Why BELIEVE, shouldn't we KNOW?

[pocaracas]

OP, since you fancy yourself a critical thinker, I should point out many many holes in your thinking you have exposed in such a short thread. W/o using the quote function I'll have to go off the top of my head, having just read the thread so I may miss many:

Sorry about the long time to reply... It was a bit forced.

Job wasn't written for us to "follow." It was written for us to understand, and directly refutes the highest wisdom of it's day, yin and yang.

Scripture isn't something we give intellectual assent to (or not) and arrive at Truth; it is something the Lord confirms with signs and wonders following. This smashes most of your thinking here to bits! So while you unbelievers are content to contemplate the lint in your navel, Drich, Antz and others who know him speak from what we KNOW. A level playing field that does not make

A level playing field indeed.
I read somewhere about the two realms: the physical realm and the divine realm.
The physical realm is where the Universe is. Is what is accessible to science.
The divine realm is where god is, it is accessible to god, angels, saints, souls.... am I missing any one?
This realm can have some sort of interaction with the physical realm, but no claims are made as to how this interaction takes place... we just call it super-natural.

I'd like to add another realm, the realm of thoughts.
Where our thoughts reside, our dreams, our imagination.... stretching it a bit, a computer code, at runtime, can be considered as belonging to this realm; the thinking process in a bee to determine where to go to find pollen is also in this realm.

If I take this realm thing onwards, I think I'm removing some credit from that greek philosopher that said "I think, therefore I am." I'm putting these two things, being and thinking, in parallel.
Somehow, the realm of thinking and the physical realm interact. This happens within us... science doesn't quite know how, so I'm not going to try to tell you how, but it should have something to do with neurons... perhaps, much like the computer program exists because of the hardware, our brains are also somehow wired in a nice and deterministic way... but they are very complex and very difficult to study.

From this thinking realm, ideas and concepts originate.
The atheist claim is that the divine realm is a product of the thinking realm. Given this, it makes perfect sense that believers "KNOW" that god exists... it is inside their minds.
See how you didn't smash my reasoning?

And it is we whom you have professed you wish to engage. Let's see if you have integrity?

let's...

Next, understanding how the world we find ourselves living in does not remove G-d from it in any way shape or form. That you claim it does is ... really poor thinking on your part. Make you a deal; I give you a Mulligan and you re-consider, and be honest enough to discuss it openly.

Show me where the world would change if god was simply a being in which mankind believes, but doesn't really exist, doesn't really affect anything in the physical realm.

You speak about books "older than the Bible" claiming human animal hybrids who wished to be worshipped as gods. How do you fail to recognize the Bible speaks plainly about this - you never heard of the flood or considered why it was necessary? Oy I suppose this is too soon to confront you with what Jesus told us about the coming tribulation then. "You can't handle the Truth"

The flood? Of all the examples you could have picked up, you went for the flood?
Flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I know wikipedia is not the best source for reputable material, but it can be a good starting point.

"Fitting" the OT to the NT is done for us. Since you don't know how this occurrs, thank you for your honesty in admitting you are a TOTAL NOVICE considering the Bible. This means of course, that you will refrain from even forming ANY OPINION on that subject for quite some time, let alone voicing it. This does not mean that I ask you to accept my understanding on ANY of it, despite the fact I have diligently devoted decades to purifying my understanding of it's contents. Instead I will merely address your questions in my own meager fashion, challenge your thinking, and hope to encounter new thoughts as well. I will make bold statements w/ no attempt to "prove" them, but leave you to your own path of discovery, processing info as you see fit just like I do.

Let's go!

Acquiring knowledge of the Divine, is a VERY personal thing in the Abrahamic traditions. It requires "leaving the land of our Fathers." This is quite different than the bias you have presented!

A very subjective matter... which is why there are atheists...
subjectivity and interactivity with the physical realm don't go very well together...

You pit G-d as revealed to different societies against Himself. This is a misunderstanding. To illustrate my point, my ancestors were Asatru, when they inexplicably defeated the Roman Empire. (I still don't care much for any aspect of their ilk, and it may be genetic disposition) They knew the Christian G-d but had no worthy example to follow. Neither did they have as complete a revelation as I am Blessed with via the Gospel; yet they had access to the same G-d, if they wished to pursue Light. They could also pursue darkness, just like I can. The same holds true for pretty much any cultural upbringing you can point to.

When a people conquer another people, they don't kill them all. They just replace the leaders (and maybe the army). The people themselves remain. Any beliefs they have, they retain.... some can then be enforced on them (christianity had a sad brushing with this...).

You question the integrity of the NT, only because you do not understand academic standards of verifying writings of antiquity. By those standards, the NT makes the Trojan Wars look like Mother Goose. Does anyone doubt the Trojan Wars occurred, or are they taught as fact? Why would all the original Disciples except one die horrible deaths as martyrs, if they were merely peddling a bill of goods? I have sincere Faith as I'd hope all could tell, and I really hope I don't ever need to prove it by being burned at the stake for not renouncing Christ For a critical thinker, this is something you simply have NOT thought through!

How do you know they died horrible deaths?
As far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the earliest writings ever found which resemble what is in the bible are dated from the 1st or 2nd centuries.... so more than one generation after Jesus allegedly lived.
Tales told by a few underground people in the hopes of gathering many followers... perhaps these tales were enhanced, and/or perhaps jesus was a bit deluded, thinking and claiming he was god's son, or, or or.... human ingenuity is just amazing.
If you don't assume god exists, all sorts of possibilities open up.

You ask about G-d's purpose in us being here and needing Faith. This would be one of those "great existential questions." Let's establish some groundwork first, and if you have the mettle we can discuss that for years ...

You have no explanation for how man emerged as dominant. Our appearance as a "civilized" species was rather abrupt. This appears to be quite different from any physical Ev.

Abrupt? how so?

You think that Christianity (C) = "obsessing about one book." What it is, is a relationship. Those that lack this are the fodder to be turned into terrorists, but they usually just fall away which is not nearly so spectacular.

Unfortunately, the majority lacks it and just use the book for support of their faith. Atheists, then just point at their circular reasoning and the believers are just left wandering in circles... and they can't get out!

Ok so let's see if you have the intestinal fortitude to really address this ...

I hope I was up to expectation...

 

[pocaracas]

I take great umbrage at this notion. I don't think you'll find a more "solid" believer here than I am, but by the ripe old age of 4 I thoroughly concluded that the Church I was Baptized in was false religion and powerless. And my Dad still goes to that same Church at the age of 78.

Nonetheless, the concept was there... and you eventually became a believer... I'm curious to know how that happened.

Based on the rest of your post, you sound like Richard Feynman!

 

[razeontherock]

I read somewhere about the two realms: the physical realm and the divine realm.
The physical realm is where the Universe is. Is what is accessible to science.
The divine realm is where god is, it is accessible to god, angels, saints, souls.... am I missing any one?
This realm can have some sort of interaction with the physical realm, but no claims are made as to how this interaction takes place... we just call it super-natural.

I'd like to add another realm, the realm of thoughts.
Where our thoughts reside, our dreams, our imagination.... stretching it a bit, a computer code, at runtime, can be considered as belonging to this realm; the thinking process in a bee to determine where to go to find pollen is also in this realm.

