Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

801. Comment #74085 by Quetzalcoatl on September 27, 2007 at 7:32 am

As _J_ appears to have been barred from this thread for eating too many billy-goats, he's asked me to reproduce a comment he tried to make to Brother John and Revcort. See below.

Brother John

I have nothing substantial to add to the responses already made by other atheists here to your post, which I thought was excellent. In terms of views on living a good life, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The only difference seems to be where we lie on the spectra of 'propensity to believe in god' and 'desire to have things explained rationally, or not at all'. Tomayto, tomahto.

revcort

That was very gracious of you. I certainly appreciate your readiness to reflect on your actions and to apologise for anything there that you find wanting. That's an admirable trait.

If this isn't too cheeky (and I apologise in advance in case it is), do take care not to just hit the 'Reset' button and wash away everything we've been chewing over with an overdose of humility. In terms of the actual discussion (you know, 'Is there a god?' and all that) we still stand in the same place, irrespective of how loveable or rude we've all been. Like the other atheists here, I think that the god who speaks to you is really nothing more than your mind communicating with itself (and don't imagine for a minute that that to believe so is to diminish the experience, by the way!). Now, in our new, all-good-friends-being-nice-to-each-other manner: do you have anything to suggest otherwise?

Don't worry if not, by the way. You're not going to be pounced on and attacked for taking a more moderate 'I accept that there's no evidence but I can't help believing it' line. That's interesting in itself, and something worth us all trying to understand a little better.

I'm aware that I'm essentially inviting you to climb up onto the lab table and expose your guts for scrutiny, so feel free to say 'No, thanks'. But I think that may be where we have to go, if we're going to go anywhere.

Written by _J_

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

802. Comment #74086 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 7:38 am

could have only wished for that in my case. As I struggled with my faith, God didn't show up. I didn't hear his voice. I didn't see him. I didn't sense him. He didn't send anybody along with a direct message about me . The bible brought no relief or answers either. I felt nothing of God. His absence became a great disappointment. I was left only with my own mind to sort things out and come to the realizations that I have.

I'll second that! I also found that you started believing god's absence was because you did something wrong. I really hope Revcort can get himself out of this type of negative thinking - life's too short to waste feeling bad because of the most important "relationship" in your life. If god were a person, you would have broken up long before it got to that stage.

Wooooo J is speaking through Quetz

Other Comments by BillySands

803. Comment #74094 by Quetzalcoatl on September 27, 2007 at 8:07 am

Billy-

I merely answered his "prayer" or "PM" if you will.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

804. Comment #74095 by NormanDoering on September 27, 2007 at 8:13 am

revcort wrote:

As I was praying this morning, God revealed something to me that is very important.

Like others have said -- I'd like to know how you know it was God who revealed this and not the people here.

... my arrogant attitude at times has been nothing short of blasphemous. So, I am sorry to all of you.

I realized this morning that I know almost nothing of God. I have no right to speak for Him in matters that are not clearly spelled out in the Scripture, and I have at times.

You now admit that you know almost nothing of God, so how far does that go? What matters are "clearly spelled out in the Scripture" and which are not?

Is the creation of the Earth 6,000 or so years ago spelled out? Is the sun standing still in the sky spelled out? Is the anti-abortion plank of the Republican party spelled out? Is no marriage for gays spelled out?

Are they spelled out any clearer than the fact that you're suppose to be able to handle snakes, drink poison, move mountains by faith and castrate yourself?

Other Comments by NormanDoering

805. Comment #74101 by GoneGolfing on September 27, 2007 at 8:33 am

Billy-

""I also found that you started believing god's absence was because you did something wrong.""

So so true mate ! . You go into this torturous and unneccesary bout of flagellation thinking: its me, its me !. And at the same time your rational mind is yelling: Its Not you! and please Stop this nonsense! your killing me !

I remember all those pitiful trips to the altar thinking it was me and the only way to correct my struggle was to confess and make known this weakness in me. "Confess thy faults one to another"......You could feel all eyes on you as you made the trek down the aisle and just knew all the folk were thinking "The poor bloke, hope he gets it all right". You'd then go home after your sob and come to Jesus moment and realize within 24 hrs. that all was still not well and nothing had changed..... God was still absent.

GG

Other Comments by GoneGolfing

806. Comment #74102 by gr8hands on September 27, 2007 at 8:35 am

Since revcort had his "personal divine revelation" after exposure to my scathing questions and demonstrations of where the bible is internally erroneous, I am claiming responsibility. His god fears me, and so has signalled retreat ("run away, run away").

revcort, you're in good company with your repenting. 1 Chronicles 21:15, Amos 7:6, and Jonah 3:10 state that god repented -- even repenting of evil he had planned to do (which, I need not point out, is hardly consistent with an omniscient, divine, absolutely good god).

My real hope is that you will change vocations, and not further poison the minds of any more children. You've had the errors pointed out to you. If you continue, you do so knowing you are doing harm, and shame be on you.

Brother John, if you can provide some valid, unfaked contemporaneous evidence that jesus actually existed, perhaps I might be persuaded to consider following the teachings which are attributed to him. However, he appears to be no more real than Harry Potter, and I do not choose to use that as a basis for personal morality.

On a side note, I love coffee (but can't stand French roast), and I love tea (but only with honey).

Other Comments by gr8hands

807. Comment #74110 by captain underpants on September 27, 2007 at 8:55 am

revcort,

Don't you see the contradiction? You grovel in your supposed unworthiness, and at same the time you believe that the creator of the universe takes a strong personal interest in you, out of all the 6 billion-odd members of one species out of millions that live on planet revolving around a star which is only one out of hundreds of billions in our galaxy. And I haven't said anything about how insignificant our galaxy is on the scale of the universe.

Why should God, if such an entity exists, have the slightest interest in revealing anything to you (or anyone else)?

The credit for any insights or realisations you might have had is yours and yours alone.

Other Comments by captain underpants

808. Comment #74114 by walk on September 27, 2007 at 9:20 am

Revcort,

I echo the sentiments expressed above, and in light of your realization (I also believe the revelation was YOURS and yours alone and the credit belongs to you), I apologize for the mocking tone of my rather silly post (759). Most people want to be liked, and I believe it was your attitude that put us off. Keep searching and questioning, that's all any of us can do. Thanks for the heartfelt post.

Other Comments by walk

809. Comment #74116 by revcort on September 27, 2007 at 9:26 am

Alright, for the scrutiny of the onlookers here (and hopefully for some benefit- though that is uncertain) and so as not to be a jerk, I'll explain to you what happened this morning.

I was working out at the gym (btw, thanks for the encouragement on that front goldy :) ha!), and what I usually do is either listen to Scripture or listen to a sermon. (I find that about 95% of so-called "Christian" music is filled with cliches and not helpful in any way- that's why I don't listen to music while working out) I have the audio Bible on an mp3 player- Max McLean is reading it- I think he's British- I love the accent too. :-)

Anyway, today I was listening to a sermon by Paul Washer (you might look him up- he has a web-site called heartcrymissionary.com) I know that some of you already believe you know where this word came from, and I won't deny it's possible that it came from Paul Washer.

He was preaching in this particular sermon on Romans 12:1-2 on presenting your body as a living sacrifice. In this sermon, he spoke about a great many things, but the thing that strongly stood out to me this morning had to with the infinite nature of God. He illustrated very well, by the grace of God, that knowing God is our primary aim and that we know so little of Him in this life. As I prayerfully pondered that thought, I realized how little I know about the Lord.

After I had finished my workout and while traveling home, I thought about my actions here. There is a very strong part of me that didn't want to apologize for anything, but I felt strongly compelled to do so, not only for your sakes, but also because I knew that I had sinned. I was particularly upset with myself for posting Bunyan's description of the unpardonable sin, and by doing so, may have enticed some of you to commit it. This thought has not left my mind since I read Northern Bright's response. Note: there was no burning bush or blinding light from heaven or even any kind of audible voice in my head, just a very strong urging to repent- and to repent before you as well.

