FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » A Question about Religion (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: A Question about Religion
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
Weird, I thought I responded after you did. No matter. My response to your first bit is above your last post, 3P0. Cheers.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
I'll give you more tomorrow, but here is some of the stuff that I can write in the time constraint I have now:

Historical documents include the Bible. In fact, the Bible is rather reliable because it consists of a great many differing historical documents, all verifying the same thing. The Gospels were written, as near as anyone can tell, by people who certainly were alive when Jesus was and were very likely witnesses to his life.

The four different Gospels often tell the same stories, while it is obvious that the different authors had differing views about what was most important about Jesus's life, they are consistent and they support each other.

Later on, we have a HUGE miracle. A guy by the name of Saul is killing Christians, and then, just before stricken inexplicably with temporary blindness, is converted to Christianity and becomes the greatest missionary ever. His letters to this day tell profound truths about humility, hypocrisy, and other persisting problems and jewels of the Church.

And the history of the early Church is consistent throughout every document unearthed. Scores flocked to those who preached, and thousands were added every day. Miracles were performed, so many were baptized that I wonder about the purity of the water. This is a scale equivalent to that of Billy Graham's crusades, and without television, football stadiums, loudspeakers, or anything. There is, in fact, very much historical validity to the Bible, its claims, and what primary sources outside the Bible. For the most part, everything is surprisingly consistent.

Give me a chance tomorrow to befuddle you with startling statistics.

Now, Christianity holds something that is true of all humanity. Nobody's innocent. The Angel of Death that brought forth the Tenth Plague was not killing innocent lives, but it still was terrible nonetheless. Yet it was the only thing that could get to the guy's head: These people need to be let go, or you will suffer the most. Please tell me what else God could have done. He could not have killed Rameses himself, he could not have made more bugs and destruction come (that turned out not to work the past nine times). This was a very very last resort, a right reserved for God alone, to judge what must be done and how to do it in such a shocking way. I'm sure Moses too was mournful of the boys who lost their lives, and God himself did not wish to destroy their young lives. But it still had to be done.

Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
Please tell me what else God could have done. He could not have killed Rameses himself, he could not have made more bugs and destruction come (that turned out not to work the past nine times). This was a very very last resort, a right reserved for God alone, to judge what must be done and how to do it in such a shocking way. I'm sure Moses too was mournful of the boys who lost their lives, and God himself did not wish to destroy their young lives. But it still had to be done.

I'm going to try very hard to not be sarcastic here...an omnipotent god can snap its fingers and have his chosen people appear in Jerusalem. He can make Pharaoh let the Hebrews go.

And please don't say that god couldn't have done those things because it would have violated free will. According to the bible, god already violated free will by hardening Pharaoh's heart and keeping him from letting the Hebrews go.

But again, there is still no evidence that any of these events actually happened.

quote:
The Gospels were written, as near as anyone can tell, by people who certainly were alive when Jesus was and were very likely witnesses to his life.
Show evidence for this. All the evidence I have seen seems to indicate that the Gospels were written after Jesus' supposed death.

quote:
Later on, we have a HUGE miracle. A guy by the name of Saul is killing Christians, and then, just before stricken inexplicably with temporary blindness, is converted to Christianity and becomes the greatest missionary ever. His letters to this day tell profound truths about humility, hypocrisy, and other persisting problems and jewels of the Church.
Please explain to me how this is evidence for anything other than a man being converted to Christianity and believing it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
Pharaoh's heart was not hardened by God's diction, it was by being raised as a Pharaoh. He grew up learning that he was the sun god to be and that he was a divine governor for his people, to succeed the current one. He was raised by a man who believed in sacrifices for the "common good" (i.e. killing the Hebrew sons to suppress the population growth). He grew up spoiled, getting whatever he wanted, and able to get anyone in his kingdom to do anything that he ordered. If there is any perfect formula for irredeemable hard-heartedness, the Egyptians figured it out when they made up their government structure.