If I take this realm thing onwards, I think I'm removing some credit from that greek philosopher that said "I think, therefore I am." I'm putting these two things, being and thinking, in parallel.
Somehow, the realm of thinking and the physical realm interact. This happens within us... science doesn't quite know how, so I'm not going to try to tell you how, but it should have something to do with neurons... perhaps, much like the computer program exists because of the hardware, our brains are also somehow wired in a nice and deterministic way... but they are very complex and very difficult to study.

From this thinking realm, ideas and concepts originate.

I'm with you so far, and will only comment on some differences that I think are actually important. Supernatural is a term I no longer use. I never thought about this until finding CF, but since I have witnessed it affect the physical realm, it has to be "natural." I now use the term "Spiritual."

A minor point, but more correct than continuing to use the term supernatural.

Do ideas and concepts truly originate from the 'thinking realm,' as you put it? Or do they actually start in the realm of (s)Spirit?

I ask because I truly do not know. As a small child I sincerely believed it was 100% from within me, with 'the thinking realm' being as apt a description as any. I was forced to consider some facts that challenged that thinking, not the least of which was my Sister's prodigious musical talent; but many things in this world have made me realize at least some things are inspired from beyond ourselves. (And they are not all good)

Now I will interject a bit of Biblical understanding, not because I think you necessarily care what it says but merely because it explains the world I find myself living in better than anything else I've encountered:

the means of the Spiritual realm interacting with the physical realm is US. We are physical. We make decisions, and do things. Some people are so impulsive they seem to never think, but most of us hopefully at least attempt to give some thought to our actions beforehand. (Although the news would beg to differ )

So this "thought realm" is (or at least includes) what the Bible refers to as the "soul." More specifically, Adam became a living soul when his body contacted the life G-d breathed into him. Your famous "I think therefore I am" quote would distinguish this from bees and even other primates that can't (or can barely) come to grips with seeing themselves in a mirror.

If you will allow the use of this (loosely defined) term, you will admit the human soul is unique in the animal kingdom. It certainly interacts with the physical realm, yes?

The only point of contention here is if it also interacts with any (s)Spiritual realm - or not. I would think that Hannibal Lechter, the mother in Sybil, Pol Pot, and Hitler would suffice as evidence that it does, but this may not cause you to reach any such conclusion and I respect that.

For the moment let us leave consideration of the Bible or other intentionally Spiritually uplifting means, and take a peak at not only the atheist POV but the hedonistic as well:

telemark skiing lets you ski uphill as well as down. You can get in the middle of nowhere, and is a better environment to worship the Lord in than any stained glass windows. I can see sheer beauty and recognize the Spiritual. An atheist (referring to a specific individual I know, not just a hypothetical) can behold the same beauty with the same awe and reverence, and say there is no Spirit, only beauty.

Is there really any difference between he and I in this respect? I would say that from G-d's POV, no there is not. He is not fooled nor swayed by our choice of verbiage, but knows our hearts. And this man I speak of consistently chooses to do the right thing, make a positive impact upon the world, and uses telemark skiing to 're-create' himself towards his ideals just as I do.

Show me where the world would change if god was simply a being in which mankind believes, but doesn't really exist, doesn't really affect anything in the physical realm.

I understand your request; hopefully you will understand my response. I also
think I have an idea of what you're looking for, and warn you I will disappoint. You see, we cannot unveil some hidden test tube or secret underwear that goes SHAZAM, the way some cults claim. What we can do, is give you our own personal testimony of what we have individually experienced. In turn, you can look for commonalities between what we contemporary believers say, what Saints through the ages have said, and what is recorded in Scripture. When a pattern emerges you can dip your toe in the water and as you gain your own personal testimony you could begin to "see the face of G-d," so to speak.

I have many many personal encounters where the Lord did indeed affect the physical realm, and one of those even included skiing. (An impetuous 15 year old moment where I did not think before acting) At least 2 of those I was not even "Saved" in the theological sense, but He spared me physically anyway. (I have no theological explanation for how that works.) And you can find similar things all across CF. Would such details help you? As a new believer, I placed great stock in such things. 30 years later, not so much. Now understanding the Word itself is of much higher value to me.

The flood? Of all the examples you could have picked up, you went for the flood?

You missed my point. You can use the little blue arrows by the quote to go back and re-trace context, but in this case it might take 3 or 4 back ...

It was not the flood itself I was referring to, but specific aspects of ancient mythology; half-man half-beasts, of all sorts, which was reported worldwide.
WHY?

When a people conquer another people, they don't kill them all. They just replace the leaders (and maybe the army). The people themselves remain. Any beliefs they have, they retain.... some can then be enforced on them

I don't see why you made this comment. I can't find any link between it and anything either of us had said. Anyway, I don't shy away from "the difficult issues." I think this is the wrong time to discuss OT, but this dives right into it headfirst.

Israel was instructed to conquer people by killing them all. And yet any of them with even a lick of sense would not have been killed! When I pointed out this therefore wasn't genocide, atheists (correctly) corrected me and pointed out their culture was destroyed forever. This includes their beliefs, which is what you got to. And it's a big part of the intent of the story, which I had overlooked.

So I conclude beliefs matter, but they are far from the only thing that matters ...

How do you know they died horrible deaths?

You go on to question Scriptural authenticity in general, and that's fair. The supposed date of the earliest manuscripts we have to examine today is a non-issue. My opinion is that the actual date of the original written record is likewise irrelevant, but I understand there will be disagreement about that. Most credible scholars have the 3 synoptic Gospels being written before 65AD, with all of Paul's writings being completed before that by at least a couple years.

I say it doesn't matter because the Church (the only Church, in Jerusalem) met daily in the Temple this whole time, over 30 years, reciting the whole bloody thing.

That can have an impact on memory!!

You may not realize that any of the Bible was only written down because as the Church got scattered due to fleeing persecution, new Churches were afraid they'd screw things up, so they asked for the Liturgical worship services in writing. And that's all Scripture is - what the early Churches used in their Liturgical services. Different Churches had different writings, so the councils that met later to determine what was and what was not Scripture, merely looked into what was read (aloud) in Church. (Yes there were other people there with other agendas, but they were overruled)

So there really is no controversy at all in any of this. And the Disciples would have saved their own skin if they had merely fabricated tall tales for whatever reason. They were the eyewitnesses and they didn't recant, regardless what they were threatened with. And those threats were carried out upon every Disciple, with John being the lone one not to be executed. And even he was imprisoned.

Abrupt? how so?

Everything under the sun post! Ok. Ancient man accomplished amazing feats we have only recently understood, or even been able to equal their knowledge. Science has forgotten the message of the wonders of the ancient world ...

Unfortunately, the majority lacks it and just use the book for support of their faith. Atheists, then just point at their circular reasoning and the believers are just left wandering in circles... and they can't get out!

Referring to the majority, I'm afraid you are right. Actually in the various capacities I have served in many Churches, I know you are right! And Scripture itself says we should expect roughly 10% of professing believers to be no more established than just going in circles with circular reasoning.