Arrogance/Pride is a particular weakness of mine, so I must tell you that backing off and swallowing my pride is not a natural thing for me. If you're genuinely looking for some kind of evidence of God, then that is likely the only evidence of that. Because, I'll just tell you, admitting my sin to my accountability partner is one thing, but admitting it to strangers is quite another, especially those with whom I have been debating.

For others who would claim credit for making me into a beaten man, I will only say this. I could argue point by point on every issue that has been raised until we're all blue in the face. The only reason I haven't is not because there is no answer, but because I haven't had the time to do enough research to answer your questions. If I were dealing with one person here, I would make careful efforts to answer objections, but I am dealing with 20 here. 20 people smarter than I am.

Oh, and just so you know (and just to give you what I believe to be the Bible's thoughts on the subject) I read Brother John's words and I hear what so many of my other Catholic friends say. Yet, you must understand this. There are so many problems that his philosophy has with the actual Bible that one would nearly have to completely divorce himself from it in order to take these positions. To say that a person will be judged based on his treatment of the poor and disadvantaged without actually acknowledging the "reason" or the God who taught those things seems pretty hard to justify. Now, please, I do not wish to start another fight over this. I just want you to know that those teachings are specifically "Catholic" and not specifically biblical. I would also note that few, if any, of you have taken him to task over his comments because they are pretty to your ears.

Other Comments by revcort

810. Comment #74119 by lane on September 27, 2007 at 9:39 am

Revcort:

I'm so happy that God revealed to you the destructive nature of some of your comments. As I was reading along, I was starting to get real disturbed with some of the way you were representing God to unbelievers.

I, myself, got caught up in commenting on here a few weeks ago and I felt, like you did, that I was starting to practice a bit of idolatry. Making God into what I wanted him to be, instead of what he really is. I guess that's just a danger that we Christians face when we start to enjoy the argument more than the purpose for which we argue.

I resolved to limit my comments to the effects my devotion to Jesus Christ has made on my life. I can speak with absolute authority on that issue and that, for me, is the best way to witness to unbelievers. Maybe theological scholars are equipped with the technical information that atheists are requiring before they will entertain a relationship with Christ. But for me its a simple matter of Jesus having won over my heart.

But most of what you said I believe to be real and true. I just hope that you will keep in mind that God wants us to represent him with a kind and understanding heart. Be extremely patient with unbelievers because you don't know which one of them he may be just about to choose to reveal himself to.

Other Comments by lane

811. Comment #74122 by gr8hands on September 27, 2007 at 9:53 am

No, revcort, you do not get a free pass on your statements. Nor can you hide behind 'not enough time to research.' You've found time to get quotes to respond to CHeard's posts. (His points, clearly, weren't specifically about the errors in the bible, and so didn't trigger fear in you.) And what "research" do you need to respond to my question about what your denomination is, and what you mean by "the church"?

So, I think you might need to pray for the sin of lying as well.

You are wrong in your criticism of Brother John's perspective: It is not specifically catholic. NOTHING moral appearing in the bible is "strictly scriptural." NOTHING. There are precedents appearing earlier.

As for his view on the treatment of the poor, you only have to review the parable of the sheep and goats at the end of Matthew 25: "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

I guess you need to re-read scripture a bit more closely, since you seem painfully unaware of what it contains. And again, you need to stop teaching religion in any form to any child. Stop the abuse!

Other Comments by gr8hands

812. Comment #74124 by Northern Bright on September 27, 2007 at 10:17 am

I was particularly upset with myself for posting Bunyan's description of the unpardonable sin, and by doing so, may have enticed some of you to commit it. This thought has not left my mind since I read Northern Bright's response.

Don't be daft, Revcort. I decided years ago that I didn't believe in all that stuff, and I've been saying so openly ever since.

Truly - your quotes, whether from the bible or John Bunyan, have no effect on us whatsoever. We simply cannot be swayed - either for you or against you - by quotes. I realise that's hard for you to understand, given that you spend so much of your life reading that kind of thing, but it really does leave us cold. A quote - whoever it's from - can no more convert me to atheism (even if I weren't already an atheist!) than it can convert me to Christianity. I have already reached my own conclusions on the question and it will take EVIDENCE, not opinion, to persuade me to change them.

I wrote nothing last night that hasn't been true for a long time or that I hadn't expressed openly many times before. I - not you, not John Bunyan, not St Paul, not even Richard Dawkins (!) - decide what I believe and what I don't.

I would like to echo what everyone else has been saying to you today: it is not healthy to roll in guilt like this. It is not healthy to obsess about sin and hell and divine wrath. It is not healthy to allow your entire brain to be invaded and colonised by these thoughts.

I worry about you, Revcort - you are so focused on "the life to come" that you're not living this one with all the joy and openness and freedom that it should be lived with. You're so busy beating yourself up for being a "weak, pitiful fool" that you can't be free to be stronger or less pitiful.

Like everyone else (unless they're damaged in some way), you have the capacity to be a wonderful, warm, loving, generous, caring, whole, healthy, positive, sane, balanced, vibrant, radiant person, and to live life to the full.

Instead, you're in thrall to an imaginary being who tells you you're sinful and bad and undeserving and unworthy and a miserable wretch. It's just plain wrong, Revcort. You're not any of those things.

And don't misunderstand me - accepting yourself, for better, for worse, is NOT the same as being complacent or smug or self-satisfied. It's just applying the same standard of loving tolerance that you advocate towards others, to yourself.

No one should spend their lives constrained by the fears that haunt you. It blights your life, it blights your interactions with other people and it blights the lives of those children and young people you drum it into.

Life - real life - is not as scary as you think. But it is short - for everyone's sake, PLEASE stop wasting it. There is SO MUCH MORE to life than you are experiencing. And I'm not talking about sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. Just life as an ordinary, fallible, mostly lovable human being. Is that really such a terrible thing to be?

Other Comments by Northern Bright

813. Comment #74127 by walk on September 27, 2007 at 10:37 am

Beautifully said, Northern Bright, as always.


I may be a bit daft, but I didn't really get Brother John's post (733).

He seemed to be saying to christians, "I'm a catholic priest (with all the dogma and baggage that comes with that) and you may all be of different denominations and different interpretations therein, but god doesn't care about all that. It's how you've acted that matters.

When Christ left to return to his Father he told us (COMMANDED - not an option) to get on with spreading HIS message - not OUR MANY VERSIONS OF IT.

How are christians supposed to just give up their myriad differences and come together as one force when they have split apart because they completely disagree with each other over points of belief that seem irreconcilable?

As far as his message to us atheists, it's all well and good to appeal to our common belief in leading good, moral lives, and to stress the importance of science (which totally disagrees with his book) but just below the surface he must still condemn us all to hell for not accepting Jesus as our saviour. Sorry, I just don't get his point. Also, does he SOUND like a priest to you guys? (I'm assuming "priest" means catholic). Wouldn't he be excommunicated for saying some of these things? (Excuse my lack of knowledge.)

Other Comments by walk

814. Comment #74128 by SRWB on September 27, 2007 at 10:45 am

revcort,

Northern Bright's words make sense to all of us atheists here. She has said it so very well. Except there's nothing wrong with a bit of sex and rock 'n'roll!

Set yourself a challenge - don't think about,or pray to, God for a whole day, and just go about your daily business and see if it makes any difference as to how the day turns out. Then gradually go for longer periods and see what happens. You might find you have more control than you give yourself credit for.

Other Comments by SRWB

815. Comment #74130 by revcort on September 27, 2007 at 11:04 am

Like everyone else (unless they're damaged in some way), you have the capacity to be a wonderful, warm, loving, generous, caring, whole, healthy, positive, sane, balanced, vibrant, radiant person, and to live life to the full.

