not singling out any individual, just a belief system that can practise the destruction of a perfectly healthy foetus, and can allow the cross breeding of humans with animals. A belief system that fails to uphold the sanctity of a human life.

Philo I can not let you put that on non believers heads without reminding you.
In the name of your God some wed many times ,some to little more than children.
Some say only members of their church, not the many others who believe are going to heaven.
Like it or not some , not from one church but many sexually assaulted children.
Crimes are committed by humans no evidence exists that non believers commit more.
Some place even now, people who have not yet heard the story of your God may live.
Do you tell me they are then more likely to commit evil?
I could lay great numbers of crimes at the feet of cults who say they follow your God ,but no more than the rest of the world.

Well Pericles.. it took some digging..but I did find your source.. or one very similar

http://www.drbilllong.com/LegalHistory/Greenleaf.html

But that's ok :) I agree.. the 'myth' of Greenleaf does serve Christian populist interests better when one considers him a 'former atheist'...but in truth, I was reporting other's assessment of him more than my own. I did 'assume' that his reported endevour to disprove the resurrection mean't he was an atheist.. but clearly that assesmment was incorrect. Thank you for pointing it out.

One minor flaw in your approach.. is this. You seem to assume that I believe people will be converted by the dropping of high powered names.. who were kind of modern Pauls.. adamantly opposed to Christianity..then suddenly dramaticlly converted after a titantic intellectual struggle.....

Not at all.. it does warm the heart to know of people in that situation, but the only one we really need is Paul.
So, rather than questioning my report.. which was more that of another than my own... you should be questioning my motives. My motive.. is to encourage belief in Christ as Saviour. I certainly don't want that to rest on anything other than the plain simple Gospel.

Clear ?

Woody Allen asked:

"How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?

To Philo and Boazy,
Your Lord and his writings in the Bible no doubt have been an inspiration to many people to do good things over the last 2000 years.

However on balance I suggest that for the last 200 years or so all Christians have done to other races and Religions is attempt to destroy them or convert them at great human cost .

They have even destroyed with a vengence their own fellow believers that do not have identical political views such as what occurred in the WW1 and WW2 etc. etc .

Some fundamentalist Muslims of particular religious bent do the same thing to their own fellow "believers".

That "great" US Christian Army commander George Bush , I am ashamed to say, leader of the US Army, has ordered invasions in Afgahnistan and Iraq that has probably left nearly a million people dead - many of them unarmed civilians .

Philo,

How many of those unarmed women were pregnant and looking to a future in Peace when they were struck down .

My guess and hope if he is up there - the Good Lord will throw up the Boom gate for him and others of his kind no matter what belief.

I do not profess to be a Bible scholar but the little I do remember
about his methods was that when alive he talked to unbelievers and took them with him .

Unlike so many Christian leaders today .

Philo and Boazy,perhaps you and your fellow worshippers ALSO seem to forget the Lord's commandment "Thou shalt not kill"!

The thread could go on forever, full of emotion and the need to defend positions.
I have learned some do not explore for answers about their belief but have little trouble devaluing the belief of others.
We return to Jesus again and again but forget he is one of truly tens of Gods.
Maybe tens of ten is closer to the number, and that followers of each believed in them just as strongly.
It is also clear every thing we wonder at even love is attributed to God by his followers every one of those Gods.
Books being printed now talk of God, but not one we knew about just 100 years about, people reading those books in 100 years will think that God gave us sunlight and the sea.
While Jim in the post above lays blame for wars at the strange bloke leading America, I in truth think belief in Gods divides us more than anything we can think of.
Yet I also understand some of mans best achievements have been made in the name of God.
So sadly have some of our worst

Boazy: "rather than questioning my report.. which was more that of another than my own... you should be questioning my motives"

Brilliant. When caught out for being less than truthful yet again, Boazy says that we should excuse him because his motives are pure. I'm beginning to think that the kind of credulous mind that can accept a fundamentalist notion of "God" is predisposed towards mendacity.

After all, if you're willing to accept the really big lies, it's only a small sin to tell a few little ones, eh?

More on the predisposition of fundamentalist Christians to tell porkies at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1072#19261 .

Belly,

If you mean the obvious can't a distinction be drawn between the writings of a science fiction writer and religious people following someone who rose from the dead?

Locking thoughts quite often creates problems. But some believe that for this to be real there must be a truth to be discovered and we don't have to go around in relative circles forever.

You take offence from Philo’s generalisations yet you seem so atypical for an atheist. You are more open to thinking about religion more than any continuing atheist I have ever encountered. I'm not saying you will but if you chose to convert it wouldn't shock me.

When you said: “Philo I can not let you put that on non believers heads without reminding you…” I think you were a bit steep with your targets but that isn’t such a bad thing as you were responding to someone doing the same thing. It might drive home the need to explain the benefits of Christianity more carefully.

Philo,

You need to realize that not all atheists are extreme or the same and not all societies in which they are formed are the same. The Netherlands have a strongly Catholic history but many have rejected the religion while retaining the anti-abortion ethic. Contrast that with the atheists you have encountered. Without God's wisdom ethics become relative and anything is arguable but that doesn't determine whether or not people adopt some type of ethical system and have some kind of conscience. Their conscience might not align with God's wisdom but it is insulting to them as you if you question whether or not they have a conscience.

KJ,

“But then Logic doesn't seem to a necessary decision making tool for a large percentage of society these days.”

You can say that again. We live in a busy world. We are in information and persuasion overload. Things get so busy that we don’t tend to get beyond short soundbytes never stopping to think.

Is it fair to call a secular leader professing to be Christian a Christian Leader?

Belly,

To correct the previous comment. You don't take offence but you assume it is directed toward you and could be offensive. I suspect that the people who have triggered Philo's comment are unlike you.

Also sorry if you find my candour about the conversion thing offensive. I disclosed it to try to explain the above point.

But Boaz, I do question your motives. And while I am about it, I'll question the integrity of the way you go about pursuing them.