Of course the rest of us wish we (as one unified Church) would get our act together and present Christ far more Faithfully to the world, even if for no other reason than to be fair to those on the outside with a heart to know the Truth. I hope you can forgive us, recognizing we are fellow mortals?

So we are all in the same boat, seeking a reality greater than we can take in, unable to form a perfect understanding. Ultimately, it is not our understanding that will convince anyone, nor will it save us ...

Good to see you back!

 

[pocaracas]

I'm with you so far, and will only comment on some differences that I think are actually important. Supernatural is a term I no longer use. I never thought about this until finding CF, but since I have witnessed it affect the physical realm, it has to be "natural." I now use the term "Spiritual."

A minor point, but more correct than continuing to use the term supernatural.

Very well.
To me, they're equivalent. Not the same, but for all purposes in this forum, "equivalent".

Do ideas and concepts truly originate from the 'thinking realm,' as you put it? Or do they actually start in the realm of (s)Spirit?

I ask because I truly do not know.

Neither do I.
As you may have noticed, as far as I'm aware, the spirit realm probably doesn't exist and was just invented by the one truly proven infinite power known to mankind: human imagination.

As a small child I sincerely believed it was 100% from within me, with 'the thinking realm' being as apt a description as any. I was forced to consider some facts that challenged that thinking, not the least of which was my Sister's prodigious musical talent; but many things in this world have made me realize at least some things are inspired from beyond ourselves. (And they are not all good)

Musical talent, math talent, painting talent, any talent.... do they all derive from god? Why can't they just emanate from man. The human body is quite a complex machine... the brain alone is the ultimate puzzle. All talent appears to reside in the brain, so there's a whole field to study for centuries to come...
I don't like to jump the rope and assume some "supernatural" being is responsible for it.

Now I will interject a bit of Biblical understanding, not because I think you necessarily care what it says but merely because it explains the world I find myself living in better than anything else I've encountered:

the means of the Spiritual realm interacting with the physical realm is US. We are physical. We make decisions, and do things. Some people are so impulsive they seem to never think, but most of us hopefully at least attempt to give some thought to our actions beforehand. (Although the news would beg to differ )

So this "thought realm" is (or at least includes) what the Bible refers to as the "soul." More specifically, Adam became a living soul when his body contacted the life G-d breathed into him. Your famous "I think therefore I am" quote would distinguish this from bees and even other primates that can't (or can barely) come to grips with seeing themselves in a mirror.

If you will allow the use of this (loosely defined) term, you will admit the human soul is unique in the animal kingdom. It certainly interacts with the physical realm, yes?

We have the problem of the definition of "soul", here.
Human intellect, self-awareness and the such are somewhat unique in the animal kingdom and those traits enabled us to achieve the dominant species status we now enjoy.
Other species had potential to arrive at this stage, such as Neanderthals, but either fell along the road, or were assimilated (some genetic studies have found there is no neanderthal genes in modern humans, so no assimilation there, I guess).
Other species still show promising steps towards intelligence: dolphins, bears, crows, chimps, etc... possess some level of intelligence. We humans cannot claim to be the only intelligent species on this Earth... we can only claim to be the most intelligent.

Well, I'm ranting...

You claim the spirit world interacts with the physical world through humans. How would that be any different if there was no spirit world but humans still believed it did?

The only point of contention here is if it also interacts with any (s)Spiritual realm - or not. I would think that Hannibal Lechter, the mother in Sybil, Pol Pot, and Hitler would suffice as evidence that it does, but this may not cause you to reach any such conclusion and I respect that.

WOW.... there is more than one spirit realm?
At least one which interacts with the physical realm to do good things and one which interacts to do bad things?

For the moment let us leave consideration of the Bible or other intentionally Spiritually uplifting means, and take a peak at not only the atheist POV but the hedonistic as well:

telemark skiing lets you ski uphill as well as down. You can get in the middle of nowhere, and is a better environment to worship the Lord in than any stained glass windows. I can see sheer beauty and recognize the Spiritual. An atheist (referring to a specific individual I know, not just a hypothetical) can behold the same beauty with the same awe and reverence, and say there is no Spirit, only beauty.

That sounds about right.

Is there really any difference between he and I in this respect? I would say that from G-d's POV, no there is not. He is not fooled nor swayed by our choice of verbiage, but knows our hearts. And this man I speak of consistently chooses to do the right thing, make a positive impact upon the world, and uses telemark skiing to 're-create' himself towards his ideals just as I do.

Sounds like a nice guy.

I understand your request; hopefully you will understand my response. I also
think I have an idea of what you're looking for, and warn you I will disappoint. You see, we cannot unveil some hidden test tube or secret underwear that goes SHAZAM, the way some cults claim. What we can do, is give you our own personal testimony of what we have individually experienced. In turn, you can look for commonalities between what we contemporary believers say, what Saints through the ages have said, and what is recorded in Scripture. When a pattern emerges you can dip your toe in the water and as you gain your own personal testimony you could begin to "see the face of G-d," so to speak.

Very well. But you see how this can just go in the direction of what I was talking about on my other post. Interpreting events as divine, just because I possess the concept and find it to be the only explanation...
Sadly, I don't think I'll ever consider it as the only explanation, nor even the best one.

I have many many personal encounters where the Lord did indeed affect the physical realm, and one of those even included skiing. (An impetuous 15 year old moment where I did not think before acting) At least 2 of those I was not even "Saved" in the theological sense, but He spared me physically anyway. (I have no theological explanation for how that works.) And you can find similar things all across CF. Would such details help you? As a new believer, I placed great stock in such things. 30 years later, not so much. Now understanding the Word itself is of much higher value to me.

You were what I'd call: Lucky.
Some people say you make your own luck, but luck is a strange concept.
From my point of view, luck is just an event which turns out to be positive for you, but is the result of too many variables for you or anyone else to monitor or control.

However, you interpreted it as god's helping hand.
Surely, I've had such lucky events.... some too lucky, but that doesn't mean that any god had anything to do with them.

Humans like to control everything and can surely come up with the concept of a being which can manage such a feat. It is then easy to attribute any lucky event to that being...
And to which being are unlucky event attributed? Must be the same, or argument breaks, or we assume there is more than one such all controlling beings.. but how can that be?! two gods meddling with everything? It's like two people at the PC keyboard trying to write a piece of text when each just doesn't care for the other...

You missed my point. You can use the little blue arrows by the quote to go back and re-trace context, but in this case it might take 3 or 4 back ...

Buggers, I went back 4 pages and didn't find that reference of yours to old books... sorry for missing the point.

It was not the flood itself I was referring to, but specific aspects of ancient mythology; half-man half-beasts, of all sorts, which was reported worldwide.
WHY?

They were reported worldwide?
I'm sorry but I can't help to write this: they had CNN 5k years ago?

I don't see why you made this comment. I can't find any link between it and anything either of us had said. Anyway, I don't shy away from "the difficult issues." I think this is the wrong time to discuss OT, but this dives right into it headfirst.

It came about conquering the romans... and then I went on with some general stuff about the conquered peoples.

Israel was instructed to conquer people by killing them all. And yet any of them with even a lick of sense would not have been killed! When I pointed out this therefore wasn't genocide, atheists (correctly) corrected me and pointed out their culture was destroyed forever. This includes their beliefs, which is what you got to. And it's a big part of the intent of the story, which I had overlooked.
So I conclude beliefs matter, but they are far from the only thing that matters ...