Instead, you're in thrall to an imaginary being who tells you you're sinful and bad and undeserving and unworthy and a miserable wretch. It's just plain wrong, Revcort. You're not any of those things.

I really appreciate these sentiments Northern Bright. However, you don't really know me outside of this forum. Now, to you, I may seem very disturbed and motivated by fear. Do you think I sit around with my wife and kids and spout off about theology 24/7? I don't.

Further, for whoever said it (I don't believe it was northern bright), I do not force my beliefs on the students that come to our church. I present the Scripture. I tell them what I think it says, by the grace of God. However, I always tell them to check for themselves, to not take things as true just because I said it, and to own their own faith. I tell them that an unexamined faith and an unexamined life is a useless life. Feel free to ask them about this too- most of the "friends" on my myspace page are my students. They will tell you the truth.

By the way, I've told them I've been debating with some atheists, so they know. Of course, when I told them last night about it, it was prior to feeling that need for repentance, so I presented it as like a scene from the second Matrix movie where Neo was surrounded by all of those carbon copies of Agent Smith that were attacking him at once. That's what I told them it felt like with all of you guys coming at me at once. Ha! Regardless, they will tell you that I do not force them to agree with me, but that I do force them to think. And I also don't play mind games with them to force them to attend, like telling them that their salvation depends on church attendance. Ha! I think we had about 25 students last night. We talked about the dangers that come from sitting in front of a T.V. or a video game system and rotting your brain instead of picking up a book and reading something helpful. Naturally, I directed toward reading Scripture because that is the most important book in the world in my opinion.

Now, to gr8hands, I think the reason I usually glaze over your comments is not so much that I can't answer them (though I will confess that you've posed some tough questions), but it's that I've gleaned from your comments and apparent attitude that it would a totally hopeless exercise. Now, I'm not saying that I think anyone here COULD BE converted, but, since I'm usually reading responses from at least 5-6 different people when I log on here, yours usually doesn't strike me as the most fruitful avenue to take. Take that for what it's worth.

Other Comments by revcort

816. Comment #74132 by Bonzai on September 27, 2007 at 11:12 am

Revcort wrote:

Now, I'm not saying that I think anyone here COULD BE converted, but, since I'm usually reading responses from at least 5-6 different people when I log on here, yours usually doesn't strike me as the most fruitful avenue to take

Interesting that you come here with the intention to convert people.

Your missionary mindset, however distasteful and arrogant, I do have some fleeting admiration for your courage. It is like walking into a lion den to seek martyrdom. Perhaps as someone has suggested, you will find an even more challenging mission in Iraq.

Other Comments by Bonzai

817. Comment #74134 by revcort on September 27, 2007 at 11:15 am

walk #813

I may be a bit daft, but I didn't really get Brother John's post (733).

He seemed to be saying to christians, "I'm a catholic priest (with all the dogma and baggage that comes with that) and you may all be of different denominations and different interpretations therein, but god doesn't care about all that. It's how you've acted that matters.

Indeed walk, this is what I'm talking about. It's kinda like the Rodney King quote from those LA riots from so many years ago- "Can't we all just get along?" It's great for a one liner, but it doesn't really solve anything.

It DOES matter what God says about these things, but many in the Catholic church like to glaze over things and say, "We're all in the same boat" because they are more concerned about making everyone happy and keeping the peace than they are about truth. Now, I could make a great many friends carrying on a bunch of psychobabble that would make all of you feel better about things. Yet, if I am to be true to what I understand from Scripture, then I can't go that direction.

Consider for a moment where I'm coming from: if I lived next door to you and noticed one day that your house was engulfed in flames with you and your family in it, what would be the most loving thing I could do? Should I mow your yard? Trim your hedges? Maybe I could take your dog for a walk? No, the most loving thing would be to burst in there, at the expense of possibly even my own life, and drag you out. That is what I've been trying to do here. What brother john is doing is watering the lawn while the house is on fire. (now, I know you won't accept my premise that the house is on fire, but I'm just attempting to help you see my point of view)

Other Comments by revcort

818. Comment #74136 by NormanDoering on September 27, 2007 at 11:25 am

brother john, a priest of 70 years, wrote:

No wonder we Christians get on atheist nerves and some of them spit blood at the mention of us.

You don't get on my nerves as much as revcort. But I've got a few questions for you about problematic scriptural texts to mull over:

Some Christian individuals and groups have given enormous scandal over the centuries by their hatefilled, intolerant, un-Christlike behaviour...

... God is concerned about using the concept of CONSCIENCE. ... those parts of the Scriptures that give us the mind of God ... God wants us to follow our consciences: those feelings about right and wrong that we have in us. It is our moral duty to do this... He will judge us: on how well we have followed that inner light - even if it leads us to say: I can't believe in God... It obviously DOES NOT MEAN that if you think it's fine to torture, kill, rape, abuse children and adults etc - as the military junta in Burma do, to give just one present horrifying example - then God will accept you. HE MOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT.

But the god of the Bible does torture, kill, abuse children and adults etc... Moses, supposedly by God's orders, had the Hebrews killing Golden Calf worshipers, Midianites and plenty others. Jesus started talking about hell, a place of eternal torture. Don't such stories undermine "What our conscience tells us"?

What our conscience tells us is CRUCIAL as a guide to individual and social life.

Not all humans have the same sort of conscience. A certain segment of morality and conscience (such as sexual mores for example) is culturally determined. It's better to recognize these parts as cultural creations than attribute them to God.

God does expect us TO GIVE SERIOUS THOUGHT to our moral principles.

What about giving thought to the moral principles of God? A God who floods the Earth, fire bombs cities, tortures unbelievers in hell, etc..

... what we believe can have enormous consequences for our well being and that of others.

Indeed. So, what are the consequences of believing in God who damns people to hell, orders his followers to war, and tells you if you really had faith you could move mountains with it.

Those moral principles that we accept as our personal code must reflect, as best we know how, love, fairness, compassion, mutual respect, the inalienable right to freedom, commitment to truth and peaceful coexistence etc.

Does that really come from the Bible? Or does the Bible undermine that?

Other Comments by NormanDoering

819. Comment #74141 by Northern Bright on September 27, 2007 at 11:44 am

I really appreciate these sentiments Northern Bright. However, you don't really know me outside of this forum.

I accept that, Revcort, but for all that, you've revealed a lot about yourself (as we all do) in the course of your posts here.

You have accused yourself of blasphemy, you have blamed yourself for leading me into a "sin" when (even leaving the whole "sin" thing unchallenged for a moment) it should have been quite clear that you had done no such thing, you have referred to yourself as a "weak, pitiful fool", you have said "there is a literal hell", you have said "I have a very healthy fear of God, though I doubt I fear Him as much as I should." And so on and so forth.

You have said that 95% of what you read consists of the bible and theological writings. You have said you hardly ever even listen to music!

You say you encourage your students to think for themselves, but look again at what you've written:

I do not force my beliefs on the students that come to our church. I present the Scripture. I tell them what I think it says, by the grace of God. However, I always tell them to check for themselves, to not take things as true just because I said it, and to own their own faith.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that reads very much to me as if your "encouraging your students to think for themselves" consists in your referring them to the bible to check that what you've said is really written there. The underlying claim that, if it's in the bible, it's true, is reinforced, not challenged, by this course of action. This is not a HUGE breakthrough for freedom of thought, Revcort.

You cannot post as you have posted in here over these last few days and then ask to be taken for a healthy, balanced, well-adjusted individual. Despite what you claim, much of what you have written - the most hell-fixated bits - would be rejected by very many churches around the world (although not, I grant you, in certain areas of the US).

It is impossible to hold the view of God that you hold and truly love him. You'll deny that, and maybe be offended by it, but it is true: God as you paint him is singularly UNlovable. You can fear him. You can hate him. You can despise him. You can submit to him. You can obey him. But you cannot love him, anymore than you could love a human who claimed to love you but claimed they'd have no choice but to set fire to you if you don't love them back. You are distorting language, you are distorting meaning and you are distorting sanity by dignifying such a relationship with the word "love".

