Serving the creator of the waves - video
"We thought, this is alright. We can do this. You can't actually die doing this, your head's not going to hit the reef 'cos it's so deep..."
So says Rusty Moran of his early-90s missions to Hawaii's outer reefs.
"...and then one season - I think it was the '94-'95 season - four of my friends died in one year."
One of Rusty's friends was Mark Foo, and it was at Foo's funeral that Rusty had an epiphany that changed his life. Let the heathens beware: the Big Bloke Upstairs cops the odd mention in this short doco about righteous big wave surfer, Rusty Moran.
Comments
So you want to start pushing Christianity using this web site?
Pushing Christianity?? I think that ht video just shows the views and experience of Rusty Moran and if he is happy with the path he chose then good on him, not everyone is prepared to die for surfing, it is actually the complete opposite, only a few are prepared to die.... If he explained that to himself by god then that was his way of dealing with it.
I'm not a religious person myself and find the whole heaven and eternity thing a bit crazy but hey that's just me
C'mon smee, not long ago SN had an article on gay surfers. Do you think they were surreptitiously pointing us down the LGBT path too?
Good on Rusty, if he's found his path and is happy, more power to him.
By the way, that is an impressive tree in the background Looks like a nice peice of property there.
LGBTI that's 5 paths and a helluva tree
So you want to limit stories to only those that reflect your world view? Left wing, green, pro drugs, materialistic, and environmental perspectives are the fabric of surf journalism, but you choke on your wheaties when a certain religion is mentioned. Ha....ha
No Blob...... But it would seem that the Christian point of view keeps popping up. Stu has already hinted in this thread that other perspectives are coming. Religion is not based on any facts so almost impossible to debate. The other issues you raise are more tangible and worthy of debate. In my opinion
A few big brains have certainly managed to debate religion. That is a fact. If religion reflects the facts of Moran's personal experience then why get jumpy? The knee jerk religion phobic reaction is getting to be such a boring, predictable cliche. Stuff, including the multiplicity of religous perspectives, is good or bad depending on your judgement. So much evil (there is a religious term for you) crap has been served to generations of surfies by the surf mags yet some people want to stomp on anything related to Christianity. Anyway, I always find the born again surfers are the cheerful ones among lots of miserable cranks.
Blob being brought up a catholic the jerky knee may be boring to you but not to those who were pummelled with hypocrisy from day one. One thing you learn't early never pick up the soap in the showers when the brothers were looking. Sorry religion leaves me freezing (of any flavour).
So, being consistent then, you would bar any ideology that included individuals that hurt anyone. That would leave ....um....nothing
You just made my point - the double standard applied to religion
Mother Teresa is not watsisname Risdale
If that's your outlook then Satan and the bad guys really won in your case
I'm sure you're smarter than that
I went to a catholic school for a month as a 7yr old. Weird, very weird!
I thought what Rusty had to day was right on. I love surfing but surfing (or anything else) can't get me to heaven. Like he said your dead an awful long time. I asked Jesus to forgive me and be my Savior and Lord when I was 24 and it was the best decision I have made. That was 26 years ago and since then God as been there for me both in and out of the water. Before you dismiss God just ask your self where are you going when you die.
I think you have to respect the decision Rusty made no matter if you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever. He has got my respect for being in situations 99% of us would not even come close to by miles. But religion will always suck and in my eyes is actually a weakness individually or as mass hysteria. If there is a heaven it's here on earth and if there is a temple its your own body. So before you put all balls in one basket ask God what he is going to do (with you ) when you die.
Best example for religion being misused at present is our prime minister. He calls himself a Christian and is proud not to help any poor soul drifting around in dodgy fishing boats and prevent them to come even close to mainland OZ let alone help.... don't they preach to be tolerant and forgiving and rather love than hate ?
And what about is psycho mate Morrison. Onward Christian soldiers got love that blind belief in right and wrong; black and white.
in a box in the ground
The story was good until the religious BS started. But hey that's just me. I don't believe in fairy tales.
No more pushing than all the other BS selling you see in the world. Everyone is trying to push/sell something. The guy is just trying to tell you that there is a real meaning to life and a peace and love you can have for free. There is a creator that loves you and created these awesome waves. @smeegian if there really is a god, would you want to know?
I agree with you about fairy tales smee but doing a Dawkins about the issue is unwise. People have all sorts of ridiculous ideas. You can get used to it if you try.
Good until the last couple of minutes when the jesus, sinful for surfing, god stuff started.
Religion is what is fucking up the world
Amen to that
Hey all, steady on here! It's just a video concerning a famous surfie and that's what this web site is all about. Right? You can take it or leave with the JC stuff but let's not hang it on the guy for saying what he believes in.
Hah, classic, that meany Jeff, that had to show you how to get out of the fucking way, and despite all the pleas and whinging, didn't realise what a legend you are, is going to Heaven as well... eternal entertainment. Can't wait! See ya... I'll bring up an eternal supply of back braces and highchairs!
Hypocritical drivvle.
Just sayin.
I didn't catch a coherent dialogue for the last 2 minutes. There's just so many questions!! He seems like a nice fella though.
Whats fucking this world up is the greed for power. Unfortunately religion is just a divisive way in which these power brokers tempt division and unrest. More surf less politics please.
Why then won't the pope let Africa Christians use condoms in a country ravaged with aids? Christians ar not to blame for war and greed but are to blame for this and other horrendous acts like hiding pedophiles from the law. More surf les religion please
Less anti religion please
Why?? What I say is true and should be brought to the conversation, in fact I feel like I'm holding back due to this being a surfing Paige, all religions the world over have caused pain and suffering and should be held accountable when ever the conversation is started.
curl....man creates pain and suffering....a lot of born again Christians do not recognize the Pope or the Catholic church.....as a Christian organization for the reasons you mentioned...
a lot of the time religions try to be the middleman between God and the people....and its their interpretation where things go awry......
Dose that mean we should let the religious get away with thoughts atrocities without holding them accountable? I think not. I'm not even saying we should hold religoun acountable for previous crimes just the crimes that are killing people today and tomorrow.
Since you are so interested in truth you would also want to acknowledge all the good things that religion has produced, as well as the fact that there is both good and bad in religion just like all the other stuff people tend to come up with. On the other hand you might be regurgitating dumb propaganda.
There are good things in most things, aids can now be used to fight cancer but the world would still be better of without aids! Also my friends two kids we're sexually abused by a prist in a catholic school which lead to a suicide after years of pain, the church didn't help the family but did help hide the prist from the law. I do not regurgitate dumb propaganda I leave that to the faithful I study the facts!
How many kids have died due to the "sex and drugs and rock and roll" scam they got from their heroes in the surf media? Do you feel the need to expose that? What about all the bad stuff done in the name of science, or a million other isms? I could name some well known surfing pedophiles and drug pushers but that would not mean surfing is evil. Why do you need to treat religion differently? See that image of Moran with his family? You are confusing what Is pretty simple really
I don't ever remember "sex drugs and rock and roll" claiming to have the morel high ground but that wasn't my point I'd don't even know how you got there from my comments, and as far as the bad stuf done in the name of science what? I mean really what? Penciling, antbiotics, bio fule, sola panles, man on the fucking moon? I mean that is the most stupid argument I have ever heard? If you don't like science then never use your electrics again! That means no more stupid comments on the Internet, never going to the doctor again and puting all your faith in praying yourself better next time your ill.
My point is that you want to bag religion while other stuff (like sex n drugs n rock n roll.) raises no objections. Why is that? Do you see the logical connection? Was Moran claiming some "moral high ground"? Read the comments - The hypocrisy and moral high ground is with the ones who want to attack religion. Sure, religion has a mixed record, but do I need to educate you about the less edifying episodes in the history of science? Look up eugenics for a start, then the gruesome experiments done on thousands of people in the name of science. Why does a video of a nice guy saying he lived for waves then found something better make some people so uncomfortable they resort to smug ridicule and ignorant abuse? Guilt, half digested...that's my guess.
Hahaha I mean HAHAHA the thought of you blob educating me on something has given me a good chuckle. Question for you dose eugenics follow the scientific method? Awser No it dose not, it must follow that eugenics is not a science then. More a doctring and I have no respect for anything dogmatic. And I was happy to avoide all the historical deaths caused by the religous and only complain about what's wrong with religon today but if you want to drag past mistakes into the conversation then bring it on, how many wars becouse of the true believers? Ever herd of the Taliban? The IRA? Shit even as far back as the English civel war was mostly because of or in the name of faith.
As far as me not attacking Rock and roll but attacking religoun that's becouse the video was about faith not rock and roll. I though that was fairly obvious, you actually have no idea of what objections I have on anything, except that I get uncomfortable watching a video of a nice guy going all crazy having a conversation with Zeus. And you guess is right I feel guilt. Guilty that I live in a world where this guy is tricked and deceived by a dogmatic institution and half the world think that's ok.
Sorry Thor not Zeus
Sorry God not Thor all the fair tails get so easily mixed up.
eugenics
juːˈdʒɛnɪks/
noun
the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.
I looked in a dictionary for you....You're welcome
Really?....if Moran had given up big waves to be in a band would you be telling us the evils of rock? No you wouldn't. You save the bile for believers.
The IRA.....paleese.
Bring up all the evils of religion you like, it proves nothing. God is not responsible for the perversion of religion
I covered the lame "all wars are over religion" cliche in another comment.
Rant about deception and Greek gods all you like. All your arguments are fake. You cannot prove there is no god, can you?
Thank you for looking in the dictionary and proving my point "the science of" not a science! a subtle difference I know but an important one! Eugenics is more of a political idea than anything else. To quote a grate man
"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Being systematic or using consistent logic?
Dr Steven Novella
Atacking science just showed how week your arguments are (and you are using the Internet to attacking science is also very funny)
To just dismiss the IRA like it never hapend is disgusting. And to dismis my argument as fake but without any reason as to why is pathetic, and finally I can not disprove your God, Zeus, Thor, Spider-Man or the Flighing spaghetti monster but I can say that if any of them are out there and are all powerful then they are one twisted evil motherfucker that loves to kill, mame and destroy.
But seriously with a univers 14billion years old stretching in every direction possible why would your sky God be interested in this tinny little speck floting by? He didn't even "creat" it until 4billion years ago? And did so in a realy strange way? And logic would also lead me to think that your sky God loves dinosaurs after all they walked the earth for 150million years where as people have been here for a cool 200000 years!
Or are you a dinosaur denier as well as a science denier?
Lastly I have to ask why do you hate rock so much? You keep brining it up? It's quite strange as it has nothing to do with the conversation and your comparison between rock and faith are way off. Faith is always a top down organisation and rock (a sub group of this thing called music) is just different people with a lot of different messages making music. Like I said very strange.
You are too subtle for me. Were there any actual scientists in labs doing actual experiments to support eugenics? Yup. It wasn't just sociologists writing essays.
I like science and I like music. They are just examples to illustrate the double standards anti religion zealots like to place on religion.
Are you saying rock and science are totally pure? Nothing at all shameful? Please make that case for me.
The IRA was more about politics and tribalism than religion in my opinion.
I admit religion in general has some bad episodes. Do you think there is any good in religion?
What do you think of the moral teachings of Christ?
Why the double standard?
The subtly is in the fact that scienc is a methoud not a doctrin un like eugenics and religon, In fact religon has more in comen with eugenics than science. That being one changes to complement the facts the othere two start with a conclusion and work from there. Because science is a system of checks and balances it is by its nature pure. If you are a fan of science then why atack it? The idea of a double standard is confusing to me religon and science are so different that a different standard must be held.
To dismis what hapend in Irland over the last 100 years as politics shows grate ignorance on the topic it was a religious war that became political.
To admit that "religion in general has bad episodes" missis my original point that is religion is still having a bad episode, Christians in Africa are today telling people not to use condomes and are still perverting Justis by hiding known child abusers from the law.
As far as good old JC I think that their are far better thinkers out there today who are relevant to the world we live in now. But to call his teachings as moral is interesting, ask your gay friends or your wife what they think of all of his teachings. Don't just chery pick the good ones look at them all and you will have to admit that they out of date. Or do you not agree with equal rights for gays and women?
Ok...you think Jesus has nothing to offer regarding morality. Good for you
You belong to an extremely small club
Sorry blob but your club is smaller that was my previous point. More people trough out time have belived in Zeus, Thor, Mohamed, Jupiter or countless other local gods. It is only because you grew up around Christians that you belive in Jesus. If you grew up in Greece 3000 years ago then Zeus is your man, Norway 1000 years ago Thor, and India today some dude with 8 arms, there are probably more Hindu true believers thany any other religon today. If members of a club make it true then denounce Jesus and move over to Hindu.
On the other hand you could take your morality from well thought out ideas. Like law... Punish child abusers! Or science... Provide condoms to a country that is suffering from wide spread Aids.
You see the problem with trusting your morality to a 2000 book is that today's problems are different to then, like I said being a woman 2000 years ago was not fun. Or do you just dismis women and gays as not important?
curl your stats are out there to say the least....the old testament goes back to 6000 BC.....so been a lot of Christians for a very long time....
and there are not more hindus than Christians....you seem to align the religious entities with all the wrongs in the world, which using the catholic church as an example or any church that says the only way to God is thru their church......is not true belief......God has no mifddleman...
Christians/hindus/Muslims/jews all recognize Jesus was a real person/prophet/lord.....but you bring up a great point...why does mankind search for a higher power?
todays problems are different...being a woman today still has issues as does being Gay...and ya forgot racism......
and punishing child abusers is the law of the country.....punish them......but thru the rule of law...
Blob your were talking about Jesus not the Old Testament, I know my history very well thank you, for example around the time of the original JC as in Julia Caesar there was around 1000 Christians but heaps of people were using the bible they were called Jews. In fact JC the second was a Jew himself.
Also no Hindus never heard or belived in a youn Jewish Man by the name of Jesus until Western powers spred to there influence, the same as Buddha never did or any other religions, hence all the wars. If we say that 2billion people belive in a Christian religon(generous because family members are bullied in a religon) and we compare that to 1.2 billion Islam, 0.8b Hindu, 0.6 agnostic, 0.35 Buddhist, and 0.15 athiest that's still more that don't belive in Jc than do, also lets not forget that for the last 300 years Catholics have been killing people who disagree with them, so who knows where we would be if the Catholics weren't so violent.
And thanks I forgot how racist the bible is. It seems your agreeing with me that the bible is out of date when it comes to morality!
Only a 1000 Christians?...well the Jews were considered as Christians..believed in one God...and when Jesus came as the son of God.....the Jews rejected him as the son of god.....but not God!
the Hindus believe Jesus came to India as a young man and learnt Yoga and various hindu disciplines....then returned to the middle east...and became king of the Jews...
300 years of catholics killing??...ah English colonialism wasn't catholic!
which of the ten commandments do you believe are outdated or not appropriate in todays age of .."morality ?"
the Hindus never even herd of Jesus. Fact! Not until after the colonial age, and yes the English, Spanish, Duch and Portuguese colonials were all catholic of some type, and most of the colonists were traders, fighters or missionaries. Fact! But you were right to bring up my 300years coment, Christians have been killing for a lot longer than that.
The Ten Commandments? Seriously I can't even remember them all "thy shall not steal thy neighbours wifi" or something like that. Like I said don't chery pick the good ones you either belive or you don't, do women, gays and other races have the right to a full life or not? I have asked you several times and you avoid the question, how come?
hmm one persons fact is anothers.....???
Hindus did recognize Jesus...http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Hinduism/2002/05/What-Do-Hindus-Believe-... ......is this a fact?
I have even seen programs where there are enclaves of Christians in India with fully functioning churches ...since one of the apostles visited the in the 1 st century...
the English were not catholic......or are you trying to say Christians?
do you mean Colonialists and not colonists ?
and man has been killing since day 1.....and I have no problems with women,gays,other religions and races.....do you?
now..whats your spiritual orientation.....how would you describe your beliefs?
Intresting sorce.... Not very objective or true, I love history and out side of fanatics have never herd of anyone actually believing that. Don't tell me you actually belive in the Noah's ark story too? Every animal on a boat?
Attacking my spelling and not my point is a good way of avoiding my point, but not very convincing.
I have gay friends respect women and don't even see race, all are equally loved by me.
Luckily I don't have to follow a fairy tail for my morality I use my hart. But my beliefs are by the sidelines I am not an organised religon telling others to do as I say or you will be punished in this life and the next.
If I did have a core belief it would be in science, truth and justice.
You have moved the goalposts a lot so now I am confused, are you new age Christian, Christian, Jewish, Anglican?
how much research do you do Curl?
Its common knowledge that Hindus see Jesus as a Prophet.......I was not pointing out your spelling errors ,I was trying to clarification from you...there is a big difference between a colonist and a colonialist....
you are very lucky that you have good gay friends , as do I...respect women..been with the same one for 40+years...and if you haven't suffered racism.....or seen it......good luck to you...I have not been afforded that luxury...
I don't tell you what to do or push my beliefs on you...I can only try and answer your questions and as you are trying to answer mine........and a born again Christian a couple of years ago.....I am still learning and am not dismissive of anyones opinion or their right to believe what they want....
you follow your heart...which is great , unless emotion sometimes blurs the hearts actions...
I Do a lot of research, and I mean a lot about a book a day if not more almost exclusively science and history, however I have to admit my biggest flaw is that I almost instantly dismis anything seen on a website that isn't unbiased. With history this becomes hard as natural biases will always exist, and my failure is that I fall on the argument from authority. And trust in a select group of historians. Not perfect I know but with that I also use the scientific method of being willing to change my opinion due to good evidence.
As far as you may think it to be common knowledge, it is still up for debate wether Jesus ever did exist. Lots of scholars have tried to prove he did but we just don't have any good first hand data. It is possible for JC to be comprised of a group of profits from the time. Just not enough evidence.
Also sorry for my lack of clarity, I see racism all the time and I hate it and I speak out against it more than anything else (trust me not easy in the building trade) but I don't see race, when I talk to someone I see them as the person I front of me and nothing else.
I grew up in an atheist house and felt the need for more, joined a religion but could reconcile it with what I knew of the natural world, since then I have read a lot about religion and now feel like it is the biggest draw back to our modern world. I also believe it is my right to speak out against the wrongs I see in the world... Racists in the smoko shed or religious people claiming morality as there own.
Faith in something can be good and can help you get through hard times, I have faith in the future and I believe our world will one day grow up. But religon is almost totally evil!
hey curl...been surfing too much so a b it alet in getting back to ya....
I can see that you do a lot of research as do I.......and I agree with you about which version you read can colour your opinion depending on the source.....I check the sources and also like to read the critique of the source then make up my own mind.
With what I have read on whether Jesus was a real person.....
.I read Josh McDowells ..more than a Carpenter..he was an atheist and tried to disprove that Jesus existed..instead he found 36000 papyrus manuscripts in 5 different languages all telling the story of Jesus and his death.....also the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel ..he also tried to disprove the existence of Jesus.....was an atheist.....So I have read enough proof that when all major religions say yes....its compelling...
racism was and is also a hard one to grapple with....having grown up in a red neck town.....only dark kid in the high school.....but a least at the age of 12 yrs old...indigenous Australians were recognized as human .......all first hand stories ...to the point now I feel sorry for racists...before I was a very angry man...
I now find myself not belonging to a church , but read every day the One year bible...and am learning about Christianity thru teachers and books ,articles...and man ...life became a lot simpler and makes more sense now than ever......
I agree some religions are evil...but it is man trying to interpret the bible and creating silly rituals and fear that if you don't belong ..you are damned...what a load of man made waffle...
If you were prepared to read the 2 books I suggested ..it might just show you a lot of facts and proof.....
Since we're talking Christianity, has anyone else noticed that both Toledo and Buttendag (sic) have been spending their entire post heat interviews praising the Lord?
If I was a real conspiracy theorist I would be wondering if the WSL was trying to sell surfing to middle America via religion.
But I'm not, so I won't,
yeah brazil is a very christian country and toledo isn't the only one giving a shout out to the 'creator'.gotta wonder what the other 25 heathens did to displease him
I don't think I'll ever get used to hearing religious people speak their rhetoric. It must be so normalised for them, but it feels fanatical to me.
We live and breathe our own culture so it is invisible to us. It is supposedly rational, definitely materialistic. Religions are Sub cultures that have their own jargon and inside knowledge so they seem weird from the outside. Listen to people's political statements and you will see a higher degree of fanaticism
Definetely, Blob. The problem is that whatever your fanatical viewpoints, you automatically preclude or even denigrate the other viewpoints - be it religious beliefs, political leanings, your social clique, or your favourite sports team. Hearing fanatical viewpoints tends to polarize people to sides (look at some of the comments on religion on this thread), rather than giving them space to be circumspect and empathetic about the subject.
I just want to hear politicians say, 'They make some really good points that we can work with', or a religious leader say, 'Their religion is as interesting, rich, and as viable as our own'.
Maybe dial the absolutism back down to considered surety.
Despite this, as you said, we all have our own fanatical sticking points that are largely invisible to us, but that doesn't mean that we can't be mindful enough to take a step back and analyse the why's when we feel the bite of vehemence or opposition within ourselves.
Thanks for raising the tone. I like the way you use values to underpin communication. Lots of angry voices have forgotten what respect is about. The internet and a little bit of knowledge has turned a lot of people into nasty, blind spot ideologues. Some opinions could benefit from a bit of self awareness, humility and unblinkered education.
It must be like having an imaginary friend. To believe in something non tangible, I can't grasp it but each to there own. But it think it would be interesting to see how the history of the world would be different if we didn't have religion.
What did the world's No.1 atheist, Dawkins, blame for the millions killed by the atheist USSR?.....yup, religion
There'd be a shitload less wars
Like WW1and WW2, or Vietnam, or Korea right?...or a million other wars that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with power. Christian churches lost power over government hundreds of years ago. Catch up and stop recycling inanities... and try to distinguish between Christianity and those religions that are stuck in the Middle Ages.
I will give you the American Civil War though - it was largely brought about by the agitation of those horrible anti slavery Christians.
To those who think we're pushing an agenda, fear not. Swellnet is like the ABC and has a belief in equal airplay, so keep an eye out for the Buddhist devotee (totally extreme!) and the salty IS member (sure to be a hoot!).
Beliefs aside, a motivating factor for running the clip was the opportunity to show the old shots of Jon Frank. As a surfer who grew up in Cronulla, watching Rusty Moran in big waves was a treat. While still a teenager he charged huge waves in a way that seemed wholly irrational but he always (well, mostly) pulled it off with aplomb while smiling like a loon. And by showing what was possible he became an unwitting Pied Piper to many other surfers flirting with big waves. Think that's over the top? In one of his last articles Mark Foo said he was delighted by the presence of "up and coming animals like Todd Chesser and Rusty Moran."
Rusty's decision to pull back from that life is profound, yet for me it's not religious but life affirming. Chesser and Foo aren't here any more.
So yeah, get what you want from the clip, but the reason I ran it was pure indulgence; I think Rusty is a fantastic surfer and a fantastic fella, and I also think his is a straight up great surf story.
Good work for running the vid, it's a good watch. Funny how anything to do with Jesus gets so many peoples back up. You are joking about the ABC though aren't you? If they leant any further left they would tip over :)
one of the best videos I've seen on SN...an honest look at life and meaning of life.
Rusty has faith in God and Jesus.....and surfing has taught him that there is a higher power......to just reject what he says because he has faith....and is a born again Christian.....makes me wonder what do his critics believe in..??
is there the atheist/secular humanist argument...or it seems every time God and Jesus are brought up...there is fear and loathing........based on usually a lack of knowledge on the subject......
I thought Rusty gave a great insight into his journey of life and where it has taken him...he seems very happy , content with his life now .....as there is spiritual meaning....and hope......
Well said Maurice...I guess situations life has dealt you have given you time to think about these things. Very insightful post.
Well said
Exactly what I thought. I am no Christian but watching that was 1000 times better than a lot of the new hipster smoking durries in tight black jeans web clips.
Refreshing.
Not saying I'm a critic of Rusty but I don't believe in religion. My motto is that you need to enjoy life while you're here because when you're dead you're dead.
Thousands of near death experiencers say they didn't want to come back cause it was so nice on the other side. I'm open minded to that
My interpretation of what Rusty was saying is exactly that quokka. He chose to increase his chances of living (and enjoying life) by stepping away from big waves rather than continuing surfing big waves which, clearly from the deaths of four of his friends, informed him that it certainly increased the chances of dying.
I thought the important message was that he found joy in other parts of life as well as in surfing.
I'm a believer in spirituality - in knowing oneself but not so much believing in a higher order or religion. I think that ultimately Rusty's decision came from within, not from God or anything else. He may mask his autonomy by talking about jesus and god but when it came down to it, it was his call and I respect that.
Being so immersed in the natural world as surfers are . Gives us a heightened sense of spirituality . You are sometimes alone in the sea humbled yet still significant enough to ,try to marvel at this cosmos that we are in. Its so invigorating.
While others are staring into the screens ,we are watching the majestic sunsets on a golden sea. We are the lucky ones, I pity the others. Just makes me wish I could thank whoever was responsible for allowing me to live in this moment. Surfing is so much more than just catching waves. It is a calling.
Keep surfing, Gordon .
So Gordon.....thers the old age question.....who do we thank ....for the the amazing moments we live thru surfing....some call it God...the Universe....mother Nature....and some just say its all just a temporary lucky accident!!!
Judge people by who they are and what they do rather than by what they believe. All religion sounds like bullshit to me but I have friends who believe quite profoundly. So unless you want to be some kind of self-righteous prat, you need to get over your own belief system and accept that there are many different ways of thinking.
Nicely put BB
How about being strong on the "facts" as we see them while respecting the opinions of others?....I don't hear religious voices cursing and mocking non believers but I could make the list of the bullsh*t hypercritically going the other way.......and I agree, actions definitely speak louder than internet pontificating
Facts about religion do they exist? I respect the opinion of others just don't try and ram yours down my throat which seems to happen all too often with regard to religion. You need to listen more closely Blob, it's definitely happening out there.
Did Rusty Moran ram anything? On the other hand the anti religion comments here are somehow not dogmatic and assertive in your mind. It is all the anti religion abusive you want to ignore while worrying about what...this video?
Fact: god either exists OR he does not exist
Fact: IF god exists you are better off finding out before judgement day
Fact: in the scriptures god makes promises and says " if you want to know something just ASK me"
Fact: if we don't know if there IS OR IS NOT a God it is because we don't want to know
Don't accuse me of ramming anything down your throat
You asked the question
See definition of fact 'a thing that is known or proved to be true.' Hate to be the one to tell you this Knob...ah sorry Blob, but NONE of your so called facts fit this definition.
Do you love your family quokka?
If you do then this would be called a subjective truth
You know it is true.
You cannot prove to me that you love your family, although you may provide evidence....
An objective truth can be proven to others
I cannot prove to you that God exists. I don't want to. You may say God doesn't exist but you can't prove that. Can you?
If there was a god he had an unnatural fondness for insects
Self indulge anytime ya like stu, I'm stoked to see all that classic footage condensed and set free for me to watch while I'm having smoko. I don't care about if he tallks of God. He rips.
good story. having always rolled my eyes on hearing "he died doing something he loved", interested to hear rusty say hearing someone say that about his dead friend was his turning point and he didnt want to die surfing. (although i am surprised this thought hadnt occurred to him while diving under 6 successive monsters at an outer hawaiian reef..)
folks, do what i do when i watch surf vids on the webs, turn the sound the down.
with no sound the only thing you're left to whinge about is too much/little slo-mo, tow-in pros or self promoting beer bogans.
I felt this site was going left of centre with too many climate change articles and clips of d. Rasta. But props to the SN guys for posting this vid of a Christian guy speaking about his faith, even if there was a pre-warning because someone mentions the scary and offensive word...God.
Spell "GOD" backwards.
Great clip, move on and the last thing I will say, is just Smile. Quote " Dalai Lama "
i couldn't give a shit if he or anyone wants to believe in that garbage. maybe if i had 2 mates die in a season i would want to believe in something to make me feel better too
Looks like Rusty rips. Who cares what he believes or doesn't believe .
Seems like he's got a great life after pushing himself into the kind of waves that most would only dream of riding. More like a nightmare for myself....
Great video Swellnet. Broadest spectrum in surfing. Well done.
I couldn't care less what he believes in. I'm just saying in my opinion people who are really religious are brainwashed. They can't make there own beliefs. They get drummed into them what to believe. Religion is fucked, if God is the almighty one why do kids get raped, get cancer, get murdered??? What a load of shit. Why does God let that happen??
Yet to hear a legit explanation
Because without the truly evil as a measuring point for want of a better term, how could we see what is beautiful, right and just and know that we see it?
If there was a God, I don't think he/she/it would be so cut and dried to just let everything be groovy. How could we ever learn?
By the way, my thoughts only. I'm a total Atheist just for the record.
Zenmon;)
What about " Yukionna"
Sssshhhhh.....:)
Atheist too zen doggy
Me two GFmon;)
The arguments being made right here are an example of people grappling with notions of right and wrong. Without a world that has right and wrong, good and bad, there is no context for this debate to even happen. You can't know light without darkness, but some people use the existence of darkness to argue that there is no light.
Why does bad stuff happen? Look in the mirror. There's your answer
Maybe we are here to learn by our mistakes and it's tough but the only way.
And....where are all these idiots getting brainwashed? School?...usually just the opposite....media? ...nope....church?....nope.....nobody goes anymore. Religious belief is now generally oppositional to prevailing culture, meaning a lot of believers do think for themselves. But thanks for the condescending abuse anyway. Keep up the blind faith in your own judgemental opinions.
blob...not believing in God and that you have faith that there is No God......is actually a religion based on ya faith......
brainwashing ...hmmm....believing that there is no super natural and no God ....so when you think for yourself...what is the meaning of Life......??
Hawkins.....intelligent design.....aliens??
G'day Blob you stupid bugger. Just got home from work, had a squiz in the mirror..
Looking for my answer like you said to do..
Guess what, I didn't fly any planes into a building today, behead anyone today, rape any children today, blow up a marathon race today, do I need to go on blob???
You fucken idiot
I'll look again tomorrow, meanwhile keep thinking of that answer hey
You probably saw some sort of human in your mirror...just guessing. Humans do bad suff with or without religion. Judging by your inclination to abuse you've done some damage with or without your pilots license
Yawwwwn
Smartest thing you've said...
each to their own. if believing in a "god" makes you feel stronger then that's fine too. although I have to say that it is unusual in this day and age to find people like rusty that discover god in this way. like an epiphany. religious belief in my opinion normally learned. but at the end of the day if it brings people together than its all good. unfortunately normally it divides.
Interesting comments....for those who choose to have faith based on their life experiences and facts that are used to form an opinion or belief......on one hand you have people like Rusty and myself........and then there are those who believe based on their life experiences and education that there is No god.....
each has faith in their opinion/belief............so you can argue that being an atheist/secular humanist is also faith based religion.....
how much is your belief /faith based on fact.......??
Faith and respect within yourself and others that choose to surround you :)
Respect for nature as we are only a minute part of it.
Yes...but....so much anti religion argument is steeped in concepts that suggest meaning, which is essentially a religious concept. Non believers rely on the language of belief to reject belief. Hard to find good and evil etc. in a molecular/genetic accident.
Yeh, I believe in a Creator. A Source. It doesn't take much wondering to wonder where all began, what the Source of all is. And like anything, the more you put in, the more you focus... you have to do it though.
What that has to do with the practise of Christianity? As Brutus said, let the games begin. Pelly rules!
“The Commonwealth of Australia will be, from its first stage, a Christian Commonwealth.” — Sir John Downer, 1898.
Anyway, by constitutional law, as citizens of Australia, we are all Christians, like it or not.
'Language and ceremonies were forbidden, as it was seen as paganistic to the invaders' superior, Christian values. The colonists brought with them their social order and notion of property, their birth rights and Christianity. With their invisible luggage they brought their racial prejudice. Aboriginal men were drastically losing their role in society by being used to slave labour. The women were used as domestics and sexual partners for the white invaders. Raping and killings continued as a sport. And I quote: "One gorges at the Sunday afternoon manhunts of sexual mutilation, of burying live Aboriginal babies up to their necks in sand and kicking their heads off after tying with a rape the severed neck of the husband around the raped spouse."
'Australia’s shearing sheds even had ‘stud gins’ sheds of kidnapped Aboriginal girls for shearers to rape. Black woman had little to no protection from sexual abuse, the common perception of society and the law was that blacks can’t be raped.
'Interracial sex and ‘protecting the white woman’ was at the forefront of racial policy in both countries, hence the majority of the American South passing Miscegenation Laws. The hypersexual nature of the ‘black savage’ was inflated to a huge degree.'
https://makinghistoryatmacquarie.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/darksideofprot...
Onward Christain soldiers!
Just love me guys, come on now, remember them thar rules!!! Thank God that Jesus does anyway. Even if Pello and some other Christians don't.
I get it now....Jesus was all about rape, murder and racism. You are an absolute....genius
OMG... this is amasing, beyond amasing. I just had an epiphinicational moment... s. Its an alpha, omega thing... in the beginning at the bottom, is Lifty, and now, at the very top, its Lifty, like a perfect wave, top to bottom... Lifty! The whole show, book ended by ... Lifty... what a fucking comeback!!!
I'd like to thank, firstly Benny, and Stoo Art... fuck it, I have to see if I can borrow Pete's, or Van Vanities, or camslessless's go pro and film it... I'll do the speeches later! There is a GOD!!!
Excuse me Stoo Art, I don't suppose you could send your drone over this way? The others are all busy filming themselves and stuff. Just to be clear, by drone, I mean that thing with the camera on it...
Go for it uplift. Each to their own I reckon but if there is a god he/she or it has one very nasty sense of humour.
Go for it Uplift.
If someone is talking who has an interesting story but also has beliefs that you do not agree with, what do you do?
Do you listen politely and take away from it what you choose to or do you rip them apart because you don't agree with everything that they say?
Whether you believe in God or not, it was an interesting tale.
Manners please!
Well. as you can see, the magnificent highlight of the epiphinatory moment has somewhat passed. Stewart must have been filming something else with his drone, unless it ran out of fuel. Anyway, as us, pehaps listless, non surfee surfers say blinder, if you never go, you'll never know!
I spoke to a Christian once, he rang me, and we had a friendly chat. Despite different beliefs, I was very open and respectfull. Not long after he chucked all the rules in the bin, skulked around in the shadows, went all Judas on me, and served me up to the alligators on a plate! They tend to do that, the rules get a bit rusty... but God always forgives... them. They don't like the forgiving, loving everyone else bit though. You can only imagine the horror of what the Christians would do to Jesus if he rocked up today and started preaching the love thy neighbour, we are all one stuff.
About your judas friend..."A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. By their fruits ye shall know them"
If Jesus showed up good Christians and good atheists would be happy to see him
Here's the idea: Adoring the Creator WITHOUT the religion
... after all, Jesus was condemned by the Church of the time (Pharisees).
This is long and I'm not Catholic, but I like this ... (by Richard Rohr, a Catholic monk)
Learning to See: Everything Is Holy
Religionless Christianity
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Most religious searches begin with one massive misperception. People tend to start by making a very unfortunate, yet understandable, division between the sacred and the profane worlds. Early stage religion focuses on identifying sacred places, sacred time, and seemingly sacred actions that then leaves the overwhelming majority of life unsacred. People are told to look for God in certain special places and in particular events--usually, it seems, ones controlled by the clergy. Perhaps this is related to the clergy's need for job security, which is only natural. Early stage religion has limited the search for God to a very small field and thus it is largely ineffective--unless people keep seeing and knowing at larger levels.
