posted
I like Hobbes. I like Annie. Sounds like a good combo to me!
quote: X12, I believe that some people have seen God, but only Prophets who then knew beyond a doubt of Gods existance, which most of us can't know (see my earlier statment).
I think others have claimed to have seen God, but were locked up and kept quiet (it's called schizophrenia). And why wouldn't the normal everyday person be capable of this?
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think others have claimed to have seen God, but were locked up and kept quiet (it's called schizophrenia). And why wouldn't the normal everyday person be capable of this?
Well, the Lord's house is a house of order. The only reason for some random guy off the street (or gal...) to become a prophet is if there isn't already a prophet on the Earth. My belief is that there is one (Gordon B. Hinckley) and he presides over the Church. When Mormonsim was first founded it was some random guy (Joseph Smith, not really random, but for this discussion that works) who saw God and founded the Church.
By the way, I'm rather sick and confused so if this doesn't answer your question, sorry, I'll try again when my brain starts functioning.
quote:I think others have claimed to have seen God, but were locked up and kept quiet (it's called schizophrenia).
You have to have a few other problems for it to be called schizophenia. If you're otherwise stable it's more likely to be called mysticism.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My philosophy proffesor made a interesting point that has always stuck with me.
It is only logical to believe there is a God and to follow his teachings. Here is why.
What have you lost if you believe in God and you were wrong? An hour or two on sundays at worst, but you do gain the possitive attitude and benifits of living a moral life in His teaching. But hey you die and thats it, no big deal.
What have you gained by believing in God adn your right? everything. Whatever your conseption of heaven and the eternity you will spend there is, its gonna be pretty great.
What have you gained by NOT believing in God and you are right? Nothing really. A few hours eachsunday to sleep in, hey that's really just wasted time anyway.
What have you lost by NOT believing in God and your wrong? Now here's the kicker. You lose everything. Hell, no matter how you spin it is not a place that will be much fun.
So the point... It is only logicla that you live your life with a belief in God. It does no harm and just might prove to be a good investment
No just for my own 2 cents: I have not been a very good christian of late. My wife and I are E&C church goers only. We talk about getting back into the church often but have yet to do it. But that does not change my opinion of the Lord. He is real, He does exsist and I know he gave his only son for MY sins. that's an exciting thought and I really can't tell you what facts I have to back it up. I just know, i believe, I have faith, what ever or how ever you want to put it. For me this is the way it is, but I know others have to have more than that. If nothing else, believing is logical. Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your philosophy professor didn't make that point. It's several hundreds of years old, and is called Pascal's Wager. It's also a useless point, since a real application of Pascal's Wager acknowledges that many religions are mutually exclusive, and believing in the WRONG ONE does you no favors, either.
Besides, I find it a ridiculously mercenary application of faith, and personally think that people who only believe in God because it's "logical" in an end-game for them to do so are in fact the worst kind of Satanists.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't say Satanists, but other than that I agree with Tom.
I'd also like to add that I'm disturbed by the idea that believing in God would have no more effect on someone's life than "an hour or two on Sundays."
posted
OK, first of all I would like to point out that I posted this as an interesting point made by my philosophy proffesor. I quote him as saying it because he is the only person I have heard say it. This was the only philosophy course I took and it has been about 6 years since I took it. i did not say I agreed with it I just put it up as a conversational peice because as I have stated it stuck with me as interesting. In fact it is the only thing I remember from the course.
I also hope that you continued reading my post as I made the point that for me it is a faith thing. I believe because that is what feels right for me. Although I have not been to church regularly for some time that doesn't take away from my beliefs. The reasons for my not going to church are somewhat complicated and I didn't wish to get into them. But my faith remains. my proof is in the bible and in my heart. This is not enough for many people but it is for me.
So anyways, at least my post sparked a few comments.
posted
Beatnix, please take my previous post as an attack on your philosophy professor's use of Pascal's Wager, not on you for posting it. That's how I meant it, although I see how it could have been interpreted otherwise.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
no harm done, Tom's post was abit more attacking than yours but even his isn't that bad. This is why I usualy stay clear of these threads. A lot of strong opinions, which I appreciate, but more than I usually want to get into.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to hear that your sick, Hobbes. I had a horrible cold last weekend! Hope you don't have that thing! If so, well, at least it goes away!
I was going to post that the whole idea that only a few could "see God" is rather ethnocentric. But then I realized (almost immediately) that is true of most religion. So let me put it this way:
In Buddhism, everyone "is" God. The idea is that we are all part of it, therefore we should be able to percieve it. It would seem a shame if only "the chosen few" were able to percieve it (the Godhead).
posted
Erik (or now that you've gone back to your old sn, are we supposed to start calling you Elaine again?), many religions believe that anyone can perceive God. Just not necessarily that anyone can hear His voice with the clarity of prophecy -- or that it is necessary for everyone to be able to do so.
posted
That seems a shame to me. What is "the clarity of Prophecy?" This concept seems rather elitist to me.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Your philosophy professor didn't make that point. It's several hundreds of years old, and is called Pascal's Wager. It's also a useless point, since a real application of Pascal's Wager acknowledges that many religions are mutually exclusive, and believing in the WRONG ONE does you no favors, either."