There is nothing you can say or do that could make me aspire to your kind of faith in a million years. I feel angry that you are planting this kind of self-loathing in young people's heads, but even more than that, I feel sorry for you, I really do. It's a terrible way to go through life and I sincerely hope that one day you see it for the monstrous nonsense it really is and reject it. And that you then find some way of undoing the damage you've done to your "students" over the years.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

820. Comment #74146 by GoneGolfing on September 27, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Revcort-

""He was preaching in this particular sermon on Romans 12:1-2 on presenting your body as a living sacrifice. In this sermon, he spoke about a great many things, but the thing that strongly stood out to me this morning had to with the infinite nature of God. He illustrated very well, by the grace of God, that knowing God is our primary aim and that we know so little of Him in this life. As I prayerfully pondered that thought, I realized how little I know about the Lord.""

Once again you prove that you base your entire belief system on the scriptures alone. You hear a sermon based on Rom. 12 and then generate this whole new thought process on how weak, arrogant, and unenlightened of the scriptures you are, and then go on to attribute God with revealing these faults to you, when in fact it was Washer that stimulated your brain to produce these thoughts in your mind.

Of course we know very little of God ! How can a finite being know much about an infinite being at all? How can an imperfect being ever know anything about a perfect being at all? Who can understand perfection? How is it possible for an infinate perfect being to create a finite imperfect being in the first place ! ? Perfection can only beget perfection and thats the sobering truth of the ability of a perfect infinite being. So please understand that truth. God can't create something that is imperfect!. Humans are not, and at birth are not, and never were perfect. We're imperfect therefore you know what this means.

To me it would be impossible for God to even "think" of an imperfect creation plan and therefore couldn't have followed through with the imperfect one that we see.

Theists just refuse to get their heads around the fact that this so called infinate and perfect nature of God made it utterly impossible for him to have created the imperfect world in which we live. God simply cannot go against his own nature and therefore can't do what his nature won't allow him to.

Theist says:

"But God repented, changed his mind' etc. etc etc."

^^Sorry, that's not a perfect God. A perfect God after creating is unable to repent, change his mind etc. Once again we're back to the Iron age texts for that statement above and once again I say "religion poisons everything"

Eve eating the apple does not negate this either, as God forseeing the future would have seen that this plan was imperfect and therefore couldn't have gone ahead. "But what about Jesus ! doesn't he make it perfect again?" ..The bible may say so but, sorry, remember, God can't create anything imperfect from the get go, so the existance that we see could not have been created by him, so thats out to.

A perfectly infinite and selfsufficient being has need of nothing, absolutely nothing, and therefore it is this natural need of nothing that makes it impossible for this being to create anything at all which would go against this natural need. To create would show need of something and something perfect has need of nothing so this being in fact would never create anything.

Are you getting this Rev ? You love to go on endlessly with bible discussions and that's cool :-), but are you wrapping your head around this ?

A Perfect, Infinite, All powerful, All knowing being is unable to create this mess we see.

"But what if God sees this creation as perfect?"

Nonsense! It would be less than himself, in being mortal and finite, and therefore imperfect, and therefore impossible for him to create. God can create no more or no less than what he is, that being perfection.

Answer then ? I'll go with the current and best theories that being the Big Bang and Evolution, as they are quite capable of creating imperfection :-)

GG

BTW: ""What brother john is doing is watering the lawn while the house is on fire.""

Careful now Rev !

Other Comments by GoneGolfing

821. Comment #74149 by gr8hands on September 27, 2007 at 12:17 pm

revcort -- You're blaming my "apparent attitude" for why you won't respond to my questions.

You need to repent for more dishonesty and pride.

It merely sounds like you, in fear, have chosen easier targets.

Your breath has been taken away, and you've reeled back in dismay at how you could possibly have devoted your life to a lie, wasting the precious years on a man-made delusion.

But the inner irrationality rears its ugly head, and screams "change the subject, and blame the messenger for having a bad attitude!"

So silly. You remind me of supposedly straight men who spent too much time trying to "convert" gay men ... but who really are gay (or bi) themsleves, and are jealous of the sense of freedom the gays demonstrate.

Admit it, revcort, you are not-so-secretly jealous that we non-theists are not bowing to a fantasy, not beholden to a mirage, not pledging allegiance to a myth, not devoting our lives to a lie. You really want to "come out" and join us, because it is such an incredible world, out here in reality, unfettered by delusion or irrationality or dogma.

You are hereby empowered to put down your cross and follow us. Just put away the bible. Take charge of your own life. Stop going to church. Quit the useless praying to nothing.

And be amazed at how free you feel. How wonderful the cosmos is. How connected you feel to all life.

Take that for what it's worth.

Other Comments by gr8hands

822. Comment #74151 by revcort on September 27, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Gone Golfing #820

Nonsense! It would be less than himself, in being mortal and finite, and therefore imperfect, and therefore impossible for him to create. God can create no more or no less than what he is, that being perfection.

Answer then ? I'll go with the current and best theories that being the Big Bang and Evolution, as they are quite capable of creating imperfection :-)

God did create perfection Gone Golfing, but He did create it with the possibility of it becoming corrupted. The Bible makes that clear. Adam and Eve were perfect. The earth was perfect. The cosmos was perfect. But He did allow imperfection to enter in. Why? Well, there are different theories set forth by that, but to state with certainty the reason is presumption. I can speculate. A person who believes strongly in free will would say that God allowed for imperfection because not allowing it would have been to create a set of robots whose adoration would have been meaningless. A Calvinist might say that sin was a part of God's plan from the beginning, and that the ultimate purpose for it is to give glory to the grace of God in forgiving man's imperfections through His Son Jesus Christ.

BTW: ""What brother john is doing is watering the lawn while the house is on fire.""

Careful now Rev !

I know. I know. It's grounds for dismissal around here, isn't it? I'm just trying to give my perspective on it- I have nothing against brother john at all- I have many Catholic friends and have discussed these issues with them.

Other Comments by revcort

823. Comment #74154 by Goatsbane J on September 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Grar! I am reborn!

Right [wipes goat's blood from mouth] having finally dragged myself up from under my bridge, I've some lost time to make up for. revcort, it's all about you.

Because, I'll just tell you, admitting my sin to my accountability partner is one thing, but admitting it to strangers is quite another, especially those with whom I have been debating.

I sincerely appreciate the effort you have made here, revcort.

Consider for a moment where I'm coming from: if I lived next door to you and noticed one day that your house was engulfed in flames with you and your family in it, what would be the most loving thing I could do?

Just what we're trying to do, too!

I do actually respect your evangelical intentions, by the way. I remember years ago at university, having friends who were irritated by the attempts of members of the Christian Union to get them into church. They felt religion was fine, so long as you kept it to yourself. I agree with that, but I see the problem too, which is that if you genuinely believe someone is damned, then surely, if you care about them at all, you've got to try to save them! Anything else would be neglect, right?

Maybe and maybe not. As soon as someone else is involved, it becomes a case of your beliefs against theirs. You believe they are damned, they believe they are not. So, we're in the realm of meta-beliefs – beliefs about beliefs. There's no reason for you to believe that your religious beliefs take precedence over their non-religious ones (or other-religion ones), unless you have something you can use to demonstrate this to be the case.

I get the impression that you are a genuinely well meaning fellow, especially in light of the bit of soul-searching you seem to have done today. But there's a warning I think you need to share. I've used this argument several times, because I think it very important. Have you ever read William K. Clifford's essay The Ethics of Belief? Here's a link to it:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html
Go there and read the first two paragraphs. It'll take you about two minutes. You can read on if you like (it's all good) but the start is enough to make the point: well-meaning, kind, intelligent people can unwittingly do much harm even as they are trying to do good, simply because they haven't been careful enough in analysing their own beliefs. There are few more misleading terms in this world than 'private belief', for a strong belief affects the full body of your interactions with the rest of the world. 'Private beliefs' are extremely public in their effects, and need to be scrutinised carefully.