>>So, rather than questioning my report.. which was more that of another than my own... you should be questioning my motives. My motive.. is to encourage belief in Christ as Saviour.<<

Here's an example of how motives as vague as these can be perverted, in the words of a prominent Christian spokesperson:

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate [Venezuelan President Chavez], I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

You may agree or disagree with Pat Robertson's sentiments, but you cannot get past the fact that he speaks for Christianity. His motives for speaking this way are, without doubt, "to encourage belief in Christ as Saviour". That's his job, as the leader of a major Christian movement.

But seriously, this is the winner of the Boaz_David Porkie-of-the-Day award. Or perhape, being generous, it is simply symptomatic of the level of self-delusion that surrounds you like a London smog.

>>I certainly don't want that to rest on anything other than the plain simple Gospel.<<

Oh, puh-leeeaase!

While it is indeed true that you spin biblical references around like so much candy-floss, you spend most of your time dredging up selected quotes from the Qur'an, and bagging the life out of them.

In fact, it wouldn't be one tenth as objectionable, if you were to confine your references to the Gospels. At least then we would have a single point of reference to work with.

mjpb of course not! your debating style is in no way offensive, none taken.
I a believer in evolution think man is hard wired to need or is it want? a God.
I also understand not all, from any faith think only those who follow that brand of God are worthy.
I maybe understood Philo did not think of me, but as is my habit took to the defense of those he aimed at.
Find me a God. single one that claims every one is equal, no one lessor , and while not believing I could fall in behind.
Like a warm doona in a winter night the comfort of forgetting to think May be good but it is still cold when you get out of bed.

Belly,
I argue from a point of thought [view]position or idea that produces moral action. Persons who destroy perfectly healthy foetus [original point] or rape children do not act from a Christian moral position accountable to God. They act from a self determined position suposedly placing themselves as the highest accountable being [in place of God].

Jesus is clear about causing offence to children - such persons he states, "deserve drowning"; [Matthew 18: 5 - 6; Mark 9: 42; Luke 17: 1 - 2]. People identifying themselves as Christian frequently place themselves as the highest authority and act outside an informed conscience. They are not performing these evil acts in the revealed authority of divine morality.

Philo
I have been reading this thread and I remember you quite well.
Here you go again with you preaching about womans right to choose to have or not to have children - despite be it rape or in a parntership.
I debated you before on this topic a long time ago. Well before belly came along.
I have also read the other posts you put up defending chistians and christian church leaders in particular regarding their silence on not only the cruelty of live exports but the cruelty in general of intensive farming. Soon it will be Christmass. You will encourage everybody to have a nice Chistmass.
As you sit at the table just think of this.
It would be impossible to inflict as much pain on something the size of less than half a grain of rice as it is the poor pigs such as the ones caged in Amanda Vanstones and many other hell holes where an animal cant turn roll dig. Where they SCREAM in Frustration and NOW The bars unto their theeth bleed to get out. They are driven mad- quite litterally.
I have btw five children which is enough school fees and expenses.
I choose NOT to have more.
Thats is none of your business.
You are always on about womens private sexual lives- be in pregnacy or something else.
I think you are offensive to all women.
Oh and I philo am a much better person than you are because I actually do care about Gods Creatures unlike some hypicrits that hang out for over two years in every and any thread to do with womans bodily functions.
I think thats sick.

Come Philo we both understand that.
We both understand also that those same people often did these acts in a church or place of worship, while in the service of God.
We know more than one Church ,more than one God was involved.
I at least know rather than drowned sometimes those Church's looked after those who committed the crimes better than the victims.
And Philo I at least while condemning those who hide the crime as much as those who did it , understand within religions all of them.
They who acted like that are minority's.
Condemn me if you wish to every hell every God ever promised to those who did not follow, I would have eternal life just to spend my time in each.
But I know man has no need of fables, we after all created all Gods, from within the mind of man all the good intentions of every holly book came.
That simple fact keeps me hoping for better yet from us
regards.

Belly
If you go back and read some of the posts in Philos name yu will see what I am talking about.
I too know that many many many church leaders and workers mauled little kids.
The Christian Church has and always will cover those offenders up.
I can give you dozens of examples.
Not now because I must go to work. No doubt so can ask hundreds of others.
Belly what I wanted to say however was most of the offenders I have noticed in the past always talk about these types of things.
They are so sick and fixed on this subject that they cant stop talking thinking about it.

They usually have a deep resentment to woman and they usually keep brining up such topics as abortion or rape.
It is just another way to control or stear the conversation into the only area they really wish to be.
You will often find those people are actually offenders themselves.
I have done quite a bit of counciling belly and I think you do not have to look far to find a Churchy sick offender.
' There is one around every corner and on many pages even of this forum.
I just thought it best to warn you before you feed anybodies sick appetite.
I have seen this type of thing many times before so I am quick to spot this type of person.

Its best nt to feed them but thats of course up to yourself.

“Find me a God. single one that claims every one is equal, no one lessor , and while not believing I could fall in behind.”

I can point to a God who holds that all humans are equal if that’s what you mean. That would be too easy and I believe I know what you mean… The same God is all about choices. Confining it to heavenly reward sometimes seems like a rationalisation. I hope I can articulate this. Either God created everything or He didn't. If we choose to jump over a cliff and our equipment fails atheists don't curse God for being a bastard for creating gravity. Yet atheists know more about gravity than theology of eternal salvation so logically that should be something they should feel more comfortable doing. Obviously atheists understand gravity's importance hence the inconsistency. But logically it seems problematic to judge God with respect to eternal salvation without also judging God for creating gravity. Less than an all or none approach seems unfair if an omnipotent creator is involved even hypothetically.

“Come Philo we both understand that.”

I suspected you did.

“I too know that many many many church leaders and workers mauled little kids.
The Christian Church has and always will cover those offenders up.
I can give you dozens of examples.”

