Is God there?

> > > Is God there?

Posted on

Member Since: Jul 13, 2004

I see innocent people die and sinners live for long is God really there?
If he is there then why not save the innocent

[ Back to Top ]


Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 10:57 am

After the way mankind has treated God in recent times, why does he owe us anything?

From a more practical standpoint, I don't believe God is a micromanager.

I gotta admit, it's something to think about, but I certainly know he's there.

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 10:58 am

that's a good question, though this is arguably not the correct forum for such queries.

Good luck on your search.

Banned


Jun 03, 2005 11:05 am

we have free will, maybe its us killing the innocent?!?!

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 11:07 am

fair point "God" isn't killing anyone, we are killing ourselves, and all the beauty God has given us.

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 11:19 am

Quote:
I don't believe God is a micromanager


Lost for words with all to say.
Contributor
Since: Sep 12, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 11:54 am

Wow, what a loaded question I didn't expect here!!

I agree with dB, we are killing ourselves. It's hard to know that God is there at times. Honestly, it's hard most of the times. I know at points in my life, I felt the closest to God when I had freed myself up of stuff. There is this wonderful church that has services just about every night going on over 10 years now in Toronto, Canada. I try to go there yearly but with more responsibility now, I don't make it. I go there because for a whole week, I have no job, church politics, family issues, nothing to concern myself with. My mind is clear and I truely feel God's love. Now, I am the one responsible for not feeling God the rest of the time. Everything influences our moods during the day. Stress at work, people we hang out with, nagging wife, etc. We are the ones responsible on how we react to these. I honestly say, I let those get in my mind and I don't take time out of my daily goings to even talk to God. For that, I am ashamed just thinking about it.

I understand why majority of non-believers don't even go to church to even be shown God's love. A lot of churchs are full of people that I call "play the game of church". That is why I don't believe in religion. I believe in a relationship with God. Your own personal relationship. I do attend a church and I do have problems with the leadership. But I am the one responsible not to let that interfere with my relationship with God. I love God and He loved me first. So why should I let everything else determine that?

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 12:05 pm

Quote:
We are the ones responsible on how we react to these

yeppers!!! i agree 100%, negativity is a choice

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 12:12 pm

Quote:
nagging wife, etc

sheesh, he's not even married yet =)

a hindu guru once wrote: "God is the energy that man moves around". (i'm paraphrasing)

I believe it's man's choice to use it how he see's fit, whether divinely, or selfishly.

To get to Samwel's question, I believe in karma, so people's past due bills come-a-callin, and they need to be paid. This way it's not evil that wins, it's God's fairness that wins.

Member
Since: Jan 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 12:19 pm

I don't believe in God! So that solves that right there.

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 12:29 pm

...And brings up a host of other questions.

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm

yeah like, how do we know what green really looks like?

Member
Since: Jan 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 12:36 pm

If we weren't so reliant on something that's not there I think people would accept responibilty for their actions or at least not have something to cop out to. I don't believe in good nor evil, I belive in self motivation and people do things because of their surrondings and what they are exposed to in their lives. Not some made up fairy tale that gives us far more problems than ir solves.

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 12:45 pm

prodigies would be hard to explain.

i see your point though, self-responsibility should be more important that it is. some people seem to hide behind a theory, or blame another theory.

www.TheLondonProject.ca
Member
Since: Feb 07, 2005

Jun 03, 2005 12:58 pm

I believe that people look to religion and God because of their fear of dying. This is a way to take comfort facing their mortality. It is also easier to explain the unknown as being God. As we learn more about the world around us we (at least some of us) believe in God less and less.

I believe in church but not God. I think that having many people in one place with common beliefs creates energy and this energy could be construed as God.

In regards to the question first posted by Samwel about the innocent being taken...if you believe in God then don't you think that He has taken them first because they have already served their purpose in this life and their reward is heaven? ... and maybe the sinners are not taken because this lifetime is...well lets just say its not heaven.

Anyways, this type of topic can spin out of control quite easily and I just wanted to say that I hope my comments haven't offended anyone, after all, one thing I believe strongly in is PEACE.

A small pie will soon be eaten
Member
Since: Aug 26, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 01:07 pm

And i just popped into 'talkin smack' on my way to bed.

It was said best when it was said

"Happening, happened, happen,
what a funny word is happen!
Pip cub rubber stopper
Happening,happened,happen"



Ultra Magnus
Member
Since: Nov 13, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 01:10 pm

Wow, an even older question than 'What's the best condenser for under $200?'.

I think there's a God, but i doubt it's the same thing as most religions will have us believe. Relgion's man-made, not God-made.

God's out right now, so please leave a message after the tone and if he exists he might get back to you in some mysterious way.


Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 01:11 pm

i just can't immagine a god that would condemn someone like me to eternal damnation just cus i doidn't cry "uncle" and tell everyone i accepted the lord into my life him. i like to do good deeds and be nice to everyone, and marvle at the beauty of life and my surroundings just as much as anyone else. i've had many a friend inform me that i'm securing my fate in hell because i openly deny God. if that's the case, so be it, all the cool ppl are there anyway!


§=oP

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 01:21 pm

I think that's part of the mainstream religious overtone: if you don't fully surrender, and accept their dogma, then you'll be toasty-the-mosty.

I'm hearing most of the time that it's the 'man-made' religion that most atheists dis-agree with, not the premise of a higher power.

interesting.


Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 01:24 pm

Quote:
If we weren't so reliant on something that's not there I think people would accept responibilty for their actions or at least not have something to cop out to.

Well, while I respect someone's right to not believe in God, I totally disagree that belief in God is a reason people don't accept responsibility for their actions. The way I see it, people don't accept responsibility for their action because this liberal "relative morality" society we are creating does not make people do so.

Morality and right/wrong are not graded on a curve, but liberal society certainly wants everyone to believe it is.

Besides that, I know God is there, I feel the presence in my life and all around me. If you don't see it, your not looking, or just don't care...either of which is perfectly within your rights as a human being of God's creation. God gave you that right. :-)

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 01:29 pm

that would be the difference between an atheist(without theology) and an agnostic (not knowing) agnostics like the idea of a higher power, but arn't quite sure it's God, or Buddah, or anyother single figure. i personally havn't heard anything that explains life, the universe, and everything, that connects with me, so i choose not to practice any of it....althought some of the concepts and teachings from them are very valid, i just don't like the means to that end. buddism (sp?) is the closest thing that i've come close to, but re-incarnation and all the mombo-jumbo around it seems like song and dance.

and just about every religion when you strip down the rituals, the cymbalism (heh), and the methods of teaching, at the heart of 'em is usually the same thing. be good to others, be humble, be respectful, ect.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 01:37 pm

Well, actually, being nice, being humble and all that, in many traditional christian religions is moot. In addition most every traditional branch of Chritianity has so many different beliefs or sub-branches it's impossible to keep up.

In Christianity, in the truest sense, the only thing required for salvation is belief in christ as your savior. It is, as I see it, kinda of expected that being nice, being humble, being respectful and all that comes as a byproduct of your faith.

In some religions another requirement is that you save others as well, Jahovah's Witnesses come to mind...

Now, recent time would make one believe some require you to blow yourself up to be saved, and take others with you that disbelieve your religion, but this is only radicals...not true of the true faith they claim to represent.

Member
Since: Apr 26, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 01:45 pm

Quote:
I don't believe in religion. I believe in a relationship with God.

Well said.

Member
Since: Jan 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 01:50 pm

Well I was brought up in a strict Pentecostal church. All I ever saw was hypocrisy.

I believe that religion had to start from a basic ideology (from whatever culture)and from that religion a couple people didn't agree with something or learned from experience that maybe something needed to change. This splits the religion into two factions (Protestants and Catholics for example) and from there it only cascades through time. Religion for me is the cause of most the ills in the world. Although they do some good and there are some good people out there.

But DB saying you KNOW that god is out there and someone saying that they feel "GOD" enough that they blow themselves up is a fine line. Who’s to say who’s wrong and whose right? Do they not to do something like that? It's all about perspective and what you've been taught to believe.


Also the belief that you don't have to take responsibility for your actions stems from religion in general. So many people out there choose to use the excuse of "I heard god talking to me" To kill other people. Also the fact that if you don't consider this world your home; only heaven, then this world we live in becomes second fiddle doesn't it?

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 01:54 pm

I was raised in a pretty strict Wesconsin Synod Lutheran Church (very old school lutheran) and yeah, I saw a lot of hypocracy as well, so I totally know what you are saying...lots of great talk at church, but after church was over, well, they were all different people...regardless, I worry about me and my family, beyond that, to each their own.

However,I do take insult to the fact you see a "fine line" between me simply knowing God is there, and some murder that does so in the name of [insert diety here].

I see a massive chasm of difference between knowing and believing...and...murdering people. Most any acceptable religion on earth will say murder is wrong...including the religions that those people claim to fight for. And for anyone to compare my beliefs to that, well, I am insulted and offended beyond what words can express...especially since my beliefs are not pushed on, or used to offend others...they are what they are, and I am happy and comfortable with them.

Member
Since: Jan 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 01:56 pm

Db I didn't mean to affend you by saying that! I was just saying who's to say which is right. We all have different beliefs. I apoligize to you for that.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 01:57 pm

I can safely say the person who kills is in the wrong.