And if God "snapped his fingers" and saved the Isrealites their pilgrimmage, what would that help? Think of what everyone would think, seeing a multitude of several million guys appearing out of thin air in their city, and claiming God gave their land to them. That would result in wars and massacres even worse than what we see throughout the Old Testament, and it would get the Hebrews even more cocky than they already were. God just doesn't do that kind of thing, and there are a lot of reasons for that.

He did make Pharaoh let the Hebrews go. Only what it took was an awful lot of persuasion. And yes, free will matters here. If there's one thing God won't do, it is possess someone against his will. He's spoken through people in the past, but only by their offering and later consent.

I'm trying to dig up a book here, but I have been having trouble. Anyway, here's one thing to chew over: it's historically agreed on that Homer wrote the Odyssey. Yet the earliest book we have of that was made centuries after Homer's death. The earliest document of Ceasar's that is available was copied more than a hundred years after Ceasar's death.

And here we have the Gospels. A puny 40 years. The text within it suggests that some parts were written as early as when Christ died. And by that 40 years, the Church had already grown significantly, according to both the Bible, Roman documents, and other sources. The people who wrote it all agree with each other that they were all connected to Christ. This is surprising in that the disciples were very competitive, and each were proud and aloof, wanting to prove himself to be most favorable in God's eyes, and so each was . The fact that they agree with each other on so many things about Christ, despite their personal differences, goes to show that what they saw was the same thing. Here we have a large consensus based on one man by witnesses as opposed to a single man's testimony about how great he is (i.e. Mohammed, Buddha, even Moses to a lesser degree, as he had Joshua to back him up).

After Jesus's death, it is recorded by multiple Biblical sources by different authors, many whom do not regularly correspond by current knowledge, that for a long period Jesus appeared to many witnesses and proved over and over that he had conquered death.

I believe I forgot to answer how dying and then coming back to life still counts as dying. Answer: He suffered the worst death the Romans could think up, and then he went to Hell. He lived his life doing everything perfectly, performing miracles and teaching about the Father, being the only man in history who can be called innocent. Then, when he dies, not putting up a fight that he could have fought, and was even encouraged to fight, teased for not fighting, etc. he goes to Hell. Infinitely pure righteousness is slain, given up, by God, in order pay the debt of the finite sins that everyone's been doing all the time, now, then, and in the future. Jesus was sacrificed so that, in dying once, righteous for unrighteous, the unrighteous would have a way to commune with God. And then, to prove that he had conquered death for all of mankind, he came back after he paid the debt. I must say, Hell must be quite a Hell of a place if three days is enough for God to pay for all the sins ever. (/stupid puns)

The big issue with Paul is that he didn't have anyone tell him what's so great about Christianity. He was on the road all by himself and the next time someone sees him he's loopy, blind, and shocked. Then when he recovers, he evangelizes thousands, suffering tortures, prosecutions, storms, strandedness, and all else happenstance could dish out on him, all for the sake of spreading what he just earlier swore to destroy. All the while bearing the new name that means "little man." This is VERY significant.

Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Anyway, here's one thing to chew over: it's historically agreed on that Homer wrote the Odyssey. Yet the earliest book we have of that was made centuries after Homer's death. The earliest document of Caesar's that is available was copied more than a hundred years after Caesar's death.
So what? It matters very little to me whether or not Homer wrote the Odyssey. The same with Caesar. And neither are said to have done anything supernatural.

It doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed. What matters is, if he existed, if he was god or not. You seem to think that proving he existed is the same as proving he was god. I'm sorry, but they aren't the same.

quote:
The big issue with Paul is that he didn't have anyone tell him what's so great about Christianity. He was on the road all by himself and the next time someone sees him he's loopy, blind, and shocked. Then when he recovers, he evangelizes thousands, suffering tortures, prosecutions, storms, strandedness, and all else happenstance could dish out on him, all for the sake of spreading what he just earlier swore to destroy. All the while bearing the new name that means "little man." This is VERY significant.
So he believed. And he evangelized. How does this show evidence for the truth of his claims? If Muhammad believed in his claims, does that make them truth? How about Buddha? David Koresh?