Now, you can easily agree with all of this, and then say: 'Sure. I'm happy with my beliefs. It's you guys who need to think again.' So we're at that impasse, aren't we? Whose beliefs – your religious ones, our unreligious ones – are the more reliable?

This, revcort, is where our (possibly obsessive-seeming) concern for evidence comes in. I've believed some utter nonsense in my time, but as I've been made aware of evidence that undermined my beliefs, I've realised how wrong I've been, had a bit of a giggle at my own foolishness and gone on to develop new beliefs that totally contradict my old ones, based on the new, available evidence. (I suppose this is called 'learning'! I hope to do some more of it, sometime.)

Northern Bright has said lots of wonderful stuff in her recent posts to you, that I'd just like to second in general. But, in particular, I'd like to pick up on this, from Comment 819:

You have said that 95% of what you read consists of the bible and theological writings. You have said you hardly ever even listen to music!

Years ago, when I was applying for university, a wise teacher observed to me that what university is all about is making links. That's what they were looking for in my interview, apparently – a lively ability to spot connections between things.

Of course, you can only make links between things that are already in your mind. So, for example, when I spent my last year at uni studying the literary genre of tragedy, I began to see everything I read in terms of tragedy. In fact, this was my undoing in that particular exam, as I tried to write the biggest, baggiest essay ever attempted in three hours, tying together far more texts than can safely be attempted under the unifying theme of tragedy. It's very easy, for someone specialising in any field, to lose perspective as their thoughts bounce around perpetually within this little niche that they have carved for themselves.

You said somewhere that you're arguing with 20 people here who are smarter than you. I don't think that that's true for a second. You seem to me to have a lively, link-spotting, argument-forming mind, and good for you. You made a big, perspective changing association this morning as you returned home from the gym, when you compared what you'd just been hearing on your headphones with your discussion here. And you had the personal strength and intellectual honesty to follow up on that realisation in your actions. This is the stuff of robust and courageous intelligence.

But you are putting yourself at a hell of a disadvantage. It's no coincidence that this particular epiphany came from scripture. Not because god spoke to you, although please note that I'm not ruling that out. Simply because there's a much simpler explanation, which is that if 95% of what you fill your mind with is the bible, then 95% of what your lively, question-asking brain has to work with is the bible. Just like if I spent all of my time every day watching episodes of Star Trek, reading Trek novels, collecting Trek magazines, attending Trek conventions and fashioning my own sets of ears from pieces of rubber, every time someone started a conversation with me it would end in Star Trek. Every time a moral or political or social question came up, I'd instantly be thinking 'Oh, that's like when Captain Picard broke the Prime Directive because…'. This would not be a good indication that Star Trek actually holds all the answers to everything. It would just mean that I should stop watching so much Star Trek.

You have students at your church, you said, right? Let's imagine you go to visit another teacher at another church like your own. There you find a teacher like yourself, who has ten students who all want to become ministers themselves. But you notice that the teacher is spending virtually all of his time with one student, whilst the other nine are left almost to their own devices. You find this peculiar and you challenge the teacher on it. 'Of course!' he says. 'She's the best student I've ever had! She's going to go far.'

You speak to each of the students individually and you find that actually they are all keen and intelligent. There's nothing special about the chosen girl, except that she is more precocious than the rest and is clearly eager to impress her teacher with her abilities. It is obvious to you that any of the ten students could do exceptionally well and all of them could go on to successful theological training.

But the teacher is having none of it. 'Obviously she's the best! Her bible knowledge is far in advance of all the others!' Yes. Of course it is. Because the teacher is spending all of his time on her. Whereas, if he took a step back, analysed his own assumptions and saw his students for what they really are, he could be sending ten bright students to theology college next year.

And, furthermore, he might get more out of the current favourite this way, too. Concentrating on her exhaustively robs her of the chance to interact with and learn from her classmates. The point I'm making here is that I'm not telling you to stop reading the bible. It's a valuable book with a lot of thought-provoking content. But it makes a lot more sense when seen as the historical document that it is, and it provides more sensible ideas about the world when seen in the context of the world. Trying to switch this round and instead see the whole world in the context of one book, just because that book tells you to…well, that's pure obsession, I'm afraid. Just like pedagogical favouritism and unchecked Trekism. It's not a good thing to do to your brain, revcort!

Okay, I've written too much. One last thing. I was slightly struck by the fact that you'd used The Matrix as an example for your online battles here. It reminded me that I have also seen a parallel with the The Matrix in the past. I still do, actually. It's that bit at the end of the first movie, where we suddenly see the world from Neo's perspective as, for the first time, he sees through everything to the code beneath. That scene is an excellent visual representation of the feeling I got reading The Blind Watchmaker when, for the first time, I really understood what evolution's all about. So simple, yet so surprisingly difficult to get your head around, but requiring no faith at all. Just a bit of patience and effort to understand what's being put in front of you. Shortly thereafter, I began to regard myself as an atheist.

Cheers, revcort.

Other Comments by Goatsbane J

824. Comment #74162 by gr8hands on September 27, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Goatsbane J -- I hate to disagree with such an erudite and pleasant post, but Star Trek really does hold all the answers!

The Ethics of Star Trek by Judith Barad, Ph.D. and All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Watching Star Trek by Dave Marinaccio, as well as Star Trek and Sacred Ground: Explorations of Star Trek, Religion, and American Culture by Jennifer E. Porter and Darcee L. McLaren are just three examples demonstrating this.

Of course, anything that is comprehensive enough, espousing a morality you agree with, is going to also AMAZINGLY hold all of Life's answers. For you.

You wrote: "You said somewhere that you're arguing with 20 people here who are smarter than you. I don't think that that's true for a second." That was one of the few accurate things revcort wrote!

Most real christians didn't watch The Matrix saga because it promotes violence, pre-marital sex, and doesn't acknowledge the hand of god or the blood of jesus. (Small point.)

But I enjoyed the rest of your post.

Other Comments by gr8hands

825. Comment #74164 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 1:54 pm

That scene is an excellent visual representation of the feeling I got reading The Blind Watchmaker when, for the first time, I really understood what evolution's all about. So simple, yet so surprisingly difficult to get your head around, but requiring no faith at all. Just a bit of patience and effort to understand what's being put in front of you.

You write so well!

For me the 'wow!' experience was reading about chaos theory and my first experience of the Mandelbrot Set. I was already pretty much an atheist, but the idea of Natural Selection was not quite enough to stop me wondering about the need for initial complexity, as there was always the problem of how life got started. But when I realised the implications of chaos and thermodynamics, the answer was there... we get all this complexity for free.

Other Comments by steve99

826. Comment #74165 by Goatsbane J on September 27, 2007 at 1:56 pm

gr8hands

Star Trek really does hold all the answers!

Hopefully I carefully avoided saying outright that it doesn't. Read into that what you will... ;)

Other Comments by Goatsbane J

827. Comment #74166 by Goatsbane J on September 27, 2007 at 2:02 pm

steve99

For me the 'wow!' experience was reading about chaos theory

Ah, good - James Gleick's Chaos is on my reading list! I'll look forward to it. Arcadia had a similar effect on me, weaving complexity into a very affecting story touching numerous different fields and the very idea of knowledge itself. (Makes me go a bit funny thinking about it.)

PS - Nice to see you up here on the right side of the bridge.