In Franciscan (and true Christian) mysticism, there is finally no distinction between sacred and profane. The whole universe and all events are sacred (doorways to the divine) for those who know how to see. In other words, everything that happens is potentially sacred if you allow it to be. Our job as humans is to make admiration of reality and adoration of God fully conscious and intentional. Then everything is a prayer and an act of adoration. As the French friar Eloi Leclerc beautifully paraphrased Francis, "If we but knew how to adore, we could travel through the world with the tranquility of the great rivers. But only if we know how to adore."
For those who have learned how to see fully, everything--absolutely everything--is "spiritual." This eventually and ironically leads to what the Lutheran mystic Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) called "religionless Christianity." Bonhoeffer saw that many people were moving beyond the scaffolding of religion to the underlying and deeper Christian experience itself. Once we can accept that God is in all situations, and that God can and will use even bad situations for good, then everything and everywhere becomes an occasion for good and an encounter with God.
God's plan is so perfect that even sin, tragedy, and painful deaths are used to bring us to divine union, just as the cross was meant to reveal. God wisely makes the problem itself part of the solution. It is all a matter of learning how to see rightly, fully, and therefore truthfully. Recently, I watched a family-made video of a dear teenage daughter's last moments dying from cancer, as she lovingly said good-bye. The family was ecstatic with tears and joy, through profound faith and hope in eternal life and infinite love. This experience, standing on the threshold of death with their loved one, likely did more long-lasting good for that family than years of formal religious education. I know that to be true from many personal experiences. The result is "religionless Christianity," which ironically might be the most religious of all.
A religionless Christianity??? God's plan???? Jesus would spin in his grave if he heard all that drivel! If you must insist on holding idiotic beliefs, at least refrain from proselytising. One dolt on this site is more than enough.
Evolution all day every single day
World's No.1 atheist Dawkins likes the idea of aliens out there
Intelligence exists in the universe. We know this because we exist
We have evolved from nothing to all this in a moment of universe time
And from stone axes to space travel in a nano second on the evolutionary continuum
What is the state of the intelligence out there over unlimited space and time?
To what has it evolved?
To...God perhaps?
Limiting God to what man made religions do with spiritual revelation is missing the big picture
Evolution all day every single day......because it is a great argument for God
Blob you're off your rocker mate
Play the ball ....if you are able
Sitting at 15/0 Blob my little alter boy...or is that bob, oh yes 30/0.
Religions are ludicrous. 'Thou shall not kill.' 'No killing!' So the Christians went/go to war, killing and persecuting zillions who didn't/don't bow to them. Then of course, the Japanese Buddhists in a moment of zen like clarity, screeched into a killing, enlightened frenzy! Jesus and Buddha got booted out, became irrelevant, mere pesky annoyances.
The list is endless. Krishna says all are one, equal. Then, the men trick and deceive the Omniscient one, and conveniently suppress the women and invent a caste system. There's much worse, again, the list is endless.
I put a reference on here once, from some Christian Missionaries in a remote village I lived and surfed in for some time, thanking me for my help to them, and the village. Nice people overall, but every day they would also tell me that I would go to hell, unless I repented and joined their church.
Its not hard to wonder about reality. No secrets, no mysticism. Simple rules. Truth, sincerity, honesty. Alignment. Like anything. Love is important, but what is love?
'I really want to be fit and healthy!' Sincerity, honesty means doing and focusing yourself, your Being on what it takes to be fit and healthy. Loving it. Fibbing and blabbing about it means exclaiming it, and eating pizzas, chocolates and guzzing beers on the couch. Loving that.
'I want to find the truth about my exsistance.' Means sincerely and honestly spending time doing that. Loving that. So 'Being' that. Searching for that. Focusing on that. Over and over. Or, doing everything but that, and Loving, and Being that. Simple. Available to all.
It doesn't take long to realise that the Being behind everything, the bottom line when all else is removed, the 'Source' of all is the same everywhere, the bond. And that all else is not that. How far anyone that takes that, and the resulting outcome, is a choice. How much do you love it. Like anything. But, just like you can wear sunglasses, smother yourself in sunblock, lock yourself in a dark room, only come out at night, etc, etc, the sun just shines away anyway. Its irrelevant, you exsist, or don't, because of it anyway.
(PS... Perhaps raise 'the bag' a little higher blownit... then the knees will be usefull too.)
Talking of knees mate, maybe you should try bending yours when you surf. I've heard that can be helpful.
Technique pays fella, even on the shoulder.
Blax ! ! ! If you know what I mean....
"God's plan is so perfect that even sin, tragedy, and painful deaths are used to bring us to divine union, "
Offensive and dangerous claptrap. So kids getting raped by priests brings us to Divine Union? Innocent families in their thousands getting killed in tsunamis or earthquakes is Divine?
Bizarre how the human desire to escape from the reality of Death causes us to believe in any number of dangerous fairy tales, the invention of various Gods being chief among them.
Freeride, I'm no god botherer, but if you replace "Gods Divine Plan "with "Mother nature " the result, as unpalatable as it is , remains the same.
Don't ask me why. Just as you can't ask Rusty why.
anything you believe in at all FR76...???
So death is final....and you have never had a supanatural experience in your life???
Repeating the assertion that religion was made up to deal with fear of death doesn't make it true. Like a lot of the things you say that is called a guess. I was cool with death before I went looking for answers. If there is nothing out there why worry about a big sleep? Eternal life is actually MORE of a problem....the boredom. The priest that rapes a child will be sorted out by God. God told him not to do that. Don't get confused on that one. I really do understand your objection to tsunamis etc. but we all die, and IF there is a God he gave us life, and when we die we just move from here to there. IF there is a God he can heal all wounds. I know that will make no real sense to you but you can't put the cart before the horse. I reckon you have to find him first and then you can work on the issues with a whole lot more information that gives context that isn't there for you now.
I knew you were out here, chargin' on the shoulder somewhere blownit! Shoulda come over, said hello. Or you would'nt have had to, but if you must, you could've 'jabbed' ya way in, and got one from the peak. Then you would've known what it means! It would've made a better story too.
'Juz workin' 'The bag!' Always a,'eavy' one too! The noise alone pumps em up and out... the louder, the better... or so they reckon. Toddler even got one shipped over to Elly! Oh, the entertainment! Oh the fun! Fists, and grunts of fury!
They all end up with that, 'Please don't make me use it', crafty, magnificent, oh so brilliantly trained jab! Please, please, try to keep the highly trained jab from maiming all and sundry blownit... even if they are surfee baddies. There are only so many towns!
Watch the shoulders though! I work with them, the long tme trainers, every day. They always sell it, sell boxin', the' ultimate' fitness. Then when everyone has gone home, when they think no one is around, the ritual begins. Dealing with the fucked, crippled hands... the fucked, crippled shoulders... the fucked, crippled back.
Mr Moran, if you're out there.... There are some extremely large waves in your movie.
Do you mind if I ask where you surfed your largest waves in Oz ?
Totally in awe of your prowess mate.
XXX large scares me stupid.
looks like I missed last nite a whole lotta blaming and God bashing........
Uppity seems fixated on what his family have done to indigenous Australians and blames them for believing in God......and any ills that religion has brought down on society is Gods doing.....so therefore there must not be a God because theres a lot of bad shit going down in the World.....especially in the religions that interpret the bible for their own personal gain ......which is not Christianity......but a perversion, such as the catholic Church.....
So many people find it convenient to blame ....and judge by whats in front of them....like if we said that our PM represents ALL Australians....
having no faith at all ...and a throw away line such as there can't be a God because theres bad shit in our lives....which leaves no faith at all unless.....you have truly studied the facts of both sides and have an opinion based on what you studied...or its just so easy to not believe anything.....no Universe,no Mother nature ,No God......just confused bad people?
Brutus I fully believe after we die we come back as another living thing. Plant, animal, whatever. I dont believe in a god though. Simple as that. What I was talking about has Nothing to do with universe or Mother Nature. Why would you even try to group all three together?? Who's confused?
hi Goofy....OK so you have a belief that science would laugh at.......as your belief is based on faith......so are the Universe ,Mother nature etc......are all supposedly not real because they defy the laws of nature......one could call this Super Narural.......
I believe in One God and his Son Jesus......!
Ok mate, I'm done with this now.
Everyone looks at things different hey. Cheers
Ouch!!! Its a trap! Ya got me.... bad too!!! I gotta change my car! You bin 'working the bag' too... 'heavy bag' that is... its always a heavy one, sound better aye! You buggers and ya vicious, skull shatter'n, a fist snapping highly trained 'jabs'! Jabberers! You musta run out of figjam for breaky, fire up the cortina and shoot down and pick up some Grape Nuts... Flakes!!! Any way, sounds like brutuuseless had an ephiphicational moment too... blacks'll do that to ya! Get her outa the chook shed, and fire up that fuck'n cortina! Don't be a downer! Pop a valium!!
'Each to their own I reckon but if there is a god he/she or it has one very nasty sense
of humour.'
Nasty blinder? Its people that are fickle. What do you call nasty... today? Some people reckon this bloke had a nasty sense of humour! Others hold him up in the highest esteem... then suddenly, and some, as, poof, he literally, miraculously vanishes into thin air, suddenly don't, and desert him! Again, don't be a downer! Chuck a valium in the schooner!
For those of little faith!!
https://twitter.com/thetweetofgod
Just popped in to check on an old friend with rusty's clip and wow, so many comments from so many new friends?
Swellnet is appreciated for posting interesting surf stories from a wide range of people and surely we can't fault that? And stu did have a warning...gasp, dare 'God' be mentioned? Really are we that sensitive?
Lets be honest, atheist regimes don't have a great track record on human rights guys, so maybe both religion and communism and hedonism and every other ism are flawed with their human rights because they have human wrongs driving them? Common denominator......humans. The major flawed species on the planet and I up my hand as guilty.
But back to the story in the first place, keep charging Rusty and good for you coming to terms with the huge issues that many prefer to avoid. Facing death has a way of changing ones perspectives and no one can deny that.
Why do Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc etc need a god? Why can't they just have "good, Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu behaviours" without deference to an unseen entity? I don't think any sane person would deny anyone a righteous moral code, way of living and treatment of others, but why does it have to be the word of an omnipotent, imaginary being. How come one belief system has to be right or wrong? Why do Christians who say they are not religious need faith in Jesus. I love that people have found redemption, or a new path, or enlightenment, but I can't find a reason to believe in a long dead person, or the image of a person, at the expense of themselves and those actual people around them. And as for the next life, isn't that just another manifestation of human sin in the form of avarice and wanting more. Aaahhh, Pop said never talk about religion, politics or sex. Now I know why. Anyway, in saying that, I'm loving the tweet of God. Thanks for that prawnhead.
Who said they "need" a God? Or an afterlife.? Maybe they just know something you don't.
Without some sort of absolute what is good or not is just one's opinion. Everyone worships something. The Nazis thought they were righteous. People can't talk religion or politics because some people act up due to their immaturity and insecurity
"Everyone worships something"
Wrong
Well, Blob, I'm the first to admit that plenty of people know more than me, so in that case, good on 'em. As far as having/not having an absolute, isn't that the whole point of the discussion? Religion/faith/belief is, for all intents and purposes, just an opinion. As for everybody worshipping something...that's just plain wrong. Sorry you missed the tone of the politics, religion and sex comment, damn written words.
Soo...here is a video where a nice guy says he found God and life is better
What happens?
Lots of people want to go to the trouble of writing opinions that damn religion and belief in God
If some guy moved to Russia and liked it would everyone feel the need to go on about the gulags?
If a story praised science would the zealots get on their soap boxes about the gruesome experiments done by scientists?
Nope....they save the outrage for religion
If there is no god then religion is just another creation of men
If there is a god the bad stuff done in his name is done by bad people not God
Nobody is forcing nasty religion on the poor delicate petals
They just feel the need to attack what makes them squirm.
Why?
I'm calling conscious or sub conscious guilt that they attempt to hide with fake intellectual contempt
I wouldn't have considered what I said an attack, nor damning religion, but each to their own.
Let's put it down to misreading the tone of the written word.
I have no outrage for religion as such, more so religious organisations, as I do for insidious forms of government and baseless science.
We do agree though, that religion is a creation of man and bad stuff is done by bad people.
I know it is not forced onto me, but it unfortunately gets more airtime than required, and I do understand my commenting only reinforces that, but...I'll learn.
Anyway, nice slice of passive/aggressive with the 'fake intellectual contempt' call.
Happy surfing!
My bad....replying to your comment but referencing others
Let me be blunt.
Religion is mentioned and the nasties crawl out and start slagging
Then the believers try to defend what is a sacred thing to them - usually with good manners
The haters are too dishonest to differentiate between different religious expressions - they only focus on bad stuff as if it is peculiar to religion while ignoring anything good.
Then they throw this type of abuse: ridiculous, fairy tales, hypocritical drivel, bullsh#t, garbage! stupid, f#cken idiot! ludicrous! dangerous! claptrap! divisive, rape, murder, racism! wars, load of sh#t, dolts.
This is hurtful and ignorant abuse.
Let any reasonable person judge between the two attitudes.
Sorry you sense some passive aggressive. I'm grateful for the influence of that horrible religion, otherwise I might be showing these losers I'm quite capable of the real thing.
So which version of the "absolute" is the right one?
Sorry but that is a short, but big question.
Big picture: absolute truth exists even if moral relativism is the waning flavour of the month. 2+2=4 for everybody. When asked "do you exist" most people say "yes absolutely!". If one thing is absolutely true then it must follow that all truths must be absolute. You can't exist and not exist at the same time. People can have different perspectives but fact are facts despite individual "versions" of the truth. People can have varying degrees of the truth but it doesn't follow that everyone's politics, religion, culture or opinion are equally good or true. Some are better, some worse. Is there a true religion? I think there is. Some go to ISIS some go Amish or atheist, but we all get to choose. That's the plan.
On the personal level: True religion is written in your heart. Notice how believers and non believers all use the same moral justifications to make opposite arguments? The world is full of confusion to give us the opportunity to choose because in the spiritual supermarket you become what you buy. A world of light and shadow allows us to learn to love the light...if we will. I think the key is to use your conscience and think independently. Personally, I found the God of truth who guides us if we ask Him to.
OK, what is it then, according to your version of absolute truth?
I wouldn't want to push my specific church in this sort of discussion. One on one I'm more than happy to.
I only ask because by implication if there is one True religion then the others must be false. That seems to sow so much discord in the world and seem to point to a fairly strong piece of evidence: if there are fifty religions in the world all claiming to the be the One true revelation of God then it's highly likely that mankind invented religion and religious belief. They can't all be right and the others wrong. Or, it would be far too simple for an omnipotent, omniscient God to clear up the mess by some kind of revelation. With computers and mass communication he could sort it out in five minutes. The greek gods seemed to be able to communicate with man no worries.
Or we could all keep wallowing in the confusion of desert tribal beliefs from the middle east generated a couple of thousand years ago.
A billion christians think they are right and the muslims are wrong. A billion Muslims think the opposite: that they have the true divine revelation and the rules for living right.
Buddhists don't seem to need a God at all. If they can live a perfectly ethical life without a God then......?
Why worry about what other people believe? Keep it simple. You have a conscience - use it to judge various claims. Personally I don't like chopping off people's heads, and I'm confident God doesn't like it either. Try this model: God sets up a situation where good and evil exist and drops his children in there to work it out so they can learn. What they choose is what they will get. As a man sows so shall he reap. There are lots of churches because men start with pure revelation and then work it into their own image. God reveals truth. Men make many churches. There can be lots of churches and philosophies that combine truth and error. A diffusion. They can be part right and part wrong, and there can still be a "straight and narrow path" among the confusion. In the end, most persistent Christians have gone directly to the source for a definite answer. You can read one of the gospels in an afternoon and then get on your knees. Of course most people are way too clever to do that.
yep quads, everytime my family has bought up religion or politics at the dinner table has ended in WWIII.
nothing wrong with discussing sex though...unless its your 70 year old parents telling you how often they have it off...
if everyone does not worship something......what do they believe in??
I worship Rodney Rude, your worship
Moran puts it simply. He worshipped waves then found out there was something better
nice point brutus. I think at the end of the day everyone (well almost everyone) thinks they are on this earth for a purpose....people as insightful and intelligent beings will always to try justify their existence through some manner.
im totally fine with people believing in god if it allows them to evolve as human beings. if discovering god as an epiphany has allowed rusty to evolve then this can only be good. religion on the other hand keeps humanity stuck in the past.
One religion requires human sacrifice for the sun to rise. Another religion leads people to sacrifice their lives for others. Generalisations are generally unevolved opinion dressed up as facts
what about respecting nature, other people and trying to leave a better world for your kids to grow up in.
No religion required, no supernatural being required.
what is nature??
a random accidental environment........and where do you get your sense of whats right or better for your Kids?
you have faith in whats right and wrong and believe by respecting nature ( is nature an entity?).......you belong to ...????
You don't need a religious underpinning to have sense of ethics.
We figured that out in the enlightenment. And even before that the Greek philosophers had it sorted. Even before that human hunter gatherer tribes were able to live without it. Religion and sky gods bought in the priest and the authoritarian power structures which alienated man from man and man from nature. Read Genesis: Man was given dominion over nature. Mankinds biggest error, believing we were somehow superior to nature.
Nature is the planet, the biosphere and everything in it. A great source of wonder and our home. Again, no religion, no sky god needed.
Nature then is just a mistake..big bang theory..???
where does man get his inherent sense of enlightment...is it just developed....or did aliens instill it in us ...where did our sense of ethics come from??
superior to nature .....that is not taught in the New testament......have ya read the teachings of Jesus?
I like the New testament......all positive messages......and how to live ya life.......
Where did ethics come from?
Humans developed it. It evolved. Christianity has been around for 2 thousand years, humans have been on the planet for more than a million.
You think there was no ethical thought and action before Christianity?
Aboriginal people had a fully functioning ethical system before christianity arrived in this country. A different set of ethics. As did many other cultures.
Ethics didn't arrive from the sky with Moses stone tablet. Or even the gospels.
Like everything else including consciousness itself it has developed, changed and evolved over long periods.
Humans in a thousand years time will no doubt have had to evolve new ethical systems to deal with an over-crowded, resource limited planet because the old religious ones just won't cut the mustard.
Born again Christians 2000 years....old testament/Christianity...another 6000 plus years....
a million years man has been on the planet ...do you have a link to that claim??
what do you think will change in the 10 commandments in the next thousand years.....??
consciousness ...hmm right and wrong.......do you honestly think the notion of whats right and wrong evolves over time?
and Yes aboriginal culture was very well developed in terms of ethical behavior....they are quite spiritual........as you are not!
Your making a mistake playing the man and not the ball here Maurice because you have no idea of my spiritual inclinations or not.
It's not the issue.
Here's a brief on the science of human development. Plenty of research out there if you want to look.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13874671
It's uncontestable that humanity existed well before the arrival of Christian thought and belief, or any modern religion.
So, what ethics existed before religion? How did humanity survive before religious thought?
Of course the notion of what is right and wrong evolves over time. Mayans and many other cultures practised human sacrifice. We'd clearly see that as wrong.
Papua New Guinea tribes practice ritualised payback to this day. Again we'd clearly see that as wrong.
Cultures, ethics and religions have all evolved over time. Nothing fixed about any of them.
FR76....playing the man..huh???
have I ever met you or dropped in on you...uh oh...or did you drop in on me?
I am interested to see where people come from when debating God/Jesus..spirituality ....that's why I declare my position and try and discuss with people such as yourself...which is an issue...as where are your opinions coming from.....which side of the debate?
I can understand if you see your spiritual orientation as private ........but don't be scared.....throw it out there!
As for the science you proposed......a lot of supposition and very small amounts of facts.....so mankind left Africa 120,000 years ago and populated the earth........sounds like a theory....
Intelligent design shows that in our DNA.... there is a preprogrammed pattern of behavior.......a sense of right and wrong.........a sense of family.....the basis of asking......what is the meaning of life........the ancient civilisations all had Gods ......even though we now think them to be wrong......
in the last century there was a turn to Godless societies...called communism, Nazism........how did that turn out for the Russian and Chinese and the Jews??
"Intelligent design shows that in our DNA.... there is a preprogrammed pattern of behavior.......a sense of right and wrong.........a sense of family.....the basis of asking......what is the meaning of life......"
that sounds like far more supposition than science. You have a link for the evidence for that?
Yeah, we've met. All on good terms. This is just a bit of civilised banter. All respectful.
hey FR76...was it up D-Bah??
anyhow all friendly banter........
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture
208 Columbia Street — Seattle, WA 98104
phone: 206-292-0401 — fax: 206-682-5320
email: [email protected]
Nah, at the chook shed with Mick Sowry.
Intelligent design is not considered science by the majority of the scientific community. It's considered a thinly veiled version of Creationism, designed by the Christian Right in USA to take on evolution.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intellige...
That Discovery Institute is a right wing anti-science front for christian crackpots. Supporters of the Bush Administration. Gotta love the old US of A.
Wow just spoke to Mick...does he really know you...irrelevant to the discussion....
just for the record......I D is not a thinly veiled version of creation...the 2 are separate..
Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer’s piece “Intelligent Design is not Creationism” that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director’s piece “ Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same“in Research News & Opportunities.
is the Christian right at odds with the loony left???
Yep. tell MIck Steve Shearer said hi. I stayed with him last time I was down there.
Mate, you're cutting and pasting from the very organisation you're trying to defend. Go do some research on the place. it's pseudo science and quackery designed to get creationism into American Schools.
If we keep using this method we will eventually disappear and be back to the 'Source'!
I love it
See, look I have found the way!
Follow me every body!
You can come too bruteuseless!
And you too blowjab!
Fucking science is useless... less... less
...
..
.
.
See yas!
Mick's never heard of ya...but irrelevant.......
its funny you call it quackery......like Hawkins explanation...aliens...now that's scientific.......
I did some research on your sources..same ..criticism on certain false statements etc....so who do you believe and have faith in.....???
I am only defending what I know and have first hand experiences...........and I have been involved in super natural experiences.....which refutes any claims that science can prove anything and everything ( mans Ego?)
Yeah he has. I worked on the Reef with him. He knows me very well. Why you'd try and go weird on that one is beyond me but whatever. Thats your stuff.
I have slightly more faith in modern science than a bunch of right wing nut jobs trying to get creationism into schools in the guise of science.
Anyway, not trying to refute your experiences but Intelligent Design has been comprehensively discredited as any kind of science. You want to believe in it thats fine.
So you are a Darwinian......the big bang theory and all that......all just an accident.......even though science can't prove it........
and yeah the idea of intelligent design resonates with me as the science keeps coming up with ......intelligent design as a theory.......and that even science admits that the big bang theory is just that..each to his faith..
and yeah Mick remembers you......that right wing Hipster from the soft coast!!
Right wing? You've lost your marbles mate. You're the one celebrating the most right wing Darwinian country on Earth, the Good Ole USA.
I much prefer a most communitarian approach. Share the bounty.
me celebrating .......the USA.......nah.......just pointing out that there is a lot of good there...like here.....and Mick reckons ya a right whinger..........
communitarian......share the bounty...communism...fark...ya not sleeping under my bed are ya??
truth is a strange and wonderful commodity.........one mans truth is anothers lie.......what does it all mean???
If you are confused and lost don't assume everyone else must be too
'You've lost your marbles mate.'
That actually happened a while ago, they got washed away at blacks.
Perhaps a super natural event?
Just poppin in and out... two places at once and and stuff. Keep going, you's are almost there! Follow me!
You are relying on what you want to think is scientific consensus. There is no consensus. Science reboots it's assumptions every decade. You look to other peoples expertise. I trust my own real experience. Science is wonderful but it is antithetical to subjective evidence and politically biased. Science is a continually morphing best guess. I don't believe tele evangelist 6 day creationists either, but I also don't think backwash in the second law of thermo dynamics explains intelligent life. Scientific theory absolutely relies on faith.
There is ancient history and there is pre history. There is almost nothing going on until the the first civilisations burst onto the scene way too quickly to fit the evolutionary template. My opinion
How do you get ethics, meaning and a better world out of a molecular accident followed by genetic warfare? Many honest, intelligent atheists admit atheism is, in the final analysis, a hopeless, cold outlook. This doesn't mean faith is always just wishful thinking. Ironic, but you need blind faith to say you know there is no god.
This is long but worth the read
Ron Hellings is a professor of theoretical physics who among other things was a research scientist at NASA for 25 years
"I am a skeptic. I know many people who are skeptics, but most of them are amateurs. I am a professional. It’s what I do for a living. I am a scientist, and a scientist needs to be skeptical. I would rather risk disbelieving something that is true than believing something that is false. I don’t recommend this attitude, but I can’t help it. I just refuse to believe junk.
I have heard people say that science and religion are two paths to truth. I do not believe that. There is only one path to truth, and to me it seems closer to science than it is to what passes for religion in most people. But it is not the scientific method. The only people I know who care about the scientific method are philosophers. Scientists don’t worry about it. What scientists do is what Karl Popper said in his cute definition of science: “Science is doing your damnedest with your mind – no holds barred.” The problem with science is not the process, but the artificial limits that most scientists put on the evidence they will accept. Evidence, they say, must be objective. This is a reasonable limitation, in a way, because the goal of science is not just to find truth, but also to communicate it. And you can only communicate things that others will understand through your common experience. But many scientists use this limitation on what they can communicate to others as the criterion for what they will accept for themselves. They will not seek a revelation because it would be a subjective evidence. So what? What a brain-numbing, truth-avoiding, closed-minded attitude this is! This is not doing your damnedest with your mind, no holds barred; it is setting up artificial rules that exclude a wealth of evidence and knowledge. This is bad science.
Having been a Skeptic ....after reading such books who were written by former atheists ...such as C S Lewis and Mere Christianity, Roddy Mc Dowell, More than a Carpenter, The Case for Christ Lee Stroble........there are facts and Philosophical arguments that take away the skepticism and fill a void in knowing there is more to life than just death.....as a lot of people here have indicated .....
its hard to have a philosophical debate here as there is lack of knowledge from the ,self proclaimed atheists and secular humanists......
Blob love ya work....
The same to you Brutus
The NASA guy said it so well
Motivation is interesting to me.
Why do the more anti religious zealots feel the need to trash other peoples beliefs? What do they get out of it? They pretend to be intellectually offended by stupidity but are not that bright themselves. They cherry pick the perceived sins of historical religions while they themselves resort to abuse and bullying. Without judging anyone, their comments sometimes betray an anger at the notion of sin and judgement. They say they don't believe but still seem to take it so personally they give themselves away.
Meanwhile most believers don't do an ISIS, they politely defend their faith and gently bear witness of things they found make life better. Why do they do what they do? Rusty wants others to find the thing he treasures
The proof is in the pudding I reckon
...and I don't think they can use the "faith is created by people scared of death" cliche against Rusty Moran haha, when it gets over 12' I don't want to be out there.
Labia Worship Tumblr
Thankyou good Lord for creating these bits.
All in the good book, sin...don't bite that apple Eve...see now the world is Satan's domain hence all the bad shit and illusion he's the master of it. Tell me if a white is bearing down on you atheists, who you gonna call I think a couple of you religious bashers would want a line to the Father! BUT remember you gotta go thru the Son and accept that He gave his only Son for our sins, to get the external life.
Bags not getting stuck around a campfire with any of you bastards. I would've nodded off 113 comments ago.
Politics next please
On a surf charter they will make you walk the plank for this stuff
The big questions are still the big questions though
Thats not very Christian like stewart. Typical though. Just use everyone up to keep the site moving along nicely. If that sort of non Christian, Judas like behaviour keeps up, you'll be frying like a blob of fat in the fire for eternity.
At least Jesus loves me... thank God for that.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-KA6Y4Ytthn7b/troy_2004_achilles_the_war...
'what is nature??'
Good question.
That depends on who's thinking about and experiencing it. Then projecting their thoughts and conditioning, to colour it. Like saying, what is a swamp worm? To some its a delicasy, food, to others a chunder bomb, to others a pest, the list is endless.
But, another question is, what is the source of nature? Where did it come from. And that? And that? And so on.
Another question is, who is thinking about nature, and experiencing it and colouring it? The answer to that is easy. Then, what am I? Meditate, focus on the answer. One could be, not the thoughts, but whatever is experiencing, responsible for them. Then, where does a thought spring from? And that? And that? And that?
Is the source of that, the same as the source of anything? That final That? Focus, meditate on That. That's the key to success in anything, even getting obese and pissed. Anything. Obviously you have to love it. If it has a source, its not That. Where did Christianity spring from?
Plenty start out with gusto, the resolutions, the 6 week plan, like fitness. So many distractions.
'Yeh, I want to get really fit... or, maybe I want to surf, or, maybe I want to learn to fish, paint... or whatever.'
'How fucking long? What? Every fucking day? And what... I gotta watch what I eat/ consume? There's this place that reckons I can do anything I like, and just once a week too, I think I'll try that, not That...'
You should author a self improvement book Lifty.
"How I ate twelve eggs a day and survived...till now, anyway."
Starts a rant on "What is nature ? " and detours it to....you guessed it folks...... Fitness aka Gym stuff.
That's a success story right there.
'superior to nature .....that is not taught in the New testament......have ya read the teachings of Jesus?'
Yeh, I have Bruteuselesss, formally. I got on the Deans Honour Roll a few times for it, and won some awards too... just sayin'.
There's some different versions funnily enough floating around. And thats after the romans and greeks had some fun with it too!
Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20-25[2]
The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
...
In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!” “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
Matthew 21:18-22[3]
Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked. Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
Most scholars believe that Mark was the first gospel, and was used as a source for Matthew.[4] The differences between the incident as described in Mark, and the version given in Matthew, are explicable from the view-point of Markan priority, i.e. that Matthew revised the story found in Mark.[5]
This is the gist of it:
Traditional Christian exegesis regarding these accounts include affirmation of the Divinity of Jesus by demonstrating his authority over nature.
Then of course Jesus says he is actually God. The Catholics in the Theological Faculty tried to boot me out for that one. But they couldn't, and they were over ruled, as it isn't hard to prove using their own materials. So instead I passed with flying colours! Yayyyy Lifty!!!! Just sayin'.
http://bugman123.com/Bible/JesusIsGod.html
Then of course, that bit that really drives them crazy, and we all know what happened to him next.
Psalm 82:6
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'
Plus, we are the light, miracles, all that. Nature or not?
As Jesus never, ever really meant the words he used, the fun is never ending. So they, the different sects (don't know which one you or rustler are in brutuseless... obviously different to Jeffs) of Christianity usually end up 'workin' the 'eavy bag' and despite their desperate, humble attempts not to, cracking and mashing scones, with a God like 'jab'!
Ggggoooooo blowjab! Get out at blacks son!
(PS blowjabber, those that know me know it was actually more than a dozen eggs daily, even to this day.)
Brutus -Supernatural experiences .......such as ?
ohhh.....rather a lot....family member has had very strong connection to spirit world....and can do some very heavy readings and contacts with people who are deceased...
probably nearly died more than 5 times and had a couple of those white light moments.....ghosts......scary shit.......yeah so had quite a few moments!
The fire's nearly ready now stewart...
“There are three things I've learnt never to discuss with people: Religion, Politics and The Great Pumpkin." - Linus Van Pelt
Yeah but it brings them out doesn't it
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30Nov+2013
not surprising that religion is in decline in Australia....but the real truth to its decline is in young people where the figures are higher.
....it'll take quite a while but eventually that graph will be near to 100% and we will have reached enlightenment.
Science grew out of religion
Many enlightenment intellectuals were raised Christian but became disillusioned with organised religion and turned to Deism - a non interventionist God.
Paganism used to be the sophisticated and intellectual power...it hated Christians
Worldly popularity is not the natural position of true religion, but as the saying goes: religion is like a nail, the harder you hit it the deeper it goes.
100% of humanity ....godless.....ahh already been tried.....
Communism...ask the Chinese and Russians how that turned out!
Nazi Germany........any idea how that turned out??
brutus? what makes you think that Germany during the Nazi period was non-religious? nothing of the sort at all. and communist Russia had a large part to play in the fall of Germany. so i think your argument is unconvincing.
and as for china. well I'd ask you to tell me how that turned out? last i checked, china is a quickly growing prosperous nation with immense support from most of the world.
look its a plain fact that Christians just need to deal with. Australians are adopting religion less and less for various reasons. is Australia as a nation going backwards because of it....i don't think so. will we all end up in some Mad Max world because of this - i doubt it. I'd be interested to hear the reasons why Christians think Aussies are turning away?
Don't talk nonsense
The Germans were Catholics and Lutherans and they dropped religion for a new saviour and a new ideology - Hitler and Fascism - a brutal, godless philosophy that distorted Nietzsche and dressed up in camp mythic style. .....The outcome? 50 million dead
Move to Tiananmen Square if you like China so much. ......Mao killed 20 million
It is hard to even argue the possibility of western democracy and freedom and science developing without the influence of Christianity.
Australians are dropping God because they have new Gods - real estate, sport, hedonism, consumerism and progressive politics...and comedians
It will all end in tears
Where the third world is free enough it is embracing Christianity, not because the people are gullible but because they appreciate things of value that we've discarded.
As the Bible says....The first shall be last and the last shall be first
Blob don't be so judgemental...by claiming nonsense...as there is a grain of truth with what happy has written........discuss and communicate .....leave the emotional baggage at home...
Hi Happy ..Nazi Germany was an interesting time for Christianity....Hitler was a so called Christian...but with the 3rd reich....you first had to pledge your allegiance to being a Nazi....then the church.....so it was Christian only in name......then Russia......millions killed by their own regime......
China might be prosperous but they also killed millions of their own people...and both communist regimes have been shown did not work...Nth Korea??
Australia...hmm...not Mad Max ......but we seem to be drifting towards the false idols of money power greed.......one only has to look at the rich getting richer...and the poor are getting poorer......
I admit to going through a phase of wanting to take the piss out of religion at every available opportunity but I got over it. It just seemed pointless to focus on one aspect of a person. That said, I remain intolerant of the bullshit and lies that some seem to believe are an integral part of it; creationists, those who wish to impose their ignorant prejudices on the rest of the community and those arrogant enough to knock on my door and suggest that they might save some non-existent part of my being after I am dead.
Did you say you got over it?
"Intolerant...bullsh#t...lies....impose ignorant prejudice....arrogant...." You say.
You forgot hypocrisy
creationism is dead....the new truth is intelligent design (ID). its Christianity's way of trying to keep up with the modern world. anything to ignore the agony that our place in this universe is not divine. that there might be 1000's or millions or billions of earths just like our own out there, all debating this same pointless conversation.....maybe surfing waves of methane?
and there might be a God......like there might be aliens , or "1000's or millions or billions of earths just like our own out there,"..........????
As long as there's evidence, there's hope. I also admit to wondering about blow jabber's God like, scone crackin' skull mashin' a fist snappin', 'workin' the eavy bag' 'jab' sermon. But the evidence, the basis for them two surfees flogging themselves stupid, resplendant with God, and the reluctant, the humble, the humilitarian 'blow jab' coming out on top, and in so doing defeating evil, has surfaced. Sure, as can be clearly, irrefutably seen, the frenzied, yet the humble bashing could have perhaps ended a bit earlier, but, humility rules such events.