Member
Since: Jan 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 02:02 pm

Do you see what I mean here? You can say that because you have different beliefs, You have to look at what other people belive to truely understand where they are coming from.What about people who killed for religion or God and still do so that believe in the god that you do? It's all about perspective and a persons enviroment.Not who's wrong or right....they believe that they are as right as you are.

Hello!
Member
Since: Jan 12, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 02:03 pm

Dunno, but John said it best

Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.


ISNT this what its all aboot - PEACE, LOVE AND HARMONY. Man, ye can dance roond which GOd is right, wrong, better, worse blah blah blah but unless ye are a complete nut who LIKES hurting others, they all aim for the same goals (Lennons ideals above)...ultmately dont they?

I am a Christian and try to be good - thats cause I know the difference between right n wrong. So, if EVERYONE tried to do the same and said "fek it" doesny matter if ma God says this, as long as Im DECENT to everyone else, the WORLD would be a better place.

RIP JOHN....genuis beyond his years.

Coco.

Perdido
Member
Since: Dec 15, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 02:03 pm

Regardless of who is offended and who is not... I must take a second to say just one thing...

It seems that religion comes up a lot on this forum. In all of the discussions, an obvious line is drawn between religious people and athiests.. and yet, the discussions always remain civil. For that, I applaud everyone.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 02:12 pm

Quote:
In all of the discussions, an obvious line is drawn between religious people and athiests.. and yet, the discussions always remain civil. For that, I applaud everyone.

Yeah, it wasn't always that way, I used to delete all these threads cuz they got nasty, but I;'ve decided to let a few go now and see how it works, I like how the last few have gone...I gotta agree with ya, it is applause worthy.

Quote:
What about people who killed for religion or God and still do so that believe in the god that you do?

Well, that is sort of my round-a-bout point...if they do kill, then they are not following the religion they supposedly believe in...THAT is hypocracy. I do see what you are trying to say, I really do, but to me it's moot.

Much like the people that were "protecting life by killing abortion doctors" years back...I can't speak for God, but I would lay good odds he was up there saying "get off my side"...the killers are no better than the doctors they killed.

Commandment #1: Thou shalt not kill

Genesis 9:6 Whoso shedeth mans blood, by man should his blood be shed. <--- as I see it, God is pro capital punishment as well...or at least was in the old testement.

Member
Since: Jan 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 02:27 pm

I think I have a pretty strong moral base, sometimes borderline conservative. Because I don't believe in God does this somehow play into how I treat other people?

"as I see it, God is pro capital punishment as well...or at least was in the old testement"

That to me this speaks of the hypocrisy of religous belief. God is a loving god and he cares for you and he forgives you, but all that don't follow are going to burn in the lake of fire.
Good people don't need to believe in god to be good. Some of the finest people I know are not religous and don't believe in God. Moralistic obligation and common sense play deeply into what people should do. When we have SOO many different denominations of religions I think it thins out the moral fibers that everyone has in the first place.

Perdido
Member
Since: Dec 15, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 02:28 pm

Genesis 9:6 Whoso shedeth mans blood, by man should his blood be shed.

the problem with this is... who is going to kill the murderers... Upon doing so, they themselves become murderers. It is redundant.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 02:30 pm

Quote:
Good people don't need to believe in god to be good.

Did anyone ever say they did?

Quote:
God is a loving god and he cares for you and he forgives you, but all that don't follow are going to burn in the lake of fire.

Ummm, you forgot an important attribute of God..."just"...JUST and loving God...important difference I believe.

In the interest of keeping this civil, I am going to avoid this thread now...I get really annoyed at always being put on the defensive as a Christian and somehow having to justify it to others. Personally, I don't care how anyone else feels about it...it's between myself and God.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 02:48 pm

"Besides that, I know God is there, I feel the presence in my life and all around me. If you don't see it, your not looking, or just don't care..."

---whats it feel like? my other christian friend says this exact same kind of thing, and i might know what you're talking about, from memories of growing up catholic, but im pretty sure i feel nothing like that now, and if i did, i would probably just say they're just feelings that the belief in god is creating and which im projecting outward so that they seem to be 'out there.' they sound pretty cool, though. i mean, but what are they?

as for the original topic here, you know, after the asian tsunami, lots of people were saying 'why! why did god let this happen!' my answer was always: what else could god do? "stop" plate tectonics? or stick his face out of the clouds and say "AHEM. PACIFIC BASIN CLOSED FOR MAINTENENCE UNTIL TUESDAY THE 3RD. GET OUT OR DIE"

its just simply our responsibility to 'watch out' if we live in geologically active zones. plate tectonics are one of the reasons we were able to evolve. plate tectonics are vital to the carbon cycle on earth. if you believe in god, then your god put tectonics into motion (and it would be kind of hypocritical to ask him to stop now just because theyre scary and we've been a bit too lazy to put up a buoy warning system or build up to code.)

we can't raise our arms to the sky and scream 'why.' even the faithful cant let themselves fall into that trap. the 'why' is because we live on a geologically active planet, which is no small part of the scientific reasons we're able to be here at all. if there were never earthquakes and volcanos, we very likely wouldnt be here. thank god, then, for volcanoes and earthquakes. does 'god' 'use' natural law and science in order to create 'his' creation? of course. what else?


www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html
www.bol.ucla.edu/~dilu/
skolor.nacka.se/samskolan...s-05-02-01.html



Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 03:00 pm

I feel God every morning I wake up and hear birds singing, rollover and see my wife sleeping peacefully, get out of bed and see my kids playing or watching morning cartoons...the little miracles...

The fact I am even alive after the things I have done to myself when foresaking God w/ my lifestyle, how opportunities arose in life just as I was ready for them that helped me turn my life around...

It's all around me, I see and feel it every day of my life. It's beautiful.

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 03:05 pm

* A saying in AA *

Religion is for people who don't want to go to hell.

Spirituality is for people who've already been there.


Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 03:21 pm

pjk, what does that mean exactly?

db, if thats what you mean by sensing god, then, ah...i have that too. i am pantheistic, in that the universe is god to me. this does not reduce its wonder or specialness in any way.

by the way, for those who lean more toward literal biblical teachings, those links above, there, can probably be used as a more valid kind of armament for defending your faith than can intelligent design. ID as a way to prove that humans are special simply doesnt work, and if the IDists would take the implications of complexity theory and evolution simulations like AVIDA to heart, theyd know the game's already over. but the rare earth hypothesis seems to actually work as a defense of faith against the onslaught of science, for the moment anyway. not that i feel one is needed, mind you.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 03:22 pm

sorry to stray into a subtopic there. guilty.

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 03:35 pm

This means that the religious model, spoken of here on several occasions, is often viewed upon as a shell, or a cop-out. people don't have to be self-aware, or self-responsible as they should be. They can blame good or bad on a being of some sort, instead of look at themselves for whose to blame or commend. In AA's mentality, the normal religious aspect is insufficient to keep problem drinkers sober. With only religion (and AA) as the driving force, many addicts fail.

Conversely, Dan and other's opinions of the spiritual nature of life, seeing miracles around them, and also bringing responsibility to one's self, seems to be a much more effective way of getting an addict to find true sobriety, and usefullness with their society and their theology.

Normally, the addict is very dis-associated with mainstream religion, so the normal 'churchyness' doesn't cut it for them.

Hope that made sense.

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 03:37 pm

There's other facets to this brief synopsis, but most of the main parts are there.

After a time of addiction or misuse, and then recovering, the person usually finds their relationship with a higher power lots greater than they could have ever imagined. This may or not be valid, as it's a matter of perspective, but the addicts that find a solid and meaningul relationship with a higher power, are more apt to find usefullness in society, being sober and improving their lives.

Frisco's Most Underrated
Member
Since: Jan 28, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 03:48 pm

hmmm, so here's my thing. I agree with db when he says "Personally, I don't care how anyone else feels about it...it's between myself and God."

This is exactly how I feel. Now, what I don't understand is what makes people think they have the right to preach to me. If you want to say this is what I believe and have a discussion, that's ok, but don't EVER, EVER, come at me and say this is how it is, and this is the only way it is. Because if I believe different than you, and 100 out of 100 times I will, you are now saying that my beliefs are wrong. Basically I don't want to hear it. You stick to your beliefs, I will stick to mine. I won't preach to you, you don't preach to me. Deal?

Sorry, I got kinda heated just thinking about some of these people I deal with occasionally.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 03:50 pm

Well, as a vetran of AA and NA (neither of which did me any good at all, it was court mandated) they talk more about "higher power" than about religion. It is a common misconception, but really what they are saying is "get addicted to something productive". My "higher power" was my music during my period of troubled recovery.

It's a common trend among addicts that they are ALWAYS addicted to something. Drugs and alchohol being a bad addiction, hobbies, such as music, working on cars, gardening, and such are addictions as well, just not troublesome ones.

Currently I am addicted to training in the Martial Arts...I am like many addicts, I am always into something, and whatever it is I get into, I get into at 100 MPH (KPH hour you europeans), a trsit which drives my wife insane, by the way.

The higher power, as I understood it, was channeling that addictive behavior to something more productive.