They matter and they evolve...

You go on to question Scriptural authenticity in general, and that's fair. The supposed date of the earliest manuscripts we have to examine today is a non-issue. My opinion is that the actual date of the original written record is likewise irrelevant, but I understand there will be disagreement about that. Most credible scholars have the 3 synoptic Gospels being written before 65AD, with all of Paul's writings being completed before that by at least a couple years.

65AD, that early?
I'm amazed!

I say it doesn't matter because the Church (the only Church, in Jerusalem) met daily in the Temple this whole time, over 30 years, reciting the whole bloody thing.

aye... the underground temple.
If they were prosecuted like their deaths attest, then they mustn't have made large gatherings out in the open, no?
Underground movements do tend to create certain rules and bend some of their origins to fit the needs of the day...heck, even non-underground movements do this!

That can have an impact on memory!!

You may not realize that any of the Bible was only written down because as the Church got scattered due to fleeing persecution, new Churches were afraid they'd screw things up, so they asked for the Liturgical worship services in writing. And that's all Scripture is - what the early Churches used in their Liturgical services. Different Churches had different writings, so the councils that met later to determine what was and what was not Scripture, merely looked into what was read (aloud) in Church. (Yes there were other people there with other agendas, but they were overruled)

I didn't know that little piece of history...
But I do know that a council took place in the 300's where the final form of the bible was decided, based on a subset of all the available scriptures. They just took what was consistent and left out everything else. How can we now know if what was left out was the real part and what was left in was the more colorful part?

So there really is no controversy at all in any of this. And the Disciples would have saved their own skin if they had merely fabricated tall tales for whatever reason. They were the eyewitnesses and they didn't recant, regardless what they were threatened with. And those threats were carried out upon every Disciple, with John being the lone one not to be executed. And even he was imprisoned.

No controversy?... hmmmm... maybe a little.
Jews killed the apostoles... some 700 years later, christians came back with a vengeance and did the crusades...

Everything under the sun post! Ok. Ancient man accomplished amazing feats we have only recently understood, or even been able to equal their knowledge. Science has forgotten the message of the wonders of the ancient world ...

Yes, much of that loss is attributed to..
drum rolll

drum rolll

yes, you've guessed it, need I say it?

Referring to the majority, I'm afraid you are right. Actually in the various capacities I have served in many Churches, I know you are right! And Scripture itself says we should expect roughly 10% of professing believers to be no more established than just going in circles with circular reasoning.

Of course the rest of us wish we (as one unified Church) would get our act together and present Christ far more Faithfully to the world, even if for no other reason than to be fair to those on the outside with a heart to know the Truth. I hope you can forgive us, recognizing we are fellow mortals?

So we are all in the same boat, seeking a reality greater than we can take in, unable to form a perfect understanding. Ultimately, it is not our understanding that will convince anyone, nor will it save us ...

some find islands... some find continents... some stay on the boat forever.

Good to see you back!

Good to be back...
I'll try not to post on other people's threads. Can you believe they banned me for that?

 

[razeontherock]

the brain alone is the ultimate puzzle.

Each has more neural connections than there are grains of sand on Earth, or stars in the Universe? Not sure if we know that's true, and if it is I'm not sure if that would make it "the ultimate puzzle," but it does speak to human potential!

We have the problem of the definition of "soul", here.
Human intellect, self-awareness and the such are somewhat unique in the animal kingdom

So you see my point, that in order to engage any such topic you have to really understand what is being said. I find MOST arguments among Christians are simply people talking past each other. How many have been killed for this one reason?

You claim the spirit world interacts with the physical world through humans. How would that be any different if there was no spirit world but humans still believed it did?

There would be different motivations. Not such extremes. No Pol Pot, no Mother Theresa. (Notice neither was miraculous) And I wouldn't call these opposite extremes different "realms," but different spiritual entities.

Interpreting events as divine, just because I possess the concept and find it to be the only explanation...
Sadly, I don't think I'll ever consider it as the only explanation, nor even the best one.

That's not sad. What would be sad, is if someone found it to be the only explanation.

You were what I'd call: Lucky.

No. Sorry. I was there, I know what happened. And for a more objective POV, I know what others who were there saw. Luck does not change the laws of physics, nor does it make physically impossible things happen.

Higher laws can make what appear to be impossibilities occur though

They were reported worldwide?
I'm sorry but I can't help to write this: they had CNN 5k years ago?

Different societies, different cultures, different continents. How, and why? Why the similarities?

But I do know that a council took place in the 300's where the final form of the bible was decided, based on a subset of all the available scriptures. They just took what was consistent and left out everything else. How can we now know if what was left out was the real part and what was left in was the more colorful part?

Because what we have doesn't show what you think. If they just took what was consistent, we wouldn't see inconsistencies; but we do! And much more significantly, those apparent contradictions actually refine the meaning much more.

The council cared nothing for anything like that, only what was used in Church. Which was formed very much in the open. (Was only forced into hiding later) The majority which wound up ruling did also look for evidence of forgery, to exclude some things; but those weren't read in Church anyway. The final ruling followed decisions that surprised no one, and were essentially known well over 100 years earlier. A summary of any exception to this is an angry mob, that got shouted down. The single most controversial element was the inclusion of John's Revelation. The reason it was included? The relevance to Liturgy even though it was never read in Church. (IIRC)

No controversy?... hmmmm... maybe a little.
Jews killed the apostoles... some 700 years later, christians came back with a vengeance and did the crusades..

Context lost. the controversy (or lack thereof) I referred to was within a very specific time frame, not a sweeping swath of history. And I don't agree the Jews killed the Apostles; it was mostly the Roman empire.

Yes, much of that loss is attributed to..
drum rolll

drum rolll

yes, you've guessed it, need I say it?

This side steps the issue. If you can't handle the glaring truth that man's accomplishments arose abruptly, well ok; but don't expect that to slip by w/o me noticing.

I'll try not to post on other people's threads. Can you believe they banned me for that?

You can post on other people's threads all you want - just not in sub-forums where only C's are supposed to respond. There's plenty of places where you can do that all day ...

 

[pocaracas]

Each has more neural connections than there are grains of sand on Earth, or stars in the Universe? Not sure if we know that's true, and if it is I'm not sure if that would make it "the ultimate puzzle," but it does speak to human potential!

tT is one heck of a puzzle, nonetheless.
And yes it does speak of the human potential... potential to do everything humans do. Some of those things are pretty amazing... some not so much.

Are people who do amazing stuff specially touched by a god? or was it simply potential they tappet themselves?

So you see my point, that in order to engage any such topic you have to really understand what is being said. I find MOST arguments among Christians are simply people talking past each other. How many have been killed for this one reason?

Too many to count, unfortunately.

There would be different motivations. Not such extremes. No Pol Pot, no Mother Theresa. (Notice neither was miraculous) And I wouldn't call these opposite extremes different "realms," but different spiritual entities.

Ddifferent spiritual entities? Like different gods? Or just different inhabitants of the spiritual realm, all organized in a hierarchy much like the ones found in human societies... ?