Sigh! Looks like this post is following the normal route of going into anti-Christian bigotry mode. Most Christians or priests are paedophiles stay away from them. Tragically these people don’t know how prevalent paedophilia really is. It isn’t just the priest we hear about on the news reports. That is a drop in the ocean compared to the cases that go before the courts. The media just like reporting on Christian molestors. I presume originally it appeared novel but after all these years it is probably habit. Anyway Belly if this thread does die out a degenerated death thanks for the discussion.

That's an unusual line of thinking, mjbp.

>>I can point to a God who holds that all humans are equal... The same God is all about choices<<

If you are referring to the Christian God - or the Islamic one, since they are the same - how do you justify the statement that they are "all about choices".

The whole tenor of the Commandments, for example, is to eliminate choice. Chock full of prohibition - no other gods, no graven images, no taking his name in vain etc. - where's the "choice" in that?

How much more powerful would it be if he had left choice in the equation, and people actually chose not to steal, chose not to kill others, chose not to commit adultery etc. without any prompting from a list of nagging instructions.

But wait.

That's exactly what most people do, without divine intervention or weighty stone tablets.

And those that don't, I would strongly suggest, are sourced equally from the devout, and the non-devout.

mjpb you will not find me answering some posts, I in no way share any view all Christians or ANY from ANY religion are evil.
We each have opinions, some can not confront the idea they may be wrong.
I have no problem in understanding I am not always right.
I fight any type of unfounded bigotry always.
However no God , none, can claim to be the only one to me, evidence needs to be placed before me that the host of humans who may think Christ is that one have considered the views of the majority of the human race who follow other Gods.
It is blind to say every thing we love is the work of God.
Why would an almighty God show himself to one generation but not ours?

Pericles,

”>>I can point to a God who holds that all humans are equal... The same God is all about choices<<

...Christian God - or the Islamic one, ... they are the same - how do you justify the statement ...”

”The whole tenor of the Commandments, for example, is to eliminate choice. Chock full of prohibition...?”

Simple. You can choose to follow the religion or not follow the religion. They are ideals you (should) take on board if you choose to follow the religion.

”How much more powerful would it be if he had left choice in the equation, and people actually chose not to ...commit adultery... etc. without any prompting..”

It is always a choice. As you later point out some either purporting or attempting to be religious make the wrong choices. I’d suggest less powerful. Without a prompting list anything is arguable. For example you get Dworkins utilitarian ‘ethics’ pushing to supplant the cultural norm of inherent human value.

”That's exactly what most people do, without divine intervention ...”

Atheism is a recent phenomenon. Give it time. Dworkins is certainly ubiquitous. He might be influential.

Belly,

”I fight any type of unfounded bigotry always.”

I think I’ve seen that.

”…evidence needs to be placed before me that the host of humans who may think Christ is that one have considered the views of the majority of the human race who follow other Gods.”

Mainly, I’d like to point out that people seeking a God are often looking for truth. There is only so much time in a day and you can only do your best. In my religion there is enough bickering between denominations not to mention savage attacks from atheist fundamentalists (sometimes even the rare pleasant discussion with Belly) to keep them busy in their search and comparisons of ideas. As the world gets smaller we’ll probably get more exposure but right now you seem to be making a big ask.

”Why would an almighty God show himself to one generation but not ours?”

Funny I see that completely the opposite way. I think of God as being an infinite omnipotent being by definition not rolling over like a dog just to please skeptics. In my religion God came to earth in human form, died and rose from the dead only 2000 years ago. What more can be expected? An annual crucifixion and rising from the dead as an encore after the Pope celebrates the Easter Mass? Besides what would be the point? I assume you know the story about the man who went to hell and asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers so that they would repent. Abraham sagely points out that if they don’t listen to Moses and the Prophets someone could rise from the dead and they still wouldn’t believe. That is human nature.

mjpb

What is "atheist fundamentalism?"

Atheists have no rigid adherence to any doctrine or scriptural texts, therefore, the term "atheist fundamentalism" must surely be a term invented by the true fundamentalists and they certainly aren't atheists.

My mistake mjbp, I thought you meant God allowed choices within the framework of his religion. But I guess that would be unrealistic.

Your mention of Dworkin reminded me of a recent piece in Private Eye - since they invented the University of New Dworkins - thought it might amuse.

ENEMIES OF REASON

(Silly music. Elderly donnish figure wearing casual clothes and expression of deep concern gazes earnestly into camera)

Professor Richard Dawkins (for it is he) : It is frightening to think that in the 21st century there are millions of people all over the world who believe that they can change the future by a simple act involving a birthday cake.

(Cut to shot of family group clustered around Marks & Spencer chocolate cake covered in lit candles. Woman blows out candles while the rest of her family shout 'Go on, Mum - make a wish!" Close-up of woman with eyes closed, accompanied by sinister music. Cut to Dawkins, looking shocked and incredulous.)

Dawkins (interviewing woman) : Mrs Simpkins, can I ask you what you think you were doing just now?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, I just made a wish while I was blowing out the candles, like I always do.

Dawkins: And you really thought that what you were wishing for would in some mysterious way come true?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, you never know, do you?

Dawkins: But how could blowing out candles on a cake have any influence over a future event? Isn't that just the most crude, primitive, infantile, unscientific superstition?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, if you're going to be like that, you're not going to have any of my cake.

Dawkins: As a control test, tell me what it is you wished for?

Family: Don't tell him, Mum, or it won't come true.

Dawkins (to camera) : So obviously the followers of this cult are under a vow of silence not to divulge the object of the "wish", to prevent any analysis of the outcome of their pathetic ritual, thus exposing it as an empty and futile act of self-deception for insecure neurotics. (Part 2 follows)

(Part 2)

(Cut to men in white coats looking through microscopes at pieces of birthday cake)

Dawkins: For the last five years, a team of researchers from the University of New Dworkins has been analysing over 2,000 case histories of the Birthday Wish cult. The leader of the team, Professor Hiram Moonbat, gave me his findings.

Bearded Scientist: In examining 2,522 samples, we could find little or no correlation between the expression of the "wish" by the anniversarial celebrant and any ultimate wished-for event.