Other Comments by Goatsbane J

828. Comment #74168 by Goldy on September 27, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Good to see something someone said has changed you Rev! :-) Trust me, keep up the exercise and your wife, children and, more especially, your body will will thank you. If ever you feel like stopping, just remember, God's image adn all that sort of thing! I don't think the big G was a fat slob....
Others have replied. Don't beat yourself up. Yes, a lot of people "attack" you at once - ummmm, comes with the territory you wandered into :-) You don't put a hand into an wasps nest and not expect to get stung, so you? ;-)
And no worries about driving some of us to athiesm - we are already there. I have never, as far as I can remember, believed in gods as you do. As a pantheon, maybe, with Daddy Xmas, the Tooth Fairy and the monster under the bed (and yes, I still have uneasy feelings about dangling my arms over the edge - irrational...I guess there's "hope" for me yet :-D). Maybe listening to you might convince me of my position, I'll give you that for your sin bank. However, it is more amusement and frustration for me :-) You are, in my mind's eye, the Mad Nutter in the Bus - you know, muttering and babbling to himself and everyone, amusing to watch but not to sit next to.
Keep up the exercise - blood to the brain makes for clearer minds. I personally don't use anything to exercise with. It is time for thoughts, my own thoughts. Try walking too - spring is the best as there is a warmth in the cold air and the trees start to sprout. Everyday is a revelation of life waking up - magical!
Quetz, Hobbit - what can I say. I asked Quetz to accept me, which he graciously did. Yet I drink coffee in the mornings and green tea in the evenings (it is not quite beer, the itch remains, as it were, but it is starting to appeal). I shall start a pantheon, having a duality of gods :-) Just one more and I'll have a trinity!
PS - Rev, to me there are 2 sorts. Those who believe and thse who don't. You talk of false gods - so do I. I just don't differentiate. To me, you are among the believers, with the Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Catholics, John Frummers, animists, shamans et al. Brother John, also take note. We are all, however, the same.

Other Comments by Goldy

829. Comment #74170 by revcort on September 27, 2007 at 2:13 pm

You wrote: "You said somewhere that you're arguing with 20 people here who are smarter than you. I don't think that that's true for a second." That was one of the few accurate things revcort wrote!

Hey, at least I got something right. ;)

Most real christians didn't watch The Matrix saga because it promotes violence, pre-marital sex, and doesn't acknowledge the hand of god or the blood of jesus. (Small point.)

:D Never claimed perfection- quite the contrary. I liked the concept of The Matrix movies. As with most trilogies, the first one was the best, the second one was pretty bad, and the third was trying WAY too hard.

I will say this though, there are many things that would have been a much better use of my time. I certainly do not condone the language, the sexual content, or the violence in those movies, though I admit that by paying to watch it, I was condoning it.

Other Comments by revcort

830. Comment #74173 by NormanDoering on September 27, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Goatsbane J wrote:

James Gleick's Chaos is on my reading list! I'll look forward to it.

It's not on my list - yet - but I'd suggest "The Fabric of Reality," by David Deutsch for a good "WOW!" experience.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

831. Comment #74179 by steve99 on September 27, 2007 at 2:49 pm

It's not on my list - yet - but I'd suggest "The Fabric of Reality," by David Deutsch for a good "WOW!" experience.

I have not yet read that, although I soon hope to. However, I would suggest some slight caution. Deutsch is a fine thinker (and he gave an amazing talk at the TED (www.ted.com) conference a few years back), but some of his ideas are definitely on the margins, and far from accepted by mainstream scientists. On the other hand, chaos theory and non-equilibrium thermodynamics are very well established, yet few seem to realise their implications.

Other Comments by steve99

832. Comment #74181 by Bonzai on September 27, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Speaking of books I recommend the fearful symmetry by Ian Stewart and Martin Golubitsky. It is not a very well known book but very well written with a lot of interesting information. It is about pattern formation through symmetry breaking.

Other Comments by Bonzai

833. Comment #74182 by revcort on September 27, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Hey Goatsbane J, I read the link you gave me- the first three or four paragraphs to begin. I definitely can see his point and your point, which is this: though you think I'm well meaning and sincere, to ignore obvious warning signs and evidence to contradict my belief makes me liable for changing it and guilty of the damage to myself and others that is inflicted by continuing to delude myself. That's pretty clear.

But you're also right in what my response would be. I don't believe I'm deluded, and what you would likely call "insanity" or "delusion" I would call a transformed mind. Truly, I admit that only a fool would believe what I believe based purely upon natural evidence. There is some evidence, but it's simply not convincing enough. But know this, I can't simply stop believing. I can't explain it fully, but I have been given this faith and been enabled to believe- it's not natural. There, I can own that.

Someone has said, "Just stop thinking about God for ONE day. Put Him out of your mind. Soon you'll be free of this thinking." Well, for me to stop thinking about God for one day is like asking a bird to stop flying for one day. I suppose I could do it, but why would I want to sit on the branch when I could be soaring in the sky? I guess that's where I am right now. As goldy said, I'm doomed to be that madman on the bus that makes people chuckle but nobody wants to sit by me.

I do understand why you think I need to read other genres of literature. I don't read much else, I admit, but, then, I doubt many here have read much of what I've read either. (that gets back to Dawkins' argument about leprechology) I guess I would say that much of what I read that is in the non-Christian genre would be found on the internet and on message boards. I'm certainly not afraid to listen or read, which is another reason why I'm here. If I didn't care to hear any other opinions or other points of view, I'd just post over on CARM or some other Christian message board. I feel that my faith must be able to stand up to scrutiny to have any value.

I appreciate your kind words here. I don't believe myself to be beneath the capacity for having a logical conversation, but I definitely do believe that most of the people here have at least 25-30 IQ points on me. :D Most atheists are ultra intelligent- at least the ones that are vocal about it. Some call themselves atheists but couldn't justify it to save their lives. But, from what I have seen, many here are well capable. I do not say that to gain sympathy (ha!) but simply to point out what seems to me to be a fact.

I have a good friend who went to college with me who I always said was "one IQ point away from killing people" who once called himself a Christian, but now calls himself an agnostic, among other things. I tried to ask him about it recently, and he explained himself a bit. He's got alot going on in his head and I can't even begin to understand him. I've got another friend who called herself Christian 2 years ago, wiccan last year, agnostic earlier this year, Christian again, and now calls herself atheist/agnostic, but she's going to Mass next Sunday because her boyfriend is Catholic and wants her to give it a shot. I have a former student of mine who is pretty much a genius. You may be hearing of him in the future because he is a genius mathematician. In the last five years, he has gone through some crazy things in his life- he called himself Christian 5 years ago, but then became Taoist, then became agnostic, and now he has come full circle to Christianity again. He says that he can prove that there is "A" god, but can't prove that the Christian God is him. I've mentioned to him about posting here, but he sees this as a total waste of time. (just told me this Tuesday)

I wouldn't say I'm totally sheltered from other ideas and concepts that are non-Christian, but I do spend most of my serious reading in Christian books. I have difficulty justifying spending money (which is in short supply with 4 kids), on books that aren't directly related to faith. So, there you go.

Other Comments by revcort

834. Comment #74185 by NormanDoering on September 27, 2007 at 3:21 pm

steve99 wrote, RE: "The Fabric of Reality," by David Deutsch :

... some of his ideas are definitely on the margins,...

I know. But the incredible scale of the universe he imagines -- take our already incredibly large universe and multiple that by trillions upon trillions upon trillions more parallel universes linked at the quantum realm.

He ties it to other theories well -- to evolution, for example -- no matter how improbable such an event is in Deutsch's universe it is inevitable.

It's a "wow!" theory whether it's true or not.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

835. Comment #74186 by Corylus on September 27, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Brother John, we haven't chatted before so Hi.