GGGGOOOOOOOOO Blowjabber!!!
Wow.. Sorry Uppsydaisy, but you have been beaten for the biggest fvckwit award in this thread. That honour goes to blob this time!
Fumble
You don't win awards playing the man not the ball
There are grubs in every game I suppose
Sorry , I was just trying to relieve your cognitive constipation
Blob why do you continue to be derisive to people on this forum? How does this sit with your belief system?
Yes, when I'm called a f#ckwit I happily respond with derision
My belief system?....are you serious?
Yes I am serious my friend, I only ask because it seems your faith is being challenged, not by the people here but by yourself and I hope I can help with some things I found useful at times when I found myself questioning my faith or not practicing His word. There is no reason to be embarrassed by your faith nor to let the sins of others drag you down. "Our Lord Jesus by prayer and by example wants us to make a difference in the world in which we live." If you will, my learned friend, consider this before allowing the sins of others to cloud your thought. In my experience a useful approach is to speak the word of the Lord so that people will understand the way and the truth, do not admonish as they shall be judged by Him but encourage and accept :)
Thanks for that. I respect your sincerity.
Why do you think I am embarrassed by my faith?
In part your reluctance to name your church/faith although I understand your desire for personal privacy, more so however as I mentioned above, I see a reticence to expound the teachings of our Lord. In this sense I think Rusty has done a wonderful job as an example to others.
I find that people who spend no time in churches are often put off by religious jargon. I wonder if I had no faith what type of communication would engage me? Relatable, intellectually defensible ideas I reckon. I'm with you though, Moran's perfectly mild witness provoked less incomprehension and abuse than I have. Still, if someone throws a rock I tend to return it with interest.
A theme bought up by this article appreciable to everyone who has contributed here is the miracle of life, perhaps this is a good starting point to engage? With all due respect, "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Looks like tin foil hat is spot on about you blob.
And Thanks for showing your true colours, by responding to an insult with an insult. You know an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind don't you??
Are you sure you're a Christian?
Did I upset you petal?
Ummm... Nooo. Not at all. Im not the one upset in this thread.
"Meanwhile most believers don't do an ISIS, they politely defend their faith and gently bear witness of things they found make life better."
I guess that at least has been a positive evolution on the part of Christianity: they've lost the penchant for burning people at the stake who disagreed with them. A clear case of moral evolution.
Actually, Jesus Christ is Christianity, and he was executed by a church. Are you capable of making the distinction between the real thing and a perversion of the real thing. Forget the inquisition, fault Christ if you can but you just might have to explain it to him in person at some point.
How are you with the murders and persecutions of Christians by atheists and their utopian religion free states? that didn't happen 500 years ago? Is atheism itself responsible? Be consistent. The anti religion zealots need a bit of moral evolution...
You said Believers mostly went quietly about their business. I merely pointed out that was an advance on believers who used to burn unbelievers at the stake.
A clear case of moral progress, No?
Perhaps yes, but the inquisition was not Christianity. There is no morality above what you will find in the Gospels.
Hey Blob, stop running around with the goal posts. This argument is not concerned with a mere moral code; rather, it’s an argument about A) the (non)existence of a monotheistic God, as defined and referred to in the Torah, Koran and both Testaments of the Bible and B) the power/hierarchical structures created by the adherents to the three faiths/religions that use those texts as primary source materials. Agreed? So, given this, let’s have your response to the following.
The traditional Judeo-Christian view of God is that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
However, this can't be. He can be two out of those three, but not all of them, because if he was then there shouldn't be any problems in the world.
I'll use an example of an tsunami taking place that kills millions.
A) If God is all-powerful, then he has the ability to make happen whatever he wants, so he should be able to stop the tsunami.
B) If God is all-knowing then he knows that tsunami is going to take place and so can be prepared to stop it.
C) If God is all-good then there is no reason that he wouldn't want to stop the tsunami. Thus, no tsunamis would ever happen. But we know that they do.
Therefore, if there is a God (and you and yours assert that there is, so it's just his nature we're debating) then he can't be all three of these things.
I'm not moving any posts - the discussion has moved
Indulge me...if there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity, do you think you would be able to properly understand his actions from a human perspective? It would be a strange infallible being that thought just like you and me, right.
The Bible gives mixed messages which lead to misunderstandings.
God is love in one place, and God is a harsh enforcer in another
Death is tragic to us but If we live after death why would death be a tragedy from Gods perspective?
Perhaps he would be more concerned with sin, as it leads to spiritual death - eternal separation from God
Why would God allow death or suffering in the first place?
We are here to learn, and this knowledge comes at a price. You learn by your mistakes and without evil there is no choice and no appreciation of good. A static dead end.
There was no death in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve chose knowledge at the price of death.
Whether you take the story literally or as an allegory it is people who do the bad stuff since then.
There's one understanding that the world is a living creature that reacts negatively to the wickedness of people - hence tsunamis.
If God is omnipotent he can heal all wounds (this brings Christ into the picture.) and turn what we see as tragic to achieve his objectives for his children
Yes God can be all three things.
Logic fail.
What a load of old cobblers. You made all that up as you went along, didn't you.
Actually, who am I kidding? Using logic and reason with someone determined to only use a selectively chosen collection of desert tracts as the source of all truth and knowledge is akin to trying to understand string theory by reading Peanuts.
Next you'll be claiming there's no such thing as physics and that the rules of mathematics don't have to apply if one chooses otherwise.
Ignorance might be bliss, but it's still ignorance.
I'm sorry...was that logic and reason you are employing? I must have missed it
yes FR76......moral evolution.......Godless societies....Communism , China/Russia , Nazi Germany........your choice of society??
just wondering if you have any spiritual leanings at all, or are you devoid of spirit and soul .....????
Buddhism requires no God Brutus. Would you classify those societies as Godless?
If you looked at the history of religious belief and the harm it has done to humanity in it's name you'd clearly and logically pick Buddhism as the one that has done the least harm.
Christianity starts with the concept of Original Sin. God created us broken. A queer concept to grasp if you accept an all loving, all powerful God.
Buddhism, by contrast starts with the premise that life is suffering and the causes of suffering can be understood and overcome. A very different starting point.
You mention Guilt Blobs. The result of christian indoctrination, especially catholic is usually, but not always, a lifetime companion of guilt.
The sinner, god is watching. The confessional.
Try mocking the Buddha In Thailand etc. and see how "Christian" the Buddhists are about it. If it quacks like a duck....
Certain religious ideas about guilt can be negative but I have a positive take...if we do bad stuff feeling bad helps us stop. God doesn't need to judge us, we'll do it ourselves.
You conveniently haven't answered stray gators question blob...
There you go.....state of Origen...
good point FR76.......my comment about communism and Nazism...was in relation to your comment about moral evolution....
so what was the evolution of Buddhism...would you say Japans Buddhist evolution in the 20th century was part of the evolution....??
So if you think that man is evolving his own morals.......where are we at right now?
God created humans as sinners...so that they could evolve into good Christians......by following the teachings of Jesus...
1 Peter 5:2-4
shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
Hey Blob and Brutus,
Do you think it's OK to shop at the spiritual supermarket and mix and match bits and pieces of various religions?
Can you take a bit of buddhism, bit of christianity, bit of native american belief and fashion your own religion?
What are your thoughts on that?
Gandhi did a bit of that. Not really 'fashioned his own religion', but liked to look at the good ideals/teachings from each religion.
Hold onto every good thing. In my experience God answers prayers....it's not always easy but you want that direction
Islam kind of does it to. They believe Jesus was a prophet but that Muhammed was the Final and True prophet.
No I don't think there can be a Hybrid religion made up of all other religions......
when you read most other religions its mans interpretation......the Bible is very clear....Jesus's teachings are very clear...the ten commandments are very clear......
Islam /Mohamed recognized Jesus as a great Prophet........try and google Mohamed's wives and see what ya come up with......?
'About your judas friend..."A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad
tree cannot produce good fruit. By their fruits ye shall know them"
If Jesus showed up good Christians and good atheists would be happy to see
him'
Ya reckon? Lots can't get the simplest of Jesus's rules right. Fruits eh, for sure. Even the guy this whole article is about contacted me out of the blue for some help. So we chatted, all good, then we talked about about surfing etc, and he starts laying all this negative stuff on me about Jeff, who is also a Christian (like Brutus). I let him know that I have had my own differences with Jeff at times, but bottom line, he is a long time friend, whom I respect many things about. Despite that I was still happy to help him, if he wanted. Up to him. Blab, blab blah blah, yeh blah blah can't wait, blab blab blah blah blah. I let him know whatever, like I do anyone, his choice. So, yeh, yeh, he's coming for help. Instead he skulks around and has some sly digs at me on this comedy show. I don't care about his choice either way, its actually hard helping those types, and I do it all day, so its hard work in my time off... just for free to help people. I do it for heaps. But, he couldn't even find the Christianity to just tell me to my face, and any arse in my face is mine to boot wherever. Different when he wanted something. Just typical halleluja dribble. I reckon if Jesus showed up, plenty of team halleluja wouldn't know if their arse was on fire.
Speaking of fires... stewart
Ookaay....but if there is a God there the behaviour of some guy is irrelevant. God will be interested in what we ourselves do. The existence of God doesn't hinge on the way believers act. Heck, they can't be perfect like all the unbelievers seem to think they are.
See, this is where you're getting people offside.
Why do people, that you have coined as 'non-believers' think they're perfect? I can't see in the dozens of posts written by people here mentioning anywhere that they are perfect. However, those that don't seem to share your world view you seem to hold in thinly disguised contempt.
I think you would make a great politician Blob, you talk a lot but say very little.
I am happy though that in one of your responses, you inadvertently quoted me.
You are right. I have certain people in mind - every comment that has slagged anyone that believes in god - and there are a lot of them that have. I did generalise though
one person might be a pacifist while another from the same religion is blowing up abortion clinics or beheading people. Good people are good and bad people are almost always ignorant, and if they happen to be religious well it makes a handy excuse, but those are easy enough to find.
Sounds to me like blob is one of those bad ignorant religious nuts you speak of...
Hey champ, what have I done to offend you specifically?
Did you say champ... he won't know who you're talking to. 'Chump' is the term he answers to and obeys daily.
Still angry about not winning the biggest fuckwit award for this thread?
Brutus - asking if someone is devoid of a spirit or a soul because they don't adhere to organised religion is akin to asking if someone requires food for nourishment because they don't eat at McDonalds.
blowin where did I say that anyone has to adhere to a religion...??
I am interested in knowing when discussing a subject such as God and Christianity , what the persons spriritual leanings are......so its interesting to know what do you think about your own spirituality and soul.......and see which religion you belong to?
"And see which religion you belong to"
You still don't seem to get it Brute, you don't have to belong to a religion!! Far out wake up brother
OK goofy, define religion...and do you have any spiritual leanings........don't be scared to fess up!!
'A) If God is all-powerful, then he has the ability to make happen whatever he wants, so he should be able to stop the tsunami.
B) If God is all-knowing then he knows that tsunami is going to take place and so can be prepared to stop it.
C) If God is all-good then there is no reason that he wouldn't want to stop the tsunami. Thus, no tsunamis would ever happen. But we know that they do.
Therefore, if there is a God (and you and yours assert that there is, so it's just his nature we're debating) then he can't be all three of these things.'
Well, that also depends on your conditioning and beliefs. And it ignores another assertion by some important religious figures, as well as some who had no interest other than probing along the lines of why is anything here at all, and who reached the same conclusions, about a Oneness, a Source.
Summed up here.
'There is no reality in a dream but nevertheless we believe in the reality of the things seen in a dream. After waking up, we recognize the falsity of the dream and we smile at ourselves. In the same way, the person deep in the sleep of the fetters (saṃyojananidra) clings (abhiniviśate) to the things that do not exist; but when he has found the Path, at the moment of enlightenment, he understands that there is no reality and laughs at himself. This is why it is said: like in a dream.
Moreover, by the power of sleep (nidrābala), the dreamer sees something there where there is nothing. In the same way, by the power of the sleep of ignorance (avidyānidrā), a person believes in the existence of all kinds of things that do not exist, e.g., ‘me’ and ‘mine’ (ātmātmīya), male and female, etc.
Moreover, in a dream, we enjoy ourselves although there is nothing enjoyable there; we are irritated although there is nothing irritating there; we are frightened although there is nothing to be afraid of there. In the same way, beings of the threefold world (traidhātukasattva), in the sleep of ignorance, are irritated although there is nothing irritating, enjoy themselves although there is nothing enjoyable, and frightened although there is nothing to be afraid of.
— Nagarjuna – Mahaprajñaparamitopadesa – Chapter XI'
Despite whole forests being used to make it appear otherwise, we actually know next to nothing about dreams, the mind, time.
Ok, its getting blatently clear. Brutuselessless loves to make a buck. But why just replicate the past?
The yanks lurv chuckin' big bucks at 'preachers'. Beautiful, very very clever! Unlimited profits!
The 'Reverend' Brutuselessless Cole.
Lurv it! Gaddammit!
I wondered when you would finally get personal uppity.......and show your incredible powers of discernment......
Replicate the past.....???
I assume that you are talking about the RVP with Tom C.......and the release of the 25th anniversary of the EEV.......yes I have to say it , but it is for money , as I am actually working my butt off to try and provide for my wife..had a moment a few years ago ,when it was touch and go with my health , and realized if I didn't make it ( as I was being told) ...I would leave my wife of 40+ years with less than nothing ..having lost everything we owned with BASE and also had a financial meltdown during the years of treatment......
So the thought of my wife ending up on a pension and in a home , after all the $'s we had....kicked me into gear in providing for the Future for my wife......so yeah I am going after a few $'s in the USA/Brazil/Japan etc.......but I work hard and get paid for my work....
I can see your callous attempt at trying to bait me......with insulting me by trying to paint a picture of a money grubbing preacher......which is only really a reflection on your own persona.....
but my Christianity has nothing to do with $'s......its my Journey of life....have no $'s , have work , have very strong spiritual guidance , never been happier ......and ever since I became a born again Christian...life has been incredible....you should try it.....
Good on you man. I think the happiest people in life are those that can make a living and provide for their loved ones doing something they love and are good at. I wish you continued success.
The class idiot should be born again???
The horror, the horror.
Him being born at all was one time too many. The paediatrician slapped his mother.
oh c'mon gator surely you can do better than that.....how about insulting the whole family and friends , as you seem to need to put people down to enhance your self esteem......
hey its great being the class idiot......low class , blue collar .....and don't have to answer stupid questions...hehe
Way to miss the point, Mr Cole. I was referring to someone other than you.
who?
Seriously????
Who d'ye reckon?
Stop your pitifull snivelling, grovelling, and carrying on like a gimp gatesthy... you fucked up... again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... (did I say again).
sorry gator...had to see the our Omni present lord uppity's post...I am a bit slow sometimes...
Crap, where does your hatred and assassination, your discerment of, quote 'Figjam', Jeff, and any one you choose to hammer, fit in, poor wittle, picked on bwutuseless.
hatred not, as you do not know anything about my darkside....
we are all a work in progress....I would like to think that evolving ones self to become a better person is one of my character traits.......and how I do it , I have shared with you a couple of stories on how my faith in becoming a Christian is part of that evolution.......
I like to think at the end of each year ..I am a better person and a better designer/shaper....
And so maybe just like you, they, the guys you hammer/ed are trying to do their best to look after their families too. I know Jeff loves his kids, and just wants them to have a chance at a good life. Whether or not he is mistaken, just like you he is a work in progress. And has been a Christian for quite some time.
Re your dark side, you repeatedly made your motives clear on here re 'figjam' etc.
You never did answer this one below. You say you want real discussion, but you avoid it, and lose the lurv, when obvious bungles are highlighted. Many people have studied Jesus, many with perhaps, if its possible, even more conviction, faith and experience, for a far longer time than you. And they reached the conclusions highlighted below, that you obviously were wrong about, so avoid. But, still that didn't stop you from the following, lurvable, halleluja squwarkups:
'just wondering if you have any spiritual leanings at all, or are you devoid of spirit and soul .....????'
'superior to nature .....that is not taught in the New testament......have ya read the teachings of Jesus?'
Then of course these offerings of lurv:
'Wow just spoke to Mick...does he really know you...irrelevant to the discussion....'
'Mick's never heard of ya...but irrelevant....... (but, I'll just chuck it out there anyway, out of lurv...)
Yet, suddenly(surprise, surprise):
'and yeah Mick remembers you......that right wing Hipster from the soft coast!!' aaaahhhhhhhh...
'and Mick reckons ya a right whinger'
'its hard to have a philosophical debate here as there is lack of knowledge from the ,self proclaimed atheists and secular humanists......'
So then, lets use 'knowledge', and address that.
You preached, well ok, you win, you squwarked the following, bwutuseless:
'superior to nature .....that is not taught in the New testament......have ya read the teachings of Jesus?'
And then avoided this, when that is fairly commonly known, and accepted to be totally wrong... commonly called the infamous, 'squwarkdown':
Yeh, I have Bruteuselesss, formally. I got on the Deans Honour Roll a few times for it, and won some awards too... just sayin'.
There's some different versions funnily enough floating around. And thats after the romans and greeks had some fun with it too!
Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20-25[2]
The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
...
In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!” “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
Matthew 21:18-22[3]
Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked. Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
Most scholars believe that Mark was the first gospel, and was used as a source for Matthew.[4] The differences between the incident as described in Mark, and the version given in Matthew, are explicable from the view-point of Markan priority, i.e. that Matthew revised the story found in Mark.[5]
This is the gist of it:
Traditional Christian exegesis regarding these accounts include affirmation of the Divinity of Jesus by demonstrating his authority over nature.
Then of course Jesus says he is actually God. The Catholics in the Theological Faculty tried to boot me out for that one. But they couldn't, and they were over ruled, as it isn't hard to prove using their own materials. So instead I passed with flying colours! Yayyyy Lifty!!!! Just sayin'.
http://bugman123.com/Bible/JesusIsGod.html
Then of course, that bit that really drives them crazy, and we all know what happened to him next.
Psalm 82:6
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'
Plus, we are the light, miracles, all that. Nature or not?
The whole saga, is like when you suddenly became a born again fitness/rehab expert and trainer.
TV in the rec room broken, Mick?? Just proves that you can put the ole boy into the retirement home, but you can't get the old bastard to retire. Now, take your meds and lie down. There you go.
bwutusthlessless, a new, a born again tiny, wittle member of your flock, gatesthey ver gimpth, needs pastoring, lurvin, and slapping.
just read your whole sermon on my shortcomings..you ...are right as always......and controlling the dark side .....ahhhh......you're still alive aren't you!
Gee this kind of got really out of hand !!!!
Hardest thread I've ever tried to attempt to read back , the chronological order is all over the shop .
For the love of God ( pun intended ) ,
Can we stop fucking using Tsunami examples .... Hello people , the same God flooded the known world in the times ? Of Noah .. Kind of puts a few pissy Tsunamis to shame .
Christianity can be great , church's or any place of " worship " doesn't sit well with me .
How people live their lives should say more than how much they support some " professional " preachers . If there is a god , he's within us all .
Religion should be like ya Knob , love it to death in private , but don't go pushing it on little kids / forcing it down unwilling people's throats .
If ya have to get it out in public everyone now and then , try to make sure it isn't " angry " , don't Condemn others "for theres is different " or unworthy , best shared with others that are just as lubricated . ;-) Ears are just as prone to rape .
"Yeh , though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death . I shall fear no evil .....
'Cause I've got a big stick and if need be , willing to use it " Exedence 2: 08 ......
"Love ya knob to death in private"
Amen to that
ah there we go...now we know your spiritual orientation.....hehe
Quickest way to spiritual enlightenment isn't Brute?? Hahah
Hey is Huey a god?
Is Huey a god?
Sure, why not. Makes as much sense - more, in fact - than most of the other deities.
And just as real.
To the Christians here: why is your God the 'one true' God?
And, why not the Gods of Ancient Greece, Rome, the Indigenous peoples of America, Australia, South America, Central America, etc. all the other peoples of the world?
Given humanity's infinite potential to construct and ascribe meaning in the world, how are the rest of the world's religions any less/more valid than yours?
The beauty of the scientific method, the foundations of its success, the very core of it, is that it is self-critical.
Where does Christianity, or any of the other world religions, acknowledge that their beliefs might be erroneous or incomplete? Who is testing the circumstances in which traditional religious teachings may no longer apply?
I was going to join in again, but then read Brutus saying Jews were Christians and well...what's the point?
Curl is doing a good job though.
well yapoorquadluva......you don't think Jews are Christians.....who actually believe in the same god share the same values.......Hebrew scriptures / old testament one in the same......difference is Jew do not recognize Jesus as the son of God ....but a prophet.....so todays Christians have been born again....whereas the Jews still follow the old testament....
No, I don't, if you'd told my Jewish grandfather he was Christian, he'd have spazzed out. Jews are Jews and were for thousands of years before Christ. Christians follow 'Christ'. Semantics, I know, but if we're going to decry a lack of knowledge in discussions, we might as well start with the smallest stone. Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet also.
I'm loving the discussion, except when it started disappearing into narrow boxes and it got hard to read.
As you were.
And I do love my quads, maybe not worship, but love.
'I'm loving the discussion, except when it started disappearing into narrow boxes and it got hard to read.
As you were.'
Sorry about that. It was one of my first miracles.
We might need the Hadron Collider (the one that found the 'god' particle) to expand it out.
Christians may have been born again but the new testament still supports genesis that god created the world in 7 days, and man and women placed upon the earth to be joined as one through marriage.
Could it get any worse? Fail. Yes easily, bring in bwututhelessless's sidekick, bring in ver gimpth! Gatesthy!!!
Lifty bwututhlessless and his sidekick, gatesthy ver gimp disclaimer:
This statement is to inform people that I have never met, spoken to, conversed with, heard of, or had any knowledge, involvement with, contact or hearesay of bwututhlessless and his sidekick, gatesthy ver gimp whatsoever.
Nor do I recommend that people ever meet, speak to, converse with, hear of, or have any knowledge, involvement, contact or hearsay of bwututhlessless and his sidekick, gatesthy ver gimp whatsoever.
Thankyou.
How is the argument on the first page of comments, they go back and forth so many times that in the end the field of text has been pushed so thin that it is a column one letter in width. And they still continued to post comments. Absolutely classic, keep up the good work fellas never thought this thread would be quite so humourous.
No shit, I thought my phone was fucked!
i gave up trying to read Pg 1 when it was 10 characters wide ....
and they still went on till it reached 1 wide ........ My God's so special he can make me write vertically ......!
"THE IDEA THAT LOVE IS NOT ENOUGH is a particularly painful one. In the face of its truth, humanity has for centuries tried to discover in itself evidence that love is the greatest force on earth.
Jesus is an especially sad example of this unequal struggle. The innocent heart of Jesus could never have enough of human love. He demanded it, as Nietzsche observed, with hardness, with madness, and had to invent hell as punishment for those who withheld their love from him. In the end he created a god who was "wholly love" in order to excuse the hopelessness and failure of human love.
Jesus, who wanted love to such an extent, was clearly a madman, and had no choice when confronted with the failure of love but to seek his own death. In his understanding that love was not enough, in his acceptance of the necessity of the sacrifice of his own life to enable the future of those around him, Jesus is history's first, but not last, example of a suicide bomber.
Nietzsche wrote, "I am not a man, I am dynamite". It was the image of a dreamer. Every day now somebody somewhere is dynamite. They are not an image. They are the walking dead, and so are the people who are standing round them. Reality was never made by realists, but by dreamers like Jesus and Nietzsche.
Nietzsche began to fear that what drove the world forward was all that was destructive and evil about it. In his writings he tried to reconcile himself to such a terrible world.
But one day he saw a cart horse being beaten brutally by its driver. He rushed out and put his arms around the horse's neck, and would not let go. Promptly diagnosed as mad, he was locked away in an asylum for the rest of his life.
Nietzsche had even less explanation than Jesus for love and its various manifestations: empathy, kindness, hugging a horse's neck to stop it being beaten. In the end Nietzsche's philosophy could not even explain Nietzsche, a man who sacrificed his life for a horse.
But then, ideas always miss the point. "
Richard Flanagan, THE UNKNOWN TERRORIST
Where I stand in relation to spirituality and other matters pertaining to the human soul.
- we all possess a soul that perpetuates in some form after the failure of our physical body.
- This applies to ALL living things.
- The soul is a form of eternal energy that is a component of the united energy of the universe. Trying to separate one from the other is akin to separating a drop of water from an ocean.....it's possible to do, but the reunification is as easy and as natural as the separation.
- personally, I find organised religion and the idea of prophets that purport to represent a god or be a conduit to a higher power to be hilarious in their falsity.
- The ideology of turning to a book - the printed word of men, no more or less qualified than yourself and your own instinctual morality - to be ridiculous.
- That's not to say that many people, at times of personal weakness or disorientation do not find succour in such texts. Whatever gets you over the line towards happiness.
- I practice ritualistic visualisation and positive affirmations directed at .....someone...someone that is not the omnipotent being of religious texts.
It's undefined even to myself what the recipient of my affirmations and reassurances are. I suspect it is The Entirety.
- I just made up that phrase as I typed it.
- The Entirety consists of you, me , everyone and everything. I am all and yet I'm only me. I am my own god in a sense, but only because I am a part of everything.
- I believe in karma, or Newtons 3rd law or whichever description you feel most comfortable with.
- I align myself with the Ten Commandments . Of course the Ten Commandments existed for thousands of years before Christianity tried to register the copyright to doing the right thing by your fellow man.
- Heaven and Hell ? You're standing in it .
- It's all about love and joy. Suffering and heartbreak are necessary to provide contrast.
- Time is circular as is life- What goes around comes around.
Whoops...time for another Bintang.
Good luck with whichever path you choose.
By 'bintang' I take it you mean mushroom lassi ;) good place to be doing some philosophizing are you getting a wave?
No, blowjab's gone to Bali so he can follow what I'm doing. He's sitting in the bar, glued on the internet, sifting through his training expertise, so's he can get Lifty. He should have just come to Lincoln, then he could have overcome his terror of blacks at the same time. Still he's having a good time.
Owe yar farkin garn maaayyytee?
Ooriiite mmmaayyte just dealin' wiv sum 'eavy shite aye... doan wanna farkin talk about it aaay.
Narrr, cccaaarrrrnnn, farrrkin tell uz maaayyyteee!
Naaarrr, I mite farkin lose farkin controll ov mee farkin jab, aye maaayyttee, dun a bit a faaarrrkiin tyme on ver farkiiinnn 'eavy faaarrrkiiin bag I ave... smashed a faaarkiiin cunt's 'ead in wiv me faarrrkin jab I dun! Then I faarkkin smashed the whole faaarrrkin place aaaayye!!!
Shite aye! Great faaarrrkin storee maaayytee, same faaarrrkkkiin fing appened ta mee farkin too... wot ya faaarrrkin drinkin'?
Ere, pull up a faaarkin seat aye, wannn yuse me faaarkin net... blowjabs me farkin... oiii wot're youse farkin' cunts faaarrkkin loookin' at, yars farkin...
Yeah I read in another thread. Anyways too many sensible posts here for a thread consumed mainly by arguments for christianity. I thought I might lower the tone and segue with some mushroom talk.
I read a book by Terrence McKenna called 'food of the gods' in which he puts forward the stoned ape theory of human evolution, a hypothesis that suggests human consciousness and higher cognitive funtion like language, came about with the introduction of psychoactive mushrooms into the diet of our ancestors. He puts a compelling argument together, at least as convincing as the bible.
Further to this there is a school of thought which suggests that christianity has roots in magic mushroom cults. John Allegro a dead sea scroll scholar wrote a book called 'The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross: A Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity Within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East ' in which he proposed that Christianity had roots in fertility cults, and cult practices like eating visionary plants continued into the early christain era.
Needless to say it destroyed his career. Sounds a lot more fun that talking in tongues though.
So you think the gaping holes in evolutionary theory can be plugged by guessing that our brains got big cause humans took drugs, and you say this thought bubble is at least as convincing as the bible. You go on to cite suggestions that Christianity itself might have been created by drugs.
So...drugs make humans then drugs make humans make the bible...
And you believe this brilliant sleuthing to be at least as good as what the bible teaches
I reckon you have only demonstrated what damage drugs can do to the brain...
Evolution is supposed to endow organisms with more advanced capabilities via natural selection over long...LONG....periods of time. The problem with that is that humans have gotten from ape men to astronauts far too quickly....in an evolutionary instant. You don't need the excess intellectual capacity of a Beethoven or a concert pianist to bag a mammoth . Unfortunately the mutational maths don't add up so the guessers keep guessing. Still..."it was the drugs what made me smart" is the perfect evolutionary theory for scientific surfies
blob.... your confusing the topics of evolution and intellectual re-volution. your talking about apes becoming man in a physical sense and comparing this directly to how we went from candle-light to building rockets and flying to the moon, all in one sentence. in one instant you're taking about physical evolution and the next how we decided to use our brains for something more. who says that there is a one-to-one linear time-relationship between the two? Here's some food for thought. something happened about 250 years ago for humans - it was the industrial revolution. this has allowed man over time to nearly completely separate himself from the everyday things like feeding himself that would consume his day. I don't need to grow my food anymore, I go to shops and buy a weeks worth of food in 30 minutes. I also don't need to re-build my shelter every other year when a storm knocks it over as its built like brick-shithouse....I also get to live much longer than 250 years ago due to modern medicine. I now get to spend all day, everyday thinking - my brain is now freed up to learn how to become an astronaut, I now have time to develop advanced communications through physics and maths and document them on computers, time to consider in more depth how the world works. And most importantly of all, my fellow man has the same luxuries as me...high progress through sheer numbers of people.
Nope . There s no comparison between the evolving brain and what is done with it. Evolution of the brain is theorised to be so slow that the intellect has eons to get its act together and keep up, so the two things are inseparable. You are trying to theorise your way out of a flawed theory.
Blob, would you be kind enough to endow us with your explanation of human evolution. I take it that youre not a creationist and you seem to have a pretty well defined theory, I'd love to hear I so that I can better understand your position. Can you place the theory of evolution or a theory of human evolution in the context of the writings of the bible?
I can only guess that you haven't read the books? That's OK but youre way off the mark with your comments as you seem to have no understanding of what has been proposed in either book. Take the time to read them, interesting if nothing else. Gaps in evolutionary theory are being plugged with solid evidence all the time, the predictions made by the theory have continually turned out to be right. Its been a thorn in the side of Christianity but as per usual its just a matter of changing the goal posts. Although some Christians still insist on the literal bible truths of genesis....
Great stuff, a true testament to the damage that religion can do to the brain.
Ahh....ye...but...I accept evolution is real. You acknowledge the problem - the gaps. Evolution is real but the theory of evolution is stretched so wide it keeps tearing
Evolution is real, but the theory of evolution is not, is this what you are trying to say? Yes there are gaps, we both know this but you are incorrect to say that the theory of evolution is stretched so wide it keeps tearing, totally incorrect, the gaps have become less and less with time and discovery of further evidence, evidence which has in many cases been predicted by the theory further strengthening the validity of the theory. I'm sure you are aware of this so why would you suggest otherwise?
cool journey b i... reminded me somewhat of the metaphysical searching and eventual epiphany of the noted philosopher and cleric, St. Hubbins (from his spoken-word/transcribed opus):
Before I met Jeneen [his own name for The Entirety], my life was cosmically a shambles. It was, uh, I was using bits and pieces of whatever Eastern philosophies... happened to drift through my transom. And Jeneen sort of sorted it out for me. Gave me a path, you know, to follow.
Only saying cause Brutus asked.
Blob, you do realise that with the advent of the printing press, following on from other forms of symbolic representation like language that the dissemination of knowledge became exponentially increased. ie it became easier for humans to get from wooly mammoth to moon landing.
You fundamentally misunderstand the process of evolution.
Riiight
Yeah I know, I know...theories within theories. It must require a lot of faith.
.....http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/05/28/who...
it seems that creationists can even slap themselves in the face with evolutionary theory...and STILL continue to believe the world is only 6000 years old. not saying anyone here actually takes the bible literally ... anyone?
Yep, put me down as a literalist, Hapster. I'm particularly keen on Leviticus - I'm frankly sick and tired of the way my next door neighbour looks at my donkey.
@blob "Evolution is supposed to endow organisms with more advanced capabilities via natural selection over long...LONG....periods of time. "
Total misunderstanding of the theory of evolution and natural selection, the theory proposes nothing of the sort, way off, you need to come at this with a different understanding of the theory of evolution if you are going to continue to debate this path.
So the previous claims of evolutionary theory have problems that need to be resolved by developing subsidiary theories.....moving the goal posts?. Give me the short version of how the theory of evolution explains the generation of life and the non existence of God. In your own words please
Come on blob if you want me to answer your questions be reasonable enough to answer mine appropriately rather than with a question. By subsidiary theories I guess you are referring again to intellectual revolution, this idea is not a theory, it is an observed trend/s similar to the industrial revolution. In answer to your question, the theory of evolution does not claim to explain the generation of life, nor does it seek to explain the non existence of god. By asking this question you have again illustrated your missunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Yes as we discussed the theory has gaps, until they are filled there will be hypothesis put forward to explain the content of the gaps, that's how science works. I have no qualms with you proposing the existence of a god, you sought to place the existence of a christian god within the context of the theory of evolution and I've asked you to give your understanding of this. Its difficult enough trying to discuss evolution with you as your understanding is incorrect but it is impossible to go further without understanding your position, its not creationism, is it intelligent design? If so can you put it in context of evolution so that I know where you are coming from?
What you call intellectual revolution is a theory that seeks to explain how humans go from flints to flying machines in no time at all. That it happened may be observable, why it happened is theory...and there are more than one. You deny the obvious while being condescending.....clever you.
If evolution does not explain the non existence of God why is that the weapon of choice for so many atheists seeking to disprove God?
Natural selection seeks to explain how we get from the first (somehow) self replicating molecules to life as we know it. Right from the beginning. Generation or regeneration.....your call.
Religion is "truth" with a thousand versions. Science is "truth" that constantly changes.
I think creationism, I.T. and science all have part of the story but I don't know how much.
What I do know is God reveals himself if you are willing to look hard enough.
Not exactly, my post on mushrooms was a theory for a period of human intellectual evolution a quantum leap in terms of brain function, the beginnings of consciousness and language. Most probably a result of a changing in brain size and/or structure.
A couple of subsequent posts by others made reference to intellectual revolution in an effort to draw similarities but the two are different things the way I see it. In one instance we are talking about a distinct change an evolution quite probably related to a physical or structural change in human brains in the other we are talking about rapid growth in understanding or building of knowledge not related to a change in size or structure of the brain.
There are several theories for the evolution of intelligence, my mushroom example being a pretty way put one, there are plenty that are more widely accepted.
Intellectual revolutions are not only observed but welI understood in most cases for those observed, not what you would call theory for the most part.
Im not sure that atheists use evolution to disprove god, perhaps I'm wrong, more so to disprove aspects of the bible, the great flood, genesis etc.
No the theory of natural selection is not my call, it relates to regeneration not genesis or generation, that's big bang stuff or creator stuff or some other theory about coming into being, this is not what evolutionary theory of natural selection is about.
I like that you describe religion as 'truth' with a thousand versions, I'll add to that, it is also constantly changing.
Science, yep, constantly changing as theories are disproved, that is the scientific method at work, that's what it seeks to do. The proven truths in science, the ultimate truths perhaps, remain and there is a huge body of them.