Dawkins: Well, that proves it, doesn't it? The whole thing is rubbish, isn't it? And it is deeply alarming that, in the 21st century, the dark forces of unreason should still have so many millions of people in their grip, still indulging in...

Professor Moonbat (in background): ... however, our researchers were somewhat hampered by the fact that no one would tell us what they had wished for, which rather invalidated...

Dawkins (intervening): So there we have it, Everyone in the world is mad except me, and very, very dangerous.

(Cut to shot of birthday cake exploding, destroying family home. Caption reads "Reconstruction ")

NEXT WEEK: Professor Dawkins looks at the bizarre practice of shooting fish in a barrel, concluding that it is deeply unscientific and boring to watch.

Dickie,

Don’t be … um … never mind.

Your pedantic approach may be correct if modern usage has not moved much since it applied to a North American protestantism which claimed that the Bible is literally inerrant. However I believe that usage has expanded. These days I believe it is applied to anything from the original usage to Islamic fundamentalism (within the ambit of your definition) to political fundamentalism and increasingly to atheist fundamentalism.

I figure the only issue is the breadth of the usage and you are intellectually capable of figuring out the meaning if it is broadly defined so I’ll leave the answer at that.

However, perhaps you should be cautious about confining the term to what you call “true fundamentalists” in case normal modern usage is broader and (ironically) inferences are made about your dogmatic approach to the term.

Pericles,

LOL Good one!

Mind you I am kinda biased to enjoy someone taking the p&^% out of Dworkins.

Well, I must say, at least the Christian Brothers I worked with for ten years had a better sense of humour than many of the grumpy old posters here.

I can already visualise their chuckles over the following joke:

A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand.

He notices, however, that they are copying copies, not the original books. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.

The head monk says "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son." So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original.

Hours later, nobody has seen him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears a sobbing coming from the back of the cellar, and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying. He asks what's wrong.

The old monk sobs, "The word is celebrate!"

Pericles.
you are confusing 2 things.

1/ Proclaiming Christ..

2/ Raising awareness about a false cult. (in my view)

When I said I don't want to rest on anything other than the Gospel.... It means.. I have no faith in human argument alone to illuminate the hearts of the likes of you. So..I'm saying that even if I got the facts and argument 100% correct.. 100% of the time.. it would still not be enough to bring you to your knees before God.. only He can bring that about.

When I'm speaking about Islamic issues.. I'm not trying to win people to Christ so much.. but warning of something which tends to lock people in...once the get caught up in it. Once in... very difficult to get out because of a mental prison. If they get 'in' while knowing the full information...then its their problem entirely. If they get 'in' on the basis of falsehood trotted out to them by some very sugar coated Islamic web site.. its still their problem. But if they have a chance to know the other side of the coin first they are better equipped to make an informed decision.

There is also the social aspect for our country.

Don't confuse the 2 roles please.

DICKIE....that was awesome :) died laughing.

Hey guys!
Have you all noticed something?

The greatest book of all time..is the Bible,

Bring in a thread about religion and you get the longest thread of all time!...well done everyone!

Spanky,

As Wobbles said "what about all those other Gods ??"

Still a lot of Questions unanswered in a scientific way.

Even the Boaz had a few problems with this discussion and had to fall back on his old ruse of bringing up the Islamists .

I have been highlighting that question from my first post Jim.
We never debated it not once.
But given the subject we did not do so bad.
I truly doubt we will ever debate why so many Gods, but I think I understand already.
Longest thread? did not know that but this debate will be held forever won't it? if not here it goes on someplace every day.

Hi Kartiya Jim :) welllll... as the pastor replied to the lady who said "Do you remember me".. "yes..I do.. I always remember people who criticize me" :)

Kidding aside... this is a wonderful thread... It sure beats going door to door and asking "Have you heard the truth" :)
Let me point to a very good source of discussion/message on this issue, by a very easy on the ears speaker... who has a very strong personal testimony.

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Let_My_People_Think

I highly recommend the talks "Christs answers to mans questions"

Perilous and CJ Morgan would do well to listen :)

What a wonderful land this would be.. if we embraced Christ... not thinking of a particular denomination.. but just of Him...
of course.. if 2 of us did that and linked up..we would have a new 'denomination'...... so it kinda goes with the territory.
But there are fellowships out there which can be a good reference point.. its a matter of finding them. The best church and best pastor though.. are the Good Shepherd Himself..and the family which looks to Him for guidance and strength.

He is there... and He is not silent... (Francis Schaeffer)

Why so many Gods? Belly-Not been debated? Not for want of trying mate.

Our(mans) ability to conceptualise god/s and creation has been dependent on time and place, culture and our understanding of our world. The different answers do not invalidate the possibility of a god or of gods, of a supreme being.

Dogma and insistence on a fixed truth do religion no good at all. When enquiry gets supplanted by big A Authority we get a mess. And that goes for both sides, or all sides of the debate.

Maybe the next question to ponder is 'what do religions have in common'? An everlasting? They differentiate between life and matter ie the spirit?, the belief that existence could be better?

This has been a good thread Belly. Thanks, keep on keeping on.

Our local Catholic priest told me this joke today at the pub:

A nun is washing statue of the Vestal Virgin, when she accidentally dropped it and it smashed to pieces.

"Bugger", she said.

"S#*t", she said, "I've sworn in front of the Vestal Virgin".

"F*#k", she said, "I never wanted be a nun anyway".

He reckons that's his favourite joke. Go figure.

Yes we have managed to talk without war and that is good.
A secrete, maybe better of not saying it, but truth has value.
This last week I lost my best mate, skeeta, you may have seen me talk of her.
A little mini foxy she indeed was my best mate, as I stood by her garden grave I for a while I wondered to who I should talk.
BD you could have got me then! spoke however to skeeta.
And understand she lives only in my memorys as I one day will in others.

High up in the courts of heaven today
a little dog angel waits;
with the other angels she will not play,
but she sits alone at the gates.
"For I know my master will come" says she,
"and when he comes he will call for me."