Deja Vu, a definition: When you've got a feeling that something's happened before but you don't think it could have, because it would be just too... too ... pointless? Ok, so maybe that's not quite the definition of Deja vu Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is not to say that I don't enjoy rehashing this particular subject, or listening to it be re-hashed over and over again- 'cause I know I'm right
posted
That being said, and whether or not you believe in God, it should be obvious to any logical mind, at least after a little thought from an evangelistic prosletizing Christian perspective, that Pascal's wager is full of holes!
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep hearing about these holes but I guess it doesn't matter.
I had a biology professor who committed suicide and left a poem by Robert Louis Stevenson to be read to all the students. The rumor was he was a commited stoic and finally decided to quit messing around.
I've often looked for the poem. It ended with "And now I've closed the door" or something.
Anyway, I believe miracles are like trees falling in the forest. Or Cats rigged up to decaying particles. They are as real as they are observed to be. By refusing to see them, folks make them unreal. So God is only as real as you perceive Him to be. We all live in our own universe. By sharing mine with God, it links me to many other universes. It's tenuous, though. Sometimes I link up with something else for a while, and the funny thing is I don't always notice right away.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. It's kind of astonishing how pretty it looks when sunlight filters through the atmosphere at a more oblique angle.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not expressing an opinion either towards theistism or atheistism, just expressing my thoughts
quote: What have you gained by NOT believing in God and you are right? Nothing really. A few hours eachsunday to sleep in, hey that's really just wasted time anyway.
I find this statement to be quite false. If you go faithfully to church each Sunday but find out when you die (okay, not possible if there is no God, but...) that there is, in fact, no God, then you have wasted valuable time that could've been spent doing pietistic deeds (if you really believed in God during your lifetime). Or if you were an athetist, then you could've spent that time learning something and contributing to the world.
quote: What have you lost by NOT believing in God and your wrong? Now here's the kicker. You lose everything. Hell, no matter how you spin it is not a place that will be much fun.
I'm not very religious, so I don't know much about God. But I would think that if he truly loved all of his children on earth that he could understand if someone didn't believe in him. My reasoning for this is that some people are raised in non-pietistic families. So, how could the children of this family believe in God if his parents didn't, seeing as children most often believe their parents above all others.
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's not really miraculous...the science behind gorgeous sunsets is well established. If you have similar cloud patterns from night-to-night, you'll get similar sunsets. It's all science.
posted
"It's not really miraculous...the science behind gorgeous sunsets is well established. If you have similar cloud patterns from night-to-night, you'll get similar sunsets. It's all science.
But it can still be pretty damned gorgeous!"
-MUST... NOt... Get... into... ddisscusssion... aaaaagggaaiiin. *plop* Ah, well, what can I say, I'm a sucker for old arguments.
"It's not really miraculous..."
I'll counter with a quote, though I may not have the wording exactly right:
There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is a miracle. -Albert "greatest scientist of all time" Eienstein
"...the science behind gorgeous sunsets is well established."
That makes it less miraculous? See above scientist's statement. But if you insist that it does, then you're wrong anyway . I've learned enough about physics to say that sunsets have a fair bit to do with the refraction of light. But what is light. Light is made of photons, you say, but what are photons? Well, you say, photons are these things that well, err have mass but don't have mass but are still affected by gravity, and are long skinny things or little points depending on whether or not you're looking at them. Uh Huh, says I, I see, and what are photons made of? "Umm... strings?" "Ok, have you actually seen any of these"? "Well... no, but we've mathmatically proved they were there"! "I see- and what are strings made of"? "What!? They're strings, they're not made of anything, they're just there"! Ah. Very scientific. Not at all like the idea the ancient greek fella had about there being an atom an it being the smallest particle.
Ok I hope I'm done, if you don't agree with me after that I don't think there's really a lot of point in me blabbering anymore
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The lowest rung of the debate food-chain consists of people who resort to creating imaginary and inevitably one-sided conversations in order to prove a point.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe according to debate. Philosophy, on the other hand, is filled with such diological expressions. Its actually a rather ancient practice for explaining ideas.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that -- even in philosophy -- it's a cheap-ass form of argument, because you can ALWAYS make yourself sound more intelligent than your fictional counterpart.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
-Merlin The Sage
Posts: 8 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assure you, FoolishTook, that sunsets, rainbows, etc., have not lost any of their wonder just because I understand the physics involved. If anything, I find them even more wonderful.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there are physical miracles anymore. Who here saw Bruce Almighty? The whole parting the waters thing, walking on water, and, yes, even sunsets, though they are beautiful, aren't miracles; they're little parlor tricks. Miracles are people working hard to help each other, caring for each other, picking each other up and holding them high instead of holding them down.