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 03:51 pm

oo, hope that wasn't at me, coolo. I certainly wasn't trying to put anyone straight or anything like that. just chatting it up.

if it came across that way, i apologize, it was not intended.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 03:52 pm

Quote:
You stick to your beliefs, I will stick to mine. I won't preach to you, you don't preach to me. Deal?

I agree with that sentiment completely. Unfortunately, at least in the US lately, just the meer mention of ones beliefs make some of these thin-skinned socialists pinkos think one is preaching. Which is unfortunate.

I know many people that would scream at looking at this thread, cuz to them it isn't conversation, it's Christian trying to convert people, when in fact it's just conversation.

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 03:55 pm

db: That's a good point of where everyone's different, and we should be tolerant of other's beliefs. As it is, I went through AA for a year, got back to thinking clearly, and now i'm not attending. There are certainly things I'm not fond of with the AA crowd, but it does help a lot of people.

as i remember, they say a higher power can be anything, just as long as you believe.

like I said, it's good for a lot, but not for everyone.

congrats on getting though, btw.

Frisco's Most Underrated
Member
Since: Jan 28, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 04:15 pm

pjk, no I was thinking specifically of people out here in the physical world, nothing to do with what anyone said in this thread.

yeah, db, I do not mind discussing as long as you are open and/or genuine in wanting to hear my beliefs as well. But if all you want to do is talk with no listening, well, that's not a discussion, that's preaching.

by the way you crack me up every time you throw in those monikers like pinko, liberal, etc.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 04:27 pm

Actually, I find it fascinating to discuss religious beliefs, moral base and other such belief structures, and have many, many years of study in Christianity and others...I find it quite interesting. And as far as open minded and willing to discuss, I know you are...thats just the type of person you are, I am too until people start discounting other beliefs without reason or explination that it, as soon as it reaches that point, then the discussion becomes feudal.

As far as the liberal pinko socialist type stuff (hehehe) that is meant in more of a political sense than anything. Politics is something I hate discussing because nobody "discusses", everybody argues...and that's no fun. And I am as hard headed in my conservative political stance as anyone else is in there respective stances...so really, there is just never a productive "discussion" when it comes to politics.

Typically it seems political "discussions" are usually put to an end as a result of breaking Godwin's Law en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 04:39 pm

Quote:
Also the belief that you don't have to take responsibility for your actions stems from religion in general.

I really don't see that at all. I see it the other way around. Who are you responsible to if there is no higher standard of morality? People don't take responsibility for their actions because they don't want to. It's human nature to be greedy, selfish, and try to get away with as much as you can without getting into trouble. I know because I feel it every day. I don't do those things, even when I could maybe get away with them, because I know better and want to please God.

Quote:
So many people out there choose to use the excuse of "I heard god talking to me" To kill other people. Also the fact that if you don't consider this world your home; only heaven, then this world we live in becomes second fiddle doesn't it?

People who murder and then say that are mentally unstable. They would have come up with another excuse if they didn't use the "God told me to" one.

Quote:
I know many people that would scream at looking at this thread, cuz to them it isn't conversation, it's Christian trying to convert people
Another way to look at it is that it's just as easily the Athiests trying to convert the Christians as it is the Christians trying to convert the Atheists. In reality, we're all just trying to defend what we believe in.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand that when you believe you know something that other people need to know you feel obligated to share it. dB mentioned earlier that he didn't see sharing the faith as a fundamental part of Christianity. I would object to that, seeing as one of the last things Jesus says in the Bible is to "go and make disciples of all nations."

Notice he didn't say, "go torture murder in my name until everyone says they believe in me."

Is that so radical?

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 04:43 pm

Quote:
dB mentioned earlier that he didn't see sharing the faith as a fundamental part of Christianity.

I share when I am asked, and I hope my lifestyle speaks the rest as a witness...

Quote:
Another way to look at it is that it's just as easily the Athiests trying to convert the Christians as it is the Christians trying to convert the Atheists.

Agreed, but that is never the way it works...thanks to this God-hating liberal, pinko, socialist society we have created (stated as such for the benefit of a chuckle for coolo).

Hello!
Member
Since: Jan 12, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 04:56 pm

Ye know, as an observation, there is nothing on this board that sparks a faster thread growth than religion or "best band" "worst band"...

Its amazing..no matter what the board (be it this or another) Politics and Religion are always the biggest chat points.

Sorry, no real input other than my standing back observation.

As you were gents.

Coco.

www.TheLondonProject.ca
Member
Since: Feb 07, 2005

Jun 03, 2005 04:58 pm

"I feel God every morning I wake up and hear birds singing, rollover and see my wife sleeping peacefully, get out of bed and see my kids playing or watching morning cartoons...the little miracles..."

I feel this as well. It was unfortunate that it took the passing of my wife for me to be thankful for it (everything around me). Now whether it is a God or not doesn't matter... all I know for sure is that none of us are here forever and you had better make the most of it while you are here. If your beliefs in God make you feel like you have lived life to the fullest, then go for it.



a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 04:59 pm

Quote:
Agreed, but that is never the way it works...thanks to this God-hating liberal, pinko, socialist society we have created (stated as such for the benefit of a chuckle for coolo).

Haha! It got a chuckle from me as well, dB :)


Frisco's Most Underrated
Member
Since: Jan 28, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 05:09 pm

Quote:
don't see why it's so hard to understand that when you believe you know something that other people need to know you feel obligated to share it. dB mentioned earlier that he didn't see sharing the faith as a fundamental part of Christianity. I would object to that, seeing as one of the last things Jesus says in the Bible is to "go and make disciples of all nations."

But what if the people don't want to be made disciples of. What if people are already steadfast in their beliefs. Are you not at that point imposing?

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 05:09 pm

Sorry for your loss BeerHunter. :-(

Hello!
Member
Since: Jan 12, 2004

Jun 03, 2005 05:22 pm

Yah, ditto dB's comments and also, a very good point indeed.

Live it while ye are here for sure.

All the best B/H.

Coco.

Frisco's Most Underrated
Member
Since: Jan 28, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 05:24 pm

BeerHunter, my condolences as well.

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 05:34 pm

Quote:
But what if the people don't want to be made disciples of. What if people are already steadfast in their beliefs. Are you not at that point imposing?

Maybe, but if you really feel strongly about what you believe in, doesn't it make sense to take that chance, assuming you aren't hurting the other person or driving them further away in the process?

If people don't want to be made into disciples, they cannot be made into disciples. In a way, it's kind of a moot point. It's simply impossible to force anyone to believe anything. If someone convinces you of something, it's you who makes the choice to believe it, not them. You're just providing them with the knowlege base.

www.TheLondonProject.ca
Member
Since: Feb 07, 2005

Jun 03, 2005 05:49 pm

Thanks for the condolences. It has been 5 years since she passed away at the very young age of 30 years old (cancer). I feel as if I would be disappointing her and myself if I didn't live life to the fullest. I had asked myself many times why God chose her and my answer ended up being "because she was special and she was needed elsewhere".

I have sinced re-married (well sort of if you know what I mean) and life is good. I learned a lot from this experience. After she passed, birds sounded prettier, flowers were more colorful and the air smelled cleaner. This is how I know that the experience kicked me in the *** and made me appreciate everything more.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 05:53 pm

Well, to be quite honest, people that "share their faith", without being asked and do so often, does the religion for which they are witnessing, more of a disservice, from my experience.

That is part of the reason that I think people are so quick to pull the "they're preaching" alarm (asside from the liberal, socialist, pinko society) is because some people don't know when to shut up.

Though it's not really fair, it's pretty true that the "reputation" of any group of people is always based on the most visible faction of that group...which are generally the worst represtation of that group. But it's the radicals that make the news, are heard on the street, are seen in the community, etc. It's never based on the quiet, humble old man next door...cuz he isn't as visible.

The muslim religion is seriously damaged by the radicals...the christian religion is damaged by the groups seen on TV that are protesting Marilyn Manson, killing abortion doctors, preachers on street corners screaming at people and other such stupidity. The same holds true for racism...

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 08:21 pm

"Agreed, but that is never the way it works...thanks to this God-hating liberal, pinko, socialist society we have created (stated as such for the benefit of a chuckle for coolo)."

---the left does not as a whole hate god. many are christians. the rest believe in believing what you choose to believe in. the 'negative' that some people perceive as coming out of this openness is moral relativism, you know, and i understand the argument there: morality can slip when there are no consquences and no standards, and society can slide. its a valid point in some ways and from some perspectives, for sure. but legislating morality is a fine and tricky line to walk. the religious right should not be surprised to find themselves under attack for trying to get thier highly specific worldview passed into legislation.

all i can say is that god does not belong in certain places. he does not belong in science class. that was a good try--the religious right is learning, but science class is not the right venue to teach an idea not based in science: there are gray areas, but then there are unnegotiables. religious icons in government buildings i dont care about. christianity is part of our heritage. the left is being silly with that one.

i dunno. theyre not all god-haters. thats offensive to people on the left as well as inaccurate.

i have a healthy respect for religion, and am fascinated by them generally. i'd be interested to hear more about what these leftist god-haters are specifically doing.


a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 09:51 pm

Quote:
science class is not the right venue to teach an idea not based in science

I don't see how the belief that sludge spawned life can be anymore scientific than the idea that an intellegent designer created it. I'm not talking about reading the book of Genesis in Science class, I'm talking about either getting that kind of stuff out of textbooks altogether, or at least not presenting it as fact, which is very irrisponsible in my opinion. If science class is not the right venue to teach an idea not based in science-- which I think I agree with you on, Forty-- then we shouldn't try to pass off ideas about what someone thinks might have happened 3.8 billion years ago as fact. That does not stand up to the scientific method. In fact, I don't see how it can even be tested at all.