The other angels pass her by
As they hurry toward the throne,
And she watches them with a wistful eye
as she sits at the gates alone.
"But I know if I just wait patiently
that someday my master will call for me."

And her master, down on earth below,
as he sits in his easy chair,
forgets sometimes, and whispers low
to the dog who is not there.
And the little dog angel cocks her ears
and dreams that her master's voice she hears.

And when at last her master waits
outside in the dark and cold,
for the hand of death to open the door,
that leads to those courts of gold,
he will hear a sound through the gathering dark,
a little dog angel's bark.

Vale little dog Skeeta

Dickie thanks! wet key board and I am not kidding, she was my world ,still see her out of corner my eye.

But friend I always will, it however adds to the debate your fine
poem great as it is,
is after all morphine for my pain.
And framed and hanging on the wall near her place.
It would be so easy to except I would see her that way.
And I could give in so easily, but no harm meant nothing but praise for your effort I will not.

Just came here after reading the threads in general forum, most are about God.
We could if we wished have a million posts in such threads.
That maybe my whole point, re read my last few posts here and in a way they may make me look hard hearted.
But like all humans my heart swells at the beauty of life and nature, the mystery of it all.
I once remember used the Christian faith as my comfort blanket, was a Christian.
My life is no worse for it or for no longer believing .
I still think we each should harm no man ,any race , without reason.
That all humans are , or should be equal.
And hold nothing against the likes of BOAZ DAVID for his belief.
We are in chains in this debate, we just can not confront issues like why so many Gods?
Why are we divided by those different Gods?
Why would God who made us all let us grow to hate some of us?
The comforting blanket of God is easy to pull over my head but I question myself, am I better for it?

"Why are we divided by those different Gods?"

Because we are human. God just gives us the opportunity to unite together in religion without forcing us. Our nature is to be divided. An irreligious group will find another exuse but Gods are as good an excuse as any for those benefitting from divisions even if God should bring us together. There have been exceptions. Look at historical Christian based European society that gave people the choice to pursue any religious belief they want (subject of course to countermeasures to deter instability due to infiltration into the government under the false pretence of being Christian) or Nihon where Buddhism and Shintoism reputedly coexist.

Ultimately the issue of Gods makes no sense unless you accept that there must be at least one God. The choice has to be made. If you are determined to reject the possibility of that something more then there is no point in relying upon the faith that something is impossible as a premise to assert that something that can't be explained based on that premise can be used to justify the original faith. Making some type of sense of religion requires a premise that God exists.

Reasoning can point to religion. Reason can help choose a religion. But you can't jump the middle bit and expect the end bit to make sense.

If God does not unite all mankind why?
Evidence is the opposite may be true why?
Is it to strengthen us by competition?
Evolution does that doesn't it?

"you can't jump the middle bit and expect the end bit to make sense."

Kind of like:

Step 1. Believe in God
Step 2. ?
Step 3. PROFIT!

And in my view you can not cling to the warmth of the God of your race, and kind, with total belief.
And say the God of those next door is a fable.
It divides man to do so.
Why?
Inside each of us is the joy of life.
A deep mystery we will forever wonder at.
And like a need we bought from the cave with us a wish to explain it all.
One God may unite us but it would still be the warm blanket.
Are we meant to know? maybe our children's children ten time removed , if we do not kill each other.

Belly.. sorry to hear about Skeeta.. our 'pus' will also go that way soon.. she is getting a bit frail..

Dickie...that was indeed a beautiful poem mate!

MJBP.. ok.. you ask "why we are divided by those different gods"?

I can answer that, but you might not find my answer completely satisfiying.

On the one hand.. we have 'God reaching down to man'. "Abraham, Israelites, history of Israel.. Christ..New Testament.. the Church"

On the other hand.. we have 'man reaching up to God'.. idolatry, various isms.... inventions...paganism, shamanism.. animism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism etc.

Then.. there are philosophies.. "Buddhism, Confucionism" and others.

So..the issue really boils down to "in which faith has God really spoken to and reached out to man" ?

Well.. based on the clear evidence, I have to say iit is my first example.

To Abraham, and his offspring.. the Israelites through the prophets..and finally in Christ.

Only a careful study of the issue will confirm or deny this.

Bugsy is quite correct when speaking about the likes of Benny Hinz and his ilk....but not correct about Jesus and the values he imparted to his disciples, and the early Church.
So....Bugsy.. why not look at Jesus.. rather than the slimey miscreants who claim his name to make money ?

"If God does not unite all mankind why?"

Because God gave humankind free choice. Because it is fallen human nature to be divided. Because it is politically expedient for some people to have divisions and they can be quite influential. Like most things it is multi-causal. But it isn't fair to disobey and reject someone then blame them for the result of such behaviour.

Evidence is the opposite may be true why?

Because that is the way that evidence works. You need to weigh up the evidence and make a reasoned conclusion. I'd submit if you step back and look at it objectively you won't help but appreciate the positive contribution that God (real or otherwise) can make and prove the negative contributions to be a self serving artifact of humans not a logical corollary of (what has been put forward rightly or wrongly as) God's revelation.

"Is it to strengthen us by competition?"

Boazy gives an alternative theory below that sounds plausible. And while I'm at it ditto re: Benny Hinn comments.

"Evolution does that doesn't it?"

Theoretically.

And in my view ...

Would you be willing to drop your barriers enough to consider it as a hypothetical? What if your God is real and those next door are fables? What if your God teaches you to give those who want to live with fables free choice? Does it make sense to you as a hypothetical?

"It divides man to do so."

It divides humans more if they don’t. Many religions have positives in them and enable less division.

"One God may unite us but it would still be the warm blanket."

Or an eternal omnipotent creator. Your faith reminds me of a book title I saw. "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". It kinda stuck in mind.

"Are we meant to know?"

All indications are God wants us to know enough to have us know all we need to know to live in harmony. The rule “Do unto others” is unsurpassed by human philosophy.