Thank you for your interesting post. I appreciate your addressing both sides of an argument in one go. I think this shows admirable fairness. I am also impressed at your statement that you are "a christian and a priest of 70 years". I find myself wondering whether :

a) You have been a christian for 70 years
b) You have been a priest for 70 years
c) You are simply 70 years old and both a christian and a priest.
Or maybe
d) You actually have been both a christian and a priest for 70 years (indicating that you started your training for the priesthood before you became a christian) which I have to say shows remarkable forward planning :P

In any event, (forgive my playfulness above) all of the answers indicate that you have considerably more life experience than me, which I have the good sense to respect. However, you could hear that 'however' coming couldn't you? Re: your summary:

* God wants us to follow our consciences: those feelings about right and wrong that we have in us. It is our moral duty to do this.

* It is on that that He will judge us: on how well we have followed that inner light - even if it leads us to say: I can't believe in God.

You state that God wants us to follow our consciences concerning what is right and wrong. The implication is that he wants us to do the right thing.

I have to ask:

i) Is this the right thing because God says it is the right thing or
ii) Is this the right thing because God recognises this is the right thing.

I am sure that you recognise this argument, but hey, the old ones are the best.
My apologies for jumping on the morality argument here, but I have been debating with a believer on another thread about morality for some considerable time now and I simply can't let this pass. This is because I have noticed when believers talk about morality they fall (broadly) into one of two camps.

1) There are some believers that make the assumption that atheists by denying the existence of God (in their view the source of morality) automatically become immoral and subject to all manner of temptations and depravities. (I am not for a moment saying that you are one of them!)

and

2) There are other believers who; after looking about the world and seeing that atheists seem to manage to behave morally thank you very much; assume that God is really talking to the atheists and they simply don't have the sense to realise it.

Number 1. Demonstrates a rather depressing view of human nature and actually insulting. Worse than that though, it is based on an unsubstantiated assertion. Namely, that God is the source of morality. (See my questions to you above).

Number 2 on the face of it seems better, however, it still paints a pretty low picture of the the human race. Also, it appears at varience with the notion of free will which is always trotted out by a believer when the question of theodicy rises it's ugly head.

Furthermore, it is ... searches for the right word.... unsporting.

It seems to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it. The possession of a conscience is neither a proof of God nor an argument for the teaching of his existence.

Of course, I can agree with your statement below that:

Those moral principles that we accept as our personal code must reflect, as best we know how, love, fairness, compassion, mutual respect, the inalienable right to freedom, commitment to truth and peaceful coexistence etc.

However, I fail to see why you need to bring God into the question at all. Anyway, thanks again for the interesting post :-)

_J_ That pink eye is the most disturbing thing I have seen all day, and I had to babysit today and watch kids TV.

Other Comments by Corylus

836. Comment #74187 by Richard Morgan on September 27, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Northern Bright

It's a terrible way to go through life and I sincerely hope that one day you see it for the monstrous nonsense it really is and reject it. And that you then find some way of undoing the damage you've done to your "students" over the years.

Steven Weinberg

"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"

It is probably easier to unweave a rainbow than to undo all the harm that has been done in the name of religion.
I try to go through life with an attitude of "hating the sin but loving the sinner". Revcort reminds me to include the other case - healing the sick wherever possible.
But just let me add one remark - in these discussions, most of you come across as highly intelligent, mostly rational, often wise and sometimes well-read and witty.
But it has taken an overdose of revcort for many of you show that you are also kind, patient, understanding, compassionate, forgiving and (dare I use the "L" word) loving.
Because many religions talk about love, and this is often much more enticing than cold reason or a marvellous Hubble photo.

People don't care how much you know,
Until they know how much you care.

Why, I'll bet Jesus even loves leprechauns.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

837. Comment #74190 by Richard Morgan on September 27, 2007 at 3:45 pm

revcort

I have difficulty justifying spending money (which is in short supply with 4 kids), on books that aren't directly related to faith.

You have four children, money is in short supply, but you still manage to spend some of it on faith books??? Do you really spend money out of the family budget on books related to "faith" silliness?
Be warned - every time you buy a faith-related book, God kills a leprechaun.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

838. Comment #74192 by Corylus on September 27, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Revcort

I have been a little terse with you in this thread. However, I have to say I am now admiring your persistence and honesty :-) So well done.

BTW - don't get all wound up assuming that everyone on here is supersmart. Case in point, my studies are mainly in the arts and humanities/soft sciences. I got all peeved a couple of months ago at all the hard science talk going over my head. "I'll show em!! I said. So I went out and got myself some books.

That Fabric of Reality book they are raving about on here was one of them. (Well, just between you and me ;- ) I gave up about of a third of the way in. Didn't understand a word. Not one.. well, that's not strictly true.. there were some 'the' and 'therefores' in there :P

In relation to books to read, I understand the limited budget and not wanting to read fiction. Can I make one teeny suggestion? There is a book that came out about a year ago called The Book of Lost Things, by an author called John Connolly. It is a modern day fairytale about a young boy who ends up in a different world. Some reviewers have likened it to CS Lewis and given it a mystical explanation. So you can read it with a clear conscience. (I didn't read it that way, of course because I am a miserable heathen)

However, it has some of the most beautiful prose in it that I have ever read and it full of moral and human insights. I do think that you will like it.

Other Comments by Corylus

839. Comment #74193 by GoneGolfing on September 27, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Revcort: Thanks for responding :-)

God did create perfection Gone Golfing, but He did create it with the possibility of it becoming corrupted. The Bible makes that clear. Adam and Eve were perfect. The earth was perfect. The cosmos was perfect. But He did allow imperfection to enter in. Why? Well, there are different theories set forth by that, but to state with certainty the reason is presumption. I can speculate. A person who believes strongly in free will would say that God allowed for imperfection because not allowing it would have been to create a set of robots whose adoration would have been meaningless. A Calvinist might say that sin was a part of God's plan from the beginning, and that the ultimate purpose for it is to give glory to the grace of God in forgiving man's imperfections through His Son Jesus Christ.

Again, this is impossible for God Revcort.

You "must" go back to pre-creation and understand that God has foresight, and can see that even creating a perfect being with the "potential" for evil which he also sees "does" in fact "become" evil, is contrary to his perfection and he simply cannot do this. This nifty but fallacious doctrine you propose just does not stand up to the fact of who God is: not what God does.

If Adam and Eve were in fact perfect then it would have been impossible for them to sin because they were created in Gods image, which is perfection. God cannot inject something into a being that is not of himself therefore Adam and Eve could not have been imperfect or have a "free will" to sin. God does not have a "free will" to sin so these beings could not have one either.

As well, adoration and obedience are meaningless to a perfect God, as he exists in a state of utter perfection and total self sufficiency needing nothing. The Calvanists can think what they want but it is impossible for a perfect God to creat imperfection to bring glory to himself. To do so would defy his nature and that is impossible for him and to be more precise he simply wouldn't know "how" to do it. He would have no knowledge of how to create evil or even the potential of evil, as it is not a part of his nature.

Again you've started with an assumption based on scripture and tried to work your way backwards to make it all coherent. Even if you attempt it this way, an honest person will always go back to, and arrive at, where the hard questions begin. Pre-creation.


I'm off to our annual closing season Golf weekend with me mates...should be a blast.

See ya'll Mon.

GG :-)

Other Comments by GoneGolfing

840. Comment #74194 by Goldy on September 27, 2007 at 3:52 pm

I have difficulty justifying spending money (which is in short supply with 4 kids), on books that aren't directly related to faith

2nd hand bookstores - great places! You can get a handfull of books for peanuts in the bargain box. That's how I found Ian Rankin ;-). Not really asking you (well, I'm not) to get the deep science tomes. Anything to open a wee window a crack.
You appear to have a lot of friends looking for black cats that aren't in dark room while their eyes are shut. Odd. Mind you, I have a friend who's a buddhist (she's from Iowa, farming stock). Takes all sorts. Maybe the one who doesn't want to post is just scared. Don't even have to post - just read. That's all I did for a month. Mind you, I'm not looking and there's nothing is my life I don't see as unnatural, even the "sinful" stuff. It's just life :-)

There is some evidence, but it's simply not convincing enough. But know this, I can't simply stop believing. I can't explain it fully, but I have been given this faith and been enabled to believe- it's not natural. There, I can own that.