That's a bit of a touchy subject with me, having just been through High School and experienced the brainwashing of many of my peers who don't know how to take things with a grain of salt.

Yes, legislating morality is a fine line to walk. On the other hand, that's what all legislation is for. All laws are all based on morality. The question is to what extent do you legislate morality, and I definitely agree that it can be difficult to tell at times.



Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 10:34 pm

I never said they are all God-haters. And I disagree that God does not belong in science class, it should be presented as a possible explination and commonly held believe. Not presented as "truth" but as another theory.

As soon as God got kicked out of school is the exact moment our society in America start going straight to hell in a handcart...

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 10:39 pm

"I don't see how the belief that sludge spawned life can be anymore scientific than the idea that an intellegent designer created it."

--this is a common objection, but if you dont deeply care about science, you will not understand the distinction that needs to be made here.

the science of evolution is about the process of change over time. the origin of life does not come into the field. that is indeed territory where the hand of a creator might be explored; however, evolution focuses *solely* on the mechanisms behind the process of change over time for pre-existing organisms. and given the theory we now have (evolution) there is no need within the bounds of science to posit an outside hand guiding this autonomous process. indeed, it runs counter to the basic principles of science. one very important reason is that there's no way to test for a creator, and never, ever will be. science does not deal with things like this. the origin of life is YOUR turf. religion. the physical process of evolution belongs to science. we figure out the how, you figure out the why.

intelligent design as a theory is deeply flawed but there is no room to go effectively into the 'why' on a forum like this. basically what you have with ID proponents are people given to a certain preferred world view who seek facts to fit thier needs. the facts they use are often misinterpreted. the software program AVIDA constitutes actual proof *not* that evolution is responsible for the changes in life on earth--but that darwin's theory, as it now stands, is both necessary and sufficient to explain many things that ID people claim cannot be explained by evolution alone. the spontaneous emergence of structures of 'irreducible complexity,' for instance. darwin himself had a deep doubt about how something so complex as an eye could evolve, given that a complex structure like the eye would depend upon numerous smaller mutations and adaptations that would serve no useful purpose and thus would not be selected for by evolution. AVIDA says that yes, the theory is adequate. in running the program, which is set up to be an INSTANCE of evolution (not a simulation of it), irreducibly complex behaviors were seen to be spontantously selected by the digital environment in an amazingly 'miraculous' way. digital organisms learned to 'add' with no outside help except for reward and punishment (not arbitrary but carefully controlled) and life and death. in every case, the emergence of this irreducibly complex process was seen to depend upon a sudden mutation that instantly 'reframed' previous non-useful but retained mutations, exploiting them in a new way. this shows that a functional, complex eye could indeed have popped into existence. this shows that the theory actually works as it is.

www.carlzimmer.com/articl...2005_Avida.html

science says that this is all you need. anyone who cares deeply about the process of science is offended that ID is even being considered being taught in science class. it's simply not the arena. it has already been proven wrong by the standards of science.

in saying that i am not arguing against the existence of god, but against the coopting of a well-defined field with a well-defined MO by religious fanatics. alternate theories must be taught in a class outside the domain of science.

and yes, i do agree that the holes in evolution need to be examined in science class. there are still a few. however, they should be looked at through the lens of science, not religion. people must continue to look for the missing physical processes.

i'm really serious about this, and i wish i could express it better. my outrage is tangible. red clouds around my head.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 10:42 pm

db, i think god can exist in school, but not in science class. he needs his own venue. the religious cannot protest us crashing thier party if they are going to do the same thing back to us. i'm all for god in schools, but that has to be approached through religion classes, and voluntary ones.

science classes are there to help kids get along in the science-driven world without distortions that will hold them back. we'd be hurting the kids to deny them access to the pure, undistorted process of science. witness: kansas constantly moving to edge out the teaching of evolution in schools. if i'm an employer, i'm not reaching for the kid without a solid background in actual science.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 10:47 pm

p.s. y'all should read that article. its the single best proof of the mechanisms of evolution i've ever seen, besides the real-time observation of the peppered moth changing from white to black in england at the dawn of the industrial age, the environment selecting the fittest organisms to survive--the ones that had mutated to blend in with the smog.


Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 10:55 pm

dude, it ain't crashing a party, it's not taking over science, it's presenting it as another theory, which is a lot of what science is...again, as typical, the meer mention make it "crashing the party"...can't mention God, oh, hell no...

I think we will remain at an impass on that, so I'm shuttin' up.

Banned


Jun 03, 2005 10:57 pm

Quote:
thanks to this God-hating liberal, pinko, socialist society


lol! but deep down you really think thats true dont you DB?


Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 03, 2005 11:05 pm

Yes, in general I do. But I digress...

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 11:30 pm

but by the definitions of the process of science, db, it cannot be another scientific theory. it cannot be tested. it is speculation, forever. science has no purview over this idea. throwing it in there is a way of undermining every assumption science is built upon. it is a way of disassembling science.

if god were discovered tomorrow, and if he had been shown to have started the universe in motion and then receded from it, letting the processes which he'd set up 'run the show,' he would still have no place in science because science is concerned only with those processes which can be understood to operate through non-supernatural mechanisms. god remains under the purview of theologians in such a scenario. science is the processes and how they work 'without' god's active hand.

now, if god were shown to have an active, ongoing hand in guiding evolution, he would forcibly be admitted into science--he would have to be--or else science would change into something less strict. he has not been shown to operate in that way, it goes without saying, and furthermore avida is proof--and all the data we have so far is proof--that although he MIGHT be doing such a thing--being engaged actively, that is--he doesnt have to be! science found the occam's razor of evolutionary process with the AVIDA results. the story ends until new reason is found to open the book of questions.

that time is not now.

by the way, if you want to co-opt the AVIDA results to suit a religious agenda, you need say only one thing: humans set up the experimental conditions and the processes in the software. humans in this case act as god. but notice that once they set it up, they let it run autonomously. this theory has done its job and obliterated the need for an *active* creator. but it does not shoo aside the notion of a creator as 'first cause.' if you want your beliefs represented in science, the burden of proof falls to you guys, and so far, the religious are so far behind in that battle that science cannot be forced to stoop to admit those perspectives. find a flaw, a real one, then there's room.


Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 03, 2005 11:31 pm

"it's not taking over science"

--it is, but like i said, you would have to deeply respect the scientific method to see this. the people who argue this point by definition do not.

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002

Jun 04, 2005 12:15 am

Quote:
The science of evolution is about the process of change over time. the origin of life does not come into the field.

Right. I wasn't talking about evolution at all in my post. I do not believe macroevolution is true, either, but as long as it is presented as a theory (which it really isn't), I have nothing against teaching it. From what I've seen, evolutionists are looking for evidence to back up their theory in just the same way that ID guys are.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 04, 2005 12:28 am

well, actually i guess the way to put it is that the ID guys are looking for evidence to back up thier claims in the same way that the evolutionists are. by talking actual science. which is really good, because that can be debated.

the ID guys are losing, which is neither good nor bad, only expected. it is maddeningly hard to get across, though.


Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 04, 2005 12:48 am

lotsa words that really don't say much...I don't have the time, energy or care enough to pick the crap out of that post, moreover, it would be a total waste of time and energy...so far science is proven wrong again, and again, and again...but no, no flaws there. I have respect for it, but not blind faith in it...nor blind faith in religion. God has proven himself to me more than science has...and no amount of rambling from anyone is going to change what I have had proven to me...whether anyone else believes it or not.

But as expected, people just want to argue and argue and argue just to hear themselves talk...

It's a complete waste of my time.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 04, 2005 01:10 am

i have blind faith in *science* (because it' god's handiwork) but no blind faith that humans can automatically see past thier prejudices. scientists are often guilty of failing to see past them, but science is blameless. my window of doubt opens up when it's stoked and, well, if you'd just read the article, maybe this could actually be discussed on scientific terms.

:) love ya deebs

i find room for both god and science but cant argue against obvious, demonstrable, repeatable, weighty revelations. god is not threatened by my belief in science and evolution. in fact it strengthens my belief in a god.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 04, 2005 01:12 am

"science is proven wrong again, and again, and again."

(not offering examples to be debated is a morally indefensible rhetorical tactic) :) (but i understand if the topic is tiresome).

(p.s. the reality of evolution does not threaten god.)

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002

Jun 04, 2005 01:15 am

Samwel Chebii hasn't said a word in reply to the thread he started, has he? I think he just wanted to see us duke it out :)

I'm not sure that I see how a computer program can accurately simulate life on earth. I didn't read a lot into the link yet. Did they find that the Avida program actually created any new organs or something of the sort? Because otherwise it sounds like microevolution to me, which I fully believe in already. Of course natural selection takes place. It's common sense! I just do not believe that the process of evolution is a designer-- It can only cause changes in characteristics.