Posts: 767 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that "miracle" referred to something happening outside the known laws of science.
The universe is still a pretty impressive place, even if you start off with the assumption that it all happened by accident.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the basics of evolution and one philosophy of how everything came into being. The one saying we were all at one time single celled organisms that evolved overtime to adapt to surroundings. But then where did the amobeas and protozoa come from???
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's actually a very good question. The theory is that protoviruses were organized out of RNA, and that these viruses discovered the advantages of differentiation. But we've never been able to spontaneously create RNA through a chemical process -- at least not yet -- so it's still anyone's guess.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never heard of any definite reason for the origin of single celled organism, but it would be quite difficult to prove something that happened millions of years ago. I have heard of all sorts of theories, such as lighting playing a key role, but as I said I've seen no evidence that would proof them beyond a resonable doubt.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it really matter? He exists........he doesn't........did the world change? Am I going to hell becuase I don't belive in him ( is he even male or female)? Am I going to heaven because God is all forgiving or not becuase he created the univrse but now just watches it spin aruond? Or am I just going to die? If you are a "good" person then does it matter if you belive in any kind of god at all or not? This is more about being able to belong to a group. I am atheist. I just have placed myself in a category and that defines who I am.
And do we belive in God? As far as I can see we belive in his/her power but other than that we belive in the "book" and what it says.
Posts: 36 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not mormon. But I do truly believe that there is a God and that he does love us. Sky: Does it really matter?? If you think of eternity (which the human mind can't actually percieve) our lives on earth are but a blink of time. The payoff for having faith is essentially eternal life in paradise. And the consequences for rejecting the obvious is eternal damnation in hell. For me this has nothing to do with saying "I fit into a group," it has everything to do with loving others enough to want to share with them eternal bliss.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
this question is one that comes up frequently and is the most difficult to answer because there is no proof either way that is sufficient for anyone. before I dive into the thick of this you had another point id like to hit on. Christmas on the solstice, yes this is true. when priests were out on there own to convert and spread Christianityto the people of the world, most of the population were pagan at the time and paganism is strongly based on life and spirit . from myth or whatever i have been told the people could not let go of many of their (more harmless)traditions.hence we now have Christmas on the winter solstice and we decorate trees (very pagan, I can see no Christian relevance other than beauty) and look at easter we decorate eggs to celebrate the birth of Christ and his ressurection? as you can see there has been integration of tradition in religion, however this does not affect the foundation of religion or change its message. As to God and His lack of public appearances lately he really doesn't have to. Any analogy or religious argument could come The question of if there is a God is what you are asking, but lets look at it from that there is a God. He created man and put him on Earth for a short amount of time to prove his true nature and faithfulness. How could we do that if he was always here watching us in our faces and showing off His power with the new miracle of the week. It would become forced obedience and if not total slavery then indentured servitude at the least. This is why parole for criminals was instigated. you test them to see if they can follow rules but the whole time the PO is hanging over their shoulders and throwing around his power to where they really have limited chances to screw up. Works ok when reintroducing criminals to the world but not to get back to His graces. I suggest two books to ponder and maybe answer your questions yourself. the first is the New Testament, and thistime read it often and pray about what you have read. The second is "The Salmon of Doubt" by the great and sadly late Douglas Adams. Mr. Adams was a self proclaimed radical atheist but respected other people and their beliefs, he did not try to push his beliefs on anyone, only share his thoughts. In this book he tries to prove his points through science and technology. He presents his "4 ages of sand" theory. In the first age man turned sand into glass and made telescopes and viewed the heavens and saw that the planets revolved around the sun, not the earth and that the sun was part of our vast galaxy. when this was presented Galileo was taken before the church and told he could not say that the planets revolved around the sun, but could only say that it appeared to do so. now of course its true and of course its ridiculous, by forbidding galilieo to acknowledge these things they themselves inadvertently admitted that he was correct, however it has long been common knowledge that the two ways to gain power then were either though the military or through the church so in consequense the church became corrupt with power ambitious people. but still the telescope showed us that there was much vastness in the universe, one that many religions now embrace. the second age of sand was th microscope when we turned our interests inward and saw that there was just as much vastness in small things as in the large things. Mankind saw how things fit together on cellular and then on atomic levels. then came the age of silica which gave us computer chips and the ability to hold more information and perform math and other duties much faster than ever before. the final age was fiber optics tying together anyone who wants to get on the web. My feeble description here was that adams point was all this technology killed God, or rather proved that we can now grow past a useless fiction that has govered our lives for so long. i guess, though, that it's all really perspective though, because to me the whole article seemed to strengthen any belief or testimony in a diety in the first place. evoltion does explain a great deal as does adaptation but it all started somewhere by someone more intelligent than any of us with resources we cant comprehend and Im convinced that God exists and gave us these resources to begin with. i hope i didnt go on too long and perhaps gave you something to ponder
Posts: 5 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now this is why I like hatrack. This, this is funny :
ae said: "The lowest rung of the debate food-chain consists of people who resort to creating imaginary and inevitably one-sided conversations in order to prove a point."