There would be different motivations? AS far as I see it, the motivation would be the same. The belief is the same. Only the realm is suppressed.

That's not sad. What would be sad, is if someone found it to be the only explanation.

So you had another explanation for what happened to you, but chose to interpret it as a divine act. why? How did that happened?

No. Sorry. I was there, I know what happened. And for a more objective POV, I know what others who were there saw. Luck does not change the laws of physics, nor does it make physically impossible things happen.

Higher laws can make what appear to be impossibilities occur though

Sometimes, people don't have all the variables accounted for... that's where luck comes in.
You haven't detailed what it was that happened to you, but I don't think it would be beneficial to this discussion, since I wasn't there and will always assume your account as somewhat biased (not only by faith, but by time).

Different societies, different cultures, different continents. How, and why? Why the similarities?

Why the differences?
Why isn't this god coherent?
Why did he choose to place his son in Jerusalem, instead of China or Brasil (where he could have found complete atheists with absolutely no concept of the divine)?
Why did he not spawn a bunch of sons to spread the message equally to all of mankind at the same time?

I know you probably don't have these answers, nor does anyone... it's a mystery, right?

Because what we have doesn't show what you think. If they just took what was consistent, we wouldn't see inconsistencies; but we do! And much more significantly, those apparent contradictions actually refine the meaning much more.

I didn't know there were inconsistencies in the NT. Would you be so kind as to point a few?
There are some blaring inconsistencies between the OT and the NT, but christians like to just say the faith evolved with J.C. and those old ways were left behind (or something like this).

The council cared nothing for anything like that, only what was used in Church. Which was formed very much in the open. (Was only forced into hiding later) The majority which wound up ruling did also look for evidence of forgery, to exclude some things; but those weren't read in Church anyway. The final ruling followed decisions that surprised no one, and were essentially known well over 100 years earlier. A summary of any exception to this is an angry mob, that got shouted down. The single most controversial element was the inclusion of John's Revelation. The reason it was included? The relevance to Liturgy even though it was never read in Church. (IIRC)

With each council, a new approach is taken to how the Church presents god and J.C.... I can't accept that there was no significant change on this first council. Most likely a change to make the ritual as uniform as possible everywhere.

Context lost. the controversy (or lack thereof) I referred to was within a very specific time frame, not a sweeping swath of history. And I don't agree the Jews killed the Apostles; it was mostly the Roman empire.

yes, like it was the roman empire that killed J.C.?
Maybe both had good reason to quell this new idea, but I'd say the jews, the elite, would have more to loose. Followers, meaning money.

This side steps the issue. If you can't handle the glaring truth that man's accomplishments arose abruptly, well ok; but don't expect that to slip by w/o me noticing.

Man's accomplishments arose naturally. It took hundreds of thousands of years to master fire, to master tool making, to master agriculture. Then we just kept building on the previously built wealth of accomplishments. moving ever faster.
Like Einstein said: "If I could see further, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants." These giants seem giants, because they were themselves standing on the shoulders of others who came before and so on, and so on. Have you ever thought about what it would be like if the dark ages hadn't happened? Renaissance wouldn't have been necessary and all the classical knowledge had just evolved. Classical greece had steam engines, but they weren't used, because they wanted to keep their slaves. Can you imagine what it would be like now if the industrial revolution had happened in the 4th or 5th centuries a.d.?

You can post on other people's threads all you want - just not in sub-forums where only C's are supposed to respond. There's plenty of places where you can do that all day ...

But I can't ever claim anything about god's non-existence there... can I?

 

[razeontherock]

Ddifferent spiritual entities? Like different gods? Or just different inhabitants of the spiritual realm, all organized in a hierarchy much like the ones found in human societies... ?

Different individuals, yes. People have made gods out of them all. I'm not sure the hierarchy that exists actually resembles what we find in human societies

There would be different motivations? AS far as I see it, the motivation would be the same. The belief is the same. Only the realm is suppressed.

Different entities have different motivations. I'm saying w/o the Spiritual realm, you wouldn't have extremes like Mother Theresa or Pol Pot.

Why did he choose to place his son in Jerusalem, instead of China or Brasil (where he could have found complete atheists with absolutely no concept of the divine)?
Why did he not spawn a bunch of sons to spread the message equally to all of mankind at the same time?

I know you probably don't have these answers, nor does anyone... it's a mystery, right?

No, these things are spelled out clearly enough. And we can add our common sense to it. To begin with, the Jews were His chosen people, and entrusted with His Word.

With each council, a new approach is taken to how the Church presents god and J.C.... I can't accept that there was no significant change on this first council. Most likely a change to make the ritual as uniform as possible everywhere.

Nope. Each Church did things a little differently, and the councils didn't address that. I don't care much for the councils myself, but I don't think they really changed how G-d is presented. Anyway that first council didn't change anything about Scripture, except to include Revelation and increase awareness of what other Churches were doing.

But I can't ever claim anything about god's non-existence there... can I?

People do all the time. I'm really not sure what the rules are about that. The blasphemy rule is the same across CF.

 

[pocaracas]

Different individuals, yes. People have made gods out of them all. I'm not sure the hierarchy that exists actually resembles what we find in human societies

I guess you'll know after you die...
Until then, we just don't know.

Different entities have different motivations. I'm saying w/o the Spiritual realm, you wouldn't have extremes like Mother Theresa or Pol Pot.

Why wouldn't we have those extremes?
Mother Theresa believed... She probably had the same proof of it that you have: the subjective kind.
Pol Pot, I honestly don't understand why you bring him to this discussion.

During his time in power he imposed a version of agrarian socialism, forcing urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects, toward a goal of "restarting civilization" in "Year Zero". The combined effects of forced labor, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions resulted in the deaths of approximately 21% of the Cambodian population

He was a "bit" misguided, but the idea had potential, if everyone just kept with it.... but it has nothing to do with the spiritual realm.

No, these things are spelled out clearly enough. And we can add our common sense to it. To begin with, the Jews were His chosen people, and entrusted with His Word.

Just one more "why".
Why did he have a "chosen people"?
If he's like a father, shouldn't he care the same for everyone?

Nope. Each Church did things a little differently, and the councils didn't address that. I don't care much for the councils myself, but I don't think they really changed how G-d is presented. Anyway that first council didn't change anything about Scripture, except to include Revelation and increase awareness of what other Churches were doing.

I guess we can't know for sure, can we?

People do all the time. I'm really not sure what the rules are about that. The blasphemy rule is the same across CF.

It seems blasphemy is another subjective concept.
In some corners of the world, just questioning the existence of god is enough.... here, it apparently isn't.... meaning there is no clear line. One could learn it by trial and error, but I don't want to get banned again just for saying the god is this or that on some moment of lack of finding better words!

 

[razeontherock]

Why wouldn't we have those extremes?
Mother Theresa believed... She probably had the same proof of it that you have: the subjective kind.

I've done a lot in my lifetime, but I think it's a safe assumption that for more years than I've been alive, every year Mother Theresa did more to help the poor than I have in my whole life combined. This would, NOT put me in the same extreme. Which indicates to me some difference.

Pol Pot, I honestly don't understand why you bring him to this discussion.