I would argue that the "reality" of evolution sure as heck would threaten God. If you're talking about the Christian God, it contradicts the Bible for sure. If life can create itself, why bother with throwing God into the mix?

How does it personally strengthen your belief in God, Forty?

Frisco's Most Underrated
Member
Since: Jan 28, 2003

Jun 04, 2005 04:48 am

huh!

To me, people trying to throw god in science class as a theory of creation is like the time an old acquaintance asked me, after we watched American History X, if I thought that it was really a true story. I said, no I don't think so. He said I think it was. I said, no I don't think so. And he responded, "why not?!". All of a sudden the onus was on me to disprove a claim that he could not defend except out of conjecture and his own belief. The teaching of god in science class is similar. At this point is only belief and conjecture with no proof or quantifiable evidence to back it up in scientific terms, yet we must try to disprove what was never proven in the first place.

Honestly, I could just say, we are all puppets whose evolution is controlled by micro-organisms that live on Jupiter. Now you must give my theory equal time as the god theory and the scientific theory of evolution, etc...

It's like it's opposite. Instead of being untrue until proven true, religion is being approached as true until proven untrue. I just can't logically agree with that.

It's late and I'm sobering up (my own personal evolution that I'm destined to repeat), so I apologize in advance if I'm stepping on anyones toes.

Hello!
Member
Since: Jan 12, 2004

Jun 04, 2005 06:55 am

Too heavy for me dudes...I just try to do the right thing and keep it real man.

I reckons all this stuff that dances around religion, proving/disproving etc is what causes all the bother.

I reckon if we all just got up and said - "aye, so, does it REALLY matter if it is/can be/ever was true" - it makes people better people (when not rads) and therefore, who gives a toss if its scientifically true or untrue.

Ma point is - the end result is folk being nice to eachother, doing the right thing and learning the difference between right and wrong, does it MATTER how ye get there??

I dont think so.

Anyways, peace to ye all and all yer God's.

Coco.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 04, 2005 08:05 am

Oh, OK, what is flawless, the science that said the world was flat, the science that said the best way to cure someone of illness was to drain out all their blood, the science that said the whole universe revolved around the earth, or more recently the constently cropping up of vitamins and suppliments that we are told is the best thing for us only to be told years later it causes cancer?

Personally, I agree, I find room for science and God, there are many points at which they collide, but they can cooexist.

I just find it stupid that people are so bitter and so childish that a teacher can't say "some people believe the world and everything in it was created by God, according to the biblical stories" and spend a few minutes covering what it says, then move on to the "science" of creation.

There is so much "scientific" evidence of stories of the Bible, including creation, the day the sun stood still, Noah's ark and many more the fact it is not allowed to even be mentioned shows more prejudice than anything the way I see it.

I am tired of this, this is my last statement, it's a waste of time.

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 04, 2005 11:16 am

Quote:
some people believe the world and everything in it was created by God, according to the biblical stories" and spend a few minutes covering what it says, then move on to the "science" of creation

Damn fine point, i've never thought of it like that, the whiney ones did get on my nerves already.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 04, 2005 11:29 am

Well, ultimately that's all I was trying to get across the whole time, I'm glad someone sees some merit in it...ya made my day WYD.

School, in my way of thinking, is a place to learn, and be presented with many opinions, theories and ideas. That enables each child to make their own opinions for themselves based on everything they have learned...but to do that they need to have everything at least presented. But the "liberal, socialist, pinkos" (now I gotta use it for people that enjoy it :-) are afraid of even the mention of God...which seems sounter productive for everybody.

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 04, 2005 11:33 am

ha that's funny cuz i just skipped to the bottom of the thread, will read later when bored.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 04, 2005 11:37 am

don't bother, it's just the same old arguements on both sides, nobody really saying anything new.

No Commercial Appeal.
Member
Since: Jan 09, 2003

Jun 04, 2005 12:57 pm

wow...quite a thread. I am a religious person. I am non-denominational, I do believe Jesus was a great man, but not the son of god and I do believe evolution takes place everyday (on a small level). I believe god created us all and everything in the universe.

Why couldn't god have made creatures that are so amazing that they can adapt to different environments over time? I think god could definately do that.

My theory of how we've gotten to this point is god created all of the elements in the universe (some humans don't know about yet) and he set up laws on how these elements interact. One thing he created was gravity, which allowed large masses of elements to pull together and form planets. God's wonderful laws allowed the elements that were pulled together to intereact with one another and over time (billions of years) life slowly developed. When us humans figured out how to reproduce these interactions and explain how it works, that is call science. One of the only things we can't explain is god. God, my friends, is not science. It is religion, and does not belong in a SCIENCE class. I believe that every high school student should have to take not one, but two comparative religion courses. That is the place to discuss religion.

Having said that, I think I can answer Samwell's question (at least according to my theory). God doesn't MAKE things happen. I don't even think he listens to prayers. He set the laws of nature down and just lets them play out. If you live a good life, he looks upon you favorably, but he's not going to stop you from dying. Death is part of life. EVERYTHING DIES. I will die, my Grandmother has died, my new mixer will eventually die, your car will die. The only thing that will not die are cockroaches. I think maybe roaches are god....hmmmmmm. Something to think about.

Where is Samwell anyway?

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 04, 2005 02:15 pm

db, no need to get upset. i respect your point of view, i just like to talk about these issues. i suspect that you kind of dont, though, which is cool--im not saying this stuff to get your goat in any way.

i'm not completely contradictory in this post, so fear not. first, science did not say the world was flat as much as assumption and tradition did. eratosthenes proposed a spherical earth in 300 BC based on actual experiments he did with sticks and shadows at different latitudes. those who believed in a flat earth were basically just saying 'ill be damned if its a ball, because i can stand on it.' eratosthenes did science. the accepted answer from authorities was that the earth was flat but science wasnt the reason people believed that.

same deal with the earth being at the center of the universe. a lot of primitive religions come up with this one; christianity did too. galileo was put under house arrest for proposing otherwise, even though his calculations had already shown that the earth went around the sun.

but the medical stuff you cite is a great example of what i was saying earlier. scientists can be so cocksure that they often fail to see past thier own prejudices and egos, and this is a bad fault. but it's a fault of scientists. with the drugs and vitamins, etc, its the fault of the media as well. we're being sold the idea that there's answers -- constantly.

science itself might have a fault in thinking that its method can expose the workings of 'everything.' i mean, its 2005, and i'm still waiting for science to tell me what the implications of quantum mechanics are. it's been 100 years and no one knows. some things might be unknowable to science ultimately. the idea that it can all be known is an assumption.

oh and as far as mentioning the creator theories in schools, what i was saying is that i dont think that the science behind intelligent design should be directly taught in science class if science repeatedly finds that the ideas are not scientific and can actually be dismissed based on the claimed science behind them. mentioning the existence of the creator perspective is only proper, of course, but what does the science teacher say when little johnny asks if that idea of a creator is 'right' or not?


Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 04, 2005 02:35 pm

I am not getting upset, just annoyed, I enjoy talking about these things to until the conversation turns to the same old endless arguements on both sides...and saying one science is false based on the results of other science kinda sums up how much faith should really be placed in any of it, at best, it's all just educated guesses, and little johnny can be told just that.

Everyone believes what they want, you are dismissing ideas based on the science you believe, therefore, just as guilty as anyone of prejudice and bias. Which is exactly the reason they should all be presented, to do so is only giving our kids less of an education.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 04, 2005 02:41 pm

"I'm not sure that I see how a computer program can accurately simulate life on earth."

--it simulates life, but real evolution actually occurs within it. the evolution is not a simulation, it merely takes place within a simulated environment. it doesnt prove anything about life on earth or where it came from. all it does is prove that evolution does work as the theory is now framed. the limits that force eveolution are dutifully replicated in the program. digital organisms gain the ability to reproduce more rapidly when they randomly mutate slightly toward the goal as set up by the experimenter. they tend to die off when they move away from it. the 'goal' should be read as 'the environment.' the 'goal' performs the same function as 'the environment,' selecting for what is useful versus what it not. 'the goal' is a condition for success, nothing more. it can be arbitrary, and mutations will be selected that get the organisms closer to it.

"Did they find that the Avida program actually created any new organs or something of the sort?"

--the organisms evolved complicated new abilities. this is the digital equivalent of speciation. yes. the organisms are little programs. the mutations physically occur in the programming--in thier 'bodies.' command lines change and mutate. some of the organisms evolved an 'equals function,' if i remember correctly, after nineteen other mutations--all of which were crucial--and there was not ultimately only one path to that function. just as there are many kinds of eyes in the animals on earth, there were multiple evolutionary pathways to the equals function.

"I just do not believe that the process of evolution is a designer-- It can only cause changes in characteristics."

--i believe complexity is an inevitable reality of the universe and that it sparked life initially. it's really miraculous to me; its like seeing the hand of god and not understanding what it is. i believe evolution and complexity drive speciation, but so far the only widely-believed mechanism for that is random mutation, which AVIDA shows is enough, but which seems impractical to the mind. i would not be surprised to find an additional mechanism in the real world. i want people to find that maybe the environment directly triggers specific mutations. genetic feedback is i think what they call that and i think it's been seen in e. coli bacteria so far but no one knows how it works.