I appreciate you presenting your beliefs and respect that, I wouldn't say that I fully agree but that diversity in opinion, belief, understanding is what makes the world a rich and interesting place.
Just a couple of semantic and definition points I'd take issue with....but you are way too reasonable to argue with. Smile.
I don't go for overt displays of religiosity but I respect everyone's right to believe what they choose. Good on that fella for making what seems to be a positive change in his life. But gees I find the religion vs science debate a bit tedious. Generally they seek to address different things. Science essentially ties itself to the physical, and physically observable world. Clearly religion does not. So I can't see the point in having them fight it out. That said, I do get bored of religious figures trying to offer a "scientific" justification for their faith. That, I'm afraid is rubbish.
Truly, I think you're free to believe what you want to believe. That's no problem. But to claim an idea like intelligent design is somehow scientific, is fanciful. It doesn't satisfy any of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis, let alone a body of theory.
If you choose to believe that the earth is 5000 years old, or whatever, and that God made the earth just as we see it now, that's fine. It's entirely your perogative. I respect you and your right to the belief and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. But try to convince me that it's a testable hypothesis and that it's an equal alternative to our current understanding of how we as a species, and all the others, came to be, then you've lost me. You're denying too many known and observed facts to suit your set of beliefs. You're welcome to those beliefs, but that's what they are. They aren't scientific and it's silly to try and pretend they are.
As for faith in a body of theory like evolution and natural selection, I don't have any faith in it. As soon as it's shown to be false, or there is an explanation that better fits the known facts, then I'll abandon it. But that alternative needs to actually be scientific and will have to be thoroughly tested and will be put through the ringer before anyone accepts it. Of course that's how it should be.
That's all I think. Just a pretentious comment to stake out the claims of science in the face of attempts to use its credibility to justify perfectly acceptable but unfalsifiable beliefs.
Yeah, right, pull the other one. Next you'll wanting us to believe that dinosaurs were really alive once upon a time. When I know for certain that all those bones are just God's way of testing our faith in His Word.
He hid them there when He made Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. Or 600. I forget which.
Mostly agreed. Did you say you believe in unproven theories until they are proven false? But you don't have faith in theories.....but you believe....until you don't believe . Okee dokee
So we can have complete faith in our current science until it is superseded by new science.
Do science and religion really address different things? Truth is truth....physical, spiritual or whatever.
Ron Hellings is a professor of theoretical physics who among other things was a research scientist at NASA for 25 years
"I am a skeptic. I know many people who are skeptics, but most of them are amateurs. I am a professional. It’s what I do for a living. I am a scientist, and a scientist needs to be skeptical. I would rather risk disbelieving something that is true than believing something that is false. I don’t recommend this attitude, but I can’t help it. I just refuse to believe junk.
I have heard people say that science and religion are two paths to truth. I do not believe that. There is only one path to truth, and to me it seems closer to science than it is to what passes for religion in most people. But it is not the scientific method. The only people I know who care about the scientific method are philosophers. Scientists don’t worry about it. What scientists do is what Karl Popper said in his cute definition of science: “Science is doing your damnedest with your mind – no holds barred.” The problem with science is not the process, but the artificial limits that most scientists put on the evidence they will accept. Evidence, they say, must be objective. This is a reasonable limitation, in a way, because the goal of science is not just to find truth, but also to communicate it. And you can only communicate things that others will understand through your common experience. But many scientists use this limitation on what they can communicate to others as the criterion for what they will accept for themselves. They will not seek a revelation because it would be a subjective evidence. So what? What a brain-numbing, truth-avoiding, closed-minded attitude this is! This is not doing your damnedest with your mind, no holds barred; it is setting up artificial rules that exclude a wealth of evidence and knowledge. This is bad science."
I know I'm repeating myself but while I am open to scientific or any other truth I wonder why atheists deny the possibility of personal revelation as a legitimate source of subjective truth .....just because they somehow know it is impossible.
Yes you are repeating a myopic view, a single refference which suits your ideology. Scientists don't care about the scientific method???? Perhaps you can offer more than a single reference for this opinion?
As for your final statement, why don't you ask an atheist?
You've heard of Karl Popper right ?
Do you think outside your own ideology?
"Why don't you ask an atheist?" ...read the comments
I've not heard of Karl popper no, I can look into it if you think it worth it.
Yes I think outside my idealogy, that IS my ideology, in essence to challenge the way I think and the way I see the world.
Fair call if you can't see the point in continuing to engage with atheists but there is no point asking me that one, I can accept their point of view as readily as I can accept yours, I understand your position on subjective truth.
Popper is arguably the greatest philosopher of science of the twentieth century, so he's worth quoting.
If your ideology is to think outside your ideology how do you think outside that contradiction?....just joking.
Ive not studdied phillosophy much beyond the classics, ill enjoy what popper has to reveal, cheers
It just seems to be the reality of my life. During my younger years I attended Sunday school and church, my parents were both strongly religious christians, at the same time I grew up in communities with totally different sense of spirituality. At some point as I developed as a personality there were things I couldn't reconcile with Christianity and this has been a repeated experience in my life, I had the same experience of science when I was at university, learning things considered/taught as absolute truths to discover later that not to be the case in some instances. Just two examples but there are more, as I've experienced relams of spirituality and other aspects of life the one constant seems to have been that I don't know many things that I take for granted to be absolutes and if i challenge my thinking i continue to be open to learn and to experience. To me that is the most important approach to valuing life.
Thanks for sharing your personal story, I really appreciate that. I got into this discussion because I get riled by atheists slagging someone's faith. I also know God lives so I hope I might give someone a push in that direction. I'm not really concerned by the variety of strongly held belief out there, most of it is flawed in my opinion. While truth and error are combined in most religious and secular doctrine, the Bible asserts the absolute truth of the straight and narrow way. I simply found that if you take the Bible at its word and put God to the test....He answers. Personal spiritual revelation, the discernment of the conscience, intellectual investigation, experiential feedback over time and actual miracles all combine to leave me unable to deny what I know. My church is the one....all good news really.
Blob don't get all riled up when Aetheists attack Christianity...its is usually thru lack of knowledge and the aetheist not realizing that in fact Atheism is a religion.......in that they have faith with all the facts presented to them that there is No God.....
we on the other hand with all the facts presented ..have faith that there is a God...even the facts support there was a Man called Jesus.......we have faith that he was the son of God....slagging off Christianity ..is just ignorant!
Yes I know...still Life has taught me that being nice to bullies encourages bullying. The new atheist push is part of a fight for hearts and minds so I have a go. If I appear riled that is just my combative nature - I'm enjoying myself!
I had a read up on Karl Popper last night blob, iI gotta say thanks for the heads up. In relation to Brutus' point a quote he makes (a little out of context) "Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected", I agree with, agnosticism seems a more reasonable position although I don't know that the current bread of atheist would necessarily have carefully considered their position.
However atheism is not a religion nor is agnosticism, they are ideologies or belief systems but don't support the inherent attributes of a religion. Stastism, now there's a religion. I can respect what atheism seeks to achieve at the level of Dawkins etc, there is some interesting thought that goes into it and to challenge the flaws in organized religion IMO is a worthy cause. To take a position of arrogance or to be dismissive or intolerant of individuals who choose a different belief is not.
I have to read more as it as just a summary of his major works of interest and it certainly took a few reasds to get a grip on the deaper stuff like falsifiability. His philosophy resonates and is difficult to criticize even reading the critiques. I'v done a lot of work on mind/body dualitity so perhaps here but his philosophy on science and political persuasion and tolerance pretty cool stuff.
I think Brutus is right when he says atheism is a religion, at least religion like, as it exhibits blind faith in objectively unprovable tenets (there is no god), doctrinaire sermonising ....sometimes a tribal mission and fundamentalist intolerance....or it may be reasonable. Agnosticism is perfectly sensible but it is getting lost alongside all the atheist chest beating. I saw Dawkins closely challenged on his habit of focussing on the faults of religion. Dawkins conceded that it is ideology generally that is the problem (if there is no God then Religion is just another man made ideology) which, ironically, undercut much of what he says.
Good to see Karl Popper introduced in this thread (via a Mormon NASA scientist's own cherry-picked quotation) and mention of the so-called 'scientific method'.
And now I will introduce Thomas Kuhn.
In fact, I will chuck into the mix a book:
Steve Fuller's Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science (Revolutions in Science).
Worth a read.
A review:
http://www.cjsonline.ca/pdf/kuhnpopper.pdf
Remember students, citing Wikipedia alone will get you a failing grade.
I read the link S@B but I don't get the point/s you are trying to get across, perhaps you can elaborate?
Yes I agree the Popper quote used by blob is 'cherry picked' and from my limmitted reading it doesn't represent his overall views on the topic of god/religion.
'So called' scientific method? Are you questioning the naming of the scientific method?
What is the relevance to the discussion you see in Thomas Kuhn's work?
"Remember students, citing Wikipedia alone will get you a failing grade."
*cites a single reference ;)*
I've been following this thread and was interested to see Popper pop up in Blob's comment as quoted by the Mormon NASA scientist Hellings.
I first became aware of Popper via his stoush with Adorno. Then I saw and read this book a few years ago. I wasn't aware of Kuhn at the time. I wanted to learn more about science and it's epistemology. Perhaps, I could have (should have?) included another review for balance. Though peer-reviewed/scholarly journal entries are preferred (hmmm, for reviews but?), I guess I failed in including only the one. Wikipedia's entry was a doozy.
Then again, I chose that one because I concurred in the main. As you do.
The way scholars and their works are used interests me. I find it interesting how they can be melded to fit arguments that sometimes are at total odds with the initial philosophers and their philosophies. And not in a carefully considered way. But hey, INTERNET FORUM...big deal. Am I right? Citations not necessary ( I think Popper would think intelligent design is unscientific..it fails his falsifiability criterion?)
I see Popper and his ideas get trotted out especially in regards to the great science debate of our age. Funny, how it allies to the God/Science discussion?
Check this (& check the site!?):
http://www.principia-scientific.org/who-got-the-scientific-method-right-...
It purports to show Popper's scientific method, and is firmly in the Popper camp.
The first commenter has other ideas about it's veracity...and queries the scientific method ascribed to Popper.
This first commenter (Dr. J. Petch) then offers this in another article:
http://www.principia-scientific.org/kuhn-versus-popper-towards-critical-...
What does it all mean? What does this show? Science matters! Science matters? Matter matters!?
All grist for the mill.
Kierkegaard, now there's a philosopher...father of existentialism and a Christian! God is...what, again?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
Cheers, I couldn't agree more with your take on these issues. I'll spend some time reading through these links :)
by the way, Petch is a Heartland Institute fellow traveller! Jeezus! To paraphrase: What would Popper do?
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (New Testament, 2 Timothy, Chapter 3)
This book is quite accurate
Ever learning ......
How do you read this, Blob? A litany of literal symptoms? Metaphorically? Is it disrespectful to ask how you read/view the bible and on which terms? Old and/or New Testament?
First of all....I actually read it.
Lots of people opinionate on the bible never having read it.
I take the bible literally up to a point. The bible is not perfectly transcribed or translated, sometime it uses symbolism.
It is often badly interpreted to serve a cultural or power imperative, but I don't see it as out of date or overly complex.
At its core it is a very simple book that deals with the big questions. Technology may change, but people don't, and the bible tells us who we are, why we are here, and where we are going.
How? By direct revelation from god via prophets. Call it a fairy tale or a miracle but that claim can be tested by anyone willing to attempt the experiment on the bibles own terms
That's what I did.
I'm not sure I understand. You tested the bible's what, veracity of its prophetical powers? Or rather the truth you discerned from say, the Timothy excerpt above? It spoke to you as truth, even as miraculous truth?
I don't know if the Old & New Testaments are that simple. How many differing interpretations have they generated? How much conflict due to these differing interpretations? It strives towards simple truths, even THE truth, but humanity keeps getting in the way in its interpretation, and has done from the get-go? Human, all too human. There's a power in that, I daresay. It's why it still resonates, however way you wish to read and interpret the books.
Actually, from that Timothy excerpt, where does the "turning away" from those humans who exhibit all those listed sins advice fit in today? Can it work today without one shutting oneself away? Have we reached the end-times yet? Or is there another quote somewhere about the power and virtue of proselytising?
I assume you've subscribed to one and not the other, just by the fact of you being on here amongst the sinners and putting forward your views?
Now you are trying to interpret the Bible
I said it was complex and open to interpretation but that it was simple at its core. The bible itself says it is not to be interpreted privately.
The bible was written under the inspiration of God's spirit and is understood by the same spirit. You know it when you experience it.
Without real intent, a pure desire, humility, and trust in the ability of your conscience to discern good from evil..... don't even bother trying.
As you say, human interpretation of the bible leads to division. Division that, ironically, some non believers then claim disproves the Bible. It just proves the Devil is good at his job.
The imperfections of the Bible and the confusion of religion serve a purpose....we get to choose what we buy and we become what we desire...." as a man thinketh so he is"
# We are all imperfect. The bible says "don't cast you pearls before swine, lest they turn and rend you"..... It also says " judge not, lest ye be judged". We are to reject sin, not people.
# There are not many bible prophecies about the end of the world left to be fulfilled.
" know I'm repeating myself but while I am open to scientific or any other truth I wonder why atheists deny the possibility of personal revelation as a legitimate source of subjective truth .....just because they somehow know it is impossible."
They don't . They call it literature or art or madness. One mans personal revelation is no doubt his subjective truth. Granted. There's nothing controversial in that statement.
Anders Brevik had a personal revelation. Many people have personal revelations. Thats why we have so many different religions in the world.
The bigger question is what kind of global ethical framework is going to replace the Judeo-christian ethical framwork, which no doubt works fine at the personal, familial/tribal level but is proving hopelessly inadequate at coming to terms with the global problems confronting humanity.
The Bible taught the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and the lowering of the scale of the worldly against the heavenly. The world doesn't matter compared to the heavenly. A very dangerous wrong turn for humanity which is behind the impending eco-crisis.
Again, humanity in one form or another has been on the planet for a couple of million years. Christian belief for only 2000....for the very vast majority of our time on the planet we have survived without religious belief. At least the theistic desert religious version of it.
We will probably evolve new versions of religious belief as the old ones die out. In fact, in modern increasingly secular Australia you could easily argue that process is well under way.
Sorry but ...nope
Saying that subjective truth is a "to each his own" truth is a contradiction. What is true for one cannot contradict what is true for another.
To repeat...
[Do you love your family?
If you do then this would be called a subjective truth
You know it is true.
You cannot prove to me that you love your family, although you may provide evidence....
An objective truth can be proven to others]
Anders Brevik's revelation didn't come from God....just a guess
There is a difference between truth and interpretations, impressions and opinions.
# Perhaps the framework we need is the example of Christ.
# the Bible teaches us to respect the planet as a stewardship
Hang on, perhaps you are confused between subjective and objective truth? Of course what is true for one can contradict what is true for another but ONLY if you are talking subjective truth.
He's very confused.
Thats the very essence of subjective truth, that is depends on the subject.
"An objective truth can be proven to others]"...and religion cannot be proven to others. It relies on the subjectivity of the recipient. ie faith.
Which is why Muslims claim their religion is the absolute revelation of God and Christians do and zoroastrians and B'ahai and so on and so on and so on.
If there was any objective truth about it the matter would have been solved very quickly and millenia of bloodshed in the middle east and elsewhere would have been spared.
Is it me that is confused?
Belief is not fact
Truth is fact
You define (subjective) truth as belief (faith)
It isn't.
Anyone might have faith in anything but that is not subjective or objective truth...unless it is actually true.
Faith is a beginning that collects subjective and objective evidence on its course. Some people have faith in bad things, some in good.
Knowing you love your family is not faith. That is a fact you can't prove to others, nevertheless you know it is true.
I may know I walked home but you might have seen me get into a cab. If i got out of the cab out of your view and then walked home I KNOW I walked. Your opinion that I took the cab is based on the best evidence you currently have. If you refuse to ask the cab driver for the truth then you are trusting your own uninformed opinion.
I know God lives through real personal experiences. The atheist has faith in his best evidence to say I can't know what I know.
Where the doctrine of Muslims and Zoroastrianism contradict each other at least one of them is wrong.
You seem to be hung up on the confusion of faiths out there, as if a God of truth would never let that happen. If it serves His purpose then why not?
Yes it is you that is confused, but let me drag the goalposts back to the point in contention first.
You assert that subjective truth cannot contradict. This is the point i choose to dispute.
OK let me use your example of loving your family. You mentioned a story earlier in this thread about a family who watched their daughter die crying in ecstatic happiness for her. In a similar instance, recently there was a mother from a jehovah's witness family who died during childbirth (along with the baby) after refusing treatment which would in all likelyhood have saved her and/or the child and defiantly saved her from the suffering. Her family choose this course of action based on their truths (subjective truths). The ordeal was described as harrowing for the medical staff involved. Did the family love the mother and child? Would the staff that found the experience harrowing love their family in the same way? No of course not each party has a different belief system which influences their truths.
Now before you try to go down the beliefs/facts/truths road again Let me give you another example, the sun sets over the ocean is a true statement for someone who lives in W.A, the sun rises over the ocean is a true statement for someone who lives on the east coast. Both statements are true, they are facts, they contradict each other, they are provable. Here's the clincher, they are only true as SUBJECTIVE truths, that is they are dependent on the position (in this case) of the subject.
My friend came to me after surfing moon island and told me what fun it was, cranking double overhead barrels, he had a ball, the wave was easy to manage and fun, true fact. Another mate surfed it on the same day, it was terrifying, the scariest thing he had experienced, true fact. Both these truths are contradictory, both are provable but they are truths none the less they are SUBJECTIVE truths (in this case base on the experience of the subject)
To quote yourself blob, "I know God lives through real personal experiences. The atheist has faith in his best evidence to say I can't know what I know." Your truth some would describe as faith but to you it is a truth, in this instance you describe an aatheist point of view as faith, faith in evidence they hold true, as you hold your evidence true, so in your very own example you illustrate that truths can be contradictory but as I mentioned ONLY if they are subjective truths.
# Fact: the sun sets over the ocean or rises over the ocean depending on which Coast you are observing it from.
# Fact: they can all love their families while exhibiting imperfect judgement - we all do to some extent.
# I don't remember talking about a family watching their daughter die...someone else maybe.
# Fact: ones mans meat is another mans poison. The surfers experiences do not contradict. They are different people. One surfs like me and one surfs like you. Smile.
# yes I am confused....after reading your last paragraph.
Can an atheist prove there is no God? Nope.
Have I enough subjective evidence to say I know there is a god?
Yep. I know I do, but I cannot prove it to you.
If you and I had a vision of God together we would both know it.
If you were alone you would know and I would not.
You would not be able to prove it to me.
Could i prove it never happened to you? Nope.
Never having a vision myself would not disprove your vision
Why complicate simple things?
Tell me how Tim
FR76..its already happening through secular Governments......we are now seeing more and more movement towards a society where there are No Gods and the intellect of man is now ruling.....that's why there is such a me generation now......and why worry about the future beyond your own if they don't have kids..or even if they do??
being born again Christian , means you have accepted Jesus as the Son of God...and his teachings and moral code on how to live life.....pretty simple.....this is not ones persons revelation.....
245 million for the school chaplains program? What kind of debt and deficit crisis have we got here? Economic or spiritual? (I'd say with this mob it's an ideological one, myself)
Where in the Christian moral code is a sense of stewardship and being part of the natural balance of the ecosystem stated?
Of course the christian moral code works great for individuals and families but it isn't coming to grips with the global problems we now encounter.
No surprises, it was written 2000 years ago. They had no idea of what we know now.
The bible : After the Fall of Adam and Eve nature is in opposition to man. He has to struggle and subdue nature to survive. By obeying the creators law and through the atonement of Christ what is broken will be realigned. Paradise again
The house that keeps you comfortable came at the price of subduing nature. Everything is eating everything else in your lovely ecosystem. Instinct rules by the tooth and claw. How comforting.
That humans amazingly get to stand above the animal kingdom and pontificate on nature is...... very biblical
The bible accurately describes the facts of our existence and the way to happiness - obedience to cosmic moral law
Science has not even approached the "why" ....yet
No instincts do not rule by tooth and claw, everything is not eating everything else, have you heard of symbiosis?
You may think that humans stand above the animal kingdom but I do not, subjective truths perhaps? But this is the ego which misunderstands the nature of nature.
If man does not stand above nature you cannot accuse him of abusing nature or expect him to rescue nature....cause he is just part of nature.
Does nature abuse itself?
A lady got dragged from her car and killed by a lion yesterday....perhaps she was paying no attention cause she was reading a book on symbiosis
That's a good question free ride and I think the most pertinent one in reagards to topical ethics and spirituality. As a somewhat studdied sociologists I'll just say that the judeo-christian ethical framework did not exist in societies that hadn't developed to larger more complex societies, that is, beyond the familial/tribal context. They have been useful in larger more complex societies as a tool of social control. Monotheistic religions only appear in these more evolved, larger and complex societies. Having said that I totally agree that we have now evolved as a society beyond that paradigm and a global society is developing, does it need a single ethical framework? Quite possibly, certainly one of tolerance would be a good start. Does this mean there is no room for a variety of religious beliefs or spirituality? No I don't think so.
Utopia calling? We know how that turns out.
Utopia calling? Perhaps it is calling the religious or the ideologues, for me I don't claim to be able to predict the future and to this end no we don't know how it will turn out. If someone tried to explain the world as it is today to someone living say 2000 years ago, it simply would be beyond their comprehension, with the rate of change at present it is quite possible in the not to distant future for similarly incomprehensible changes to have taken place, things that you and I couldn't even begin to understand.
More than 2000yrs ago the bible "predicted" the return of the Jews to the land god gave them. And....there.....they are.
Etc etc etc
IF there is a God then he would comprehend stuff. Agreed?
I believe, you don't.
That's just fine by me
"why worry about the future beyond your own if they don't have kids..or even if they do??"
Because people give a shit about people. You don't need religion to tell you what's right, you can figure out that for yourself pretty easily by asking yourself how you'd like to be treated and acting like that.
Religion isn't an infallible source of reason to look after the earth and each other. Plenty of good stuff has been done in the name of religion. But we don't have to look far to see plenty of bad stuff being done in the name of religion (today and in the past). Equally plenty of good stuff has been done by non-religious people and plenty of bad stuff too. People can be bastards and people can be wonderful, independent of any theological framework. Religion doesn't stop it but it can be, and is, used as a false justification by those with mal intent.
I'm not an athiest but I admire them for many reasons. One is that any athiest who is doing good in a charitable sense, is just doing so because it's the right thing to do. They aren't doing it because they want to get into heaven, or because of instructions in their holy book. They're doing it because it's the right thing to do for their fellow humans. That admirable. It might make them feel good, sure but they're deciding to act charitably for no metaphysical reward and to me that's more admirable than someone who's doing good because of a motivation to get into a privileged afterlife. Not sure I've explained that clearly but I'm sure you can see what I mean - if you can't try to resist some straw man interpretation of what I've said.
Looking at the same picture of our society as anyone else here, I dispute that the current generation is any more of a "me" generation than any before them. I think it's quite the opposite.
And as for scientists and the scientific method, Popper is still relevant but in large part we've moved on past his highly restrictive formula (e.g. falsification is still vital, but evaluating the evidence in favour of one model over another is probably more useful today). Kuhn obviously made a pretty big impact, but I think the expansion of scientific inquiry into areas with more fuzzy "laws" (e.g. ecology) and its application in policy making (can we predict the effect of a certain human activity on an ecosystem or the climate system), has meant we need to make predictions in the face of great uncertainty. This requires us to compare the probability of one or more models of a system, given our observed data (or vice-versa), rather than falsifying a single hypothesis.
I wholeheartedly concur with this statement and really try and live my life by that premise. I've always said that if I'm totally wrong and if the time comes to meet my maker, I hope he/she/it will ask me if I've lived my life as a good person. I hope I can answer with no hesitation- Yes.
Failing that, I hope I make a nice hearty meal for the worms and the flowers:)
Right on man. No matter what, we need to keep a good mix of fat and protein on our bones so the worms are well fed, or we burn easily!
Does falsifiability preclude the ability to test and compare more than one model or hypothethesis?
"whatever gets you through the night, is alright, is alright"
No I don't think so, but it is a different focus. Popper said a scientific hypothesis had to be falsifiable to be considered scientific, and in many ways that's still the gold standard. But it's not a useful concept when you're dealing with systems level questions where you're trying to quantify the effects of many processes simultaneously. That's where probabilistic assessments of models becomes more useful. You end up concluding that this model of how the system works is more probable than the other model (Bayesians and Frequentists have different perspectives here, but broadly similar).
In a sense, the statistical analysis of a model amounts to a hypothesis test of every parameter in the model, which is an attempt to falsify the effect of each parameter. But there are so many sources of variation that it's more useful (in process level understanding and policy making) to consider the entire model rather than list each of the parameters. If you're interested in this stuff, the introduction to a book called The Ecological Detective, is a good explanation of how we've gone from Popper's ideas alone to this kind of stuff.
So yeah, Popper's ideas are still relevant, but more so in certain fields and less so in others.
Thanks benski, that makes sense to me. More reading, I've got my work cut out coming up to speed with you guys.
Now a tougher question and in a sense related!to S@B's question below re climate change. Considering the inherent shortcomings of probability/statistical analysis and hence the types of modeling used for analysing complex systems is there or what is the contemporary thought on alternatives to this type of 'fuzzy' science?
You should go back to the original quote
You ever seen a dog barking up the wrong tree?
Dogs are funny...
I don't want to draw away from the God question, but I've noticed that poor old Popper pops and props up both sides of the climate change debate...primarily the 'sceptic' side? Well, in how to 'do the science', anyway. Is this a fair reading? Are some of these Popperian 'sceptics' being used by the likes of the Heartland Institute to bolster their own economic agenda?
Blob do you believe in these perilous last days humanity will be saved by the second coming of Christ?
Blob, you posit that the Bible is actually "a very simple book that deals with the big questions", so how about you answer the simple question above?
Only the good guys
I wouldn't call it fuzzy science, I used that term in a descriptive sense. It's very much concrete science but it's trying to develop an understanding, and quantify the effect of multiple processes in virtual real time.
An example that's relatively easy to understand, and less controversial than climate science, is fisheries management. Still a controversial area, particularly as there are plenty of commercial fishermen who read these pages, but the modelling is pretty well developed and plenty of fisheries are managed this way.
You can imagine that there are many things that determine how many fish are caught in a given year from a given fishery, such as:
a) fishing effort, which depends on
- how many fishing boats there are
- what kind of fishing gear they have and the experience and knowledge of the skippers
- how long they fish for
- probably others that escape me right now, like the market value of the fish
b) how many fish are there to be caught (i.e. fish population size), which depends on
- how many survived vs how many died from last year
- how many were born this year
- how many left the area (migration)
- these things might depend on
- how good the habitat is (any oil spills, enough river discharge to foster good prey abundance),
- the age structure of the population (there might be lots of them but if they're too young or old to spawn numbers will be lower than otherwise)
- and other things that I've probably forgotten for now.
But if you're going to use science to manage a fishery, you need to make an assessment of how many fish should be caught if you want to have a healthy population to fish from next year. That is going to depend on a model that integrates all of those things and makes a prediction of probable population size after a given harvest.
It's pretty difficult to make a case that you can falsify a hypothesis about all of those things. That's what I meant about Popper's idea of falsification not being all that useful for many applications these days. You can certainly analyse the data and conclude that in this fishery one process is probably more or less important, but we know that all of those things (and probably others) will have, at least some influence on the outcome. So fisheries modellers develop a model (or several models) that quantify some or all of those processes and assess which one is most probably the closest to the underlying system, and then use that to make a prediction and recommendation about harvest limits.
A controversial statement might be that on the whole, it can work pretty well. Of course there are examples of fisheries being poorly managed (which may be due to bad science, bad political management or both), and professional fishers often disagree angrily with the scientists since their livelihoods depend on how much they can harvest. And it's true, it's hard to build reliable models for fisheries as many of those data are difficult to collect, making the models difficult to develop.
But there are plenty of fisheries that are managed using models in this way and are quite sustainable. From what I know, the Alaskan salmon fisheries are probably the gold standard for sustainability in fishing, based on population modelling of the sort I described.
So...long post sorry...with climate change it's a similar idea. Probably the key thing to understand about climate models is to remember what they're modelling, the climate (a 30 year average of the weather). That means the average temperature of a single year doesn't give us strong hints to weather the models are well supported or not.
To put it in Popper's terms and try to falsify the hypothesis here, that CO2 is a key driver of the current warming, someone would have to develop a model that includes as many climatic/physical processes as possible but not CO2, and have that model produce hindcasts (and forecasts) of the data that reflect the warming that has been observed. So far, the only models that can predict, or rather hindcast, the warming we've already observed are those that include a parameter for CO2.
Plenty of research groups have developed models that include a variety of processes (cloud formation, earth's wobble, solar cycles, CO2, ocean currents and whatever else) and if they remove the CO2 effect from the model, they can't produce the warming from the model.
The fact that multiple research efforts keep turning up the same result, despite using different methods to develop the models is strong evidence that CO2 is a key driver of the warming.
But we need to understand that broadly, these models are forecasting the average climate, not the deviations of weather that we notice from day to day. That's why you'll see an envelope of possible climate outcomes. That represents the long term forecast, but with recognition that being an average, the observed outcomes will bounce around that a bit.
What you often see with the skeptic side of the debate is someone pulling out a short time series of weather and declaring that since it doesn't match the central line of forecast, the hypothesis is falsified. Well, it's the average of a long term process that's being modelled, not a short section of it. And in any case, there are so many processes that affect the climate, which are consequently in the climate models, that we're at the stage where you need to develop a model that produces the data we're observing without a CO2 effect, if you want to pose a credible alternative. That's the closest thing to falsifying the hypothesis given its importance to the model of the system.
Sorry, that's a long post. Hopefully it's clear to anyone interested.
Yeah I understand what you are saying but I've not made myself clear in my original question. What I'm interested in and what I describe as 'fuzzy' is the probability aspects of statistics and statistical analysis. What is the cotemporary thought, if there is any, on alternatives or more valid approaches to using probability when researching a hypothesis? The reason I ask is that it relates to the question of truth/s.
Bugger it, a long rambling post and I answered the wrong question!? what a bore, sorry.
I don't find your question clear, but I'll have a crack. Probability is very much where it's at in many fields. The major divide in using probability comes down to Bayesian vs Frequentist approaches, which is a divide between an objective view of probability and those prepared to accept a subjective view. In practice it's not quite as dramatic as that sounds but typically Frequentists took a Popperian view of science (falsifying the null hypothesis) based on the observed data and nothing else, while Bayesians accept that we must have a degree of belief about a system/experiment/hypothesis before we start, and applying data to a model updates our belief in the model.
A Bayesian would argue that if their prior belief about an experiment is informed by data (or reliable experience in some cases), then it's reasonable to include this information along with the data from the present study. This means we can use data from previous studies with data from the current one. Frequentists are not comfortable accepting that any subjective input into the experiment.
There was a serious divide in the statistical community for a long time and both sides ridiculed each other for it. But these days people are more pragmatic and use what works. The two approaches provide different advantages, and at the core maths of it all both rely on the likelihood function. There is a good popular science book called The Theory that Would Not Die, which describes the many times Bayesian statistics were invented (beginning with Thomas Bayes), and includes some content on the philosophical aspects of it. The book also describes how Alan Turing developed a Bayesian approach to crack the enigma code, after the idea was sunk by frequentists in Cambridge in the early 20th century.
Despite accepting a subjective probability as valid, which might lean toward a belief in god (and I think a philosopher once tried to prove god exists using Bayes theorem), it was in developing his extension to Bayes Theorem that Laplace said his famous quote that athiests often cite, that he didn't need the hypothesis of god in his celestial model. So it's not quite the same aspect of subjectivity that others are talking about here.
Beyond that divide is the divide between mathematical and statistical models. That's less about probability and more about how you can model a system and whether you can recreate it define mathematically how it changes through time (and space potentially), or whether you need to take quantify patterns in observed data to describe how the system might work. It's a pretty big divide too (each side loves to highlight the advantages of their own approach to model development), but to me it's a horses for courses situation.
Not sure if that's helpful or not. It's late and I need to get back to work so I'll leave it there rather than barking up another long tree.
That's a tremendous explanation, thanks. I need to understand Bayesian and Frequentist approaches with a little more depth but what you've posted puts an interesting perspective on the questions at hand.
I personally have a difficult time with the concept of probability theory and have heard some interesting arguments proposing the flaws in using it to underpin much of our thought but I'll bring these up again when I've got a better understanding of the material touched on in your post and hit you up with some other questions.
Great story. Amazing response to the religous aspect. Each to their own what's in a name? Valar Morghulis. We all eventually will receive the many faced gods gift. Lucky we live in Australia:)
can someone explain to me why the "epic of gilgamesh" exists? how did it come about and why does it represent very closely some of the stories of the bible?
Blob, do you think people who have read the Bible, considered the question of Jesus and God carefully and had no revelation of experience of God are evil, or influenced by the Devil or ........?
Can people have an experience of God without the Bible, and if so what if they called their religion ......insert name?
Or is the only valid experience of God through Christianity?
Just curious as to your position on different religions.
IMO
True religion is written in the heart. To be good is to be Godly regardless of your religion. Some atheists are better "Christians" than some Christians.
Getting an answer to prayers is a complex question. How can I speak to another persons experience? Still, personally I was very careful to cross every "t" and dot every "i" in first interrogating my motives and having a commitment to live by any answer I got, then carefully studying and then praying...and continuing the process until I got an answer, or gave up satisfied I'd done everything I could do.
For me the experiment would produce an answer, one way or another. No answer = no god. I got an answer
If God revealed himself to a person before that person has done the necessary spiritual preparation, enabling them to be fully committed, he would be exposing them to judgment. Knowledge is responsibility.
Anyone that says they didn't get an revelation should try and live by every principle that agrees with their conscience...and continue on that path. Do this carefully and you can't fail.
The gospel is disseminated and diffused throughout the world from the start. In the bible Abraham is promised he would be the father of MANY nations and that through his descendants the gospel and the Messiah would bless the whole world.
The history of the Bible, from the chosen people, to Jewish Christians converting the Roman Empire which then converts Europe which in turn colonises much of the world, is fulfilment of that prophetic promise.
The Bible also describes the adversary that is an enemy of truth. Counterfeit and adulteration are his methods to confuse the search for truth...so there are many churches that have various forms of the gospel, Christian and non Christian.
People find their truth comfort zone. As God intended
As the saying goes....If the truth (or true church) were a tree, how would satan hide it? By planting a forest around it.....
My experiences confirm to me that what the bible says about Christ is true, He is the only way to the Father, however I don't believe in the heaven / hell split or that only "christians" will get to heaven. Some people never know anything about Christianity. They have opportunity after death (1 Peter 4:6, 3:19-20) God is a God of love and justice. He will not force us to good but gives us opportunity to choose as much as we will take...as a man sows so shall he reap.
hey FR76 what religion are you..heathen?
I am.
anarcho-primitivist
Isn't that a breakaway sect late of the Freemasons?
Yeah it is S-G2, no secret handshake tho just secret cuddles and....:)....!
haha welly,finally some humour in this dead end debate
I honestly can't believe I read this thread, especially after Stu's comment being around the camp fire...!