Boazy, this one's for you:

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Boaz David how do I say this? my time in the camp of Christians was like so very many ,in a time of need.
I knew I only had to take the God pill and all would be well.
But inside I also knew it was only a pill.
A true God , that is every one of them , is claimed to be the creator of every thing.
Even here in the last few posts we without concern see some devalued.
And we see those willing to take the pill saved but those unwilling lost?
God divides man, tell me it is not true.

You are addressing Boazy but it is a public forum so I'll leave questions to him but comment anyway.

"I knew I only had to take the God pill and all would be well.
But inside I also knew it was only a pill."

In other words you took the pill to help you feel good but didn't swallow the pill so to speak?

"And we see those willing to take the pill saved but those unwilling lost?"

Interesting symbolism. Some people have interpreted Matrix as having religious symbolism. You don't think that we should swallow the red pill because you actually took it in your mouth but couldn't bring yourself to swallow it and you are convinced it will create problems for us (divisions) without providing a real benefit. I'm not ready to integrate Matrix into my theological perception just yet but I did enjoy the movie and I can empathise with the framework of reference. So have you swallowed the blue pill or haven't you got that far being totally preoccupied with not swallowing the red pill?

Too right Belly; big, bad BO managed to put down the other God bothering religions and the 'spirit' religions with glib comments in his last post. His post answered your question by its arrogance and contempt shown for others. Such Absolutism is a pity and shows an absence of gnosis. Sorry David, but you'll create far more atheists than religionists with your style of debate.

mjpb come in at any time, in real life I think you and I could get along well.
I however can not except the repeated chants of some Christians as proof God, any of them exists.
You should understand I was born in a Christian house, mum was adamant only of three things, hard work, honesty and God.
My born again 2 years?
Well death in the family does it.
Time and an understanding of fraud and theft made my inquiring mind think again.
I would have many questions of God if I believed.
But I feel man must ask him/her self why we can not bring a better world to so many who suffer.

“mjpb come in at any time, in real life I think you and I could get along well.”

Thank you Belly.

”I however can not except the repeated chants of some Christians as proof God, any of them exists.”

What about the information of Abraham and the prophets? Would you be able to accept that?

”You should understand I was born in a Christian house, mum was adamant only of three things ... and God.”
My born again 2 years?
Well death in the family does it.”

I can imagine how people might feel like that. If we lose someone we love it isn’t a nice thought that they are just evolved apes who have spent a couple of decades for no reason and gone to nothingness. You said 2 years as a born again. Does that mean that the Christian household was some other brand?

”Time and an understanding of fraud and theft made my inquiring mind think again.
I would have many questions of God if I believed.
But I feel man must ask him/her self why we can not bring a better world to so many who suffer.”

Can’t or won’t?

“I once was saved, born again Christian my life was saved, not however for long.
In my once Gods name a group in my new found Church, ... prayed for three days that God would heal a child's broken arm, before taking him to a doctor.”

It sounds grossly irresponsible to deny the child medical care doesn’t it? That must have been a very unpleasant experience. I have always believed that a pronounced degree of skepticism can protect people from getting into that type of situation (or atheism if you’ll excuse the liberty). The mother of a friend was absolutely convinced that a crying statue of Mary was a divine sign or something and lost faith when it was revealed a hoax. A more robust view of the world and she might not have been as vulnerable. Excuse the question but did the child’s arm heal? I don’t mean during the 3 days.

this is for anyone who tried to put a response to the forgotten austalians that was posted on the 11,10,2007, the moderator has taken this off the site ,i know belly sent a post to it this morning yet the moderator took it off line is this because they are protecting the goverment as well ,

It would appear to me by reading posts here that some are interpreting the character of God by their or others experences, rather than the reality of his natural creation and its inherent efects on living creatures. Many christians loose faith because they have a wrong theological foundation.

I try very hard not to offend anyone, do not get me wrong I am no cream puff ,will confront any one if it is the only way.
My mind knows there is no God, just maybe I wish there was but that is a different matter.
Read and understand the thread saying God has reveled John Howard will win this election, know so very many all over the world claim such personal advice from so many Gods.
Ask your self if the kids are getting out of hand would you put your head around the corner and tell one of them, pass the word I am unhappy?
Or would you just maybe let your voice be heard to every one of the rug rats?
All Gods are sometimes served badly by some who follow.
But man surely has to see, it is so clear to me, Christians are just one of many religions and shrinking in numbers.
No comment on censorship.

Belly ,

"John Howard will win the Election " Bloody hell !........there is a Devil after all .

Do not hang that one on me I was quoting the word of God a claimed message given to a follower.
And questioning why such messages are only given to some, after all every God we are told has been for every one.

Belly,

That could go in a number of different directions. However saying that God is for everyone so... needs to be looked at from a grounded perspective even if it is just temporarily to understand where others are coming from.

If I offer a bunch of 2 year olds a million dollars (very hypothetically) and some take it and others don't. Little Jim who refused it can't complain that I told them all that I would treat them equally and wanted to help them when he sees little Jack driving around in a Lamborghini in later years.

The particular issue you are dealing with is more complicated. The only point I am raising is that God chooses all of us but not all of us choose Him.

mjpb I think we did well, the debate did not address some issues but we talked without problems.
If you look closely at live threads and past ones it is clear we talk about religions more than politics.
We failed to address the great number of other Gods or the fact they are or had been as real for those who followed them as Christ is for you.
And in truth I can not take the right to believe from any one, any God.
It should be worth noting the God of my race, WASP, or Catholic is no longer the worlds biggest in numbers.
And it seems numbers continue to decline.
And equally others grow in numbers and influence.
It may be true ,I truly do not know the answer, that more believe as I do we are our own God.
Must be accountable for mans actions, every one of them.
But my hope is one day we can stop wars in the name of God any God any war.
And just maybe a world without God could be a start to a world that truly believes all men are equal.
regards

Belly, no more war and killing in the name of ones God. Amen to that.

It's passed time religions should be looking at what they have in common and not what separates them. Religions battle should be with the materialists and those who define life as matter only. This is after all the basis of religious belief- a belief that 'life' is something different from matter; and that 'life' is indistinguishable.