At least you admit this. Not saying it's a start of anything, but at least you can see why I for one can't believe what you believe. And maybe you can realise that someone like me will never understand you when you speak of your faith, as you can't understand when I tell you how I see things.
Right, coming up to my walking time :-) Around the park for a couple of laps. Next month I may start running again. Slowly slowly catchee monkey ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

841. Comment #74197 by Goatsbane J on September 27, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Hi, revcort

What an encouraging post!

But know this, I can't simply stop believing. I can't explain it fully, but I have been given this faith and been enabled to believe- it's not natural. There, I can own that.

Maybe that's true and maybe it's not. It is wholly possible that that's just the way you feel (rather like – and this isn't meant to be offensive – a heroin addict 'can't' give up heroin). This is another reason why it's worth reading books from the 'other side', so to speak (just as a heroin user isn't going to find the psychological understanding he needs to beat his habit by purely carrying on taking more heroin). Some of the books I'll mention shortly (in particular The Happiness Hypothesis) go some way towards giving a kind of reasoned understanding of the feelings involved in religion, what they are and where they come from. It's fascinating stuff to think about.

But maybe, just maybe, you really, really can't stop being religious. Okay. Maybe that's because you're right and there is a god and maybe it's because there's something about your brain that's different from, say, mine. Certainly, I'd say that the difference between my atheism and CHeard's religion sounds like nothing more than how acutely we feel the need to fill the famous 'god-shaped hole', and how our instinct to explain things rationally balances up against our readiness to accept our religious intuitions.

Since you accept that his is all a matter of your strong personal feelings on the matter, and admit:

…that only a fool would believe what I believe based purely upon natural evidence. There is some evidence, but it's simply not convincing enough.

…we can all get on just fine, as you apparently do with your variously faithed friends. My only point of contention with you then is this, that stems from the William K. Clifford essay that you had a look at (thanks for that, by the way): as you've no basis for regarding your own strong convictions as true, it's not okay to apply pressure to anyone else to share them. I guess you know this, and I've no way of telling how you actually conduct yourself around others. In short, it means no threatening people with hell and no evangelising to people who would prefer not to be evangelised to (or who are too young to make a decision on this). Or, as in your position it's going to be virtually impossible to avoid sharing your beliefs with young people, at least making the effort once in a while to remind them that there are other opinions and that they've the freedom and right to explore and make their own minds up. You probably already do that.

I'm sorry, this must all be staringly obvious, and I don't want to be telling you how to live your life as I've absolutely no right to (and am quite well occupied screwing up my own!). I'm just trying to work out whether we have anything left to discuss, or whether we can basically just agree to disagree now.

I have a good friend who went to college with me who I always said was "one IQ point away from killing people"

Evil genius, eh?

I've mentioned to him about posting here, but he sees this as a total waste of time.

Oh, that's a shame. If he can prove there's a god, that's something that a lot of us would really appreciate seeing! (Though, if he's truly a mathematical genius, we may not follow his thinking…)

I have difficulty justifying spending money (which is in short supply with 4 kids), on books that aren't directly related to faith. So, there you go.

Well, that's a very good reason! Family is clearly the first priority. I'd just say this. Just as you regard coming to sites like this worthwhile for your faith, I'd argue that reading books that make a case for non-religion should also be thought of as reading books that are 'directly related to faith'. No jury ever reached a good verdict by only listening to the prosecution. (Well, technically I suppose about 50% of them would, but that's beside the point!)

It was books that changed my mind, rather than discussions. On a site like this, it's fairly easy to resist, as you need only read a few paragraphs before diving back in to make your own point. And people tend, in arguments, to try to support their own position rather than to accept other people's, no matter how fair-minded their conscious intentions. (I know I do.) But books (like the bible, in fact) sit there unchanging, challenging you to give them the time to hear them out in full. It's worth it, even just so that you know what you are disagreeing with.

If you do feel like reading something of this nature, I'm sure people here will be happy to make recommendations, to limit your expenditure. And it's got to be worth a trip to the library before you think about spending any money, right? Personally, I'd point you to The Demon-Haunted World (Carl Sagan), The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins), The God Delusion (Dawkins again, obviously) and The Happiness Hypothesis (Jonathan Haidt) – though there are many, many others. I'd also squeeze in The Salmon of Doubt even though it's mostly irrelevant, because it's just such an enjoyable read. Happily, the only two sections in that book that have anything to do with religion at all are both available free on the internet. Here they are:

http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1432,Is-there-an-Artificial-God,Douglas-Adams-Biotaorg

(I love the latter of those two. There are some points there that I haven't heard any other atheistic author better yet.)

Best of luck to you, revcort. Given how vitriolic I was to you early in this thread, and how downright unreasonably scary some of your posts sounded, I'll consider it a highly worthwhile achievement if we're more-or-less friends (in so far as one can 'make friends' in this sort of environment with someone they know bugger all about) now.

Now, if all of the world's faith-gaps could be surmounted in that fashion, what a world it would be!

I'm getting idealistic and losing my grip on reality. [EDIT - It's probably this talk of Star Trek.] Time for bed.

Other Comments by Goatsbane J

842. Comment #74198 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm

lane:

But for me its a simple matter of Jesus having won over my heart.

But most of what you said I believe to be real and true. I just hope that you will keep in mind that God wants us to represent him with a kind and understanding heart.

How do you know what god wants? Is it at all possible that it your own mind creating this knowledge.

Can you provide any objective evidence of this knowledge of what god wants?

Other Comments by Hobbit

843. Comment #74200 by Goatsbane J on September 27, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Corylus

_J_ That pink eye is the most disturbing thing I have seen all day, and I had to babysit today and watch kids TV.

I know. Alternative thread make Troll J mad. Also, I banged it on something climbing back up from under the bridge.

(But really, more disturbing than kids' TV? [Shudders])

Other Comments by Goatsbane J

844. Comment #74202 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Revcort,

You say that you encourage your students to examine their faith and not take what you teach them as true until they have checked it out for themselves (by reading the scriptures to confirm that you have not made it up).

I'm sorry but I must agree with Northern Brights et al. Having them re read what you have just told them is not independent research or thought!

Here's a challenge for you. Instruct your students to read at least 2 or 3 of the following books: The God Delusion; God is not Great; Letters to a Christian Nation; anything by Bertrand Russell; On Origin of Species; A Brief History of Nearly Everything, the Koran, the book of Mormon and at least one other holy book from a non Abrahamic faith.

Tell them to read these books but give them no preconceived ideas or thoughts on how they should interpret these texts but tell them to read each of them with an open mind. They are to come to their own conclusions.

After they have all read these books (you should do the same), have them write out what they liked and disliked about each text, what they agreed with and disagreed with in each text and why?

After they have done this, have them come to this site and interact with us.

After they have heard all the arguments for and against god, ask them to provide evidence for both his existence and non existence. Then ask them to provide evidence for and against evolution, that the age of the earth is 6010 years and the age of the universe. In order to do this, the will need to engage in independent research.

Only after they have done these things can you claim that you are allowing them to fully examine their faith!

If you just continue to direct them toward the scripture you are engaging in indoctrination and a form of mental child abuse.

Other Comments by Hobbit

845. Comment #74203 by steveroot on September 27, 2007 at 4:40 pm

833. Comment #74182 by revcort on September 27, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I have difficulty justifying spending money (which is in short supply with 4 kids), on books that aren't directly related to faith. So, there you go.

Please forgive me if I missed this in another's post, but what about ...
the Public Library?
Some of them *do* have the books you might be interested in but don't feel you can afford. School libraries also may have them. Just not at Liberty University (maybe).
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

846. Comment #74205 by BAEOZ on September 27, 2007 at 4:46 pm