The first page with uppity was a classic, scrolling down for an eternity which seemed like ages, something like the bible I suppose, definitely a glitch in the system hahaha
Anyways S-G2 and Freerides comments were stand outs IMO.
Poor ol Blob at least your a goer champ, best of luck to you and Brutus, I suppose some of us have to believe in something apart from our own selves eh.....!
Best of luck and may the force be with you, or you the force be with..????
Ignorance is bliss.....for a limited time
Interesting image. It expresses 2 of the versions of God argued for in the comments.
Sex is actually the deal breaker for a lot of people. They can't see the point of God being involved and resent any suggestion he might tell them what they can do
In their selfishness they choose to forget that sex is not only about their libido. Sex makes babies. The power of creation is a gift that elevates or degrades us depending on how we use it. We partner God in the creation of life.
Some outcomes : No families, broken families, sad children, single mothers, poverty, crime, abortion, disease, selfish people that use people, wasted potential.
Alternative outcome: the opposites to the above list
God is properly very interested in how we use the gift he gave us because he knows it is essential to our happiness. He wants us to be happy.
Don't blame god if perhaps natural disasters are the earths natural reaction to sin
In the story of Sodom, God would not destroy Sodom if there were any good people there.
You are mocking what you refuse to understand, but even so, if god exists then mocking him would be a high risk activity.....and He does exist
Ha Ha classic Sheepy - - what do you think of the lyrics of 'This is Religion' by John Lydon P.I.L.
Do you pray to the Holy Ghost when you suck your host?
Do you read who's dead in the Irish Post?
Ahhh... Good old P.I.L..... Annaleeeeeeeeeiiiiiisaaaaaa!!!!!!!!! Yeah top shelf, udo..... Great utube clip of an aging lydon performing religion out there..... Hang on.............
Here it is......
Udo, if you think Pils lyrics were hardcore, try a late 70s punk band called "Crass", and their spoken word track "Reality asylum".... Ummm, lyrics may offend some...
As a member of the "O ye of little faith" brigade, I am fearful for us all when faith overtly influences politics and governance. Faith-based initiatives are fraught with peril. Some more than others.
https://digital.newint.com.au/issues/101/articles/2296
Values ~> institutions ~> culture ~> politics
The need of a separation of church and state does not mean you can't get your values from religion
You need something solid to tie your system down to otherwise you are prey to every ideological fashion
See fascism and communism
WWII alone left 50 million dead. There are real consequences for what you believe in
Rejecting what religion has to offer because it may be seen as irrational or for past offences risks throwing the baby out with the bath water. Christian values have certainly benefitted modern free societies.
Blob, Interventionist God what does this mean ?
Deism is the belief in a God who doesn't intervene in human affairs....old hat now but embraced in the past by some very influential thinkers.
The Christian God is pulling strings.
wow FR76...anarcho primitivist......a feral state of being..a return to a non-civilized society....c'mon.....that's what you have faith in.....??
Just for all the people who like denigrating another mans faith even if it is based on logic and Fact....the need for you to ridicule and insult another man's beliefs is pretty typical of the NEW Australians .....as one of my learned Blackfella mates says .....some of these racists and people who just like to vilify minorities....send em back home to their convict relatives........wonder if some of the guys on here were the ones booing Adam Goodes.......or maybe it was just Ausssie Aussie aussie oi oi oi.....brigade showing their Aussie connection.....
Blob and brutus... The abrahamic based desert tribe religions have served their purpose, similar to a horse drawn plough.... But it is time to move on... Yes, it gave us useful myths and stories that represent universal human morals... And some of the stories were very entertaining.....
But it is time to move on..... As far as "god", the "afterlife", "reincarnation" etc goes, I am agnostic..... The only logical answer one can give to all of this is "I don't know what happens after death"....... There is no scientific proof that a god or entity exists..... But there is also no proof that a god or entity does not exist..... We are the only animal that has been able to create leisure time.... Most animals are too busy surviving... During that leisure time, sitting around the fire in out caves, we have had the luxury to ponder..... "why".... '"how"....... Death is scary, so we invent scenarios to take away the fear....... A lion, or a monkey, or an eagle does not have that luxury.....Different tribes invent different scenarios..... But due to geography, with the middle east being the melting pot/intersection for 3 major land areas (Africa, Asia and Europe), it was the abrahamic religions that spread....
I'm an atheist when it comes to your theories
# give me something better than the golden rule to prove the gospel of Christ is passé
# an atheist calls the gospel a myth. An agnostic would not, because they are.......agnostic
# there is evidence that God exists. It is subjective and accessed on certain conditions. Why reject this out of hand without testing the proposition for yourself.? There are any number of excellent witnesses to this being true
# I think there are lots of animals with down time. Lions are a bad example to use. But you got a theory I suppose
# the Egyptians and Babylonians and pagans etc. had huge coverage for their religions. They are now just historical relics. Geography.....well that's a theory too
But why the endless guessing when God promises to give you real answers if you ask him?
sheepy in one sentence you say..."its time to move on from the ME tribal rligions as they are outdated and then ..say you are an agnostic....so can you prove that the Abrahamic based religions have had their time??
I wonder which of the 10 commandments you would get ride of and replace with what in this ah .."modern," age....??
is your theory on leisure time and fear of death..proven...like an agnostic ???
Brutus, if believing Noah collected penguins in the desert, alongside kangaroos and kiwis, that some guy lived inside a whale, and one man and one woman made from that man's rib were created by a god and populated the earth works for you, then all the power to ya'...... What I am saying is that ancient religions and faith served it's purpose in giving us a fairly decent set of rules to live by.... A bit like the malibu surfboard.... we don't have to continue riding that surfboard, but we can evolve further.... Doesn't mean we forget about the fin, or the rail, or fibreglass.... We just move on and improve... We don't need jesus or god or mohamed to now tell us "thou shalt not kill"..... That's a given.......
We can still discus the possible existence of other realms, beings, dimension... But lets be fuckn real..... Since the invention of the camera, how many "miracles" have you seen? Seen anyone part a sea? Walk on water? Turn water into wine? Rise from the grave?
As far as "my theory", well it aint mine..... It's fairly common knowledge among the scientific fraternity re' the rise of agriculture and the decline of the hunter gatherer....
http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history...
Your position leaves you borrowing other peoples theories when you could own your own knowledge
sheepy...you seem to be knowledgeable on the old testament....how about the new tesatament??
On one hand you are quoting a geographer who says that mans evolution from a Hunter and gatherer to Agriculture based society..was/is the greatest mistake of the human race....and then you say , that we must redefine our values and morals to conform with this new enlightened age...."and we move on and improve??
very confused by your quoting someone saying our current existence/society is , " Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny."
Is this what you mean by "move on and improve??
with your improving of the human race which of the 10 commandments would you change and with what?
The first new commandment I would issue would be the curtailment of inflicting one's chosen belief on others through coercion.
exactly blowy......even if you don't believe ......insulting and denigrating people of faith is actually someone trying to coerce people of faith to disbelieve....then what is coercion??
Coercion is utilising force or pressure to get someone to comply with your ideology or desires.
Debate or argument isn't coercion.
Beheading Christians in Syria is coercion.
Banning the hijab is coercion.
The Catholic Church using the power of donations or the threat of withholding donations to political parties to influence the direction of policies in an allegedly secular, democratic country is a form of soft coercion.
The abuse of power through the implementation of financial leverage is where the act becomes coercive.
Let people do what they want as long as they're not hurting others or coercing them into kowtowing to their beliefs .
I think everyone would have to agree that most of the modern religions have a good chunk of GOOD in them and on a general level they make a lot of sense. BUT, living your life by what is a pretty average and boring book written more than a few years ago by a bunch of truly strange monks is a bit silly. Believe it or not there has been many good books written on philosophy since, which area a far better read and build and expand on many of the virtues espoused in the Bible. WTF we have to keep dredging it up blindly is beyond me. And Brutus I was raised an Irish Catholic which was bums against the wall. Yeah religion was real good at bording school in the showers.
The bible was not written by monks.
The bible is not philosophy or theology
The bible reveals the mind of god through direct revelations to prophets
Gods mind is not average or boring
The bible is dredged up but your supposedly superior philosophy books are ignored.
Which philosophy book do you say is superior to the bible?
Blob sorry I can't agree about revelations. What were they smoking or drinking at the time? I don't believe in God so whatever mind you have in mind has no relevance to me. The bible to me is average and boring particularly once the action is over in the Old Testament. For me it is like wading through porridge and they almost talk about someone picking their nose as an act of God. The detail gets that excruciatingly boring. I have read many books on philosophy and all have something to add. No one book or thing is the answer. Your Bible is the Muslims Koran and the Jews Torah. They all claim to be the ants pants. We will have to agree to disagree. I really hate the three big religions. their belief that they are right and the others are wrong, and their so called hand of man through God. Everything is subservient to God and Man. Absolute frog shit. Don't worry I had it pumped into me for many years so there is no hope of any born again happening here. Good luck if you believe it I don't.
That's all good....but show me the book or philosophy that is superior to the bible. Please.
You are welcome to your opinion, but wouldn't comparing the writings that have inspired some of the greatest minds in history and upon which so much of our culture is based to frog sh#t reveal your opinion to be the thing that is deficient?
patanjali the yoga philosophy
The upanishads
What is the best thing in there?
hey memlasurf......I think we were all scarred by some of the religious institutions that espouse the teachings of...God.....but to judge the content of the bible ,especially the new testament....by the behavior of these institutions ..is like judging all Australians based on ....Martin Bryants behavior....or...Abbotts...
a lot of people including myself were part of a corrupted religious infrastructure...man made....self serving.....I really wonder how much people have read on Jesus....and not just headlines that suit your religious leanings?
Do we have any Jehovahs out there ?
Blob;
From the oxford dictionary ; MYTH -
"A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events"
You write; "an atheist calls the gospel a myth. An agnostic would not, because they are.......agnostic"............
Blob.......You are twisting words and using semantics....
The GOSPEL is the record of Christ's life and teaching in the first four books of the New Testament. The myths I mentioned were Adam and Eve, Jonas, and Noah...... I did however mention Jesus in regards to "miracles" pre advent of the camera - walking on water, turning water into wine.... I however never said Jesus did not exist, nor did I say his existence is a myth... There is enough historical documentation to prove he did exist.. But by the dictionary meaning of the word myth, the story of Jesus could arguably fall into that category.... I however did not do that in my post above.....
These dishonest insinuations of me calling the gospel a myth is very unchristian of you, blob.....
And as far as evidence being "subjective", well.... Good luck in court....
Brutus.... You are really stuck in this commandments thing.... Considering most people do or have worked on sundays, not too many people own servants, donkeys, or oxen, and alot of people say " OMG" or "Jesus", I'm sure it could be tweaked.... But it seems you are deliberately missing my point, and taking offence where there is none...
# you did not specify which parts of the bible you call myth. I responded to your generalisation. The bible is very different to Greek or Norse myths. The bible is generally a contemporary report by witnesses. The bible directs the reader to seek a confirming personal revelation.
# if you are agnostic on the bible you would allow the possibility that it is accurate ....not call it a myth
# you are right - Christ existed. The miraculous elements of the gospels are vouched by eye witness testimony.....you know, like in a court of law
# sorry if I hurt your feelings.....try walking in a Christians shoes for some perspective on being offended
Go back and read the definition of myth.... It is not an offensive word....
Speaking of generalization, you write "The bible is GENERALLY a contemporary report by witnesses".... Umm, at least 8 different men over a period of 200 years wrote the new testament... Not all of them even met Jesus..... Jesus was dead when some of the writings took place..... So another one of your comments is very vague...
As far as "try walking in a Christians shoes for some perspective on being offended", I was once a "christian"... I grew up in an era when religious instructions at school was compulsory....
So i'd say to you and brutus that christianity is part of my background, part of MY culture, my upbringing, and because of that Brutus, I should be allowed to question it, criticsise it, debate it all i like..... I refrain from debating islam, the dreamtime, Hinduism, etc, because it wasn't part of my heritage.....
Under the usual understanding do you consider a myth to be true or untrue? If it is untrue or true, calling the bible myth would be offensive to people who consider it a sacred and true text. The definition doesn't fit and the application is offensive
Just wear it
The Old Testament is mainly written by prophets who are referencing the time in which they lived.
Where a prophet speaks of things outside his time it is revelation. How is that myth?
Does the testimony of an apostle become invalid after Christ has died? How? How does any of it qualify as myth?
You can critique Christianity all you like.....but the bible isn't a myth
Were you mocked for being a Christian and your religion trashed by the Christians in your catholic school? ...funny catholic school that one
I consider a myth to be a myth, as in mythology... Look, if you can't handle the actual oxford definition of myth, that's your problem... You also need to check the dictionary for the meaning of revelation....
And here's the thing... Jesus challenged the religious leaders and prophets of the time... You are acting just like those he challenged.....
And who said I went to a catholic school?????? You're making it up as you go..... Or perhaps your christian visions are way out.....
Mythology is understood to not be factual
Many people believe the bible to be partially or fully factual
You cannot prove the bible is untrue can you?
If I am a Pharisee then you must be....Jesus. No wonder you are so right all the time.
Ok....what sort of school was it?
Unmitigated crap. Utterly untrue. Delusional.
Try reading more than kindergarten-style hagiographies. This would be a good start.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/...
Gator...religious vilification...racial vilification......unmitigated crap,untrue,delusional....hmmmmm seems you have a very strong opinion ...based on a sensationalist Author , who seems to love being the centre of attention.....seems like your ridicule of Christianity is a trifle unbalanced.....have you read both sides of Bart's story?
try reading
..http://www.worldmag.com/2014/04/raining_on_bart_ehrman_s_easter_paradeCa.........
If you would like to read some facts about Jesus.....try reading ex-atheist authors....Josh Mc Dowell , more than a carpenter...or Lee Strobel "the case for Christ".....or if your intellect will allow.."Mere Christianity by C S Lewis.......
...or if my intellect will allow? Pot, meet Kettle.
CS Lewis was considered to have one of the finest intellectual minds in the 20th century.......for those who see no logical scientific reason for God......interesting that CS Lewis was an atheist but became a born again Christian....so mere Christianity is a very interesting Philosophical read...
I've read a few books thank you
You and I could read the same books and come to opposite opinions
I could read read bible critics and judge them as unproven opinions...biased and guessing
I could read the bible and judge its writers as moral and truthful...even if the bible has been messed with to some degree
I might even test the promise in the bible that God answers anyone willing to ask....and get an answer
I might consider this guessing Vs a real personal experience
Your condescension is so needlessly rude it looks like arrogance covering up insecurity
My condescension???
This from the bloke who, on the first page of this thread, asked someone whether you offended them, "Petal".
I do love the smell of a good hypocrite in the morning.
Is that why your nose is so far up your condescension?
ah sheepy I am stuck on the commandments....good basis for life and an answer to spirituality that all humans seem want.....ah the meaning of life!
Some people would change them and for example want a Law for the bio-sphere /nature...things...tangibles...ah if it were so easy......living in that secular world....cold , soul and spiritual wasteland...ohhhhh
the life of Jesus is the most documented record of a single living person...and that's not subjective......I take no offence at anybody here...even the satanic insults.....are the problem of the author and the need to vilify......yewwww
Brute... yeah people have been bitching over this stuff for ages..... And none of us here are gonna solve the problem in this thread lol...
All the Ten Commandments now sound quaint which is wholly understandable as they were written thousands of years ago.
We could easily ditch the first four or five and replace it with a commadments about not destroying the Earth the biosphere and the organisms that inhabit it.
If there is a god then he is god of the biosphere.
Christ summarised the Ten Commandments as loving God and loving thy neighbour as thyself
Is that quaint to you? Do you lie, steal, commit adultery or kill. Do you love others as yourself?
I think the world would be better if everyone kept these laws
Not working on the seventh day? All those poor little teenagers at woolies damned to an eternity in hell.....
Funny how the commandments are the "main" rules of the bible..... Yet Fred Nile, Tony Abbott, Cory bernadi etc all get their knickers in a knot over what the bible says about marriage.... They use the bible as justification to be anti same sex marriage.... But ask them about sunday trading.... Go on.... Write to them.... These are the ten commandments we are talking about... Not some obscure sentence buried deep in the holy book....
Same sex marriage - bible says no...
Sunday trading- Bible says no but hey, the economy is more important than the bible.... It's this sort of hypocrisy that makes a mockery of religious politicians....
Next they'll be saying it is Satans doing, even though the good book clearly states that god is the creator of evil.....
God is not what you have been taught.
God is our Father in Heaven and He loves his children.
He wants us to obey his commandments, including the Sabbath, because they are eternal laws that protect us and lead to happiness
We will be judged according to what we know. We will be judged for disobeying Gods laws as we become aware that they are his laws, however we are all accountable for our desires and efforts to find and live by the truth, according to our conscience.
Where does this put you?
The left and the right of politics are both way out of step with what God would want us to be.
Don't get sucked into the trap of judging your father in heaven by the political choices you or others make.
I haven't heard Tony Abbott quote the bible or satan on same sex marriage but what difference would it make if he did?
You, me and Tony will have a few things to explain to God
We live in a democracy and politicians reflect the will of their party and those who vote for them.
Australia has rejected the Sabbath and is in the process of redefining marriage, and therefore the family. We've been doing it since the 60's.
Australia is well down the path of rejecting God.
We will all see the bible vindicated in what it says happens to nations that reject God
Where does the Bible say that God is the creator of evil?
Enough with the proselytising. Hillsong's Kumbaya Hour this ain't.
Either engage with the substantive arguments* or move along.
* The Abrahamic God does/does not exist, and religion has/ has not served its time well/poorly, and it is/is not time to shift the paradigm (supported by evidence and using logic, not circularities, you know, like they do in a court of law, to quote you)
Give me your "substantive" argument
Boil it down for me
Tell me what you can demonstrate as fact and what is, in fact, your regurgitation of someone else's best guess.
Well, since you asked, so here's my 'boiled down' argument against the existence of God.
1. The consistent pattern of replacing supernatural explanations with natural ones.
Explanations once provided by religion or ‘God’ have over the millennia been consistently and multitudinously replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect. Give me one solid, immutable, evidence-supported, peer-reviewed example the other way and I'll reconsider my disbelief.
2: The inconsistency of perceptions of ‘God’.
Why, if God (or any other metaphysical being) is real, do peoples’ perceptions differ so wildly, yet their perceptions of the natural world share such commonality?
Simple - because God does not exist. Perceptions of ‘God’ are not perceptions of anything real. They’re made up perceptions, something that the part of our brain that's wired to see pattern and intention looks for, even when none exists.
3: The weakness and circularity of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics.
"God exists because the Bible says God exists." "God exists because I feel in my heart that God exists." "God is an entity that cannot be proven by reason or evidence” “God is so powerful and all-knowing that we humans can’t possibly hope to understand him” (despite, allegedly, being made in his image). "We Christians/Jews/Muslims don't have to show you any reason or evidence, it's unreasonable and intolerant for you to even expect that”.
4: The increasing diminution of God.
Historically, the perceived power of God has been steadily diminishing for centuries. As human understanding of the physical world has increased, and the testing of theories and claims has improved, the domain of God's miracles and other supposed supernatural phenomena has consistently shrunk. Eg. Sinning against God is no longer to blame for tsunamis – we know they result from undersea earthquakes, which in turn we know result from tectonic plates shifting. Likewise, sinning against God is no longer to blame for plagues – we now know about microbes and viruses.
‘God’ has shrunk to now being just the god of the gaps. Whatever gap there is in our understanding of the world, that's what God is (supposedly) responsible for. But those gaps are diminishing fast.
5: The fact that belief in God runs in families.
The single strongest factor in determining whether a person believes in God and what their religion is? The religion they were born into and brought up with. By far. Very few people carefully examine all the available religious beliefs and select the one they think most accurately describes the world. Overwhelmingly, people believe whatever religion they were taught as children.
Yet no-one does this with science. We believe whatever scientific understanding is best supported by the best available evidence at the time. And as the evidence changes, so does our understanding.
Few people even do it with politics. Again, our positions shift with our circumstances and our attitudes. Witness the opinion polls that show support of same-sex marriage increasing with each new generation. Political beliefs learned from youth can, and do, break down in the face of the reality that people see every day. And scientific theories do this, all the time, on a regular basis.
This is emphatically not the case with religion. From which we can postulate that religion is not a perception of a real entity. If it were, people wouldn't just believe whatever religion they were taught as children, simply because it was what they were taught as children. The fact that religion runs so firmly in families strongly suggests that it is not a perception of a real phenomenon. It is a dogma, supported and perpetuated by tradition, social pressure and, in many cases, fear and intimidation. Not by reality.
6: The physical causes of everything we think of as the soul.
For centuries, the hypothesis of the ‘soul’ was the singular province of and irrefutable proof of a divine entity. However, today, despite the sciences of neurology, neuropsychology and neuroplasticity being in their infancy, the evidence – consistently, thoroughly, across the board – is that, whatever consciousness is, it is inextricably linked to the brain. We’re talking about rigorously-gathered, carefully-tested, thoroughly cross-checked, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, replicated, peer-reviewed research.
Consciousness and identity, character and free will, are products of the brain and the body. Biological processes, governed by laws of physical cause and effect. Consciousness is a product of the brain, not God. Period.
7: The complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing.
In the face of careful, rigorous, double-blind, placebo-controlled, replicated peer-reviewed testing, every claim of supernatural phenomenon by a religious or spiritual believer has fallen apart. Supernatural claims only hold up under careless, casual examination. They are supported by lousy (or simply no) testing methodology, wishful thinking, confirmation bias and a dozen other forms of cognitive bias. When studied carefully, under conditions specifically designed to screen these things out, the claims vanish. Which is why the James Randi Educational Foundation’s $1,000,000 prize is still unclaimed, despite more than one thousand attempts to win it.
8: The slipperiness of religious and spiritual beliefs and arguments.
For example, many believers say that if things go their way, it's a sign of God's grace and intervention; if they don't, then God moves in mysterious ways and has a lesson to teach that can’t be understood, and it's not up to humans to question his will. In the philosophy of science that, a theory that can be supported no matter what possible evidence comes to hand is useless. The theory has no power to explain what's already happened, or to predict what will happen in the future. The theory of gravity, for instance, could be disproven by things suddenly falling up; the theory of evolution could be disproven by finding rabbits in the pre-Cambrian fossil layer. These theories predict that those things won't happen; if those things do, the disproved theories will be replaced by better ones. But if the theory of God's existence holds up no matter what happens -- whether someone with cancer that you pray to God for gets better or dies, whether natural disasters strike big sinful cities or small God-fearing towns -- then it's a useless theory, with no power to predict or explain anything.
No matter what happens, religious and spiritual beliefs can be twisted to prove that the belief is right. Just read Blob’s posts on this thread; when challenged, he simply shifts the goalposts. For example, he says in one post that the Bible is the perfect truth of God handed down to prophets, yet in another says that it can be interpreted differently by different readers? If it needs interpreting, how perfect can it be?
If a case can't be made and then stuck by, or modified, or let go, then it's not a good case.
9: The failure of religion to improve or clarify over time.
Over the years and decades and centuries, our understanding of the physical world has grown and clarified by a ridiculous amount. We understand things about the Universe that we couldn't have imagined a thousand years ago, or a hundred, or even ten. Things that make your mouth gape with astonishment just to think about. Why? The scientific method, a self-correcting method for understanding the physical world.
Our understanding of the supernatural world? Not so much – it’s in the same place it's always been: hundreds and indeed thousands of sects, squabbling over which sacred texts and spiritual intuitions are the right ones. And around in the squabbling circle we go.
10: The complete lack of solid evidence for God's existence.
There's no evidence for it. No good evidence, anyway. No evidence that doesn't just amount to opinion and tradition and confirmation bias. No evidence that doesn't fall apart upon close examination. As thousands of atheists before me have pointed out: it is not up to us to prove that God does not exist. It is up to theists to prove that he does.
On the balance of probability and the weight of available information, God almost certainly does not exist. In the absence of any solid evidence or arguments in favor of the probability of God's existence and in the growing raft of arguments against it, I will continue to be an atheist and act as if he doesn't.
Blob, in your religion, god is omniscient , the creator of all, and knows all.... He knows the past present and future
Isaiah 45:7 - Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil"
God of course created Satan, who was once one of gods angels..... Considering god knows all, the past, present and future, God knew he was creating evil...
God has also been known to be vengeful, and judgemental... God allows evil to happen... God allows pain and suffering.... When you see an animal slowly die in the wild, a starving calf with vultures circling, that is god's will, not satans... The animal has no choice but to suffer in pain... And it knows not of jesus....
Before the advent of abrahamic religions, there was 10s of thousands of years of humanity.... There were flourishing regions of the world where Jesus was not known up until the 1800.... The Hawaiian islands and Australia come to mind.... And there were wonderful caring human beings in these regions.... They did not need the middle eastern religions to live peacefully...
Sheepdog
I agree with you that the omniscient God that creates beings that sin would have created evil.
But how do you know God created Satan? He didn't.
There are many interpretations of the Bible. They can't all be true. You need to find the truth.
Arguing over interpretation of scripture is not the primary means of determining spiritual truths.
You yourself interpret scripture when you quote Isaiah by extreme cherry picking that ignores the other 99% of scripture....and you don't even believe in the Bible!
I know a few important things. I don't know everything.
I empathise with your objections related to issues such as suffering and the "heathens", but you need to put the horse before the cart.
(The Fall of Adam places responsibility for suffering on us. Sin leads to the fall. We all sin. The animals you eat suffer don't they? I have caused pain to other people. You do not know what an animal actually experiences yet you want to put blame on a God you neither believe in or understand, while contributing to the weight of suffering yourself. God has a plan and it is only through our experience of suffering that we learn essential lessons)
(Those who don't know Christ in this life will be judged by the law that they have - which is a diffusion/version of the gospel originally taught to Adam, and by how they live by their own conscience - an internal gospel. The gospel is not "middle eastern", it is universal)
I only mention these general and incomplete explanations to show that there are other ways of understanding the bible than the way you have been taught or have reinterpreted for yourself.
The Bible says that spiritual things are seen as foolishness to those with a worldly perspective. You have to have some intellectual openness and humility to read it properly, actually test it by putting it into practice and praying for a spiritual confirmation.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything but Im trying to say there is a different way of seeing things that can encourage you to go to the source of truth and find what I found.
Otherwise you will always be relying on yourself when God was there all along waiting for your call.
Stray gator
You spray ridicule and demand logic in return
Bob, I'm not having a go at you personally; just at your claims. Completely different things.
You make definitive claims that are, on the best available evidence and balance of probabilities, frankly ridiculous. Then obfuscate when those claims are challenged.
Belief systems such as yours, widespread and endemic, created the current paradigm. Which clearly needs changing. Our survival as a species is poorly served by the belief that humans were put here to dominate and subjugate nature.
Blind trust in some divine being's omniscience is precisely what got us here. More of the same is precisely what we don't need and can't afford.
Peace.
Wrong
When you abuse and insult belief you abuse the believer
That is not "peace". Just abuse.
If you read the bible you might avoid that
Do you make "definitive claims"....on the basis of "best available evidence and balance of probabilities" or facts?
Go on, magically turn your probabilities into facts while disallowing my evidence
Tell me where I obfuscated and I will dumb it down for you
Bible or not, man is always manipulating nature
We need the best wisdom wherever it comes from.
"When you abuse and insult belief you abuse the believer."
Jeez, sorry about that, Petal.
"God is our Father in Heaven and He loves his children."
You really need to stretch credulity and have a very big moral blind spot to believe that.
Unless you believe God only loves white, rich western children.
The Gnostic manifestation of a God seems to fit the observed facts far more accurately: The ancient Gnostics promulgated a view which is at odds with the Genesis conception of an omniscient God giving loving birth to the universe. They believed that the world was set up by an ill-meaning deity—the demiurge—not a good God, and that emancipation is possible by first coming to understand this, and then regaining knowledge of how we were supposed to be. This process of awakening will hoist us back to the spiritual realm, away from the fleshly temporal world we’ve been condemned to by the false deity.
It would take a very, very peculiar definition of love to look at the World around us and say God loves his children.
You seem to say if there is bad stuff it means god (which you deny exists) must be responsible, but the good stuff would not be his responsibility
I could flip that and say god doesn't make bad, he makes good.
My definition is not peculiar because you are wearing blinkers
Your PC obsessions are your major points of reference......"white, rich western"...... Ho hum
You've completely misrepresented my argument. Trying to prove the non-existence of God is as pointless as trying to prove his existence. Both are matters of faith.
I was asking , if there is a God, what kind of God is he?
Looking at the evidence, I find the Gnostic version of a God to be far more plausible than the (later) Christian version.
Believing in a God who loves his children takes a very peculiar type of mental gymnastics considering the level of suffering which occurs in the world.
Again, as far as religions go, it seems the Buddhists, who require no God have a much more accurate take on things.
I appreciate you are not able to consider open-mindedly those perspectives because of your Christian faith.
Can I make this any more simple for you?
We agree. You cannot disprove the existence of God on the basis of objective evidence
If God appeared to you only, that would be incontrovertible evidence (to you) that he does exist
Personal, subjective proof. Not faith
If an atheist told you god does not exist because the atheist did not see him, the atheist is talking through his open minded hat.
....and the Christianity you describe and object to isn't Christianity, just an objectionable version
FR76....you judge God by your own morals...in that there is misery in human beings therefore God cannot be.
you then use rich white westerners as your version of what God's children would be if he existed......?
I am continually amazed at how people talk about false Gods and worship money and power.....their God....
As far as love goes ....hmm what is Love??
Pretty funny, brutus lol :P
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth (New Testament, 1 Corinthians, Chapter 13)
Tinkling cymbals ..... we talk a lot
Pure Christlike love will be the measure by which we are all judged
Lucky I've got that outdated, camel herder, fairy tale bible to correct my natural inclinations
Then again I could be enlightened by......music videos
.
'As far as love goes ....hmm what is Love??'
You/we/God are Love. Wherever you put it, you, Love, your free will, it creates. Whatever you Love is. Free will. Kids live in rubbish dumps, because we Love it. We allow it. Kids are raped by priests because we Love it. We allow it. Do next to nothing about it. We prioritise other things, Love them more. Spend Love, ourselves there. If we Loved kids not living in rubbish dumps, not being raped by priests, the most, prioritised it, so focused it, spent Love there, the opposite scenarios, they would be/exsist.
You nailed it
The Bible, Christ, truth, our conscience....whatever, .....will leave us with lousy excuses for our lack of compassion
is there a scientific explanation for Love ......I thnk sheepy found the answer...reminds of a time in Europe...but I think that was Lust!!! hehe
The Truth, God, Love is simple. The choice is simple. Oneness, or seperation from it, branching out, away, choosing, so Loving the tree, the web, the branches. Love God, Oneness, or Love the tree, and the branches. Love, free will, is unconditional. The gift. The further away from Oneness, the more branches, the bigger the web, the more complex the tangles. Seemingly more, more knowledge. A more seperated mind. Seems better, more complex. Its hard work to be complex. The Truth is effortless. A frog doesn't have to try to be a frog. So far away from the simple Truth. The Truth is simple, and infinite. So, space, and beyond, macro, and beyond, micro and beyond exsist. Ad infinitum. Beyond the limited, tangled, spinning mind. The mind seperates, creates pictures with the Truth, delusionally believing the pictures are the Truth, Love, Oneness. It acts as a supposed governor of Love, Truth if you choose. Unconditionally.
Some people that stood out reached the same conclusions, Jesus included. One, The One that is the alpha and the omega... choose, so Love the only way to Truth. Give up thinking, quiet it. See your Truth. Lester Levenson's story is interesting. We aren't the mind, the thoughts. We are Love, our Truth, that makes thoughts possible. But we Love thoughts, the tree, branching further and further out, and lose sight of, even forget our Truth. Dreaming without waking up. Religiously. We Love it to death.
Blob, talking in tongues...a supernatural gift from the holy spirit ..or just Gibberish ?
Sheepy and I can only relate to what Tim Buckley sang.
Both....depending
I'm dubious of happy clappy ecstatic
How about the born again church where occasionally nobody can talk because the "spirit" is causing everyone to laugh too much?
I had a mate who liked a Pentecostal girl, she took him to church where they instructed him to lean his head forward, stick his tongue out, shake his head and try to talk......to get primed to speak in tongues
The gift of tongues in in Acts is a miracle that allows people to understand the gospel when it is being taught in another language. A practical need. I know people who have experienced this.
There are good and bad spirits....confusing voices make it hard to hear the "still small voice" of the Holy Ghost
Tim Buckley....Greetings from L.A.....the wildest of wild man vocalists Wonder where he is now huh?
Blob... The video was a lighthearted joke to Brutus..
Blob... In regards to your waffle reply where you wrote to me ; "You yourself interpret scripture when you quote Isaiah by extreme cherry picking that ignores the other 99% of scripture....and you don't even believe in the Bible!"
Mate, you asked me a simple question.... And I answered that simple question.... Your question was ....... "Where does the Bible say that God is the creator of evil?"
My answer was "- Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil".........
So your above waffle is just that..... Waffle....... If you are going to ask a simple question, but there's a chance you may be offended by the answer, then don't ask the question.... If I'm a diabetic and you ask me "what does sugar taste like", and I say "sweet", don't jump up and down saying "you're diabetic... You shouldn't eat sugar!!"
Now as far as Satan goes, you say god did not create Satan....... Yes he did!!!!!!!!!
"God has created everything that ever has been, is, or will be (John 1:3)".....
The bible writes that god created satan as a perfect angel, but did not create the sin within satan... Satan did that himself.... But this totally contradicts John1:13, Isaiah 45:7, and countless other scriptures...... This in essence is the problem with the holy book........ It is so malleable and convoluted, that different folk can twist it to suit....... You really need to get a grip on the bible before you publicly spruik it, Blob....
I love waffles, but since we don't all have perfect writing styles, like yours, lets try succinct
My video reference referenced all the videos
Don't get too hysterical, I did not say you had not used a valid quote. What I actually said was your quote disagreed with 99% of scripture.
Do you agree that there are imperfect translations or transcriptions in the Bible?
Are you offering your personal interpretation of a scripture?
If agreed, would that placed doubt on your original assertion that God creates evil?
You are quoting verses like a dogmatic religious sectarian....or an atheist.
!!!!!!! ???? You seem a little competitive......Bibles at ten paces?
The way that goes is I throw a contradictory quote back at you...then you throw one back....then.....
Pointless ego games
Been there with churchy types.......don't make me bible bash with an atheist...please!
The crux is whether God creates us from nothing
Not in my religion.
Do you understand the bible from a church, or from atheists quotations, or from sincere personal searching?
"Don't get too hysterical, I did not say you had not used a valid quote. What I actually said was your quote disagreed with 99% of scripture."
There's only one person getting hysterical, blob.... You....
You asked a question... i answered it..... I don't have to "interpret" something that is as clear as day and as black and white as a line that says god created evil....... This "99% of scripture" is also not true.... The book says God created EVERYTHING..... EVERYTHING....... Evil falls within everything... John 1:3..... Colossians 1:16.. Even Genesis 1:1......
Now , if we're gonna' finish each post with veiled insults, do you understand sanctimonious smugness and ego, from clear and respectful debate?
I'm smiling...but not hysterically
You did answer my question. Try answering another one
Are biblical references able to be used to contradict other biblical references?