He was a "bit" misguided, but the idea had potential, if everyone just kept with it.... but it has nothing to do with the spiritual realm.

The quote you included isn't preserved by our quote function, but I point out these things absolutely come from the spiritual realm. And NOT from
G-d. Which is why certain posters that habitually villify G-d should be clamped down; it doesn't do to blur this clear distinction. (Recently at least 2 posters do portray G-d as being synonymous w/ Pol Pot, and they both do so using such similar off-base verbiage as to appear to be sock puppets)

Just one more "why".
Why did he have a "chosen people"?
If he's like a father, shouldn't he care the same for everyone?

This is a topic I explored a bit myself when I first encountered CF. I had read about Calvinism in grade school, but never encountered anyone who subscribed to the idea. Or at least no one who was willing to admit to it. They have explanations for this and many other things I've never heard a good explanation for. Their ideas are understandable, rational; but WRONG. They just don't jibe w/ who G-d is. For me to adhere to their solutions would be to take comfort from man-made ideas, which for me would be idolatry.

So right now I'm going to say that there's something bigger going on with this than we can really take in. Perhaps one part of that, is that all the people of the world were too diverse for G-d to shepherd all at once. And that His plan of Salvation for all mankind involved ONE man, being perfectly in G-d's will His whole life, and becoming obedient unto death.

To conquer it.

The "chosen" aspect of G-d's chosen people really revolves around being chosen for Messiah to be born from among them, and also to suffer on G-d's behalf, as Messiah also suffered.

There is no way G-d chose some to be saved, and others to burn forever; but just because we can know a few things doesn't mean we have the whole picture.

I guess we can't know for sure, can we?

YES. On this one, actually we can.

It seems blasphemy is another subjective concept.
In some corners of the world, just questioning the existence of god is enough.... here, it apparently isn't.... meaning there is no clear line. One could learn it by trial and error, but I don't want to get banned again just for saying the god is this or that on some moment of lack of finding better words!

For CF's purposes, the line is pretty clear. Just read the rules. They spell out the main things they aren't interested in tolerating. It's ok to believe whatever you want, but belittling others for what they believe is a no-go. And belittling or mocking the G-d of the Bible is also a no-go. One advantage of this particular sub-forum is if a sincere seeker is asking tough questions, you can pursue that line of thought further than anywhere else. There comes a point where it's reasonable to say "it seems like it must be such and such a way to me, but you're saying something completely different. How can that be?"

And that can truly come from a heart filled with contempt and all sorts of things that we all recognize. In a situation like that, posters will be more inclined to cut a NC slack, and even if someone reports them, it is less likely to result in a violation. OTOH, we do have NC's who try to use CF as a pulpit, which shouldn't be allowed.

Make sense? Overall, the Biblical precept of "come, let us reason together" seems to be a goal of how CF is run

 

[pocaracas]

I've done a lot in my lifetime, but I think it's a safe assumption that for more years than I've been alive, every year Mother Theresa did more to help the poor than I have in my whole life combined. This would, NOT put me in the same extreme. Which indicates to me some difference.

Well, just because she helped the poor, doesn't mean she had some insight on god that you don't.
Helping the poor can come from believers as well as non-believers, you know?
It just so happens that the church has developed an institution dedicated to helping the poor. Mother Theresa just took advantage of that starting point and took it one step further by making it her life ambition: help the poor.

The quote you included isn't preserved by our quote function, but I point out these things absolutely come from the spiritual realm. And NOT from
G-d. Which is why certain posters that habitually villify G-d should be clamped down; it doesn't do to blur this clear distinction. (Recently at least 2 posters do portray G-d as being synonymous w/ Pol Pot, and they both do so using such similar off-base verbiage as to appear to be sock puppets)

hehe, liked the way I did that quote?
Well, I do my best not to vilify god. The concept of god, from the christian POV, is a noble one, with lots of good guiding posts for mankind... but that doesn't mean it's not a man-made concept.
If god is a man-made concept and J.C. only did the human things described in the NT, while all the miracles were later additions (or downright illusions), would you think differently?
Yes, I'm still banging on that key... sorry.

This is a topic I explored a bit myself when I first encountered CF. I had read about Calvinism [...]They have explanations for this and many other things I've never heard a good explanation for. Their ideas are understandable, rational; but WRONG. They just don't jibe w/ who G-d is. For me to adhere to their solutions would be to take comfort from man-made ideas, which for me would be idolatry.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does calvinism have to do with that "chosen people" detail?

So right now I'm going to say that there's something bigger going on with this than we can really take in. Perhaps one part of that, is that all the people of the world were too diverse for G-d to shepherd all at once. And that His plan of Salvation for all mankind involved ONE man, being perfectly in G-d's will His whole life, and becoming obedient unto death.

And after 2000 years, that one man's teachings have spawned a myriad of christian movements, mainly the protestant ones.
That one man failed to address all of god's people, or there wouldn't have been any jews after J.C. came by.
And if all jews had converted 2000 years ago, islam would never have caught on.
So I think J.C. did a very imperfect job.... considering it came from a perfect being, we have a new paradox on our hands.

Remember the last one?

This is inspired by another thread:

Christian: "men are not wise enough for me to put my faith in them over God."

Non-Christian: "Given that you've learned about god from men, in the first place.... I think you're stuck in a paradox."

The "chosen" aspect of G-d's chosen people really revolves around being chosen for Messiah to be born from among them, and also to suffer on G-d's behalf, as Messiah also suffered.

Why are christians always so keen on suffering?

There is no way G-d chose some to be saved, and others to burn forever; but just because we can know a few things doesn't mean we have the whole picture.

That is so true!
Newton come up with a description for gravity. It wasn't perfect, it wasn't the whole picture, but it was enough to get a man on the moon and the mars rover where it is now and sending pics of the red planet.
Then Einstein came along and gravity took a new role: bender of time-space.
And he still didn't have the whole picture.
Now, scientists at CERN are trying to find the Higgs Boson which, they claim, is the sub-atomic particle responsible for mass, hence it would be the source of gravity.
Even if they do find this boson, we'll still be missing the whole picture.... but it's getting sharper and sharper.

Regarding god, you know some things... I'd say you've learned them from other people, but you claim some experiences which showed some new information about him.... but not enough to be able to convince an atheist

YES. On this one, actually we can.

I'd like to read some more about the history of the first century. Can you point me in the right direction?

For CF's purposes, the line is pretty clear. Just read the rules. They spell out the main things they aren't interested in tolerating. It's ok to believe whatever you want, but belittling others for what they believe is a no-go. And belittling or mocking the G-d of the Bible is also a no-go. One advantage of this particular sub-forum is if a sincere seeker is asking tough questions, you can pursue that line of thought further than anywhere else. There comes a point where it's reasonable to say "it seems like it must be such and such a way to me, but you're saying something completely different. How can that be?"

And that can truly come from a heart filled with contempt and all sorts of things that we all recognize. In a situation like that, posters will be more inclined to cut a NC slack, and even if someone reports them, it is less likely to result in a violation. OTOH, we do have NC's who try to use CF as a pulpit, which shouldn't be allowed.