"I would argue that the "reality" of evolution sure as heck would threaten God. If you're talking about the Christian God, it contradicts the Bible for sure. If life can create itself, why bother with throwing God into the mix?"

--because god might actually be the 'laws' of the universe, not a man with a white beard in the sky. when i get into a 'defending the bible mood,' i take the bible as a translation into human terms of something that cannot be understood directly by a human mind.

"How does it personally strengthen your belief in God, Forty?"

--i dont have a literal belief in god in the normal sense. i believe that the universe is god and that that's maybe the most respectful way to treat god, to call him what he must be: everything. rather than limiting him by calling him a specific set of inflexible attitudes, such as islam. all religions can't be right unless all of them ARE right. back in sunday school i was often told that 'god is everywhere.' a shortcut, then: the god i can understand is totality; every attempt to box him in is an approximation. science is like digging for god, but god has no end. endless levels. science mirrors the spiritual path in that way: always trying to get closer, but a pretty sure sign you might be lost whenever you think the search is over.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 04, 2005 02:49 pm

"...and saying one science is false based on the results of other science kinda sums up how much faith should really be placed in any of it, at best, it's all just educated guesses, and little johnny can be told just that.

Everyone believes what they want, you are dismissing ideas based on the science you believe"

-->ok, i get what you are saying, db. that is interesting. i would argue that there is only one science, though. some science is logically unassailable, and some things cannot be true IF other things are true, things which are 'proven' to various degrees of certainty. and that that is the science i have gravitated toward by reading all the challenges and seeing how they were rebutted. but there IS a certain amount of faith involved--faith that science is not missing the ONE 'yeah, but..." that really makes all the difference. or that in those things we believe are proven completely true, something was not missed. it takes faith to believe in science, and i have it because science finds these flaws in itself again and again.

i just have faith that the process of science--of asking questions and getting physical answers--is the only way to discover the 'yeah, buts...' that really matter.

Member
Since: May 15, 2004

Jun 04, 2005 02:52 pm

Quote from Samwel: "I see innocent people die and sinners live for long is God really there?
If he is there then why not save the innocent"

God is there for sure man, to deny His existence is to deny yours..

But; quote from The Sex Pistols:

"No One Is Innocent (The Biggest Blow)"

God save the sex pistols they're a bunch of wholesome blokes
They just like wearing filthy clothes and swapping filthy jokes
God save television keep the programms pure
God save William Grundy from falling in manure

Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he's seen the light and he sold his soul to punk

God save Martin Boorman and nazis on the run
They wasn't being wicked God that was their idea of fun
God save Myra Hindley God save Ian Brady
Even though he's horrible and she ain't what you call a lady

Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he's seen the light and he sold his soul to punk
Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he's seen the light and he sold his soul to punk

God save politicians God save our friends the pigs
God save Idi Amin and god save Ronald Biggs
God save all us sinners God save your blackest sheep
God save the good samaritan and god save the worthless creep

Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he's seen the light and he sold his soul to punk
Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he's seen the light and he sold his soul to punk
Sold his soul Sold his soul Sold his soul to punk

Member
Since: May 15, 2004

Jun 04, 2005 03:14 pm

"rather than limiting him by calling him a specific set of inflexible attitudes, such as islam."


Forty, pls elaborate..I dont understand that...

Member
Since: May 15, 2004

Jun 04, 2005 03:56 pm

"i believe that the universe is god"

-the universe cant be God. It is actually a proof of God's existence. Just consider The Beginning ok.

1. If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. Which means we are living in an expanding universe day after day. The point is if we turn back time, we will reach the "one point" which started the universe -"singularity"-thats the beginning.. So there must be really God as in Genesis 1:1.

2. Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded. The point is the universe will die but not God.. God is a far more different entity from Universe.

3. Universe's Energy Source: the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas. If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum_a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!

Heavily plaguarized from the web! Something to consider..




Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 04, 2005 04:54 pm

"Forty, pls elaborate..I dont understand that..."

--islam--most religions, christianity too--defines god as being 'for' x and 'against' y. (insert your own variables.) doesnt that seem a completely arbitrary way to see the cosmic intelligence which designed *all* things?

as for the rest of your points, you say you have copied them from the web. have you often thought about these points? because point one just proves that a big bang happened but not how or why, point two is wrong, and point three refers back to point one. yes, this universe does seem to have had a beginning, but the fact that it does, does not prove that a god created it or lies outside of it. it's a vexing problem. obviously something miraculous is going on, the question is what? if you have thought about these points, point two is worth talking about.

Member
Since: May 15, 2004

Jun 04, 2005 07:36 pm

mmm thanks forty..

what i wrote before is not to argue with any of you guys.. but the subject seems to be universal and interests me thats all..

the answer is yes, actually i've been doing a lot of thinking on the universe's chicken & egg subject since my youth days.. i believe most people does.. no doubt about that.

mm let see how we can approach this, both of us agreed that the universe had a beginning.. the big bang and all.. for sure "something" must've initiated it. the universe cant create itself since matter cant create matter. let say if we take something, say a piece of wood (100g), we cant make anything more than 100g out of it..right? so matter cant create matter.. there must be something that is NOT material can do that.

Is it really NOTHING when the universe begins? take the big bang theory.. is it simply the great explosion of supernova out of NOTHING? Suddenly out of the quite, empty, dark vaccuum space an explosion just happened? Scientifically, there must be something that caused it to happen. The simple rule "nothing creates nothing" applies here.. If something happened, it must've been caused by something..see my point..?

which means that when there was the time when nothing existed, there would be nothing existed now. since something exist now (which is all this), something must always has existed. A non-material entity, hence God.

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?… I think, however, that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. (H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138). "



Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 04, 2005 10:10 pm

no one knows jack about the big bang. yes, it seems to be the thing which kick started the universe, but it was pure energy. the energy changed form into matter, slowly.

m-theory suggests the big bang is the result of two hyperdimensional membranes slamming into each other and forming this universe. i hate m-theory, but its very popular right now.

not sure you can prove or disprove the existence of god by looking to the big bang--it ends up being a philosophical argument based on assumptions.


Banned


Jun 05, 2005 12:02 am

wow im dizzy after reading all that!! very interesting stuff.

db, not all liberals are anti-god/christian, those that are i would consider extremists! theres an extreme side to everything even conservatives have an extreme side which is just as bad.


Quote:
after we watched American History X

one of my fav. movies, total fiction but loosely based on what was happening to a small portion of skinheads in the late 70's/80's, which was a shame because anytime you hear the word skinhead its synonmous with white supremisist racist, which is totally not what the original skins and about 95% of the skins today are all about.

i had to put some sort of distraction in all of this :)


Member
Since: May 15, 2004

Jun 05, 2005 12:48 am

mmmm... right... actually nobody knows anything for sure.

the big bang. It may not have happened. It's a THEORY.

String THEORY is highly speculative at the moment and there is no evidence for its existence.

Black holes are a mathematical anomoly and may not exist.

Orbits. Atomic theory is theory. Electrons don't really orbit. It's only a convention.

(Darn, wasted 4 years in Chemical Sciences by saying those..)

But thanks for the arguement forty, it really made me dig up the net for the subject -searching for what is true or not and it seems in few science and religious forums, the threads may go on forever and the one that ends, had been done in the ugliest ways we can think off. May that not happen here in HRC. Hats down to coolo, dB and condolence to Beer, great you found your peace.. We can believe in whatever we want to believe and that makes us unique from each other..

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 05, 2005 03:37 am

mmmm... right... actually nobody knows anything for sure. the big bang. It may not have happened. It's a THEORY."

--a very strong one. i was only saying that i am gonna trust the evidence on the fact of the big bang--how could i not--but that this 'universe born in an explosion' only offers the philosophical possibility of a god, not the proof of one. and i cannot disprove god, either, by using the big bang. no one can do either of these things. to its credit, science doesnt attempt to: it just looks at the processes. my whole point was just that i perceive the universe as being god. you countered that there were proofs that this could not be so. this notion is my faith, but it is based as much as i can make it on science. i think its a pretty practical fusion of religion and science, which is why i'm so wedded to it.

"String THEORY is highly speculative at the moment and there is no evidence for its existence."

--i know. i really dont like string theory or m-theory. they reach after so many arbitrary things only because they seem to paint a tidy mathematical picture. there is almost no real evidence for it.

Black holes are a mathematical anomoly and may not exist."

--they cannot by definition be seen, but the evidence that they exist at the center of galaxies is pretty much irrefutable. stephen hawking also showed how we can observe them indirectly, i believe, because they emit a very specific kind of radiation, which was prefigured by theory and then observed. i'm airtight on the existence of black holes. but i dont know what that has to do with this topic.

"Orbits. Atomic theory is theory. Electrons don't really orbit. It's only a convention."