And another
If there are verses that conflict with your "god makes evil" verses would that qualify and/or negate your quotes?
P.s. I like mythical, unchristian smugness with my waffles
Ohhh... And Blob..... You're a good bloke..... I don't expect to change you... And I'd say you've come to the conclusion you wont change me.... I respect your devotion, and if it makes you happy, then that's great..... Nothing wrong with that... Cheers...
Niice!
All is forgiven
Ahh, forgiveness.... I wasn't asking for forgiveness..... Grudges are the birthplace of sin, blob..... ;)
Well, according to Christopher Hitchens...or was it Dawkins?....it is the notion of forgiveness that is the great lie of Christianity. Whatever you've done....you are stuck with it.
Blob, you keep talking about that word, "proof."
Already covered
Ron Hellings is a professor of theoretical physics who among other things was a research scientist at NASA for 25 years
"I am a skeptic. I know many people who are skeptics, but most of them are amateurs. I am a professional. It’s what I do for a living. I am a scientist, and a scientist needs to be skeptical. I would rather risk disbelieving something that is true than believing something that is false. I don’t recommend this attitude, but I can’t help it. I just refuse to believe junk.
I have heard people say that science and religion are two paths to truth. I do not believe that. There is only one path to truth, and to me it seems closer to science than it is to what passes for religion in most people. But it is not the scientific method. The only people I know who care about the scientific method are philosophers. Scientists don’t worry about it. What scientists do is what Karl Popper said in his cute definition of science: “Science is doing your damnedest with your mind – no holds barred.” The problem with science is not the process, but the artificial limits that most scientists put on the evidence they will accept. Evidence, they say, must be objective. This is a reasonable limitation, in a way, because the goal of science is not just to find truth, but also to communicate it. And you can only communicate things that others will understand through your common experience. But many scientists use this limitation on what they can communicate to others as the criterion for what they will accept for themselves. They will not seek a revelation because it would be a subjective evidence. So what? What a brain-numbing, truth-avoiding, closed-minded attitude this is! This is not doing your damnedest with your mind, no holds barred; it is setting up artificial rules that exclude a wealth of evidence and knowledge. This is bad science."
My arguments around subjective and objective evidence in previous posts have not been dispatched yet
Have a look and have a go
ha! classic. The last sentence of that quote sums up his proposal quite nicely. Using what he suggests be used as evidence, would indeed be "bad science".
Since proof does not mean what you think it means, you won't recognise when your arguments have been "dispatched", so there's little point in arguing with you. Just stating the facts is all I'm about.
Is it possible to prove something to yourself without being able to prove it to others?
See my first comment, spoken ably by Inigo Montoya.
Vblot says : your proof is not my proof
Vblot does not define Vblot's proof or blobs proof to show a contrast
Vblot laughs at a quote but fails to show how it is funny or bad science
Vblot does not bother to state the facts that he says would dispatch blobs argument because Vblot says blob wouldn't understand them.
Vblot only states facts and loves a funny picture
Oh they were arguments of subjective and objective 'evidence' were they??
Blob, why would you want to know what school I went to? I find that a wee bit creepy.... And what does it matter where I went to school in regards to mandatory religious instruction?
You claimed your religious background gave you some knowledge of about offended for being a Christian
How so?
Creepy? You can do better than that
That's a good point sheepy, mandatory religious instruction is deplorable in this day and age no matter where it is. Children should be taught basic social skills and thinking skills before they are old enough to make rational decisions about being involved in a cult. Forcing children to take on beliefs that terrify them into submission is, in a word, evil.
Religious instructions in school is at the discretion of the parents. Parents choose the school and can opt out of scripture classes in the public system.
Do you want the state to replace parental discretion?
I went to scripture as a kid sometimes and other times I didn't.
Nobody scared me into believing anything
Christmas nativity plays and stuff were really nice though.
When I compare the freedom and education I experienced to the situation in atheist communist countries where you could be denied an education for being a Christian I'm very wary of state controlled ideology in the classroom. Forget churches, atheist really know how to impose a cult on kids.
Yes parents can choose to subject their children to mandatory religious teaching or not (yes it is mandatory in religious private schools), my argument is that it s not a choice that should be left to parents. People should make this decision when they are old enough and informed enough to this think reasonably about the question of religion.
I said nothing about the state replacing parental discretion, you have twisted an argument....again. What should be replaced is ANY teaching of ANY religion unless the students are informed enough to make a reasoned decision OR in the context of the bbroader definition of religion and what it is in a general sense.
Christianity presented to children often relies on scaring them into submission, this may not have been your experience but you are a sample of one, my experience was totally different and its easy to find examples to illustrate this point if you want to deny it.
Yes it is a worry, state controlled ideology in the classroom, this is why there is no place for Christianity except in the instances I pointed out. Religious cults are a dangerous thing for developing minds.
So you wouldn't allow parents the choice but you would keep parental discretion (choice)
Don't accuse me of twisting your contradictions
Maybe atheists would scare kids about religion.....you'd be good at that
Should parents be allowed to subject their young children to cult indoctrination in the home?
I have to accuse you again of twisting the arguments I express, unless you can explain where in my post its suggested that I, "wouldn't allow parents the choice but [sic] would keep parental discretion", you see there is no suggestion of this in my comment but it is the first thing you choose to bring up. Its an interesting tactic.
Maybe atheists would scare kids about religion, would i be good at that? Well as a teacher and a parent I can tell you that my personal ethics are quite different to what you seem to assume. Assumptions..... Weak attempts at personal insults.....I had a read back through this thread a few days ago, its interesting the picture people choose to paint of themselves on an anonymous forum.
No parents should not be allowed to indoctrinate their children into a cult in the home.
"..my argument is that it s not a choice that should be left to parents. ."
And how pray tell does this suggest that parental discretion should be maintained???
Here is your comment "So you wouldn't allow parents the choice but you would keep parental discretion (choice)
Don't accuse me of twisting your contradictions
Maybe atheists would scare kids about religion.....you'd be good at that
Should parents be allowed to subject their young children to cult indoctrination in the home?"
Your words
"Yes parents can choose to subject their children to mandatory religious teaching or not (yes it is mandatory in religious private schools), my argument is that it s not a choice that should be left to parents."
"I said nothing about the state replacing parental discretion, "
How am I to understand these sentences? If you remove the right of parents to decide to let their children have religious instruction who is it that decides if not the state.?
You can understand them as they are written, there is no cryptic meaning there. There no mention of removing and maintain parental discretion which you suggest, there is no contradiction.
As I mentioned, more than once, the decision on wether or not to undertake religious instruction should be left up to the individual at a time when they are appropriately informed to make such a decision.
This seems straight forward and reasonable to me, as I mentioned children need to be allowed to develop socially and mentally before being subjected to the question of religion.
So you call religion a cult but your ethics would disallow you from scaring children over what...cults?
Assumptions....deflections....
Make it plain tim
You want to remove the right of parents to teach religion to their children in the schools and in the home.
Is that correct?
Assumptions....deflections...how?
Do you got an answer to the question?
Religion should not be funded by the taxpayer in any public school... If people wish to have their children taught religion in school, there are many private schools to choose from..... But government funding to these private schools must not be spent on religious classes, whether it be a christian school, a muslim school etc.....
'So you call religion a cult but your ethics would disallow you from scaring children over what...cults?', this is tangential to the core of the discussion, ie a deflection from the points in contention. The point in contention was your suggestion that I had said the parents should have and should not have discretion, a contradiction, this wasn't the case. So yes a deflection from the discussion at hand.
"your ethics would disallow you from scaring children over what...cults?" This is an assumption, doesn't need further discussion.
I'm happy to answer your questions
Then answer
Make it plain tim
You want to remove the right of parents to teach religion to their children in the schools and in the home.
Is that correct?
.
read an interesting piece about Dawkins the other day:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destro...
“Human society, human love, human hate, art, music, poetry – these are all things which are the products of human brains, and brains are the products of ultimately scientifically explicable phenomena. But not in practice explicable, because it’s too difficult, it’s too complicated.” There is still room in Dawkins’s worldview for mystery – about the nature of human consciousness, for example – but that mystery is neither supernatural nor ultimately inexplicable."
Dawkins
Why have you picked out that extract, Blob? How do you interpret it?
See, I agree with him, but from a different angle.
Practically inexplicable but ultimately explicable......science and religion as far as they are true do not conflict, and knowledge is ever expanding
I don't see miracles as outside of natural law but the natural outcomes of a higher law. What was a miracle 100yrs ago is commonplace now....in another hundred years what we now see as supernatural may be understood as science of a higher order
Kinda God as the great scientist.... not the god of most theological expressions
Dawkins himself is open to the possibility of a big intelligence out there and he isn't even a physicist. He just objects to the possibility of religion's involvement cause of his distaste for what passes as religion.
"My arguments around subjective and objective evidence in previous posts have not been dispatched yet":
They've been thoroughly rebutted. Go back and read them. You don't sound like the kind of guy who is prepared to listen to counter-arguments, let alone modify your views accordingly. But really, you can't ; because believing what you believe requires faith and faith is beyond argument. You have to believe that what you think is some kind of objective reality.There's really no solid ground underneath you at all other than you claiming it to be so. Like every other religion, all claiming they have the ultimate version of truth.
Kierkergaard established that very clearly.
You see, although they were thoroughly rebutted, blobs m/o is to move the goal posts. IE the initial discussion of this point was about subjective/objective 'TRUTHS' now he has changed his wording to subjective/objective 'EVIDENCE'. Evidence is the currency of science, truth is something altogether different and as has been pointed out clearly, subjective truths can be contradictory.
tim foilat commented Tuesday, 2 Jun 2015 at 5:38pm
Yes it is you that is confused, but let me drag the goalposts back to the point in contention first.
You assert that subjective truth cannot contradict. This is the point i choose to dispute.
OK let me use your example of loving your family. You mentioned a story earlier in this thread about a family who watched their daughter die crying in ecstatic happiness for her. In a similar instance, recently there was a mother from a jehovah's witness family who died during childbirth (along with the baby) after refusing treatment which would in all likelyhood have saved her and/or the child and defiantly saved her from the suffering. Her family choose this course of action based on their truths (subjective truths). The ordeal was described as harrowing for the medical staff involved. Did the family love the mother and child? Would the staff that found the experience harrowing love their family in the same way? No of course not each party has a different belief system which influences their truths.
Now before you try to go down the beliefs/facts/truths road again Let me give you another example, the sun sets over the ocean is a true statement for someone who lives in W.A, the sun rises over the ocean is a true statement for someone who lives on the east coast. Both statements are true, they are facts, they contradict each other, they are provable. Here's the clincher, they are only true as SUBJECTIVE truths, that is they are dependent on the position (in this case) of the subject.
My friend came to me after surfing moon island and told me what fun it was, cranking double overhead barrels, he had a ball, the wave was easy to manage and fun, true fact. Another mate surfed it on the same day, it was terrifying, the scariest thing he had experienced, true fact. Both these truths are contradictory, both are provable but they are truths none the less they are SUBJECTIVE truths (in this case base on the experience of the subject)
To quote yourself blob, "I know God lives through real personal experiences. The atheist has faith in his best evidence to say I can't know what I know." Your truth some would describe as faith but to you it is a truth, in this instance you describe an aatheist point of view as faith, faith in evidence they hold true, as you hold your evidence true, so in your very own example you illustrate that truths can be contradictory but as I mentioned ONLY if they are subjective truths.
reply quote
Blob commented Friday, 5 Jun 2015 at 10:40pm
# Fact: the sun sets over the ocean or rises over the ocean depending on which Coast you are observing it from.
# Fact: they can all love their families while exhibiting imperfect judgement - we all do to some extent.
# I don't remember talking about a family watching their daughter die...someone else maybe.
# Fact: ones mans meat is another mans poison. The surfers experiences do not contradict. They are different people. One surfs like me and one surfs like you. Smile.
# yes I am confused....after reading your last paragraph.
Can an atheist prove there is no God? Nope.
Have I enough subjective evidence to say I know there is a god?
Yep. I know I do, but I cannot prove it to you.
If you and I had a vision of God together we would both know it.
If you were alone you would know and I would not.
You would not be able to prove it to me.
Could i prove it never happened to you? Nope.
Never having a vision myself would not disprove your vision
Why complicate simple things?
edit reply quote
Blob commented Tuesday, 2 Jun 2015 at 8:55am
Tell me how Tim
You say rebutted - correct. Not dispatched. ...man up
If I don't listen to your argument how have I been able responded to your argument? That's right, I was listening. ......Try to make sense
Why should I modify my arguments to your arguments? Cause you say so? I disagree with your arguments remember. Because you must be right?......um naaa
No it's not faith - that is what you love to keep repeating. Fix your hearing aid or keep up with the definitions
"If freeride76 saw god but tim foilat did not see god then freeride knows it and tim does not. Tim can doubt it all he wants, he can deny it until the end but freeride knows and tim doesn't know."
Pls. Dispatch this logic without the condescension of telling me what I really believe or hiding behind big names
If Freeride saw a ghost or a UFO or a God, or a burning bush and Tim did not does Freeride know it?
Yes, but that does not make it any kind of objective truth. There are many explanations for seeing things. Or even experiencing them.
Your logic makes sense internally but the conclusions you are drawing from it aren't supported by it.
I could have had a delusion. Or an hallucination. Nonetheless, believing that I have had some kind of experience of objective truth is now a matter of faith. Not evidence.
I'm not asking you to modify your views based on anything I say but it would be intellectually honest of you to at least admit that you aren't in a position to do so, because you hold these views as a matter of faith. It's not possible for you to modify your position.
Could you consider for example, the Gnostic view of a God ?
"Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers."
Based on the observable and long documented historical evidence of humankind, does there not appear to be sense in conceiving of God in that fashion?
OK, are you saying freeride knows it is true but it still isn't true? Cause that won't float.
In the end he saw god or he didn't.
Truth remains absolute and ultimately objective. Outside of faith or opinion (another debate...)
Freeride knows what he knows and tim has to sit on his opinion that it couldn't happen, because that's all tim has...opinion.
I will unhappily change my opinion when you prove I can't know what I know. I have a subjective experience that I know is real, it could be false, but the evidence I have is of a nature that, for me, trumps contrary opinions. My understanding of our purpose in life, church etc. provide a wider context that is supportive and makes sense to me. And it is GOOD.
Gnosticism .....does God create sin or control sin to bring to pass good? Both positions are obviously arguable but as I see God as a literal Father you can guess how I would see that.
"I have a subjective experience that I know is real, it could be false, but the evidence I have is of a nature that, for me, trumps contrary opinions."
That's really all I was ever trying to say. It's true for you and your evidence is entirely subjective. It could be false. But it's true for you.
That is the very nature of religious belief.
It's a somewhat curious historical footnote that God had no problem making himself objectively visible and providing evidence for belief back in the day: burning bush, parting the Red Sea, ten commandments on stone tablets, loaves and fishes, healing the sick, walking on water etc etc etc ...........
But for the past 2 thousand years he seems incapable of making his presence felt in a way that go beyond the merely subjective I saw him and you didn't but he's still real way.
You are cherry picking
You may think you exist....but you could be wrong. Someone else might maintain that you don't. Therefore you cannot be sure.
You might think you are an atheist...but you might be a Quaker.
Whose to say....all just opinion
No, a fact is a fact despite opinions
You have an opinion that my fact is an opinion, but I have evidence you are not privy to.
Tell ya what...one of us is right
We could all be wrong about things we think we know are true yet we still assume that they are true.
You don't have to believe me but I know God lives just like you know you are not a Quaker.
What makes you think everything was so obvious "back in the day"? We have a version of a version when it comes to history.
My dad is more atheist than agnostic but he believes in certain "supernatural" stuff from his personal experiences.
Move to Haiti or Africa and see if your assumptions are challenged.
The scriptures say miracles follow faith. No faith , no miracles.
I've seen a few
You have seen miracles....do tell us about them.
Just pedestrian stuff like a kid given months to live then the cancer just disappeared. Or biggies like an 8 yr old praying to find a lost pet, seeing a picture in her mind and straight after running cross country with the whole family following to the exact place where it was. Or how about dead people coming back to comfort the living. To some everything is a miracle, to others everything can be explained away.
Where might I find the medical notes on this oh so fortunate child, the cancer was obviously diagnosed by a oncology specialist ....then to just disappear....what a miracle .
You'd know all about it I guess
That's it???? Blob I gotta say, youre a pushover mate. Pedestrian is a good description. No cheese toast Jesus', no talking to the spirits on a mushroom trip but 'biggies' like finding a pet. Can i ask are these the experiences that brought you to Christianity or did these miracles only follow your faith?
Read the comments...all there
"You have an opinion that my fact is an opinion, but I have evidence you are not privy to."
11 pages in? Well out with it then. What is this evidence that would shift your subjective experience to fact.
If you don't mind, it would help the discussion if we could evaluate it. Otherwise, it's just more of the same.
Psychiatric institutions are full of people who have visions, claim to be the son of God or whatever. They are absolutely dead certain they know that they know.
I doubt your interest is genuine ....just a feeling
Man up??? Are you serious lol. OK let's get our man-ness out then ey. You are mistaken, wrong, incorrect in your assertion that subjective truths cannot contradict. To say as much is to refuse to accept the fundamental definition of subjective and as we only have the English language to communicate our ideas to each other it is important to maintain at least the basic rules of the language.
I have made no attempt to change your view of christianity but have challenged you on certain points of your understanding of scientific and philosophical notions, in each case your point of view has been clearly illustrated as flawed, incorrect, wrong, mistaken. If you can't modify your argument to make some sense or reflect the definitions of the words you are trying to use then what is the point of claiming no one has dispatched your argument? How can you dispatch a nonsense if the person who is issuing it refuses to acknowledge the nonsense of their statements?
To this end I will try again with your opinion of nature, symbiosis illustrates that nature is not a tooth and claw fight to kill or be killed. The fact that symbiosis occurs dispatches your opinion and argument. The fact that cooperation ocurs dispatches your opinion and your argument. The fact that resource sharing occurs dispatches your opinion and your argument. Your response to this, your rebuttal, your argument to refute this is,"
A lady got dragged from her car and killed by a lion yesterday....perhaps she was paying no attention cause she was reading a book on symbiosis" ???? This is a reasonable argument to you?
Your understanding of nature as illustrated in your tooth and nail comment is wrong, irrational, incorrect and your argument has been thoroughly dispatched.
You keep talking yourself up...I always see that as a sign of insecurity.
Like claiming you have won a point without actually saying anything
I was ridiculing your non argument....didn't you notice?
Of course there is some truth in humour
Organisms may help each other out....um....so?
How does this fact show things killing other things is not a bad thing?
You are confusing scientific theory with philosophy
There is no good or bad in there....it's all indifferent....which makes me wonder why you care so much.
Get of the dais champ
There you go again, trying to turn a discussion into something personal, its the internet blob, you can call me any name under the sun, ridicule with your best attempts, try all the put downs you can....its the internet :)
As for the remainder of your post, yes perhaps it was an attempt at ridicule, never the less it was your response to a reasoned argument we were having based on a flawed statement you made. It was not a reasonable refutation, it was a nonsense the same as the original statement you made, you dug yourself into a hole and that was the only position left to you beyond conceding that you were in fact incorrect which seems a difficult thing for you to do, perhaps you can explain this in your personal understanding of psychology? Is it insecurity? Is that like scoring a point when you haven't actually said anything?
Get off the dais????? Worse than the attempt at insult is the difficulty understanding the language. Someone on another thread called a guy a punce yesterday, pronounced 'poonce' apparently, I wasn't sure, similarly with dais, I'm not sure what they are, i could be on them, if so i hope they are good for me :)
So you are a school teacher right?
Seriously
I pity those kids
Phew!! For a horrible moment there I thought you mightn't resort to playing the man. But, bang on time, there it is.
I do love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
Is it possible you can be that self unaware?
.
Was, a teacher, not currently although pity the kids if you feel the need. While your being pitiful spare some for the hideous damage being done to children in the name of Christianity.
Oh, there are good and bad teachers...you know, like good and bad religion.
A tiny nuance hiding behind your oversized blind spot
just as there is hideous damage being done by non-Christians....and now we have secular govts and societies......which means that you have faith in the good of mankind.......but...I don't because I have seen the misery which Godless societies end up being....communism!
just for the record ..I believe religious organization's do not represent God...in fact there is a case to be made ..that a lot of the churches are pedophile organizations...
Have to agree with your last paragraph there Brutus, certainly there seems to be a lot of evidence that the christian church is a pedophile organisation and the Muslim church and the Jews well they're just sickos
Not the Christian Church...but religious entities that are the middleman for God !
and worse still are the godless societies like the communist Russias/chinas/Nth Koreas.....etc........
Chritianity IS a religious entity that acts as a middleman for god, this is how the church of Christianity began and how it persists today.
Are godless societies worse? Can you give me an authoritative argument to support this?
They've been known to shoot you for trying to leave......Berlin Wall. Cambodia (Kampuchea) Maoism, they'd shoot you for wearing glasses....2 million authoritative dead there. North Korea....everyone's favourite.
Would there even be free western democracies without Christianity?
Sorry the question isnt directed to you and im not interested in anything you have to say. After taking the time to catch up and read through this entire thread today ive got no respect for your opinion and i cant take anything you talk about seriously. I've read much of brutus writings on S/N and engaged with him on a few occasion to do with topical issues that I'm interested in and I always appreciate his opinion. Thanks anyway but i'll wait around for him to get back on here.
Then don't tack yourself into an exchange between Mr Tim and I that Brutus added to.
Call half the world pedophiles and sickos and I will call you on it.
That is your version of respect I suppose.
Still I can see why you would like to avoid backing up your mouth.
Silicun .....Christianity is set out in the Bible ,New and Old testament.....religions take the Bible and interpret it and become the middleman....
hence its stunning to see Ireland, being torn apart by catholic and protestants who believe in the same God and Jesus.......but have different rituals ...and the fight is over the rituals......its mans intervention and arrogance that is a blight on Christianity......
there is no church of Christianity.......there are different religious entities that claim to be God/s middleman......just claims !
Godless societies......societies that have been created in the image of a man/Dictator ...such as in Communism.......Russia,China,Nth Korea ,Cambodia.........the list goes on....genocide ...societies that did not even see out a century......
One could even use the Nazi's....even though they professed to be Christian .....actions showed otherwise...Hitlers's vision of a 1000 year Reich......or a decade?
Even primitive societys had their gods/spirits......
The fact that so many athefacists focus pathologically on the supposed evils of religion while blindly refusing to admit any good in what is probably the most powerful influence for good in history, and at the same time refusing to acknowledge the brutal oppression of contemporary atheist regimes, says everything about their reliability. They are hostile witnesses. They are so emotionally committed to the lies that they are unable to be rational or scientific....blind faith.
Comparing the godless regimes of the 20th century to modern Christianity is like comparing the Manson gang with the society of St Vincent De Paul.
These guys love a lie.
If we're gonna cut and paste, here's a few quotes from a so called good hearted christian...... Take note of the final quote, where he uses the death of a poor woman as humour, just to make a point.....;
If I appear riled that is just my combative nature - I'm enjoying myself!
Did I upset you petal?
Tell me where I obfuscated and I will dumb it down for you
Your condescension is so needlessly rude it looks like arrogance covering up insecurity
so much of our culture is based to frog sh#t reveal your opinion to be the thing that is deficient?
A lady got dragged from her car and killed by a lion yesterday....perhaps she was paying no attention cause she was reading a book on symbiosis.....
Its the same as the 'man up' comment, personals are indicative of a weakness, either a weakness in argument or a weakness in personality. I would have to say in this case a weakness in argument because I don't know bkob to speak of his personality.
To illustrate the weakness in argument I will return to the point the you bought up about the lady being dragged from a car and mauled.
The point of contention was a comment by blob suggesting that the natural world is a tooth and claw affair, everything killing. I simply pointed out that this is not the case and that phenomena like symbiosis exist which totally dismiss blobs description of nature. I could have gone on to outline various other modes of cooperation or shared resource use but symbiosis was a nice simple example.
Somehow blobs response albeit sarcastic and puerile leads him to believe that my argument has been dispatched, when the case is in fact that I have illustrated the flaws in his thinking, yet again, as was done on his commentary re evolution and natural selection.
Stop waffling on about my hypocritical mythical unchristian smugness and please dispatch the argument you say was already dealt with but are now attempting to deflect
I really get a delicious kick out of atheists calling Christians unchristian. Double irony
Show me the standard you try to live by and tell me how well you measure up.
And for a little balance list the insults thrown my way along the way so we can compare and contrast my sins with the stuff thrown at me.
See when you sneer that I'm a "so called good hearted Christian" you are making yourself out to be on the moral high ground.....the place you want to put me so you can take pot shots
Problem is I'm not perfect yet...and neither are you champ
oooooow, the Outsider got inside and hit a nerve.
It OK blob, youre not an outsider, just one of us in fact. If it makes you feel good to think that you 'got inside' and 'hit a nerve' that's OK too, we all do odd things in our heads to feel good, an ego thing I guess.
Tim,i was refering to FreeRide 'the outsider' getting inside and touching a nerve.....Blob fired up almost.
Ahh, that makes sense, my misunderstanding. Jeez if this isn't blob fired up I'd hate to think how long the discussion would be if he was!!!
I'm laughing with you buddy
Yes, yes everyone is laughing WITH you blob ;)
Go back to playground duty
There's that smell again. Like a fragrant rose. Or a flattened cane toad.
Well played blob
Yes...ahhhh...well played?
Never said I was prefect, champ......
And if you had've been paying attention, I said I'm agnostic, not an atheist.... You've even acknowledged that i am agnostic, yet now accuse me of being an atheist.... Put you brain into gear before you take your mouth on the road mate....
Using the death of an innocent woman for humour????? Really???? And you have the guile to talk about "deflection"? I
There is one thing that I am wrong on..... I offered the hand of friendship and said you were an ok guy..... I was wrong.... You are a troll........ A self righteous slippery eel..... But that's ok..... I've met many like you.......
Now this argument you say I am deflecting...... Which one, blob?
Take a pill
I'm juggling 4 arguments at once
How bout a little Christian charity
But I still luv ya babe
Yes that is a good idea, can you give us a list of the insults thrown your way in this discussion.
I'm not sure if you are referring to me about the arguments that have been dispatched but I wrote a reply above to address the arguments you and I have engaged in.
Aww shucks
I'm really flattered you are paying such close attention
.
Of course I'm paying attention, we were engaged in a two way discussion for the most part. Its just now that you seem to be fraying at the edges and resorting to one line personals. You've shown theres more to you, bring back the old blob, the interesting blob, the reasonable if irrational blob....the christian blob!
I love my fans!....and yes, I am releasing a greatest hits album
Blob, way back on page 1 you said you know of well known surfers who are pedofiles
if they have been charged and CONVICTED.....name them .
That would be hearsay. But it's what people who said they know told me. I know of a photographer who liked boys and of a model who was a victim. Let the victims talk if they want
Since you are for transparency maybe anyone commenting who ever sold drugs could fess up. Yay
Remember the Dragon song..."are you old enough"? Every second guy you meet is technically a pedophile. There is so much hypocrisy it is sick
The righteous anti religionists hate it when a surfer mentions God though
So hearsay is an appropriate argument when you want to use it?
"Every second guy you meet is technically a pedophile", can you qualify this statement?
Hearsay ...how very Christian of you to take on board to Foul gossip and slander.
You said you know of surfing peds.......Brethren Blob you have lied .
Do you know your way around a courtroom udo? A victim told me a story. If I tell the story it is hearsay.
Well, since I've been asked for it by our friend Blob, here's my 'boiled down' argument against the existence of God.
1. The consistent pattern of replacing supernatural explanations with natural ones.
Explanations once provided by religion or ‘God’ have over the millennia been consistently and multitudinously replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect. Give me one solid, immutable, evidence-supported, peer-reviewed example the other way and I'll reconsider my disbelief.
2: The inconsistency of perceptions of ‘God’.
Why, if God (or any other metaphysical being) is real, do peoples’ perceptions differ so wildly, yet their perceptions of the natural world share such commonality?
Simple - because God does not exist. Perceptions of ‘God’ are not perceptions of anything real. They’re made up perceptions, something that the part of our brain that's wired to see pattern and intention looks for, even when none exists.
3: The weakness and circularity of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics.
"God exists because the Bible says God exists." "God exists because I feel in my heart that God exists." "God is an entity that cannot be proven by reason or evidence” “God is so powerful and all-knowing that we humans can’t possibly hope to understand him” (despite, allegedly, being made in his image). "We Christians/Jews/Muslims don't have to show you any reason or evidence, it's unreasonable and intolerant for you to even expect that”.
4: The increasing diminution of God.
Historically, the perceived power of God has been steadily diminishing for centuries. As human understanding of the physical world has increased, and the testing of theories and claims has improved, the domain of God's miracles and other supposed supernatural phenomena has consistently shrunk. Eg. Sinning against God is no longer to blame for tsunamis – we know they result from undersea earthquakes, which in turn we know result from tectonic plates shifting. Likewise, sinning against God is no longer to blame for plagues – we now know about microbes and viruses.
‘God’ has shrunk to now being just the god of the gaps. Whatever gap there is in our understanding of the world, that's what God is (supposedly) responsible for. But those gaps are diminishing fast.
5: The fact that belief in God runs in families.
The single strongest factor in determining whether a person believes in God and what their religion is? The religion they were born into and brought up with. By far. Very few people carefully examine all the available religious beliefs and select the one they think most accurately describes the world. Overwhelmingly, people believe whatever religion they were taught as children.
Yet no-one does this with science. We believe whatever scientific understanding is best supported by the best available evidence at the time. And as the evidence changes, so does our understanding.
Few people even do it with politics. Again, our positions shift with our circumstances and our attitudes. Witness the opinion polls that show support of same-sex marriage increasing with each new generation. Political beliefs learned from youth can, and do, break down in the face of the reality that people see every day. And scientific theories do this, all the time, on a regular basis.
This is emphatically not the case with religion. From which we can postulate that religion is not a perception of a real entity. If it were, people wouldn't just believe whatever religion they were taught as children, simply because it was what they were taught as children. The fact that religion runs so firmly in families strongly suggests that it is not a perception of a real phenomenon. It is a dogma, supported and perpetuated by tradition, social pressure and, in many cases, fear and intimidation. Not by reality.
6: The physical causes of everything we think of as the soul.
For centuries, the hypothesis of the ‘soul’ was the singular province of and irrefutable proof of a divine entity. However, today, despite the sciences of neurology, neuropsychology and neuroplasticity being in their infancy, the evidence – consistently, thoroughly, across the board – is that, whatever consciousness is, it is inextricably linked to the brain. We’re talking about rigorously-gathered, carefully-tested, thoroughly cross-checked, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, replicated, peer-reviewed research.
Consciousness and identity, character and free will, are products of the brain and the body. Biological processes, governed by laws of physical cause and effect. Consciousness is a product of the brain, not God. Period.
7: The complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing.
In the face of careful, rigorous, double-blind, placebo-controlled, replicated peer-reviewed testing, every claim of supernatural phenomenon by a religious or spiritual believer has fallen apart. Supernatural claims only hold up under careless, casual examination. They are supported by lousy (or simply no) testing methodology, wishful thinking, confirmation bias and a dozen other forms of cognitive bias. When studied carefully, under conditions specifically designed to screen these things out, the claims vanish. Which is why the James Randi Educational Foundation’s $1,000,000 prize is still unclaimed, despite more than one thousand attempts to win it.
8: The slipperiness of religious and spiritual beliefs and arguments.
For example, many believers say that if things go their way, it's a sign of God's grace and intervention; if they don't, then God moves in mysterious ways and has a lesson to teach that can’t be understood, and it's not up to humans to question his will. In the philosophy of science, a theory that can be supported no matter what possible evidence comes to hand is useless. The theory has no power to explain what's already happened, or to predict what will happen in the future. The theory of gravity, for instance, could be disproven by things suddenly falling up; the theory of evolution could be disproven by finding rabbits in the pre-Cambrian fossil layer. These theories predict that those things won't happen; if those things do, the disproved theories will be replaced by better ones. But if the theory of God's existence holds up no matter what happens -- whether someone with cancer that you pray to God for gets better or dies, whether natural disasters strike big sinful cities or small God-fearing towns -- then it's a useless theory, with no power to predict or explain anything.
No matter what happens, religious and spiritual beliefs can be twisted to prove that the belief is right. Just read Blob’s posts on this thread; when challenged, he simply shifts the goalposts. For example, he says in one post that the Bible is the perfect truth of God handed down to prophets, yet in another says that it can be interpreted differently by different readers? If it needs interpreting, how perfect can it be?
If a case can't be made and then stuck by, or modified, or let go, then it's not a good case.
9: The failure of religion to improve or clarify over time.
Over the years and decades and centuries, our understanding of the physical world has grown and clarified by a ridiculous amount. We understand things about the Universe that we couldn't have imagined a thousand years ago, or a hundred, or even ten. Things that make your mouth gape with astonishment just to think about. Why? The scientific method, a self-correcting method for understanding the physical world.
Our understanding of the supernatural world? Not so much – it’s in the same place it's always been: hundreds and indeed thousands of sects, squabbling over which sacred texts and spiritual intuitions are the right ones. And around in the squabbling circle we go.
10: The complete lack of solid evidence for God's existence.
There's no evidence for it. No good evidence, anyway. No evidence that doesn't just amount to opinion and tradition and confirmation bias. No evidence that doesn't fall apart upon close examination. As thousands of atheists before me have pointed out: it is not up to us to prove that God does not exist. It is up to theists to prove that he does.
On the balance of probability and the weight of available information, God almost certainly does not exist. In the absence of any solid evidence or arguments in favor of the probability of God's existence and in the growing raft of arguments against it, I will continue to be an atheist and act as if he doesn't.
That's a well put together argument. However I must submit for scientific review
Hmmm, yes, fair cop. Can't argue with that, Tinfoil. Checkmate.
BTW, I used to go to school with your brother Al.
Boiled down from where?
Are these your arguments?
Or have you paraphrased another's?
They seem to contain elements of a foreign writing style
1: Supernatural replaced with natural explanations.......
You demand an example but have provided no example. Great start. Flawed explanations can come from flawed understanding. It happens in science all the time you know...hey, why don't you throw out science.? Great point though.
2: Inconsistency in perceptions of God.......
already covered at length in comments. Why not, if you want to be relevant address the responses already there? I know you wanna make a list.... But gee.
As in....
(Blob commented Wednesday, 27 May 2015 at 11:26am
Why worry about what other people believe? Keep it simple. You have a conscience - use it to judge various claims. Personally I don't like chopping off people's heads, and I'm confident God doesn't like it either. Try this model: God sets up a situation where good and evil exist and drops his children in there to work it out so they can learn. What they choose is what they will get. As a man sows so shall he reap. There are lots of churches because men start with pure revelation and then work it into their own image. God reveals truth. Men make many churches. There can be lots of churches and philosophies that combine truth and error. A diffusion. They can be part right and part wrong, and there can still be a "straight and narrow path" among the confusion. In the end, most persistent Christians have gone directly to the source for a definite answer. You can read one of the gospels in an afternoon and then get on your knees. Of course most people are way too clever to do that.)
God doesn't make us all believe the same thing. Free moral choice and the existence of evil make things necessarily untidy
3: Weak arguments for the existence of God......
again, you are addressing straw men that are not mentioned in the comments, other arguments you restate in a dishonest way and others are ignored. You do this while objecting to weak arguments. Plenty of big brains like the arguments you choke on. Wondering.....do you find your own weak arguments objectionable?