Culture gives rise to different Gods, but the idea that there was a creator, and there is a better place is common to religions.

The soul as self is another fundamental; from aboriginal people across the world and through history, to Hinduism and Buddhism, and through Christianity all the way up to New Age beliefs, Scientology and the luckless Falon Gong.

Religions share a belief in ritual and regimen, a pathway to a better life.

Unfortunately religions are dogged by literal interpretation of their texts, and Gods too precious by half to their adherents. Maybe Belly the problem is too few Gods, making them too precious and this leads to wars to protect the only one you've got.

Belly,

I still don't think that weighing up the merit of nothing compared to nothing is a meaningful discussion. You say that one nothing can't be correct because there are a number of nothings some more popular than others. I don't find that a compelling way of determining what is true although I can empathise to a degree.

As you reject the idea that a God can be the truth I don't believe there is any common premise on which to base a discussion. I struggle to argue that nothing (in your view) is something in the framework where the criterion for something is the number of nothings. That seems to be the impervious to reasoning challenge you propose.

Neither the validity of that approach nor any way of working with it are apparent to me.

I believe that you have almost had your way with respect to War as religious wars are increasingly falling by the wayside. Look at the 20th Century.

I don't believe that human equality is possible without religion. Look at bioethics. Dworkins and other mainstream bioethicists are presently pushing a utilitarian view of humans with apparent success in medical circles. Religion proposes absolutes. Without absolutes anything is arguable even the growing notion unpalatable to most in the civilized world that humans only have utilitarian value.

Palimpsest,

You make a lot of good points. Ultimately people with religions have more in common with each other than they do with atheists notwithstanding the complication that many atheists are a product of a religious culture and retain many of the values of their society's former religion. Even within my own religion Christianity are many who seem to think that the slightest doctrinal disagreement is the most important thing in their world while the society in which they live heads toward decadence unprecedented since the Roman Empire was on its way down and humans considered to be chemicals with no intrinsic value.

Religions definitely have much in common and appear to be a necessary part of a civilized society where life isn't nasty, decadent, brutish and short.

mjpb, religions have one thing in common, their ubiquity.

You make the mistake as many have before you in passing everything through a religious "narrative filter", which doesn't actually reflect reality as many serious historians will tell you.

Religions are a form of social control (a subset of a larger concept), and social control necessary for "civilisation", as witnessed by a great many civilisations pre-dating Christianity and even Judaism. Also, a great many asian civilisations, which of course have had nothing to do with Abrahamic traditions at all. The only thing any of these have in common is the social control that a priesthood provides, and the only thing that can support a proper priest class, is agriculture.

Bugsy, you are right up to a point. The use of religion for control and slavery is well known. But this is not what religion is actually about, not what is at the heart of religious belief.

Rather, religion attempts to explain LIFE as something different from matter. The "Before the Bang' thread currently running here is a nice counterpoint to this one. Olivers posts re Planck time and the way we experience space and time are not so different from Hindu fundamentals, and of course Buddhist thought. Physics and philisophy are brothers to religion.

mj's discourse on the subject of nothing, aimed at Belly was wonderful- there is no energy flow without the nothing between the particles,nor space; and time is a measure of the interchange happening. 'Nothing' is of course the most fundamental subject of religion, i.e. the spirit or soul.

There's more to the subject of religion than you credit.

I have no need to debate nothingness, because I do not believe in God, the wonder of life exists the sky remains there the stars the wonder of what we call nature.
And Gods ,so very many of them exist in the minds of those who want them, like a story from a book.
Who has not rolled around the bed waiting to turn the next page?
I can not again bring myself to think we are toys in a toy box, that we exist to be judged and ruled, to get down on our knees before a maker.
I am however forever and ever awe struck at the beauty of life.

Is there a GOD ?

Now.. here is some food for thought.

http://www.christianapologetic.org/biochemical_evolution.htm

>>Did life arise spontaneously from non-living matter? This question can be answered “no” with reasonable certainty.

Every living creature contains at least one blueprint which furnishes instructions for making all the creature's biochemicals. This blueprint is a long chain of chemical units called nucleotides. The chain is neither ordered nor random but is, instead, complex; information is stored by means of a linear sequence. In contrast to an ordered sequence, the algorithm required to specify a complex sequence is as long as the sequence itself. In a living creature, a complex polynucleotide is never constructed from nucleotide building blocks without the assistance of another kind of chemical called an informed enzyme.

The informed enzyme is a long chain of chemical units called amino acids. This chain is also complex and also stores information by means of a linear sequence. In a living creature, an informed enzyme is never constructed from amino acid building blocks without a complex polynucleotide to provide the code.

Thus, we are faced with the catch-22 of life's origin. The complex polynucleotide, which is the blueprint for all the biochemicals of a living creature, cannot be constructed without an informed enzyme; but the informed enzyme cannot be constructed without a complex polynucleotide to code for it!

If life developed spontaneously in a primordial soup of nucleotides, amino acids and nutrients, then either the first complex polynucleotide or the first informed enzyme was formed without the assistance of a pre-existing complex chemical entity. The probability of such an event is virtually zero.<<

What was that ? ZERO!

Bugsy "religions are a form of social control" err.. very flimsy and needs to be fleshed out.

ANY 'idea' can be a means of social control and that includes 'atheism'.

Secondly, there is ALways 'social control' within any group of people who claim adherance to a set of common ideas.

So.. I find it strange that you would raise this as some kind of 'anti religion' thing ?

The communists 'claimed' it was the opiate of the masses and then proceeded to replace one opiate with another "Party worship".

WHAT IS LIFE WITHOUT GOD ?

As Neitczhe said: "God is dead..and we.. the worst of murderers have killed Him"

He realized the outcome of society 'killing' God, and separating itself from the divine connection... and we are now seeing that outcome.