Now see, I haven't heard of the debate food chain before, and I guess I should be taking this as an insult since it was in response to my post. To clarify, though, I happen to be quite capable of other forms of debate, and there's a time and a plce for everything, right?
In response to ae, Occasional said: "Maybe according to debate. Philosophy, on the other hand, is filled with such diological expressions. Its actually a rather ancient practice for explaining ideas. "
That's actually quite interesting-the contrast, that is. And its true enough, too.
Tom Davidson said in response to Occasional in response to ae in response to me: "The problem is that -- even in philosophy -- it's a cheap-ass form of argument, because you can ALWAYS make yourself sound more intelligent than your fictional counterpart."
See, yah gotta love Tom. Cause, well, duh! And yes, it is cheap, if not ass . Cheap meaning that it explains more quickly and easily with less words than another form of argument. Unfortunately, it has the effect, therefore, of not explaining everything entirely well, indeed, in some cases explaining very poorly and so tending to be illogical as well as annoying. The beauty of this type of argument, however, lies in its cheap-assness, because only smart people can argue with you, and if you do a good and thorough job, as I did , only really smart people can argue with you. And since I'm the only really smart person around...j/k . Seriously, though, even if a really smart person responds in a really smart way, they have to take the argument to my platform, and so the odds are very good that I would be able to logically crush them through clarification and explanation, thus I would have started with one form of argument, and switched immediately to another once the trap was sprung, all taking little time on either mine or the other's part, and winning the argument without even firing a shot. So cheap form of debate yes, and perhaps annoying as well, but it can be logical, and it can definitely be a very powerful form of argument. And if it means I'm a little low on the 'debate food chain', then by gum I say if the bigger dog's got you down, yah bite 'im on the underbelly Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little off-topic, but what Hobbes said reminded me of a funny and true story that happened to me and I feel compelled to share it for some reason.
Okay, it was back when I was in the Navy, working nights in what amounts in civilian terms as a kind of minimum security jail as the "warden" of my shift.
I got home after a particularly trying day when the "star" inmate woke up of the opinion that it was "Baffle the Guards" day. The annoying git was well-versed at doing all kinds of disruptive things that were just shy of landing him in solitary with cuffs and leg irons. By the time I got home I was exhausted. (I lived off-base.)
No sooner than I've stripped down to my skivvies, collapsed into bed, and just barely drifted off then a knock sounds at the door. I snap up to my feet, storm down the steps and wrench the front door open to reveal two conservatively dressed women who appear at first startled by my abrupt actions, and then literally horrified.
We stand there looking at each other for a moment, no words spoken. Just when I'm about to ask them what they want, they both turn and hurry off as though in fear of their lives.
I close the door, rather confused as to what just happened when I notice a peculiar breeze.
Suffice it to say that I'm a "boxers" kind of guy and had, apparently, during my vigorous run down the stairs managed to bounce a friend into view as I opened the door.
I guess that particular situation wasn't in the "What to do if..." training that these ladies most likely had gone through.
Oddly, no one else ever appeared at my door trying to preach the gospel after that. Not that I blame them (or that I need saving, either).
Posts: 55 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find all of what you guys are saying very interesting. I can't cover everything that has been said because that would be too long.
First of all I'm mormon and this is mostly our perspective.
"For behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Moses 1:39 of the Pearl of Great Price (mormon scripture) This is the reason why it God will not show everyone about the gospel through divine power so that it cannot be denied. "Why not prove his existence to man and show that he is real" i.e. public overwhelming miracles.
In order to achieve eternal life which is more than immortality (living forever) you must A) be married in the temple B) Be baptized C) pay tithing D) other things; but A-C are the main ones. In order for all of these things to actually lead to eternal life god must allow for free agency. Free agency is what allows us to choose what we want to do in all things. Humans have this ability always. We always have a choice.
I also wanted to go over one other thing mentioned because i know the perfect scripture.
"And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence." Moses 1:2-3 (mormon Scripture)
This scripture makes clear to us that Moses could not endure God's presence without the glory of god. Moses was changed in order for him to be able to see god. This scripture also shows to us that god is a living being.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