Make sense? Overall, the Biblical precept of "come, let us reason together" seems to be a goal of how CF is run

Very well.
I'll see where else I can put my atheist finger and try to make some more believers scratch their heads... BUHAHAHAHA!

 

[razeontherock]

Well, just because she helped the poor, doesn't mean she had some insight on god that you don't.
Helping the poor can come from believers as well as non-believers, you know?
It just so happens that the church has developed an institution dedicated to helping the poor. Mother Theresa just took advantage of that starting point and took it one step further by making it her life ambition: help the poor.

Hmmm, I can see how the invisible Spirit is hidden from you in this. Yes, I do think Mother Theresa had some insight into G-d that very few ever had. She didn't just "help the poor." And I don't think you can find an example of a non-believer doing what she did. And I don't think you can reasonably say she "took advantage of" anything.

Well, I do my best not to vilify god. The concept of god, from the christian POV, is a noble one, with lots of good guiding posts for mankind... but that doesn't mean it's not a man-made concept.

We all have to start somewhere. Not such a bad place you're in. Have you seen the tagline of poster Catherineanne? "A bruised reed shall He not break, and a smoking flax shall He not quench." Any idea what this means?

If god is a man-made concept and J.C. only did the human things described in the NT, while all the miracles were later additions (or downright illusions), would you think differently?

I'll entertain that thought, as it is a fair question. Have you heard of the Jefferson Bible? Even so, Thomas Jefferson declared himself to be a Christian.
He didn't do so publically, only for political reasons.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does calvinism have to do with that "chosen people" detail?

Hmmm. I tried to be all-inclusive on that point, using it to illustrate the limit of what we actually know and the harm of making up stuff beyond that.

And after 2000 years, that one man's teachings have spawned a myriad of christian movements, mainly the protestant ones.

Well, it could be said He didn't "spawn" any of the Pr movements And it could be said He addressed all of G-d's people, and continues to, in various ways. The real point here is again, we have a limit on knowledge.

Why are christians always so keen on suffering?

Oh, we're NOT! And it is those times that seem to get us in the most trouble ...

I'd like to read some more about the history of the first century. Can you point me in the right direction?

AFAIK, there is very little (aside from Scripture) written in that time period. Writing wasn't such a high priority, and by the time you get to post 325 you have such a different climate I don't hold it to be as valid. Ccel.org seems to be a favored source of things from that era, but everything outside the Bible seems to be drastically inferior.

OTOH, you have Churches that have been continually in existence that whole time. I'm afraid their version of events is the best anybody's got. Would make an interesting trip!

 

[pocaracas]

Hmmm, I can see how the invisible Spirit is hidden from you in this.

The "invisible spirit"? Who's he? what is he?

Yes, I do think Mother Theresa had some insight into G-d that very few ever had. She didn't just "help the poor." And I don't think you can find an example of a non-believer doing what she did. And I don't think you can reasonably say she "took advantage of" anything.

Well, you know what I meant with "taking advantage"?... She was on a place from that was already meant to help poor and she just took it one step further.
Indeed, I don't think you can find non-believers doing what she did... they're all trying to get food on their own tables. But some do help out here and there, in their own small way, like most believers do.
My point was: a non-believer could do the same things she did... provided s/he had the financial backing required.

We all have to start somewhere. Not such a bad place you're in. Have you seen the tagline of poster Catherineanne? "A bruised reed shall He not break, and a smoking flax shall He not quench." Any idea what this means?

err.... don't kick anyone when they're down?

I'll entertain that thought, as it is a fair question. Have you heard of the Jefferson Bible? Even so, Thomas Jefferson declared himself to be a Christian.
He didn't do so publically, only for political reasons.

No, never heard of it... wiki'ing....
Nice idea. slash and cut on miracles and "supernatural" stuff... and you get a decent account of life around the 1st century, and the concepts of peace and love that, apparently, didn't exist at the time.
Just downloaded it into my phone.... this will make a nice WC reading (it's the only place I can read )

Hmmm. I tried to be all-inclusive on that point, using it to illustrate the limit of what we actually know and the harm of making up stuff beyond that.

ok... you did go on a bit about it, but my ignorance of what is calvininsm kept me from understanding it at first.

Well, it could be said He didn't "spawn" any of the Pr movements And it could be said He addressed all of G-d's people, and continues to, in various ways. The real point here is again, we have a limit on knowledge.

He didn't spawn them, but he knew they would happen.
Or was he just a man?
We have a limit on knowledge... He doesn't (allegedly). He would know all the pain and suffering and war his son would cause. Perhaps the alternative wouldn't be any better... I guess we'll never know.

Oh, we're NOT! And it is those times that seem to get us in the most trouble ...

HAHAHA.

AFAIK, there is very little (aside from Scripture) written in that time period. Writing wasn't such a high priority, and by the time you get to post 325 you have such a different climate I don't hold it to be as valid.
Ccel.org seems to be a favored source of things from that era, but everything outside the Bible seems to be drastically inferior.

Man, first hit, first miss:
How do Christians know the Bible is true and comes from God? | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Not one single decent reply to the question " How do christians know the bible is true and comes from god?"

OTOH, you have Churches that have been continually in existence that whole time. I'm afraid their version of events is the best anybody's got. Would make an interesting trip!

If those first churches were on Palestine and/or Israel... I don't think I'll find them occupied by christians, nowadays. And, honestly, I don't want to go to those places, there's something of a war going on in there, and I'd like to keep away from it as much as possible. But thanks for the suggestion

 

[razeontherock]

The "invisible spirit"? Who's he? what is he?

Doesn't even need to be defined as a singular entity to address the fact that spirit is unseen. The relationship is defined as "heaven is above earth." The premise is that physical things exist because of underlying Spiritual reality, and therefore the unseen is in control.

I find this to be true.

​

Well, you know what I meant with "taking advantage"?... She was on a place from that was already meant to help poor and she just took it one step further.

The part I bolded is exactly why I mentioned it in the first place. Well put! And this is an example of spirit being in control.

err.... don't kick anyone when they're down?

Close enough

Nice idea. slash and cut on miracles and "supernatural" stuff... and you get a decent account of life around the 1st century, and the concepts of peace and love that, apparently, didn't exist at the time.
Just downloaded it into my phone.... this will make a nice WC reading (it's the only place I can read )

WC = water closet?

Man, first hit, first miss:
How do Christians know the Bible is true and comes from God? | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Not one single decent reply to the question " How do christians know the bible is true and comes from god?"

I had never seen that page, but how can you call it a miss? There's a huge reading list to address it ...

If those first churches were on Palestine and/or Israel... I don't think I'll find them occupied by christians, nowadays.

You'd be wrong about that. Continuously active.

And, honestly, I don't want to go to those places, there's something of a war going on in there, and I'd like to keep away from it as much as possible.

I'm with you there. I don't think this is the time for an American to be abroad.

 

[pocaracas]

Doesn't even need to be defined as a singular entity to address the fact that spirit is unseen. The relationship is defined as "heaven is above earth." The premise is that physical things exist because of underlying Spiritual reality, and therefore the unseen is in control.

I find this to be true.

So you claim the spiritual realm is in control of the physical realm.
You don't know how, don't want to know how.... you just assume it does, based on experiences you interpreted as such. So if I don't have those experiences, I'll never be able to see your point [got that, god? do your best!]