quote:
in order pay the debt of the finite sins that everyone's been doing all the time, now, then, and in the future.
How does this pay my debt? I believe it was Bertrand Russel (if it wasn't him, it was some other old grumpy atheist, hehe) 'If I owe Smith money, and God forgives me, how does that help Smith?'

quote:
After Jesus's death, it is recorded by multiple Biblical sources by different authors, many whom do not regularly correspond by current knowledge, that for a long period Jesus appeared to many witnesses and proved over and over that he had conquered death.
And yet when there is mass communication and most of the world is literate, he does nothing. To me it sounds terribly similar to psychic powers failing to work because a skeptic is in the room.

quote:
Here we have a large consensus based on one man by witnesses
Actually told at least second-hand. There is no evidence that, assuming Jesus existed, the Gospel writers ever knew him personally.

quote:
Pharaoh's heart was not hardened by God's diction, it was by being raised as a Pharaoh.
"And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go." -Exodus 4:21

"And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." -Exodus 7:3

"But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses." -Exodus 9:12

"Now the LORD said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants, that I may show these signs of Mine before him" -Exodus 10:1

"But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go." -Exodus 10:20

"But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go." -Exodus 10:27

"Then I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will pursue them; and I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD.” And they did so." -Exodus 14:4

"And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued the children of Israel; and the children of Israel went out with boldness." -Exodus 14:8

"And I indeed will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen." -Exodus 14:17

All of the above quotes are from the KJV.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Mormons have a different take on those verses-- just so you know.

In Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, those verses reflect that it was Pharoah himself who hardened his heart.

quote:
There is no evidence that, assuming Jesus existed, the Gospel writers ever knew him personally.
Assuming Jesus existed, and that the gospel writers were who they said they were, that's "evidence" right there, historically speaking. What were you looking for-- a sign carved in on a tree, reading "J.C. & S.B.J = BFF?"

quote:
'If I owe Smith money, and God forgives me, how does that help Smith?'
In Mormon theology, restitution/peacemaking would have to be made before (generally) forgiveness can be granted.

quote:
And yet when there is mass communication and most of the world is literate, he does nothing. To me it sounds terribly similar to psychic powers failing to work because a skeptic is in the room.
[Smile] As a Mormon, I believe that His work is ongoing and that miracles and visions occur today just as often as they did in the days following Christ's resurrection.

But none of those things are necessary in order to believe, and none of those can be counted on to build a relationship with God.

I'm reminded of the end of the parable of Lazarus:

Remember? Lazarus, poor and suffering, but pious died; and then his rich neighbor (not so pious) died as well. Lazarus went to Heaven and the rich man went to hell. And then...

quote:

27 Then [the rich man] said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send [Lazarus] to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As a Mormon, I believe that His work is ongoing and that miracles and visions occur today just as often as they did in the days following Christ's resurrection.
OK. Show evidence for it, please.

quote:
But none of those things are necessary in order to believe, and none of those can be counted on to build a relationship with God.
You're right, you don't need those to build a relationship. But evidence would be nice to show that something exists before you can build a relationship with that thing.

quote:
Assuming Jesus existed, and that the gospel writers were who they said they were, that's "evidence" right there, historically speaking. What were you looking for-- a sign carved in on a tree, reading "J.C. & S.B.J = BFF?"
First of all, the gospel writers didn't say who they were. The authorship is still contested, and the names were put there by the church when compiling the bible. No, not looking for a sign carved on a tree, although that would certainly be evidence. I'm looking for evidence that the gospel was written during the time the man was supposed to have lived. Without that, you still have evidence, but not good enough evidence to justify that everything they wrote was the 100% truth.

quote:
In Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, those verses reflect that it was Pharaoh himself who hardened his heart.
So Joseph Smith saw that while god is not supposed to violate free will, he does so in Exodus. Then Smith retranslated the bible to get rid of those parts.