4: Diminution.....
Is this a word you use often? I only ask because your usual vocabulary seems more modest. Anyway, this seems a rather blunt point as the Christian God towers powerfully over history even though the bible places heavenly power in God and sees persecution for a small unpopular true church. The Bible places worldly power in Satan, false religion and men. Did the historical weakness of atheism disprove atheism? Christianity does not even claim popularity as proof. This is an uninformed objection.
5: Runs in families.....
I'm having trouble with this one.....trouble even understanding how it is convincing to anyone but the most partisan drone. Atheism runs in families too. Even more strongly than religion ....am I right? Tell me. I wonder why you would leave this information out? Politics and every form of ideology and culture is passed on in families, and we are influenced by the umbrella culture, sometimes in opposition to our upbringing......um....obviously
6: No soul, just a brain...
This is a no brainier. The soul can be explained in religion as located in the brain, the body and outside the body and all at the same time. You say that brain science is in its infancy and in the next sentence give 7 adjectives to say the science is rock solid settled. A list of adjectives that long is trying to cover a weakness way too hard. Fess up, consciousness is nowhere near settled science. We would have to be unconscious to fall for this nonsense.
7: Failed testing of supernatural phenomenon.....
Adjective time again. Would something be supernatural if it were testable by natural means? If there is a God that pulls strings would He allow supernatural things to be objectively provable if it would defeat His stated purpose of requiring faith? Another "Cart before horse " uninformed objection. You are left again trying to disprove religion without at all understanding religion. Christians don't try to prove the resurrection in labs but they encourage the individual to experiment on a personal level with faith, prayer and study. If that is just too silly for you then let it go buddy
8: The slipperiness of belief....
Even atheists can be superstitious and put their shoes on in a certain order, this is a human fallibility. Some Christians do not see God in every outcome. Other Christians are somewhat gullible. It may be outside your experience but many rational, highly intelligent Christians seriously believe that prayers are answered....because they have had prayers answered. I know...silly people
Why accuse me of shifting goal posts when you are misquoting me? I said the Bible is perfect at the time it is revealed, then it is messed with by men to some degree, then it is variously interpreted - but it should only be understood by through the same spirit of revelation by which it was given. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the bible needs to be interpreted, I said the exact opposite.
9 failure of Religion to improve......
Have you run out of even the lousy arguments? Don't dismiss religion because of science. Science grew out of religion. You have a real annoying problem with the confusion of religions....why exactly do you believe God should have everyone walking in a straight line.? He does not think like you. You are again complaining from a position of ignorance.
10: Lack of evidence......
Again. You had your chance to address this issue in previous comments without "your" list. There are billions of intelligent people that have weighed the evidence you will not even consider, and they believe in God.
Believe it or not I don't see this as a competition. I know what I know. I'm not spending any ink in this rebuttal explaining what I actually believe cause you don't actually want to know. ....yes I'm a bit slow on the uptake.
I'm as competitive and argumentative as the next jerk. I can flare up when I feel insulted, but I'm only here to call out people who like to insult other peoples sincere beliefs, and defend my own. If I succumb to sarcasm I apologise. It's fun, and better than killing people. No hard feelings on my part.
I understand exactly where you are coming from. You are such a believer in what you think of as disciplined rational deduction, you won't open your mind to another way of thinking.
But your objections betray a need for a God that agrees with your expectations, a God that shows his power by having everyone in lock step, that proves himself to us with miracles on demand. In effect you are demanding a God that thinks like a 21st century atheist.
Sorry, bout that...wrong God
Just remember, there are no atheists in the foxholes. When the tough time comes, and there is no more jokes and laughs, and your materialistic beliefs bar you from any desperate wish for meaning or hope, you may then realise you need more than arguments, and you might remember you have another choice.
Without ever doing the experiment of faith - even on your own rational terms, you will only ever be left with the partially informed, best guesses of men.
Hey, don't shoot me for trying....
stray gator wrote an excellent post that is now back a page and so might get lost in the ether... posted at on Wednesday, 10 Jun 2015 at 1:59pm
I don't agree with the conclusion (I'm not an athiest) but it's one hell of a good post. Check it out.
EDIT: Looks like he's stuck it on this page, while I was typing this one! Nice one.
Brilliant Gator.
I've said it before!
X2 Udo..
Hey Udo you are someone as well, more important than Baldy IMO:) Off topic
James Randi wiki page is worth a read.
Weeks, hours of certain, well perhaps almost pondering and blithering to come up with a piece of boiled swiss cheese, concluding almost... but certainly?
Almost the truth... or certainly the truth. God help us.
Hey yeh, go for it its certainly offshore... well, almost! Hey, the lights are certainly on, well, almost!
I like it, what a sales pitch... of course it will certainly work... well, almost!!!
I like it!
Idiot.
Thanks, Mick. There are very few certainties in this life, so probabilities are often all we can proffer.
One of the few things that I AM really certain about, though, is that you're amasing. Really.
When are we gonna play trains again?
On a lighhter note, it appears that Blob has wrested the Swellnet 500 trophy from Uppity.
You'd have to say it's almost akin to winning the Eddie.
SG2, great post previously.
Lost lizard. You write " it is not up to us to prove that God does not exist. It is up to theists to prove that he does."
That's a cop out..... And that is why my scaly friend, i am agnostic..... Hardcore atheists (I'm not calling you one btw) piss me off just as much as hardcore theists..... The real answer is "I don't know"...... No one can prove what happened before the big bang.... No one..... The sun might be an atom.... And we might be living on an electron.... And the milky way may be a molecule.... And all the galaxies may be molecules that make up a haemorrhoid on a giant in another void....
So you can keep on not believing without proof, and Blerb can keep on believing without proof.... It's all good.....
But a bloke that was alot wiser than lizard, dawg or blerb once said this;
"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic"
Charles Darwin........
It's not a cop out - it's how these things work. I believe in things based on the weight and quality of evidence, and the testability of the theory being postulated. There is good evidence to support the theory that the Sun is a huge, glowing sphere largely comprised of hydrogen and helium, with carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, neon, iron, silicon, magnesium and sulfur making up the rest. We have instruments that can measure these things.
Can we do this with God? Of what is God comprised? What does God look like? Where does God live? Is Heaven up or down?
Will the Sun rise tomorrow? We don't know for 100% certain but, based on what we know and can measure, we can say that, on the weight of information, the balance of probabilities is strongly in favour of the proposition for 'yes'.
Can we say this for God? Can we even say this for the proposition that a man called Jesus did something 2000 years ago that no one else in recorded history has ever done - after being tortured and killed in a most cruel, horrific and very public manner, he auto-resuscitated three days later? Is the weight of known evidence and the balance of probabilities in favour of THAT proposition really the same as it is for the proposition that the Sun will rise tomorrow?
Be intellectually honest, Sheepster. And don't forget, too, that Darwin wrote the Origin of Species in 1859. Who knows what he'd write today with the body of knowledge that's been amassed since.
You can not prove to me that a god, or gods, or another dimension etc does not exist, just as Blerb can't prove God/s exist....
When you have irrefutable proof there is no god, post it... Until then, you are in the same smug waffle boat as blerb.....
So many experts...... So many convinced without the ultimate proof......
Btw, you do know the sun doesn't rise, right?
What!!? It does too. It comes right up from under the world and falls back down when it's too tired to keep flapping its arms.
Flapping arms... Flapping gums.... It's all good hehehehe...... But that just shows how "science" can be wrong..... Flat earth was once science.... Now we know it's round and the sun doesn't rise but the earth spins....... Long after we're gone, lizard man, perhaps the learned ones will discover the reason for the big bang, and what existed before....
No, my hairy friend, flat earth was never 'science'. It was a just a theory that fell away as the scientifically-gathered evidence against it improved.
Ohhh stop it, my cold blooded prehistorically linked brethren.... It was the science of the day, and you know it.... "It was just a theory"........ Isn't that how science works? with theories like Einstein’s Static Universe, Phrenology, cold fusion?? There is science out there right now that "we believe" to be "probably true", but it will be disproved at a future date...
Don't go down blerbs track of blind faith in something that cannot and will not be proven in our lifetime.....
You say it isn't up to atheist to prove god doesn't exist..... That's fine when an atheist keeps their trap shut..... But when an atheist publicly says "god does not exist", and/or they form a sort of religion with websites and facebook pages promoting their belief, it is within my right to say "hey show me the proof", just as I ask the theists to do the same.....
Neither of you believers have shown me anything....
Just a side note sheepdog. It's nonsense to compare the flat earth idea as science with what we call science in today's terms. Aristotle, arguably one of the key figures in the evolution of the scientific method, noted the earth was spherical in shape and he lived hundreds of years before christ. It was literally thousands of years ago that anyone thought the earth was flat, and it sure wasn't determined through anything resembling the scientific method. Science, as we refer to it today didn't even exist at the time.
To equate the beliefs of philosophers from over 2000 years ago, a time well before empiricism was conceived, with the science of today, is nonsense. The idea of the earth being flat was never scientific and it's silly to suggest it is.
As for your complaint about probability, that should be right up your agnostic alley. The use of probability in science today is due to a recognition that we can't be 100% certain about many things currently under investigation, so we estimate the probability of a given hypothesis being true. It's very consistent with agnosticism.
My view of it is that a lot of the low hanging fruit of science has been figured out and now we're dealing with things that are multi-dimensional and intricate, which can be impossible to make unequivocal statements (given current powers of observation and data collection). Using probability enables scientists to make statements about where the current available knowledge points, so that we as a society can make decisions based on that. The alternative is to shrug our shoulders, say we don't know because we can't say with 100% certainty, and walk away. Not very useful.
you dont need to have "ultimate proof" to believe. in fact there is no such thing as ultimate proof and i would test anyone to provide an example. all belief is based of judgement of the objective reasoning and personal experience presented.
whilst we can't proove or disprove god we can discuss the probability of gods existance based off the arguments made in his favour. for example religous people talk of miracles that are often explained through science. the bible is the word of god, and so we can test whats written in the bible against scientific evidence.
balance of probability is that god doesnt exist for many people....and the numbers of people believing this is growing. faith and analysis are known to be the enemy of eachother. as humans become more analytical they also become less religous.
"probability".... Now there's a malleable word......
I'm about to type the letter C............. C.........
There, it exists.... It doesn't "probably exist".......
whats wrong with probability SD? science is supposed to malleable - unlike religion which does not like to adapt.
Did I ever say I could prove the existence of God?
Nope
I said I could not
I did say anyone can find out for themselves if they wanted to....but that's not you unfortunately
You won't ask, but you will get your ultimate proof
Are you actually god?
Flattery will get you nowhere
Gay-strator wins!! blob loses.
Close thread
Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated
It ain't never over till the fat lady sings
.....As in our final destination
Don't worry, I'll help you get the egg off your face when the day comes
Sg2...."The failure of religion to improve or clarify over time".
i dont know about that...firstly god created world in 7 days, then many hundreds of years later the catholic church said that each day was really 1000 years making it 7000 years old. pretty good clarification to me. maybe the bible should be re-written to say 7000 years....oh wait...that'd upset too many people who like it just the way it is.
yep..like i said right at the beginning of this article....very few people "find" god like rusty....99.9% of time they are simple born into believing it.
im totally agnostic on god, but the bible is the biggest load of bullshit stories ever....and its fooling millions of people into wasting time reading it. "word of god" - what a crock of shit.
'We have instruments that can measure these things.'
Limited instuments though. Extremely limited. Always by the user, the measurer. Just as an ants are. So an ant has a comprehension of a limited 'world', or universe. We have no instruments to measure what is the limit of , or beyond space, that our extremely limited instruments can measure. Or visa versa, the smallest particle and beyond. In that regard, we are like ants. Ignorant. Cocky, but very ignorant. We have no idea of the truth and limits of reality, despite all the posturing and gesturing.
As raised, we recognise patterns. If we decide to rely on our extremely limited physical senses, as the be all and end all, then those senses tell us that all we can comprehend, has a source. We identify the source of things. Suddenly, when our physical senses are inadequate, we make up a new rule, and say things just are. What is the source of the first pattern? Or will we just use the convenient, 'they just are story'?
'Why, if God (or any other metaphysical being) is real, do peoples’ perceptions differ so wildly, yet their perceptions of the natural world share such commonality?'
The commonality is a new, post colonial construction. For instance, the most successful Cultures ever in human history had an entirely different, incomprehensible to us, view of the 'natural world'. Our culture, who's record of success pales in comparison, used brute force and violence to smash and bash our entirely different 'natural world' view into them. A friend who is one of the top, highly esteemed archeologists in the country, once told me of the difficulty he had in trying to communicate with some Indigenous Australians who were the last to live in the fully Traditional sense, with no contact with our culture, until they had no choice. He said their view of things was so different that it made it almost impossible to comprehend what they were experiencing. But, having said that, he's not a swillnutter, so 'wot wood e farkin no aye!!!'
Jeez, yer roight Mick!!
Now, back to yer dormitory. And leave Muriel alone.
And, I'm certain thats all true!
Well, almost, and thats good a farkin nuff oi!
Your 'ona!
Fuck me no one has commented...?
I must be the first;)
@blob, in an effort to bring our discourse up to date and offer you a reply to your question, owed only due to your polite and generous nature, I'll answer your question here.
Let me first establish that my initial point was that religion shouldn't (IMO) be taught in schools until children are informed enough to decide if its something they would like to undertake OR in the context of studying religion in the general sense.
You've developed this statement into the question, "Then answer
Make it plain tim
You want to remove the right of parents to teach religion to their children in the schools and in the home.
Is that correct?"
I guess that's one way of putting it although I would balk at the notion that parents or the church or the state have a 'right' to teach religion to children, I don't understand this to be a right.
Therefore a more appropriate way to describe my point of view would be to say that I think that children should be sufficiently informed and mature enough to able to make their own personal choice about taking on a religion, I object to the idea of indoctrination into a religion when children's minds are vulnerable.
Too many words not enough answer
Yes or no would be clearer
How does a child become "informed enough" to make a decision about being taught religion having never been taught anything about religion?
How would you stop parents teaching their children about religion in their own homes?
Do you realise that most people might consider you a dangerous extremist?
Dangerous extremist ? F. F. S.
Yes blob/god, I've noticed how popular your point of view is.
Among a sample of 4 or 5 atheists?
Man up
How do you think stopping parents teaching their own beliefs to their own children in their own homes would do in a referendum?
And to repeat...how would you stop them?
'Mr lift, before making our final, definitive decision, we just have one question. Can you fulfill the duties as described in the position description?'
'Yes, I am certain that I can! Well... almost!'
'Brilliant Mr lift! Then we have great pleasure in telling you that you are successful, and the position is yours! Well... almost!'
'Aye?!!! WTF?!! What's that supposed to mean?'
'It means exactly what it means, that the position is yours... almost!'
'That's fuckin' brilliant that is, have I got the fuckin thing or not?
'For certain Mr lift! Almost!'
'For fuck's sake, what does that mean?'
'We are on a slippery slope here Mr lift. What it means is that as our perceptions differ so wildly, and we are unable to reach commonality re the certain, yet almost position, there can be only one certain conclusion... almost... scientifically speaking.'
'And what's that then.'
'Its simply, scientifically brilliant! You don't exist'
'What... are you certain? '
'Well, almost!'
How can we sleep at night? There'd better be a God, or we're fucking, brilliantly doomed.
You awoke at 12:43 to write this? Prostate playing up again, ole boy?
I knew I'd be the first thing in your almost life. How can we be expected to sleep, with certain ludicrous dolts, stray idiots, walking the planet, their almost life spent speiling paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph (did I say paragraph) of certain... well almost 'brilliant', 'scholastic', 'scientific reasoning'. Thank God for exams, grades, and Honour Rolls!!!! (Please excuse me whilst I roll around the floor literally dying of laughter)
Again, there'd better be a God, because the almost certain, stray, probable, 'scientific' alternative is almost too much to comprehend, and spells certain doom for the planet.
Literally dying???
Finally something you say excites me.
Blob.... Get over yourself mate..... Stop reveling in your own persecution here on swellnet.... I know it releases feel good endorphins which many self whipping religious types enjoy.... But these same endorphins can be released by going for a surf..... FFS.....
Thanks for the gentle advice brother. I know it comes out of a deep and genuine concern
scientific proof...hmm...so one man sees blue another sees green...another sees brown....so who is right the majority ?
Is the majority scientifically right......how does man interpret science??
Tim interesting to read your points of view but I have probably missed.... what do you believe in if anything?
Rather than ask the question, how does man interpret science, perhaps a better way to understand science is that sccince is a human tool for interpreting our reality.
Brutus, on the question of god I am agnostic. On the question of christianity I am a firm non believer, I've spent too much time immersed in various cultures around the world for chrritstianity to make any sense to me after growing up as a practicing christian.
Ideologically I like to think of my mind as open and receptive, ethically I believe in understanding the ecological and human community we live in and practicing care and tolerance based on understanding.
Tim..even if you use the analogy that science is a tool of man....man makes so many mistakes ...he misuses the tools and.....the end result is not the science but mans misuse of the tools or mans interpretation varies from man to man...that's why I used the color example...we rely on our senses to interpret.
I can understand why after being brought up in the church and a supposed practicing Christian....that you are now an agnostic........I too was brought up as practicing Christian,altar boy,choir,sunday school teacher....but did not believe the Church ...41 years later I had very radical personal issues.....even one might say a bit of a miracle......and I questioned myself ...what does it all mean??
Do you think that man has inherent goodness...or is learnt or has evolved....or it just magically appeared with the big bang??
Brutus, being a born again Christian do you support this as good christian thinking on the existence of god -
"I did say anyone can find out for themselves if they wanted to....but that's not you unfortunately
You won't ask, but you will get your ultimate proof"
Is this how you talk to people about Christianity and coming to god?
Blob , I don't know whats happened but Im feelin ya.....im a convert and I feel blessed........shit major drama just happened and may need some help
Back shortly.
Just ask God..
Blob, sorry to take so long, bit of drama went down
need your help ...
a favour...........
Can I have another Altar Boy the last one just Split.
1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. (New Testament, Luke, Chapter 17)
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. (New Testament, Matthew, Chapter 12)
ahh udo..you are better than making jokes ,about an issue that is horrific .......you might think its funny..maybe if you told some Abbo jokes ...you could complete your Vilification of religion and Race?
Hey Udo.......just wondering if you were going to answer or explain you pretty average comment???
Blob, sorry to take so long, bit of drama went down
need your help ...
a favour...........
Can I have another Altar Boy the last one just Split.
Happyas... I don't have a problem with probability... Dunno if you get into the forecast notes, but "probability" is a tool I use quite often.... And with east coast swells, i do ok.... I'd say 4 out of 5 times I get it right.... But 20% of the time, i get it wrong....
So if someone says to me "I don't believe there is a god.... I can't prove it but from what I have studied a god probably doesn't exist, so I'm backing that"..... I think that is fair enough... But if an atheist says "There is definitely no god" (and I'm not implying you or anyone here has said that), i say "prove it"..... They can't....
I say the same thing to anyone who says "there definitely is a god"..... Prove it...
Now, Benski.... I wasn't comparing scientific theories from way back when to now.. I was pointing out that theories once considered fact can and have been proven untrue... I wasn't comparing science from the earliest discoverers of plumbing to the hadron collider... That would be like comparing todays science to science in 1000 year time (if we are still here)... The making of the first bow and arrow was science.... But hey, should I compare it to a drone? No.... So I think it is "nonsense" that you have gone down that route of attack.... I also never said to "shrug our shoulders" in regards to the question of is there a god.... I just don't know.... But I keep my eyes open...
Don't worry I'm not attacking you sheepdog, more nitpicking. And now you're making me do more of it! You said " It was the science of the day, and you know it"
It wasn't the science of the day. It wasn't science.
It's a nonsense thing to say because the earth is flat wasn't a scientific idea. It might have been an idea of how the earth was shaped, but that doesn't make it scientific. Just clarifying that point because it's a silly example that gets thrown around freely as an example of science. But science it ain't, and never was.
Science isn't the study of the natural world, it's a method of enquiry that happens to be used to study the natural world. No scientific enquiry was used to determine the earth was flat. If you're main point is that science updates itself, sure ok but you might as well say religious people believe in god. It's kind of the point of science, to update itself as new information comes to hand. That's it's major strength.
As for the shrug your shoulders comment, I wasn't referring to god or a belief in it, but rather the alternative policy actions to science based on probabilities. I thought you were having a go at science based on probabilities so I was just pointing out that we can estimate the probability of a certain outcome and make policy decisions based on that, or we can shrug our shoulders and do nothing because we can't be 100% sure. Nothing to do with god in that comment from me.
Benski, your definition of science is the definition of science today.... Not the definition of science then.... To them it was science.... Science continually evolves.... To Archelaus, he came up with a theory that the flat earth had a slight dome shape, which explained the changing astronomy depending on where one was standing.... Many learned men agreed with him, because it was "probable"....
But hey, we'll agree to disagree.....
As far as your last paragraph goes, this whole thread has been about god.... The probability of god, or no god.... BTW, do you believe in god?
Well mate you confuse me because now you seem to be arguing against what I thought was your earlier position on probability.
As for flat earth and science, I can accept what you say (though you're talking about natural philosophy rather than science) but the methods of enquiry are so different, as you acknowledged, that it's a pointless thing to raise in comparison with what we call science today. Still seems to me like you did that, but I do find your posts confusing.
As for god, I don't discuss my beliefs with many people and I'm not going to start on a loopy thread like this, beyond saying what I said above, I'm not an athiest. I'll discuss science til the cows come home because it's what I do for a crust. it's about all I've mentioned in the couple of times I've contributed to this thread. But god and the like, I'll keep that to myself.
There's more to you than meets the eye sheepio, I've always liked your weather posts but the breadth of your knowledge impresses me as I've said about many of the contributors on S/N
While were on science and the universe and reality and all that, try wrapping your head around this- http://www.digitaljournal.com/science/experiment-shows-future-events-dec...
Silicun.. I don't know whether that was a compliment or a backhander. :p cheers, bro... You're keeping me on my toes....
Benski, My posts shouldn't confuse a man with your intellect, surely... Firstly my original post to gator was a tongue in cheek jibe re' his "the sun rises" comment... Go back and re read.... Hopefully you'll get the joke....
And as I said about science (even though I'm not as skilled as you and cannot use this thread to demonstrate an expertise gained by the may years of study like yourself), I'm sure you can comprehend that the definition of science has changed through the ages.... What was considered science 2000 years ago is now not considered science.... And even though in all our current wisdom we may think we have reached a pinnacle, and only a small amount is to be yet discovered on the "higher branches", I'd say there is a good "probability" that in 2000 years time, someone may read these ancient texts buried in swellnet and come to the conclusion that we were stupid, pretending to know all whilst shitting in our own nests...
Cheers, Benski....
Oh gees. I don't come to these pages looking for a fight mate. I do so looking for a conversation. I'll leave you to it.
"Oh gees. I don't come to these pages looking for a fight mate. I do so looking for a conversation. I'll leave you to it."
Awww come on benski.. Don't go lol.... But don't go all passive aggressive on us either...... Re' coming to these pages and fights/debate etc - that's fair enough when you join a thread about board design, or travel tips.... But when you join a thread that's already a fairly heated debate about god and science with your own contrary position , there's a good "probability" that a disagreement may ensue, wouldn't you say?
And when you enter that debate, and your very first post directed at me has the following remarks; " It's NONSENSE to compare "...... and "is NONSENSE"...... and " it's SILLY to suggest"..... and "that should be RIGHT UP YOUR AGNOSTIC ALLEY", then I'd say the probability of a debate has risen yet again..... You could've taken the japanese diplomacy tactic of "yes, but"...... "Yes Sheepdog, i know what you are trying to say, BUT, I'd have to disagree with you on flat earth.... IMO, that was more of a philosophy than true science.... Static universe, yeah... But Flat earth, no..... Cheers, sheepy..... The bensker...."
Now that's a conversation, mate....
It's all good, bender.... What's said on the field stays on the field....... Avagoodweekend mate....
'in regards to the question of is there a god.... I just don't know.... But I keep my eyes open...'
Why? Eyes are very limited physical organs. What is it that can decide to keep them open or closed. You, or the most esteem scientist on the planet can't pinpoint that. There is no common consensus on that. Yet the results, the indicators of you, the thing that can decide to think, or not, but isn't the thought, are easily observed. You arent though. Therefore, applying a common deduction, you don't exsist.
While arguing on absolute truth Vs. relative truth, I remember asking a woman the loaded question "do you exist"
....her answer was "I don't know"
A defensible position if you are clever enough to make it....what is consciousness after all?
But really, if you don't know whether you exist or not why bother even arguing about truth?
IMO if one thing is absolutely true then all truth must be absolute, and world views are built on such basic stuff
Hahahaha
If you don't look you won't see;)
"Therefore, applying a common deduction, you don't exsist."
Then why are you writing to me? I don't exist....
Because its obviously wrong, that 'reason'.
Ahh, Uplift.....Blob......... "Do you exist?"...... "Am I real"?..... Ted can answer that for you.......
Yeh, seen blacks do that to a few of em aye dawg! List... en up! Watch out actually gettin' in but! Believe it or not, even seen chis crack the odd one too. Blacks aint chis though! Its real!
'Hehehe..... I've surfed bigger stuff than you could handle on a shortboard.... Stick to riding the 8 foot boards in surf that only requires a 6'6, mate.....
Btw.... I love lists ;)'
'Uplift.... I could spin bullshit... say I surfed Chi's, got barrelled, blah blah... Or I can be honest....... As a young qlder, first time travelling, first time, surfing different types of waves, Jumping off the rocks below the cliffs and paddling out at chi's was a totally foreign experience.... That little butterfly feeling one gets when confronted with something new.... Being alone and stared at by hairy blokes in their 30s didn't help the adolescent dog...... But I did it...... Got a few waves... Nothing to rave about.... Nearly got cleaned up getting in....'.
Yeh well anyway! Which version is it this week?
The guy's fit welly. Hard working. I've had an interesting week mucking around with a super fit guy in the gym, a circus performer, acrobat, strong man. Fucking machine. Huge guy. Watched his act tonite, blew everyone away. Loves hitting the gym. building muscle. Interesting background. I'll get back to you on that thread on the weekend welly.
'Next someone will tell me that humans, with science, can create life, or that its inevitable with 'scientific' 'progress' that they will be able to someday!'
i dare yas!
"Yeh well anyway! Which version is it this week?"...
Hmmm, you really need to get out more.... Gee.. Even though in your words you "don't take me seriously", I'm impressed and flattered you have all of my stuff on file..... Sure beats trolling through pages to find it, aye ;)
Mate that was the young grommet version at chi's .... You know, as stated .... first ever trip away from surfing sand bottomed qld points... Solo trip....In fact first ever time in a steamer....Nothing to be ashamed of there, lift..... Honesty......Truth...... Surfing reefs got easier as experience grew ( you should fuckn know that - so this powder puff punch angle of yours has no effect on me)....
I even learnt how to turn a surfboard, mate..... You should try it one day.... Ohh.... hang on..... You did once.... That amaaaaasing "surf boat riverdance cutback".... You see the pro's doing it now..... An amaaaaasing deluxe compass points north horizontal swivel windscreen wiper 30m away from the pocket devil turn on a 4 foot fat shoulder surfing a 9 foot shredder...
There's things called power.... and style...... try it one day...... Maybe you can't.... Perhaps it's god given... ;p
You've converted me
How was I so stupid to trust 2000yr old camel herder fairy tales when Ted had the answers all along
Be careful.....you are what you eat
No time to watch it now dawg, but will later.
Next someone will tell me that humans, with science, can create life, or that its inevitable with 'scientific' 'progress' that they will be able to someday!
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5
Hey there Uppity;)
Is that the scientific formula for cholesterol in eggs.....?????
Great question welly, no its not, but its deluxe none the less. A stumper so to speak.
Now that you've mentioned eggs, and 'cholesterlol', Its obviously certain, that I have the unfair advantage. For that I apologise.
'Cholesterol is a sterol, more accurately a modified steroid, a lipid molecule.
This lipid molecule has several crucial roles all around the body, and cholesterol is so important that if you’re not getting enough from your diet, your liver will synthesize it to keep you alive.
It’s present in all of your cells, being especially dense in the membrane where it gives your cells the ability to send messages between each other so that you’re actually a human being, instead of just a dead pile of cells that can’t communicate.
Cholesterol can also be found in high amounts inside the brain and it’s vital for its complex processes.
And here’s exactly why cholesterol is vital for your testosterone production:'
No doubt you are all probably wondering right now, is cholesterol God? Or, is lifty God? Do they exisist? Its not fair?
New super thread perhaps? Now that I've literally... threaded the thread.
I like it... thread the thread... thread the thread...
Just think lifty, cholesterol, God, and substitute, 'thread the thread' for the following chorus.
"Just think lifty, cholesterol, God, and substitute, 'thread the thread' for the following chorus."
But you missed out on something like my apologies, thats so silly big fellla............!
Absolutely love it champ;)
I've been eating shit loads since your last post in BB's Muscles thread,.
Cheers
Off topic Uppity but what do you think of "Sean T's" workouts been doing the "T25" lately no big muscles like you;) but losing weight and got enenrgy hahhahahahhahh I'm psyched on it, high energy stuff.
Lets go back to that Muscle thread by BB and talk about eh...!
Cheers champ
Brutus ,can I ask how long you have been a Christian and how you came to be one ?
Blob what does Karma mean to you ?
I shouldn't talk to grubs....but I like this story
I must have been thinking about mangy dogs after being stalked by about 6 of them alone at midnight in a very dark Seminyak lane - luckily I was rescued by 2 prostitutes on a motorbike ( ha another miracle).... Anyway, next day I asked my driver Ping Pong "so you're a Hindu Buddhist Animist right? and you believe in reincarnation right? So how does that make you think about or treat, say a dog, since you might become one, or the dog might become a person?
Ping Pong turned and looked at me like I was a dummy and says..." Depends if it's a good dog or a bad dog"
....beautiful...
As a man sows so shall he reap. What you put out you get back.etc
I'll start by declaring that I haven't read the previous 13 pages in any great detail but that said any discussion relating to religion/Gods etc is always a very diverse & robust one based on my previous experience.
What I'm wondering/seeking an answer to, is which one of your Gods is responsible for breaking the Americas Cup trophy that has sat so proudly in a certain sailing club in Perth for so many years, yet as soon as Bondy croaked it, the trophy has too!! If it was Bondy's spirit, who's God does his spirit belong to now & what's with the broken trophy ??
Cheers for any input :-)
Bondy.....can't help himself
A 70yr old I know came home from the hospital, where his wife had just died, to find a vase that was a special gift to him from her had fallen over and smashed. She later visited him and he asked her how she was able to...."it's possible, but difficult" she told him.
Do NDEs even need a God?
Hey Udo.......just wondering if you were going to answer or explain you pretty average comment???
Blob, sorry to take so long, bit of drama went down
need your help ...
a favour...........
Can I have another Altar Boy the last one just Split.
brutus wrote:ahh udo..you are better than making jokes ,about an issue that is horrific .......you might think its funny..maybe if you told some Abbo jokes ...you could complete your Vilification of religion and Race?
Explain what- pretty average comment on pure fact - Re the acts commited by religious bodies on children Acts which you described as Horrific
can you explain to us how this has been able to go on for so long
With some of the church elders being aware of these disgusting crimes and covering up for Peds in the church for Decades ?
Abbo jokes Nah not from me....why bring race into it ? ?
Blob ,Grub hmmm ? Grubs are boy rapists, How will GOD deal with these pieces of filth .
Amongst all the catholic bashing a statistic was under reported ......child abuse in non catholic institutions occurred at the same rate, per capita, as within catholic institutions.
The Catholic Church had a huge number of children in its care
Cover ups happened elsewhere too.
Pedophiles look for opportunity where they can
Now our more enlightened population allows kids to be exposed to every species of filth on the internet ....why? Partially so hypocrites who like to damn pedophiles can watch porn.
You want God's justice? You'll get it.
Humans have an intrinsic desire for justice, but without a just God you got nothing....the bad guys win
With a just God, you will get your justice. Those who hurt children are particularly stuffed....and you and I will be accountable for every word we speak........even for grubby jokes
Udo..if you think its just Religious bodies that commit pedophilia....fair enough....but as you most certainly know there are plenty of pedophiles that are not Christians...so your comment is vilification.....and not really factual.....
vilification of race or religion is the same......and as you are aware ....currently there is a royal commission , which is getting to the truth from the churches..
making fun of a boy being split in 1/2.......hmmm
Bit rich you taking the moral high ground isn't it Brutus?!? Not that long ago I recall you taking the piss out of a fatal shark attack victim...........mmmmmm
No where did I say that only the religious commit pedophilia
Where did I say a boy had been split in 1/2.
Udo....joking about an altar boy being split..or were you joking or not ..maybe you do need another one.....you know what you said and why....
as for your comments on religion...and your facts on pedophilia in the church.....I used your comment that you had split your altar boy...and your following comments showed only the churches ..so I used supposition ..which is a bit broad so...OK ...
Rabbits......my comments on the shark attack vitim ...I was not taking the piss....I have empathy for the victim friends and family....but....if you surf.....we are part of the food chain.....so get over it....I grew up with sharks and the knowledge the next surf could be your last........should be part of a surfers DNA......not some emotional knee jerk reaction.......
Cheers Brutus, it was actually a 'Hypothetical' ,its interesting the path Blob and yourself went down ..child rape.
When the comment didn't say that...and really could be mean something different but you both chose that line of thought.
I didn't say I had split my Altar boy.
So what did ya mean Udo???
just so ya know.....I have personally seen and have friends who were abused.....and will suffer for the rest of their life......I also have experienced heavy racial vilification in Australia.......so maybe I am the exception to the rule with these experiences....so I get a bit testy........especially if comments are jesting or even just trolling......when people don't understand how much damage they can do thru ignorance or just flippant comments......
No no no, don't make it worse
So Udo...what was your point with the Hypothetical........what were you trying to say?
This stuff's easy for me dawg, only takes a couple of minutes. I've got a deluxe memory too, that why it was so easy for me to get on those honour rolls.
God sees all dawg. You know that though. Come on now daaaaawwwwggggggggg!!!!
'Mate that was the young grommet version at chi's .... You know, as stated .... first ever trip away from surfing sand bottomed qld points... Solo trip....In fact first ever time in a steamer....Nothing to be ashamed of there, lift..... Honesty......Truth...... Surfing reefs got easier as experience grew ( you should fuckn know that - so this powder puff punch angle of yours has no effect on me)....
I even learnt how to turn a surfboard, mate..... You should try it one day'
Thats fucking hilarious, well done! Have a go at that knee high, one foot, liitle rampaging piece of onshore, pussy, gutless windslop! Tracks, dawg, where ya been? If only we could see the before and after, the tracks of that fucking ludicrous debacle. God knows dog, lists don't fool God!
So, as ya said, a steaming pile left at chis, the tracks, even though ya think ya covered them... God knows dawg!
imagine that scenario, in ya 'shot'... all the tracks. The kiddies, mums, dads, grannies, gramps, every form of water craft ever invented, all going for a swim, a paddle in the ludicrous, onshore, pussy, periodless slop. Dawgy world! And then a call, a spruik, a squwark bleats out across the car park.