If my life and your life is of no more ultimate value than that of a paramecium or an Omoeba.. no more signficance than a mangy stray dog... then it matters not whether I help the old lady across the road.. or run her down. That is the world Neitchze and Sartre admitted was to come as a direct result of abandoning God....and here it is.

http://www.hisdefense.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=Audio%2fCraig+-+Absurdity+of+Life+without+God.ram&tabid=136&mid=934

An important lecture to bring the likes of Bugsy, Morgan, Pericles and Ginx to the mirror of self understanding.

Settle down Boazy. The idea that religion is a form of social control is not anti-religion. You just interpreted it that way. Morality itself is a form of social control as well. Some form of social control is necessary precondition for a civilisation to grow, and for people to cooperate with each other. However, as religion is only a subset of this concept, it is actually NOT a precondition for civilisation or a decent society to exist or prosper, it is easy to see why that is confused as historically, religions are pretty well ubiquitous.

And yes, many atheistic philosophies are also forms of social control. You are right.

Boaz, you should know by now that trying to prove the existence of God via science is a pointless exercise.

>>The complex polynucleotide, which is the blueprint for all the biochemicals of a living creature, cannot be constructed without an informed enzyme; but the informed enzyme cannot be constructed without a complex polynucleotide to code for it! If life developed spontaneously in a primordial soup of nucleotides, amino acids and nutrients, then either the first complex polynucleotide or the first informed enzyme was formed without the assistance of a pre-existing complex chemical entity. The probability of such an event is virtually zero<<

This is just another version of the old conundrum "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

"either the first chicken or the first egg was formed without the assistance of a pre-existing complex chemical entity. The probability of such an event is virtually zero"

That's why it is described as spontaneous, Boaz.

And please, posting links to hour-long lectures on the "absurdity of life without God" is one thing.

>>An important lecture to bring the likes of Bugsy, Morgan, Pericles and Ginx to the mirror of self understanding.<<

Expecting me to listen to it is entirely another.

If it has something interesting or constructive to say, I'm sure you will eventually let us know.

If it hasn't, I've just saved an hour of my life in which to do something more useful. Like cut my toenails, or look up the UK soccer results on the internet.

And I'm not even interested in soccer.

AAAARRRGGHH...!

David I do not want to offend you in no way do I wish to hurt you or stop you saying whatever you want.
Reality is you would have no problems in agreeing with me some Gods never existed is that true?
And I think it likely you would not be upset if I highlighted a view one religion seems to be lost and divided on the issue are non followers of that one as good as followers, been a bit careful there.
For me then it is just one more step I think no God exists, that brilliant men wrote rules for life ,some good ones among them , but we are here.
Chicken and the egg? the first egg appears to be something very different that an egg, and not a God.

"Reality is you would have no problems in agreeing with me some Gods never existed is that true?

And I think it likely you would not be upset if I highlighted a view one religion seems to be lost and divided on the issue are non followers of that one as good as followers, been a bit careful there."

When you say "as good" do you mean as a value judgement of the worth of the person or in the sense that they might not have made as good a choice?

"Chicken and the egg? the first egg appears to be something very different that an egg, and not a God."

Can you please explain further? I can't help thinking that the irony of the chicken and egg evolutionary question is that you need to be taking a very literal interpretation of the Bible to consider that the egg didn't come first. From all but a Christian fundamentalist perspective I would have thought that it was clear cut that the egg came first.

With respect, that atheists cherish the chicken and egg thing makes me wonder what is in the blue pill. Are you sure atheism isn't a safety blanket that works by avoiding thinking things through as doing so means adopting the burden of agonising over the big issues?

In Western society the burden can be purely and merely intellectual and emotional. It does not compare with the early Christians who taught about what they had seen due to a belief that it indicated that there is something more than this world. The consequence in this world for letting people know what they had seen was things like crucifixion or being fed to the lions. In some countries the lot of Christians who admit to being Christians is not too dissimilar to the early Christians.

I believe in no God evolution is my belief, why we exist I have no idea.
I however know believers value only the God they believe in, not the God of the Mayans or any of the other 1000,s of Gods, maybe far more men have followed.
Can you tell me Christians believe in any God but one?
Why do I hesitate? my belief is not different about the God OF Islam I believe in no God.
Notice please I do not take the right to believe away from anyone.
Now as we can see more people apart from these to groups have other Gods, we say yes but only my God is true.
I hold every God is a crutch, that while we will never understand why we exist we are not governed by any man of middle eastern appearance or any other God.
And maybe just maybe if we find something that unites man rather than divides us we may be better for it.

Belly ,

What we need is to take the "Man" out of God .

God said this ...Jesus says that... Allah says this ...Jehovah says that ;and they all did miracles that were witnessed by someone.

Man has told us all these things and they were [are] mostly all good men and women too.

They can't all be right can they?

Why do terrible things happen to apparently flawless, wonderfull people and children in all religions?

And all to go to a better place on the early bus ??.

Would Religion survive without the Promise of Heaven? I don't think so .

Mere mortal Jim has a lot of trouble with so many man designed Gods about .He would much prefer one that comes today and starts afresh .

However even old Agnostics can allow themselves the pleasure of the occasional prayer for comfort, when the dry gullies they are crossing also turn out to have a bit of quicksand in them as well .

And I have now admitted that the good Lord I learnt about in Sunday school so many years ago, can be a handy staff to lean on .

We need a much better series of explanations than we have had so far .

Jim it is the nature of man to call for help, who we call is no measure of truth.
Sales men sell insurance so do others some just sell walking sticks we use to help on rough ground.

Hi Belly... I'm not easily offended mate.. just say whats on your mind. All good. No problem.

Pericles.. I know its kinda futile to try to 'prove' God's existence.
I simply shared a link by a fairly bright bloke who points out that from a scientific viewpoint, life could not have begun.

Yes..his view would be challenged but I don't know where it specifically is so.

The Biblical position is that there is enough information in the natural world for people to comprehend the reality of God and his greatness....... so there is nothing really to prove. The thing that IS to be done, is to call all mankind to repentance and faith in Christ.

The lecture might turn out to be the best hour of your life well spent :)