--yeah, the theory was refined, sort of how newton's correct-in-thier-context theories were subsumed by einstein's broader ones.

science is not perfect. it screws up at first and people end up believing things that are not strictly true. but science is ongoing and seems to arrive at stable truths after a while. newton still holds and always will. even though einstein clarified a few things, newton's principles are still true within thier contexts and represent a form of absolute truth.

im not sure what we're talking about

Member
Since: May 15, 2004

Jun 05, 2005 02:47 pm

Hehe.. The last paragraph of yours is the best:

"science is not perfect. it screws up at first and people end up believing things that are not strictly true."

Cheers

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 05, 2005 03:54 pm

ok, thats a bit upsetting. i didn not just prove your point. the key phrase in that sentence is "at first."

the process of science itself is just as perfect as it can be. but the results are by definition a work in progress, until they arrive, which sometimes takes a while. science even admits this to itself. if a new theory that explains things more completely comes along, science opens its arms to that. until such a moment, though, it hangs on to its best explanation and assumes that provisionally it is true. and after a certain level of examination has been undertaken, things are often found to be completely true. newton *completely solved* the physics of his reference frame, and they are never going to change.

man i cant believe you're this anti-science, clinx. you shouldnt take my meaning out of context like you just did. feel free to dispute newton's findings right here. if you do, i'll know this conversation has ended where it began and there is nothing i can ever say to get my point across.


Lost for words with all to say.
Contributor
Since: Sep 12, 2003

Jun 05, 2005 04:18 pm

We understand your point forty.

I haven't read all of these post in this thread and I might tomorrow at work. I started the last big discussion here concerning religion and such and so I opted out of this one. Again, I haven't read all the post and so I don't know exactly all that has been said. But I wanted to let you know that your point has been brought in the few threads I've read of yours.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 05, 2005 06:47 pm

"I haven't read all of these post in this thread and I might tomorrow at work. "

--why? it's not about winning anyway--it cant be won. dont stick up for anyone. its only about getting a POV clearly across.

Member
Since: May 15, 2004

Jun 05, 2005 06:49 pm

opps no forty, dont get me wrong man...i didnt take your meaning out of context.. I totally understand what your point really is.. and I totally respect that. You had your points and I believe youre strong on your position..

I'm not an anti-science person... I'm a man of science forty, I love it all my life... Hey my fav channel is Discovery man lol.. thats true.. and I spent 1998-2003 just consulting 40 industrial plants a month on their treatment system which include lab analysis, fluid engineeering, scientific researches, processes etc. I sleep with the great white coat on me.

I learnt matters to their atomic levels man..It is just that the universe god topic is such a point worth being discussed about...
I had my point and you had yours, and I cant just reject your points because they still make sense to me.. See,..Interesting right?

So .. no I dont see any problems.. It is just I really wish Samwel should have rephrased his "question" to 'Life is Unfair'.. and that is not even a question.. its supposed to be a dissapointment in social emotion whatsoever..

God or not, miracle of the universe; one day we will know the truth, but for sure when the time comes, we wont be able to tell others..If not Einstein would have done that 50 years ago.

Cheer up forty... we got your point..

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 05, 2005 08:45 pm

"It is just I really wish Samwel should have rephrased his "question" to 'Life is Unfair'.. and that is not even a question.."

hahaha

no i dont really know if we ever know 'the truth.' just truths. which is why, contrary to a lot of science people who think that religion will 'die' as man becomes ever-more enlightened and developed and evolved, i think it will be with us forever. there is probably no end to the chicken and the egg question. the only thing i am sure about is that processes and mechanisms in the universe, once shown to be true, well...religion needs to evolve with those. even the vatican now acknowledges that there's 'something to evolution.'

so god still exists, no matter what we ultimately find out. he may not ultimately look like the god we'd thought he was, but because there's no end to the puzzle, i dont think he can never truly vanish.




Lost for words with all to say.
Contributor
Since: Sep 12, 2003

Jun 05, 2005 09:18 pm

"--why? it's not about winning anyway--it cant be won. dont stick up for anyone. its only about getting a POV clearly across."

I don't even know where to start to understand what you mean refering to what I said. Yes you got you "POV" across, just letting you know.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 06, 2005 12:39 am

ok, subtract the first three sentences. youre telling me to stop....good news, i am :)

Lost for words with all to say.
Contributor
Since: Sep 12, 2003

Jun 06, 2005 11:02 am

:) We love you forty!

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 06, 2005 11:04 am

but still disagree ;-)

Answer:On a good day, lipstick.
Member
Since: Jun 24, 2004

Jun 06, 2005 01:06 pm

Quote:

"I gotta admit, it's something to think about, but I certainly know he's there." - dB-Wan

I think there's a lot to that sentence. If those with faith believe, then "He" is there for them.

You can't base faith on individual incidents, and the way YOU expect any given deity to react to them. Perhaps it really is part of some great divine plan, and you're not privy to the details.

My point is that faith comes from within, not from without.


Member
Since: Jul 13, 2004

Jun 08, 2005 11:00 am

I have been far from a internet for sometimes, this is Kenya man.
Let us come to one clear conlusion that God could be there or not but prayers are never answered.
You will agree with me that once in your lifetime you have atleast seen the righteous pray until they perish. There were tribal clashes in my country in 1992 and I saw that with my naked eyes.
I have seen others fast to remove their poverty and after sometimes you hear that not only didn't they fail to succeed but were robbed raped ,sodomised and killed. If you give me explanation of why those prayers are not answered "eg God has his own plan" we will end up in viscious circle.
This unisersal being,God,law of nature or whatever he has been called in this thread does'nt give a damn what the hell you do to each other.
He has also made sure that resources are not equally distributed such a that we are starving here while others robbed the economy.
Religion as per a certain sage is and I quote "Opium of the poor" .
May be we will come to justice in heaven after death. But who has ever been there. My grandfather who refused christianity at his point of death claimed to have been smoking with his departed comrades in his Near death Experience my christian grandma said he saw St Peter, Muslims and the rest also see what they had believd in.
I think I will see Elvis or Bob marley.WHICH ONE then SHOULD WE FOLLOW?
We are mixed up men.


Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 08, 2005 11:05 am

While I can't speak for Kenya, as I have no real knowledge of what is going on there other than what my cousin told me from the time he spent over there in the US Army, I can say that I am tired of hearing people belittle others beliefs with statements such as "Opium for the poor".

I feel very bad for countries that are in turmoil such as you describe, and people under despot gov't control such as the case was under the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.

However, from my distant view of the situations it does seem that many times the people let some of this stuff happen to themselves...albeit slowly, and by the time they try to rise up and rebel against the despot, it's already far too late and the despot in question has gained too much power for the people to overcome.

These countries slowly loose personal rights (kinda like whats happening in America right now) such as the right to bear arms, freedom of religion and other things, each in itself maybe not looking like a big deal, but combine these freedoms and you are left with nothing to believe in and nothing to defend yourself with.

Sadly, this could be the case in America if we don't wise up...

Member
Since: Jul 13, 2004

Jun 08, 2005 11:11 am

So you agree that spirituality should never be a issue

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 08, 2005 11:13 am

I believe religion and spirituality are a personal issue and it's nobody's business to dictate what one believes or pass judgement on them for it unless it affects or harms another person.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 08, 2005 07:36 pm

freedom of religion is not under attack in america. people are free to practice whatever faith they want to, as theyve always been. thats too broad a statement to make--it's only based on your personal wish to have religion in schools.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 08, 2005 07:40 pm

(no disrespect intended. imagine me saying that while offering you ice cream)


Pinnipedal Czar (: 3=
Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004

Jun 08, 2005 08:19 pm


"GOD" is a million-watt-power'd calliope, which is in constant orbit of the planet Jupiter ...

"Religion" is you giving me five bucks to hear it .

Pay up, or I'll take you to Detroit !



Banned


Jun 08, 2005 08:32 pm

Quote:
kinda like whats happening in America right now) such as the right to bear arms, freedom of religion and other things

dont forget the right to use pot for medical reasons.. sheesh whats next?!?! damn conservatives!!

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 08, 2005 09:42 pm

actually, I didn't mean to imply freedom of religion is under attack, I meant that various personal freedoms are, a general statement, sorry if that isn't how it came out...

Regarding the medical pot thing, well, I disagree with conservatives on that one...but I am still not sure that is really that important of an issue, as there are also other drugs that ease pain, increase appetite and decrease nausea...so I think there are much more important things to worry about...

Banned


Jun 08, 2005 10:19 pm

good point db, i have a co-worker who had chemo and he said marinol worked great for him, just like natural THC.. so its really not a big deal.

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Jun 09, 2005 04:56 am

yeah i am not for legalizing pot in a general way, but if it can help someone in pain i dont see the big deal in allowing prescriptions. ultimately it is just a drug like any other; how its perceived depends on how it's used. people misuse real drugs. no one's gonna outlaw whatever rush limbaugh was on and i wouldnt ask them to.


Answer:On a good day, lipstick.
Member
Since: Jun 24, 2004

Jun 09, 2005 10:57 am

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx.

Look what happened to Marxism. It works in theory, but not in practice - as the eastern bloc found out (why China is clinging on to it for dear life is beyond me).

As I mentioned before, faith comes from within, not from without. It's a personal thing (N.B. I am not religious myself). No one should have any say over anyone's personal faith (unless it's actually harmful to others).