'Its a farkin 999.9 hectar faaaarrrkin pascul spin orf eye, joinin' up wiva sub troorpical faaarkin derpreshun that farkin is aye.... an thats jus ther farkin lemon, next to the faaarkin... I luv shreddin faaarkin lemons aye, look out yar cunts, I'm on the farker!!!' Bin trackin it fur faaarkin munfs I ave... aye!!!'
And as the mighty, a paddlin' dawg grunted and squwarked his way through kiddies and families and flotsam wading about the fucking windblown, gutless, ludicrous puss, squwarking 'experienced' words left, right and centre, ala:
'Ere, stop wading in frunt a me when I'm 'eading out va back, fur the faaarkin peak fuck wits... lurn sum faarkin surfee rules ya cunts!!! Oiii!!! Put a farkin leggy orn that rubber ring ya cunt, ya mite farrkin kill some one aye!!! FFFFFAAAAARRRRKKKK!!!! Its a farkin uge faaarkin set aye, I just got back from steamin' up Chi's, I'm garn the fuccker aye!!!
And so the mighty dawg went the piddly bath tub sized lump of ludicrous puss... yes, tracks. And back tracking even further...
'Gidday mozza, they call me the farrkin' dawg, and I need a new speshalized faaarkin stick fur shreddin slabs, and reefes and bombs and shit aye... I do... aye maaaytte!'
'Faaark, sounds like you need me new 70mph, God Smacka 200... are ya a big, faaarkin afletic cunt!!! '
'Faaark, yeh, bin swingin' the faarkin axe aye, and bin around the sportin' an trainin' scene for yonks I ave!!!'
'Shit aye!!! Me too mmmaaayyte, I bin' training ve worlds greatest aflete I ave aye!!! Know just what ya need maaayte. Reverse v the cunt too!'
'Oii, 'ang on there maaayte, I faaarkin am not a faaarkin reverse v, ya cunt, me faarkin shouldas are so wider than me farkin guts... who faaarkin told ya they faaarrkin arnt... faaarkin wordy I bet aye!! Nuffin wrong wiv my shouldas aye ya cunt!!!'
Tracks. Forward tracking, so the dawg was on the set of the day, and as he squiggled and wriggled, and squwarked his way through the pack, in that pussy, ludicrous, wind slop, bath tub sized arena, masquerading as 'surf', his mind went into post steaming chi's overdrive.
'Faarrrk ere' comes as sectshun, a faaarkin doublin' growa too!!! Oii!!!!! You lil' faaarkin kids, stop wiv ya standin' an splashin' in me faaarkin sectshun ya cunts, can't ya's see she's faaarkin slabbin' on me!!! Faaarkkk oooorf!!! You too aye granny!!! 'Ere I faaarkin gooo aye!!! Full farkin power.... 70mph aye ya cunt!!! take vat, I'll teach ya ta slab 'orn me aye!!! YYYYYYYYYIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YYYYYYYYYYYYTYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ride vat fucker dawg!!!'
And as the dawg paddled the half a dozen or so strokes back to the peak, through the kiddies and families and flotsam wading about the fucking windblown, ludicrous puss, he gave one final screechin' squwark...
'Thats owe ya ride a faaarkin' slab aye!!! Chi's mighta dun me up, but best faaarkkinn stick I evo ad aye!!! Fanks mozza, got va best slab orve me feeble life on it aye... I dun... aye!!! Oiii!!! Wot are yous larfin at ya cheeky lil cunts!!!! I'll hip an farkin shoul... well, I'll hip yas anyway ya faaarkin cunts!!!'
God sees all dawg. Even the relentless flow of frizbeed pie tins to the back of ya scone. And the truth in that, drool soaked, tattered, scratched, chewed, bloodied, trampled, stained, smelly, torn, sticky taped, and torn and sticky taped, and torn, and sticky taped and screeched and squwarked at list... dawg. Blax. God knows dawg. You know dawg. Ya can't fool God dawg. I know ya luv lists. Always have known dawg... no need to say it son. There's still time dawg, blax is ready!!!
'Next someone will tell me that humans, with science, can create life, or that its inevitable with 'scientific' 'progress' that they will be able to someday!'
i dare yas!
You really need a surf, you've fucken lost it big time
Yeah he lost it last time too goofyfoot..... I Posted a video of a muscleman and a puppy at him.... Upworth started farting and spitting like above...... Everyone laughed.... Even god..... Then upworth went and sulked for 3 months..... It's all there in the threads..... Recorded like a chapter in a holy book......
Chapter 4 - And upworth asked the lord, "ohh lord, I have battled them all and have succeeded.... But the evil poodle that cares for sheep knows my weaknesses.... He hath no pity for a simple plank riding soul.... For 90 days and 90 nights, I wept.... I prayed to you dear lord, to strike that poodle down.... But you have forsaken me my lord.... Why?"
And the lord saideth unto Upworth... "oh my large headed son, son of a hundred eggs, You say you wept for 90 days and 90 nights..... But those tears were not for me, your lord.... Those tears were shed for your ego..... An ego that has grown so large, you can no longer see your surfboard, or the good in this world I have created for all....... The poodle has come to humble you my large headed son....,... He is my messenger to you...... Listen to the poodle, for he brings you a gift.... The gift of everlasting generosity".......
:p
Yeh, sounds well, sounds... well, well sounds... well... well God knows about that list dawg. He knows everything. All about it... that stinkin', drool soaked, tattered, scratched, chewed, bloodied, trampled, stained, smelly, torn, sticky taped, and torn and sticky taped, and torn, and sticky taped and screeched and squwarked at list. Yeh, funny about that aye! Blax dawg... ol' yella! The list. Hey, take the goofball too, you's too shredda's will have a ball. Do it for soufl'e, and the Rev (if he's not busy trolling, ooops, sorry, I mean a lurvin' figjam... God knows these things... ya can't fool God)! Carefull ya don't take the wrong turn off lads... its been done before.... many times too! And don't charge too hard... wouldn't wanna charge too hard aye! Leave the calculators home too... and watch out ya don't get washed away!
Hey, why did you track, target and pinpoint and so called 'surf' (ee) that dribbling, piddling, little, bathtub style, sceric of windblown, pussy, gutless, feeble, lucky to be knee high, pathetic slop, that makes the mid look like slabs from hell anyway dawgy? God knows... remember now, don't change the story too much... now ... dawgy!
You all wanted him back, howling about how much you all missed him, nows he back & your all complaining again?!? Be careful what you wish for :-)
Ahhhhh. Rabs.... I'm not complaining... I wanted Upworth to come back after I wiped the floor with him....
This supposed god of yours may see all, upworth... He knows not all of us have latently gay mates with a camera sitting in a safe channel on a 6 foot day.... Post a photo of a big wave mate... Perhaps you look at your photo's like you look at your dick..... And as for posting a photo of yourself and one of a decent surfer below you like in the abbott thread, well that's just plain embarrassing ..... Jon Jon and uplift.... Nearly fell over laughing hahahahahaha....
And the lord saideth unto Upworth... " Oh my humpty dumpty boy, the strongest pedestals are not built with the twigs of self deception... They are built with the bricks of admiration from those around you.... For a pedestal built from ones own ego is an abomination......"
Now upworth... If you want to continue your futile waffle, perhaps we should take it to one of your many forum threads, and allow people here in the article section to get back on track......
Yipes! Cheepers! Biff! Bam! Holy pie tins batman!
Its all about the tracks, religion. But, that's not to say religion is necessarily God.
Up an at the pie tins and mop early today dawg... its a religion! Gave em a sermon and a floggin' I'll bet! Watch the shoulders but!
Of course its your dream to stitch me up. Along with blacks, your list... blacks... but, again... where were ya... dawgy? Ya had decades dawg, decades son! At your young age, I was still out there religiously all day, every day. Religiously. No dawg but, the dawg no where to be seen? Tracks dawg! Ok, ya left some skiddies at chi's, ya took on the mid, battled he mighty Fluerieu, left plenty of tracks there, but... oh well. Just cross it off the list dawg. If a few cliffs and rocks and hairy blokes have ya sweatin', and chi's has ya tremblin', and all alone freaked ya, seriously, you'll get fucking flogged dawg. Flogged. Drilled. Its blacks. Everything is as you described dawgy, but magnified a hundred fold. The real desert. Then of course, there's blacks. Not like the pictures dawg, much as you'd love to believe it on the end of the mop handle, kicking and cursing the pie tins. Over half my surfs were alone. Except for the big fish. And blacks. And God. From everything you've said on here, its just not for you dawg. I would be a ruthless, heartless, cold prick to say otherwise.
As for mopping the floor with me in the fitness world, shit dawg, I don't sort pie tins for a crust. I make my living at it, the fitness industry, can earn an income better than many from it. I've done it for over 40 years. But, if ya must, as I've said before, the bar's always in the rack dawg. Come in dawg, we'll train together. Bring the shoulders! But fuck that, I aint nurse maidin' the fuckin things... not this time dawg, that party's over. I'll guarantee you'll quit, give up, in lots of pain, or need surgery before we finish. The whole show will pop and tear. I would be a ruthless, heartless, cold prick to say otherwise. I won't tear and pop though, I have to do it daily, its my job. Come on in, bring the mop... if you must.
God see's all dawg.
'Next someone will tell me that humans, with science, can create life, or that its inevitable with 'scientific' 'progress' that they will be able to someday!'
I don't blame anyone for not going near that. Tracks. We know that we exsist. But asking, 'what are we', 'what am I', puts even the most supposedly esteemed minds into a quandry. Its easier to point out what we aren't. Not the thoughts, not that, not that... ad infinitum. There is so much disagreement and argument over what we are, it can't be seen, measured... not in the physical sense. So can that fact be used as a basis to say that we don't exist? Of course not, its ludicrous to suggest it. Ridiculous. We leave tracks, evidence of our existance everywhere. That we exist is blatently obvious. Only an idiot, a fool would try and reason that all the tracks are just flukes. That no one, or nothing made them. Archeology. Ditch it then. It's pointless.
Then, there's trying to reach a conclusion about life? Huge conundrum. Again. Plenty of tracks though. No one has been able to create it. Despite the best efforts. We know it exists, and we see all the tracks. What if we concede that humans, that is, that unmeasurable I/we/us, that unmeasurable life, with 'science', will be succesful, and create life? Classic. Could they do it? Supposing yes. Massive effort, massive long term focus, someone will be behind it. Design experiments, leave patterns, tracks. Tons of them. Guarranteed. Only a fool , an idiot would think otherwise. Or maybe its true, that classic, idiotic presumption, that classic 'reasoning'. Maybe the scientists should just forget it, shut the lab doors, and wait for a chair, or a test tube to just turn into life, people, dawgs, gators, surfboards and stuff. Or just chuck a few elements through the door, and let em go!
God leaves lots of tracks, patterns, designs.
There are other senses besides physical. I work with physical senses daily. Some people stop using them. So they atrophy. Feel your tricep? No, no matter how hard I try I can't feel anything. Just my back. Don't worry, thats just a habit, one pathway has atrophied along with the muscle, while another has been strengthened. Habits. Just keep trying to send a signal, don't worry soon you'll start to feel it. Its normal. In a year or so, you'll have awesome control, and your workouts will be easy. Some people work on the other senses. Our education system ignores them, and by the time children are adults, they are long forgotten. At the expense of others, purely physical senses. The consequences show. The sense of community, sense of well being, sense of intuition, sense of belonging. Sense of the big picture, God if you like, forgotten.
udo wrote:Cheers Brutus, it was actually a 'Hypothetical' ,its interesting the path Blob and yourself went down ..child rape.
When the comment didn't say that...and really could be mean something different but you both chose that line of thought.
I didn't say I had split my Altar boy.
So Udo...what was your point with the Hypothetical........what were you trying to say?
brutus [scientific proof...hmm...so one man sees blue another sees green...another sees brown....so who is right the majority ?]
i would suggest that the majority of people see colour the same way with a very small variation tolerance. So to answer your question, they are all right. Can we "prove" that everyone sees colours exactly the same....absolutely not. However, humans have spent 100's of thousands of years evolving, and that includes the cones and rods of the human eye too. Evolution of the human body has stood the test of time to develop the human eye into an organ that can spot a dangerous snake & determine the difference between a poisonous plant and one that is edible. We didn't get this far as an animal species just based on luck. Whilst the are a small proportion of people that have colour abnormalities including those that are colour blind, the rest of us just see colour much the same way.
majority nearly always wins, in science as in evolution.
happy my point is that science is not a 100% correct because of mans interpretation and mans science is often a theory and Trial and error.....massive mistakes get made in the name of science.....and often results in horrendous consequences ....and then we use the bad science and improve it.....
the majority nearly always wins is not very scientific.......so science like Christianity/the Bible is also open to interpretation......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_and_engineering_blunders
correct...nothing is 100% correct. all scientific rules are just perceptions that man has made about the workings and order of nature and the universe. even keplers laws of planetary motion and the theory of gravity are only "theories" at the end of the day. indeed they are very well accepted and tested theories that allow man to acheive an understanding of how things work and get himself to the moon....but at the end of the day there is nothing to say that other laws that dont obey newtons or einsteins laws cant exist and infact might provide for a much better and enhanced view of the world. for example its perfectly clear with our current understanding that human travel to another galaxy will be impossible. however that is not to say that other lifeforms on other planets have not developed other laws of physics in complete contradiction to ours that allow exactly what we have not yet acheived. and of course there is nothing to say that other universes exist in parallel to ours whereby other dimensions might exist and where the speed of light might not be confined to 300,000km/h. so in this respect i entirely agree with your comments about the correctness of science.
but here is the difference, science constantly looks for new understandings, and those that discover them are normally rewarded with greatness. if fact it is sciences duty to continually look for holes in theories and where necessary even completely abolish old thinking, and it does exactly that. does that mean that it can never make a mistake? no...but so what? however religion as purported by the church will do everything in its power to avoid seeking new understandings. if thats because the last deliverer of gods method died over 2000 years ago then thats a bit unfortunate in my book. if it takes 2000 or whatever years to deliver a revision of the bible then thats simple not good enough. if "god" cannot send more of his men to speak and deliver his word a bit more regularly then religion is always going to be seen as something of the past.
on another note - id like to see some of these "miracles" myself before i start beleiving. you have seen miracles as you say, but i havent seen shit...so i can conclude that religion is either all a load of crap OR that i am an incredibly unlucky person to have not seen and am missing out of something. for the while now i chose the former. so that leads me to my question....why does "god" choose some people to touch with his hand and not others? so i am led to understand by believers that if i start believing then i will "see" these miracles....but that doesnt sound very logical to me. that sounds more like a cult to be honest.
btw...."the majority....not very scientific". in fact; the majority is exactly what science is about. its not bad as you say. science is based off the majority informing a decision and an understanding. your list of wiki of science fuckups is pretty small when you consider what science has acheived.
Hey happy...I was just pointing out that science is not 100% right.....
when you talk about the church ...and its interpretation of the Bible its just that...an interpretation of facts that are presented .....by whatever the powers to be in the Church and I agree that its not exacting ,and often the interpretation gets twisted, in that the church becomes a middleman for God...this is not what the Bible teaches.....
I think that your claim that religion is something from the past...is true in a sense that people are abandoning the Catholic Church ..but there has been a very big swing to organisations that just preach direct from the Bible...don't need all the trappings that traditional churches seem to want to glorify themselves ......
Its quite ironic that a lot of people need to see miracles and be personally contacted by God.....when all of lifes questions have been answered in the New testament....have you actually read the New testament and the teachings of Jesus?
It's interesting that most people believe in climate change....that we are poisoning the planet and there is doom and gloom that the world we live in , will cease to support the lifestyles we live now.....and that we are facing enormous liveabilty problems in the very near future...is it real ??
If so why don't we do something about it....as we have the science to do it , but not the political will?
So what can you believe in....the inherent goodness of man will save us all??
or is there a higher power that is greater than us all.....I love reading books by former atheists ..who tried to prove that the bible was not real...that Jesus didn't exist.....and came away born again Christians...
For the intellects......C S Lewis was an atheist.....and wrote " Mere Christianity"...and logically argues the existence of God.....good read....
I guess when you have lived on the edge like I have....and pushed boundaries to having a lot of near death experiences ...the eternal question ...what does it all mean....I got a clear message....
Or you can believe we are just accidents...and live and die with no purpose...or meaning.....and no spirit or soul....its a very empty feeling......
since you asked I have to admit that i haven't read the new testament in great depth. i was brought up in a catholic school so was exposed to it, and have had moments where i thought it was worth investigating further by reading but i came up blank about it all. so i kind of gave up thereafter.
its a fair point you make. i do believe in climate change. is it real? maybe - i really cant be sure. the science is not exact. nevertheless i do support action and i find it frustrating that humans cannot get it in order. but how would the bible and teachings of jesus help here? are there messages in the bible? not asking you to answer that in particular.
as for accidents? well you have me lost for an exact answer. my personal view as i age is that i should keep asking that question about purpose. i will probably always struggle with the notion that my existance is just one of a million or billion possible outcomes. it does sound empty when its put like that but im ok with it. where does that leave me for purpose? i do not believe in fate and so therefore i know that my actions do mean something and will have some lasting impact after i die. so i should do the right thing by others. from the point of view of being a better person then i absolutely agree that the bible teachings are of value. as for my soul, i dont think i have one in the religious sense however as a father then i know that my life essence lives on through my child. i find that if i focus on this, then my actions are inherently required to be good. thats enough purpose for me for the moment. of course theres always room for improvement and so i would never rule religion completely out.
brutus your patience towards quite a few bible/religion attacks in this whole discussion is impressive. good onya.
Hi Happy , yeah I have copped a lot of ridicule in the last few years which tests ya faith....but being a bit of an analytical freak.....I love reading and discovering like minded people...and also I have met some amazing people and also helped a few friends who have been in bad places....even been into Hawaiian juvenile prison...to talk to really really messed up kids.....been an incredible journey.......as all my life there was feeling of something missing.....
As far as what Jesus could teach us about the current state of the world...I read this morning..It is more blessed to give than receive,"......hmm......one of the problems with the world right now is we are a race of takers.....we have a short term view of life , and seem to judge each others success on what they have...so more is better....??
you mention your life essence.....is that a tangible scientific state of being...or is there something inside you that you can't quite put a finger on...but its good...and your love for your child...is....hmmm.....that a scientific formula....???
I was one of the worst God bashers.....and found myself , after another near miss with death......opened my mind and heart and went to Hawaii and ......I finally surrendered and went OK ....I'm in....where to from here......and here I am chatting to you......now that's nearly a miracle from where I was.....hehe
As for people who find the need to vilify somebody because of their color or religious beliefs ...its actually their problem....and from my perspective sad........
as for the catholic school.......yeah , I had similar experience being made to be an altar boy , choir........... ( ahhhh)...Sunday school teacher...scout....but it just did not resonate with me.....and at the age of 16 bailed never to go back into a church for 41 years...and I became a God hater/disbeliever.....
really enjoy talking to ya happy...and your questions and thoughts are greatly appreciated.....
"Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed." Booker T. Washington (1856-1915)
a fellow searcher's idiosyncratic existentialism (can there authentically be any other?)
http://www.openculture.com/2015/02/hunter-s-thompson-life-coach-tips-for...
YouTube : Stephen Fry annilates God. this clip and his others are a must watch.
Udo how can you annihalate God if there if there isn't one?
We as human beings still don't know all there is to know about our physical bodies let alone the workings of our mental state. How can we then assume to know how the hell we got here and what are purpose is. Faith seems to be a natural state for humans to hold onto or revert to in a crisis, but is without proof, without knowledge and therefore simply akin to a guess.
Surely an open mind is of more service than a closed one..........
hey rabbits.....how is being a born again Christian....close minded.....actually closing your mind to the possibility that there is a God...and there was Jesus.....there is a ton of evidence that Jesus did exist.....the debate is whether he was as he claimed...to be the son of God....
so there is not a lot of assumption....but a lot of facts....but you need to read and study for yourself.......that's an open mind......
People typically buy on emotion and then justify their choice with logic manufactured after the fact
This is not an open minded approach
A mind is like a parachute - it works best when it is open
“Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
This is an open mind
Brutus I never said being a born again Christian was closed minded. My point was once anyone has made there mind up that they have the ANSWER to life, it's beginning & its purpose, without concrete proof, then they are essentially not allowing or necessarily willing to entertain other ANSWERS. So are you suggesting that those of us that haven't made a definite decision in regards to the ANSWER are in denial of the TRUTH?
There are so many questions that can't categorically be answered yet with concrete proof, therefore it relies on faith, a belief of the yet to be proven, IMO. Of course I don't assume to know the answer to any these questions myself. Still looking & learning.....
Hi Rabbits...there is no such thing as concrete proof....there is always a bit of faith thrown in.....
truth...hm..subjective for each person?
Hi Brutus, At last you & I agree on something!! It's a breakthrough moment :-)
I'm not a dis-believer in "God" (whatever that is) & at certains times in my life I have "asked" for help from this God, all the time not knowing what or who I was talking to, still don't . For me personally I am in awe of nature & life. I would love to know what it all means........
hey rab...don't think we are that far apart......a lot goes down on these forums that's a bit tongue in cheek..and a bit of stirring but...I really hope and pray that your faith will be reinforced by lifes lessons and if not ...educate yaself......which I think these forums do sometimes ...when we stop the personal stuff.....and...communicate in a rational logical manner....and yeah I have been guilty of tantrums and abuse...shit I might be the proof ya can change and improve /evolve.......hehe
I agree Brutus. Well said mate. I also have been caught up in the irrational & unkind stuff from time to time. Never a good thing and none of us are learning anything positive at that point. We can all do better and that's the challenge each & every day. I very much like my dog's approach to life, greet each day with a broad smile & with gratitude..........How are we going to greet it?? Cheers.....
The greatest weight.—What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!"
Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine." If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, "Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?" would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?
The meaning of our cheerfulness.— The greatest recent event—that "God is dead,"' that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable—is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe. For the few at least whose eyes—the suspicion in whose eyes is strong and subtle enough for this spectacle, some sun seems to have set and some ancient and profound trust has been turned into doubt; to them our old world must appear daily more like evening, more mistrustful, stranger, "older." But in the main one may say: The event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude's capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived as yet. Much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event really means—and how much must collapse now that this faith has been undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it; for example, the whole of our European morality. This long plenitude and sequence of breakdown, destruction, ruin, and cataclysm that is now impending—who could guess enough of it today to be compelled to play the teacher and advance proclaimer of this monstrous logic of terror, the prophet of a gloom and an eclipse of the sun whose like has probably never yet occurred on earth?
Even we born guessers of riddles who are, as it were, waiting on the mountains, posted between today and tomorrow, stretched in the contradiction between today and tomorrow, we firstlings and premature births of the coming century, to whom the shadows that must soon envelop Europe really should have appeared by now—why is it that even we look forward to the approaching gloom without any real sense of involvement and above all without any worry and fear for ourselves? Are we perhaps still too much under the impression of the initial consequences of this event—and these initial consequences, the consequences for ourselves, are quite the opposite of what one might perhaps expect: They are not at all sad and gloomy but rather like a new and scarcely describable kind of light, happiness, relief, exhilaration, encouragement, dawn.
Indeed, we philosophers and "free spirits" feel, when we hear the news that "the old god is dead," as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart overflows with gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation. At long last the horizon appears free to us again, even if it should not be bright; at long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again; perhaps there has never yet been such an "open sea."
How we, too, are still pious.—In science convictions have no rights of citizenship, as one says with good reason. Only when they decide to descend to the modesty of hypotheses, of a provisional experimental point of view, of a regulative fiction, they may be granted admission and even a certain value in the realm of knowledge—though always with the restriction that they remain under police supervision, under the police of mistrust.—But does this not mean, if you consider it more precisely, that a conviction may obtain admission to science only when it ceases to be a conviction? Would it not be the first step in the discipline of the scientific spirit that one would not permit oneself any more convictions?
Probably this is so; only we still have to ask: To make it possible for this discipline to begin, must there not be some prior conviction—even one that is so commanding and unconditional that it sacrifices all other convictions to itself? We see that science also rests on a faith; there simply is no science "without presuppositions." The question whether truth is needed must not only have been affirmed in advance, but affirmed to such a degree that the principle, the faith, the conviction finds expression: "Nothing is needed more than truth, and in relation to it everything else has only second-rate value."
This unconditional will to truth—what is it? Is it the will not to allow oneself to be deceived? Or is it the will not to deceive? For the will to truth could be interpreted in the second way, too—if only the special case "I do not want to deceive myself" is subsumed under the generalization "I do not want to deceive." But why not deceive? But why not allow oneself to be deceived?
Note that the reasons for the former principle belong to an altogether different realm from those for the second. One does not want to allow oneself to be deceived because one assumes it is harmful, dangerous, calamitous to be deceived. In this sense, science would be a long-range prudence, a caution, a utility; but one could object in all fairness: How is that? Is wanting not to allow oneself to be deceived really less harmful, less dangerous, less calamitous? What do you know in advance of the character of existence to be able to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of the unconditional mistrust or of the unconditionally trusting? But if both should be required, much trust as well as much mistrust, from where would science then be permitted to take its unconditional faith or conviction on which it rests, that truth is more important than any other thing, including every other conviction? Precisely this conviction could never have come into being if both truth and untruth constantly proved to be useful which is the case. Thus—the faith in science, which after all exists undeniably, cannot owe its origin to such a calculus of utility; it must have originated in spite of the fact that the disutility and dangerousness of "the will to truth," of "truth at any price" is proved to it constantly. "At any price ': how well we understand these words once we have offered and slaughtered one faith after another on this altar!
Consequently, "will to truth" does not mean "I will not allow myself to be deceived" but—there is no alternative—"I will not deceive, not even myself"; and with that we stand on moral ground. For you only have to ask yourself carefully, "Why do you not want to deceive?" especially if it should seem—and it does seem!—as if life aimed at semblance, meaning error, deception, simulation, delusion, self-delusion, and when the great sweep of life has actually always shown itself to be on the side of the most unscrupulous polytropoi[refers to Homer's characterization of Odysseus: much travelled, versatile, wily, and manifold]. Charitably interpreted, such a resolve might perhaps be a quixotism,[referring to Don Quixote] a minor slightly mad enthusiasm; but it might also be something more serious, namely, a principle that is hostile to life and destructive.—"Will to truth"—that might be a concealed will to death.
Thus the question "Why science?" leads back to the moral problem: Why have morality at all when life, nature, and history are "not moral"? No doubt, those who are truthful in that audacious and ultimate sense that is presupposed by the faith in science thus affirm another world than the world of life, nature, and history; and insofar as they affirm this "other world"—look, must they not by the same token negate its counterpart, this world, our world?—But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine.—But what if this should become more and more incredible, if nothing should prove to be divine any more unless it were error, blindness, the lie—if God himself should prove to be our most enduring lie?
the above 'aphorisms' taken from this good book:
http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Gay-Science-by-Friedrich...
Interesting when you come to Philosophers like Nietzsche.....very debatable stuff and interesting to see the human mind reach out and question....
but you wonder what the consequences of his thoughts and philosophy..was he happy , did he live a full life and a life where his teachings accepted , because of his personal example of how he led his life??
heres another side of his story.....would we want to emulate his life??
Well, I sure you all know that and IAMTROGENIC OVERDOSE is an occupational hazard for PHILOSOPHERS. It’s a well known fact that Decartes made the statement “Cogito Ergo Sum”. However, he does not appear to be extant at the present time since I have not seen any recent citations or published works online or at the bookstores. I think and therefore I am… I THINK? Of course, I might not be and then I would have to reevaluate my position. Perhaps CARTESIAN COORDINATES would help and I could then do some reality testing with my map and trusty GPS device. When I was a sailor I used to do that with a sextant, a watch, and a compass. Of course RADAR was helpful at times as well. This by itself is not sufficient without knowledge of speed, wind, current, and computing the drift to offset and refine one’s geographical self knowledge.
Vieleicht Herr Doktor Neitsche just failed to adjust for the current and drift during his internalizations of self knowledge. When really self absorbed narcissists get into their own GESTALT a bit too much then just APPEAR DEMENTED.
The born again surfers are often the happiest
The grumpy surfers often the most cynical
By their fruits ye will know them.....the proof is in the pudding
Philosophy complicates simple things to the point that truth becomes an embarressment
....id like to see where humanity would be without philosophy. it is a closed mind that cannot ask questions.
Hi Happy and Blob...C S Lewis....Mere Christianity...Christian Philosophy...I think one of the most amazing minds of last century ..
Oh , there is so much wonderful philosophy.....and so much injurious claptrap.....it is a human production after all........ but in spite of all the hard work done by philosophers over millennia ....
"...ironically, every definition of truth that philosophers have developed falls prey to the question "...is it true?"..."
Contrary to some opinions, getting a fundamental answer to the big question is not closed minded, it is just the opposite.
Brutus, I posted a Richard Flanagan quote a coupla times previously in this thread, concerning Nietzsche and Jesus, and their ideas...and their failure. Worth another look, maybe. I dunno.
I was intrigued by your mention of CS Lewis. I've only known him really for his Narnia Chronicles some of which I read as a kid. This lead me to research him and the work you mentioned. It's what threads can be when they're at their best, I'd like to think. Spread the knowledge.
I wasn't aware of his 'Christian apologist' (his term) philosophical writing. It seems that he may be more famous for these writings now, especially in America, and especially among evangelical Christians (just going by volume in a rudimentary internet search).
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/10/the-odd-story-of-c-s-le...
The guy who wrote this (and a biography on Lewis), AN Wilson, has also had his battles with faith, belief & non-belief...worth looking up in themselves. It's all interesting and "human, all too human" (a Nietzsche work by the by).
After some further research, it seems Lewis pretty much forgo this philosophical work to concentrate on his fiction after this debate (with a fellow philosopher and Christian)?
http://ralphriver.blogspot.com.au/2007/01/she-obliterated-me-as-apologis...
I will endeavour to add 'Mere Christianity' to my reading list, though I gotta say when it comes to English Lit Christian converts, I've always been a Graham Greene fan.
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/03/books/selection-the-uneasy-catholicism...
Complicated, absolutely, embarrassing, perhaps, and human, all too human, indeed.
Hey Shatner...hey its great to go back and forth...I learn heaps here and your links are a great read.....
Lee Strobel...the case for Christ.....from a lawyers perspective........argues the facts.....
I got nothing against God, I just don't like most of his fan club.
I'm sure God would empathise with your view....but the problem is He expects us to be more concerned with our own conduct than with critiquing others.
So Blob.....no need to critique anyone on these forums.....just comment and communicate in a polite manner..
Sometimes it is hard to separate people from their opinions. If someone spouts ignorant abuse and lies it does them no favour to accept it sweetly. What you tolerate you educate...
I'm trying to learn to find that balance between being being too assertive and too submissive
We are living in a time when Christianity is being co opted, sidelined, and attacked by determined enemies.
Trust me, it will get much worse.
Off the topic
Hi Blob
"...attacked by determined enemies" jesus , thats a bit much dude. christianity is not being attacked....just religion in general. and its your responsibility to defend what you believe in. and yes, i would expect to get worse as more and more people become less religious they will question why you believe as you do. everyone wants to know the truth...and many people want others to believe as they do....its natural...its no different to how religious people spruke their ideas at my front door. whats that all about? if religion didnt get examined critically then we might all fall foul of becoming christians....what a terribly boring world that would be.
Are Christians in America under attack?
It’s been said that the U.S. is becoming a “secular country,” that there’s a clash between “man’s laws and God’s laws,” and even that our current president has launched a “war on religion.”
Compared to the violence against Christians in many places around the world, the answer is no. Christians in America experience nothing compared to the persecution of Christians in such places as Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt or Syria.
What is happening in America is an increasing hostility and intolerance toward Christian beliefs and values that many perceive to be an attack on religious freedom. In current American culture, you are free to be a Christian as long as you don’t actually live out your faith, vote your faith, take a stand in relation to your faith, or believe others should embrace your faith.
In other words, it can be privately engaging, but must remain socially irrelevant.
But there’s more.
There is a real concern that the growing insistence that faith be privatized has now become a demand for faith to be compromised. It’s not enough that your beliefs can’t influence society; you must also embrace society’s beliefs. As Jonah Goldberg noted in USA Today, the opposition to many Christian values has become an “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality.
The recent decision to require most religious institutions – including Catholic hospitals and schools – to pay for contraception, sterilizations and the “morning after” pill is simply the most current case in point. For many this was about government coercion of religious individuals and institutions.
The developing fear is that government will make people choose between obeying the law and following their faith. Of course, the real flash point is the one between religious liberty and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights. For example:
*Catholic Charities in Illinois shut down its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples (as the state required).
*A Christian counselor was penalized for refusing to advise gay couples.
*A court clerk in New York was told to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite religious reservations.
*A wedding photographer was sued for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding.
In each case, the Christian(s) involved were not attempting to impose their religious views on others. They simply didn’t want to be forced to participate or offer tacit support for something they felt was in violation of their religious conscience.
The argument is, of course, that such stands are discriminatory. But this is disingenuous. For example, refusing to serve a person of color has little in common with refusing to support a particular lifestyle that your religious beliefs deem immoral.
Even further, the argument which states “If you don’t want to serve the public, don’t open a business saying you will serve the public” is equally flawed.
And frightening.
What aspect of religious life isn’t, in one sense or another, “public”? A worship service is a service to the public, is it not? Does that mean it, too, should be subject to government oversight in terms of who it is forced to accommodate and how it is demanded to operate? Will it come to the point that to maintain integrity, all public events of a religious nature will have to become non-public, and thus effectively end any and all outreach? That might be the very desire of some, but it would drive the heart of the church’s mission underground every bit as much as it is in countries where persecution is taking place.
In a historic visit to the Vatican this past Wednesday, British Cabinet minister Baroness Warsi expressed her “fear” about the marginalization of religion, and specifically Christianity, through Britain and Europe. “My fear today is that a militant secularization is taking hold of our societies ... one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularization is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity. … You cannot extract Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can erase the spires from our landscape.”
Indeed.
And before anyone says, “There’s another alarmist Christian right-winger for you,” think again.
Sayeeda Warsi is a Muslim.
James Emery White
Sources
“Liberals are the true aggressors in culture wars,” Jonah Goldberg, USA Today, February 6, 2012. Read online.
“Has Obama Waged a War on Religion?,” Barbara Bradley Hagerty, National Public Radio, January 8, 2012. Read online.
Britain being overtaken by 'militant secularists', says Baroness Warsi, The Telegraph, February 13, 2012. Read online.
See also “Religious freedom under threat from courts, professor warns” by David Shariatmadari, The Guardian, January 24, 2012. Read online.
On the global persecution of Christians, see “The War on Christians” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Newsweek, February 13, 2012. Read online.
Markus that was beautiful. Sorry to all that were offended but nothing evil about being light hearted........I hope....
Rabbits....yeah was a bit tounge in cheek with that last bit, certainly not to offend. I have christian friends and its all good. im agnostic but i probably have more in commonality with good natured christians than most atheists. we are not enemies just because we have a difference of opinion about one simple thing such as the existance of god. i dont measure myself solely on account of my belief/disbelief about god and neither should christians. and even if we were to measure ourselves on the basis of the 10 commandments, we would fine that we have already much in common. ive never committed adultery (that i know of), and im too shit scared to steal. and i can surely say that i will never covet my neighbours ass. ;)
.