The part I bolded is exactly why I mentioned it in the first place. Well put! And this is an example of spirit being in control.

Or not. Why must there be a spirit in control of such things?
Einstein took science one step further, Newton too and many others. Were those also examples of the spirit being in control? Is everything we do to advance mankind in some way tied up to the spirit world?
Maybe I don't need to learn differential calculus... the spirit will take me that one step further to understand plasma physics, is that it?

Close enough

Whew!
I was never very good at that kind of guessing!

WC = water closet?

Iindeed, the toilet.

I had never seen that page, but how can you call it a miss? There's a huge reading list to address it ...

yes, but each point in the list is condensed in one easy to read phrase and they all go for the same circular reasoning sort of explanation.

You'd be wrong about that. Continuously active.

I know there are christians in there, but they are a minority... I'll have to read the National Geographic article on them again to find those repositories of 2000 year-old knowledge.

I'm with you there. I don't think this is the time for an American to be abroad.

Nor a portuguese... did you hear Moody's rated us as Junk? everyone is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing at us, now.

 

[razeontherock]

I am blissfully ignorant of the evils and corruption you speak of. On purpose. I have never known Church leadership to remain corruption free for even 5 years, let alone 2000. Where I go now is not even 1 year old ... but you'll notice everything you brought up is entirely besides the point?

 

[razeontherock]

So you claim the spiritual realm is in control of the physical realm.
You don't know how, don't want to know how.... you just assume it does, based on experiences you interpreted as such.

Bolded part is YOUR assumption. I avoid assuming like the plague And I am in the process of explaining the "how." (It might even be this very thread where I have already done so?)

So if I don't have those experiences, I'll never be able to see your point [got that, god? do your best!]

Hmmm, part of our experience is those around us, and those who influence us.

Is everything we do to advance mankind in some way tied up to the spirit world?

I'm not sure if there is any sincerity in your question here, or not. I'm not sure of the answer, either. I have heard a wide spectrum of opinions on this.

yes, but each point in the list is condensed in one easy to read phrase and they all go for the same circular reasoning sort of explanation.

Cop out! Any bullet point list us "condensed to one easy to read phrase," by definition. That you think you can make such a sweeping judgment on the content of entire books based on one line is mere prejudice, which you should be ashamed of.


I know there are christians in there, but they are a minority... I'll have to read the National Geographic article on them again to find those repositories of 2000 year-old knowledge.

One regret w/ CF as a whole is there is nowhere I know of where you could post such a list, and expect responses from C's who have read it, to give you opinions if any have merit. Wait I take that back; if you look in "Faith Community Groups," you will see TAW - the ancient way. They are the only one that has a sub-forum specifically for debate. I think it's called St Justin's corner? I'm not sure if that sub-forum is designed to allow NC's to post, but I do KNOW that the members there want it to be, staff is actively involved in trying to accommodate them - and those are some darn smart folks. If you were to just be sincere, and sincerely respectful, both asking your question and explaining why you are asking them, I think you'd get some good answers. (The worst that could happen is nobody there read any of these books, but you'd still get some interesting conversation, and no doubt some ideas I'd never verbalize)

If you take that step please be sensitive to the fact that your thread would serve the purpose of a guinea pig, to see if CF making such an effort is wise. The way they look at their forum, it's as if someone walked off the street into their Church with their questions ...

ETA: here's a link: http://www.christianforums.com/f827/ (Not so easy to find) They also have another subforum right there, "St Basil's Hall." Not sure which would be a better place to post, which should make a great opener for a thread

 

[pocaracas]

Bolded part is YOUR assumption. I avoid assuming like the plague And I am in the process of explaining the "how." (It might even be this very thread where I have already done so?)

You're right, it was an assumption... the assumption that you assume god to intervene and that was it.
I see then that you're actively pursuing such explanation... If I can be of assistance, just holler!

Hmmm, part of our experience is those around us, and those who influence us.

But I'd like to keep people out of this matter, given that it involves something which is not human.

I'm not sure if there is any sincerity in your question here, or not. I'm not sure of the answer, either. I have heard a wide spectrum of opinions on this.

I was just extrapolating from what you said earlier:

she just took it one step further

.

The part I bolded is exactly why I mentioned it in the first place. Well put! And this is an example of spirit being in control.

Cop out! Any bullet point list us "condensed to one easy to read phrase," by definition. That you think you can make such a sweeping judgment on the content of entire books based on one line is mere prejudice, which you should be ashamed of.

ah, yes.... unfortunately, I don't have much time to read books... or I don't make much time to read them... 3 kids can be a handful.
So I went with the bullet list to see that they were all more or less the same.

I know there are christians in there, but they are a minority... I'll have to read the National Geographic article on them again to find those repositories of 2000 year-old knowledge.

(you missed a quote there! )
Just in case you're curious, here's the article:
Arab Christians — National Geographic Magazine

One regret w/ CF as a whole is there is nowhere I know of where you could post such a list, and expect responses from C's who have read it, to give you opinions if any have merit. Wait I take that back; if you look in "Faith Community Groups," you will see TAW - the ancient way. They are the only one that has a sub-forum specifically for debate. I think it's called St Justin's corner? I'm not sure if that sub-forum is designed to allow NC's to post, but I do KNOW that the members there want it to be, staff is actively involved in trying to accommodate them - and those are some darn smart folks. If you were to just be sincere, and sincerely respectful, both asking your question and explaining why you are asking them, I think you'd get some good answers. (The worst that could happen is nobody there read any of these books, but you'd still get some interesting conversation, and no doubt some ideas I'd never verbalize)

If you take that step please be sensitive to the fact that your thread would serve the purpose of a guinea pig, to see if CF making such an effort is wise. The way they look at their forum, it's as if someone walked off the street into their Church with their questions ...

ETA: here's a link: St. Justin Martyr's Corner: Debate an Orthodox Christian - Christian Forums (Not so easy to find) They also have another subforum right there, "St Basil's Hall." Not sure which would be a better place to post, which should make a great opener for a thread

[/quote]
You do realize that's the orthodox corner of CF?
No harm in trying, their rules seem pretty innocuous to non-christians.

Here it is... let's hope it bears fruits:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7576222/#post57984360

 

[razeontherock]

Cheers! One of the better uses of the world wide web.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Believing certain things and behaving in certain manners can be useful tools for people who do not yet know. When knowledge of God comes, even in the smallest way, it will transcend the limits of your beliefs and rationalizations. They are just expedient means. Something a person without knowledge can not live with out.

 

[pocaracas]

Believing certain things and behaving in certain manners can be useful tools for people who do not yet know. When knowledge of God comes, even in the smallest way, it will transcend the limits of your beliefs and rationalizations. They are just expedient means. Something a person without knowledge can not live with out.

I see your point and it makes sense from a "humanistic" point of view.
But I prefer to avoid such circular belief and go directly towards the "knowing".
I don't understand why should a god require that I believe it exists just so I can then be convinced of it. If I believe, I'm already convinced... any "small" piece of evidence will just feed this pre-convincing, meaning you never leave the "belief" for the "knowing"... although you might think you know.