The medical pot thing, for me, isn't so much the pot thing (I don't smoke it anymore, anyway), but the Federal lawmakers trampling on the State lawmakers' decisions. They didn't outlaw the 11 states' decisions, just bypassed them. It makes a mockery of the [already messed up] system. More chipping away at the individual freedoms of the American public.

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 09, 2005 11:46 am

man, and i was tryin' to keep outta this, and now ya gotta bring up weed!!

for those who say 'if you don't like it, leave' i do plan on ending up in Austrailia or New Zeland or Canada if i can't afford the first two.....

i do see it as a personal freedom issue, i think it's sad when an alcoholic can live out his days in a haze on the streets (sometimes, while recieving government support), but i can't smoke a bowl on my back porch and watch the sunset. (well i do anyway) but it's 'illeagle'. but i'm not gonna go into the whole 'pot is safer than alcohol' thing.


i think it has more to do with money than any other reason, here in tennessee we have what's called a Sin Tax.....THAT'S right a f'n tax for sinning, it's slapped on tobacco, alcohol, state lottery, and god knows what else (no pun intended) now that money PLUS every other regular tax that applies to these outlets....Plus our BIG tobbacco, alcohol, and 'legal' drug companies know how much their sales will fall if pot were de-criminalized...so they give generous donations to politicical organizations to ensure the good herb stays in it's place. all this adds up to a huge amount of money gooin' to the government to keep pot illeagle. so honestly, i don't think it'll happen in my lifetime, but i don't care.

we've gone from a nation of "you can do anything" to "you can't do this, this, and this, this, or that, nope, that's not allowed, bad citizen"

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 09, 2005 12:12 pm

Yeah, I do think the fact pot is illegal is stupid, but the "safer than alchohol crap I won't touch either).

The sin tax is in Minnesota too, and I agree with it. Personally, if they need to raise taxes (which they do so the lawmakers can get those big fat raises every year) I would rather them increase tax on luxury items, or, non-essentials such as cigarettes, tobacco and such rather than food, clothing and that sort of stuff.

My contention with legalizing pot is that the gov't could make an outrageous amount of money on taxing that. The costs of production would, I am guessing be roughly the same as tobacco (maybe I'm wrong) but could sell by volume for about 3 times as much and potheads everywhere would be getting it cheaper than they are now.

However, I do have to say, if one plans on moving countries just so one can smoke pot, I would suggest that perhaps one's priorities are a little bit ascew...I dunno, just doesn't seem like something that should be THAT important in ones life. After all, it's not like you can't do it here, you're just not supposed to.

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 09, 2005 12:21 pm

oh no, it's not jot about pot, i just think our country is in a sad state of affairs, and i REALLY am embarrassed of 'american culture'. i just feel out of place here.

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 09, 2005 12:58 pm

a poster on another board had the same position, not at all happy with US, decided anywhere else would be better.

he moved to china.

i'm guessing he thought china would be less corrupt than the US.

I hope he's happy.

Not to particularily attack you, WYD, but i'm thinking that some (not all) people seem to idolize the good parts of a different culture, but ignore the bad parts about it. This is while focusing on the bad parts of their own culture, and ignore the good parts. It seems that this country is still decades ahead of other countries in so many ways, but people tend to ignore this fact so they can complain about 'this' and 'that' and all the other drivel people can drum up.


Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 09, 2005 01:00 pm

to add, if it weren't for this country's forward thinking and individual rights, nobody here would be able to complain in the first place, let alone be able to have a place to state such.

north korea comes to mind.

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 09, 2005 01:02 pm

i feel ya, but progress is exactly what i wanna get away from....we've focused for so long on progress, and moving forward in the past 100 years that life is EXTREMELY different then it was back then, i say different because i don't think of it as better or worse. i jut think we need to slow down.

Prince CZAR-ming
Member
Since: Apr 08, 2004

Jun 09, 2005 01:06 pm

i'd say that whenever you can improve human life, that it's better. what gets done with that after may be subject to debate, but increasing lifespan and condition of living will always win in my book.

I agree with you though, our society seems to have taken alot of the 'bonuses' of better living and capitalized harshly on it, making for suspect choices in the name of better living.

it surely is a pickle.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 09, 2005 01:35 pm

Quote:
but i'm thinking that some (not all) people seem to idolize the good parts of a different culture, but ignore the bad parts about it

That was my first thought as well, but I figgered it's not a discussion I wanted to even start...

Member
Since: Jul 13, 2004

Jun 09, 2005 01:39 pm

We are being menu-driven men where were we in the first place?

quote

"I believe religion and spirituality are a personal issue and it's nobody's business to dictate what one believes or pass judgement on them for it unless it affects or harms another person."

dB Do you mean the law we make should dictate our religious believes . If so then why have the region in the first place. If I were to believe in anything I would rather believe like the IBOs of Nigeria who could give human sacrifice (read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe).
dB if the law comes before religion drop religion.
Or doubt the existnce of a god and put law first like me


www.TheLondonProject.ca
Member
Since: Feb 07, 2005

Jun 09, 2005 01:52 pm

my 2 cents about the weed comments.

It would probably be legal in Canada if it were not for the US. The US would be very angry with us if we legalized and have expressed this to us "loud and clear"

I can honestly say that there is nothing better to combat the side effects of chemo than good old mary jane. You don't smoke it to get high but rather a toke or two does releive the nausea and stimulates apetite. If you smoke too much it will actually make it worse. There are other drugs available but none work as good. At the chemo ward there is a designated area where you can smoke it without being hastled but it is not promoted (for obvious reasons).

Something has to be done here (British Columbia) because the pot industry is doing better than the timber industry! Grow ops are rampant.

The way I see it, if it helps someone deal with chemo then they should be legally allowed to use it.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Jun 09, 2005 02:19 pm

Samwel, where did I say anything even close to "the law should dictate religion"? I clearly said it's nobody's business but your own what you believe.

Jack of all trades master of ___
Member
Since: May 28, 2004

Jun 09, 2005 02:30 pm

Yeah that's funny...

You basically are saying the complete opposite.

Ones religon and spiritual beliefs are their own and it shouldn't matter what outside influences provide to make you believe otherwise...

The reason I piped in is because I was raised a Lutheran but had a fall in with a member of my congregation when I was 16 and I didn't want to go to church and have to see his ugly mug...Well that incident led to a 10 year absence from the church with the exception of weddings...

Last Sunday I attended on my own will for the first time in a long time. I often wonder about god's existance and things of sorts. But I wanted to go back to church not because of what god or what religon I believe in. Mainly because it gave me a sense of spirituallity and also positivity in belief...Looking back then I was much more sensitive and positive when I was attending my church...After I stopped I became a hard headed, argumentative "richard" at times...

I am not one to go on and on about religon and god because each individual has their own relationship with what they believe in, if at all...I dunno what stories are true and what arent but I have to find that spirituallity again and for me...church can help we with that.

That's my end of the stick...

Member
Since: May 09, 2004

Jun 17, 2005 08:56 am

yes.

*sticado: short and LOUD!*
Member
Since: Feb 25, 2005

Jun 23, 2005 05:12 pm

ive been forced to go to church all my life and ive never felt the presence of God on me. but for some reason i still believe hes there. i guess its one of those things that u just have to have felt for urself. scientific theories are constantly proven wrong with how life started.

radio carbon dating can only correctly date back to 7,000 years and the constant that is used in the formula is still wrong and could be a couple thousand years off still.

i dont mean to offend anyone in any way but i cant ever imagine worshipping a dead mans spirit or nature or anything of the sort.

believing that God is real is all a matter of faith and will never be able to be explained. if i ever felt or found that God was real for sure, i would change my life around in an instant but i am too skeptical about things like this. i do realize that the only way i would be sure if God was real is if I died... that would be too late though.

i still go by all the morals of the christian faith but i will not ever say i believe in God... just incase. thats blastfamy and according to the bible, u will still go to hell because of that.

Eat Spam before it eats YOU!!!
Member
Since: May 11, 2002

Jun 23, 2005 11:17 pm

to the origional question...

I have a couple thoughts on the subject which I could back up biblically if I had the time to find the passages...

1. nobody is innocent. When I was in training as a legal specialist for the Army, my class instructor had two mottos "Everybodys guilty, it's just a matter of being caught." (the other was "You can shoot 'em in the face... but just don't cuss at them.") But, basically, nobody is in any position to say that someone was innocent, they just hide their guilt well.

2. God promises "Life more abundantly"... not "Abundantly more life" The idea is that christian life has more depth and therefore you may have a more meaningful and fuller life, even though it may be shorter.

3. Salvation has already been achieved through christ (even to the previously dead)... what more could be needed?

4. Long-suffering builds better people.

5. We have been corrupted into disobeying God, therefore we cannot enjoy what is good for us. If I remember right, hell is (simply) a seperation from God and therefore all that is good.

I've had a couple of deeply spiritual experiences that prevent me from denying god. I will also admit that I will often actively persue various sins. There is a song on local christian rock radio that puts it pretty good:

"The beauty of grace is that it makes life NOT fair."

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004

Jun 24, 2005 02:17 am

isn't it funny how similar grace is to the budists (sp?) enlightenment....

i find most say the same thing, just different ways of teaching....

good stuff

> > > Is God there?

Related Forum Topics:


If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.