How is that evidence of anything?

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Show evidence for it, please.
:shrug:

What evidence would you accept as permissible? And what do you think (hope) such evidence would provide?

quote:
First of all, the gospel writers didn't say who they were.
John did. Rather, the gospel of John asserts that it was written by John.

quote:
I'm looking for evidence that the gospel was written during the time the man was supposed to have lived.
They were all written after Christ's death. (Between 50 AD and 100 AD) I'm not sure what that
proves, though, in your mind.

quote:
So Joseph Smith saw that while god is not supposed to violate free will, he does so in Exodus. Then Smith retranslated the bible to get rid of those parts.

How is that evidence of anything?

Well, it provides evidence that Mormonism doesn't believe in a God that can violate agency. What else were you looking for?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott, I look for people to have evidence and good reason for what they believe, that's all. You are certainly free not to, and I would never force that on anyone. I just wish people would do it.

And forgive me. When I say "show evidence", I should rather have said "If you wish for people to believe what you claim is the truth, you must show evidence." If you don't care whether other people believe it, then that's fine.

As for what evidence? I'm not sure. Evidence that is sufficiently proportional to the claim being made.

If you tell me it's raining outside, I will probably believe you. I have experienced rain before, I may have seen dark clouds earlier, and I trust you. But if you tell me it's raining gold, forgive me, but I'm going to have to see the gold. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Everyone has evidence for what they believe. But that evidence may not be sufficient, or may be considered invalid, to other people.

Sometimes, trying to show evidence of religious things to non-believers is like trying to show evidence of evolution to young earth creationists-- the recipient's value/belief system invalidates the proof before the conversation can even begin.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Everyone has evidence for what they believe. But that evidence may not be sufficient, or may be considered invalid, to other people.

I think many people put their religious beliefs in a box, and if they looked at it for the evidence that they look for anything else, they would see it was not there. Which is what happened to me, anyway.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Somebody mentioned that eyewitness testimony is accepted in courts of law. That's a truth with some modifications. I think anyone testifying under oath that they personally witnessed water being made into wine, people walking on water, loaves and fishes being multiplied, and people rising from the dead - or even just one of these - might find themselves in some difficulty with perjury and contempt of court and whatnot. Or at an absolute minimum, you'd find that "The court chose not to rely on the witness's testimony". That's because courts of law, like sensible people, have higher standards of evidence for extraordinary events.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't disagree with that last statement.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lynn johnson
Member
Member # 9620

 - posted      Profile for lynn johnson   Email lynn johnson         Edit/Delete Post 
Just a couple of lurking comments:
1. There are many studies showing the benefits of religion. The study Javert cites is one I looked at and found pretty thin. Most are actual comparative studies. Cf meta-analytic and summaries:
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/rel_mort_meta.pdf
http://www.uic.edu/classes/psych/Health/Readings/Miller,%20Spiritualtiy%20&%20health%20overview,%20AmPsy,%202003.pdf

In science we have to go with the weight of the evidence, and speculative pieces are generally seen as outliers.

2. We cannot prove or disprove religion. MY opinion is that it is a Rorschach to find out what is in our hearts. I have evidence of that from an acquaintance who had an NDE and challenged the angels on this point, saying he (as an atheist) had read the bible and couldn't find truth in it. He was told "That is because of the way you read it." In other words, the bible is what you want it to be. Like a poem, you are responsible for the meaning you find in it.
http://www.near-death.com/storm.html
Hence my position that the purpose of life is for us to find out what our character is.

3. Luke clearly identifies himself as the author of Luke and Acts. It is a favorite of mine because Luke is primarily an historian (never saw Jesus in the flesh) and bases his account on interviews. Thus all the early material (Luke 2, for example) that isn't in Matt, Mark, or John. See Luke 7 for the dinner scene. None of the apostles were with Jesus. Who told the story? (A prize if you can figure it out) His books don't give an end to the life of Paul so the attributions of Paul to 85-90 are clearly in error. Paul's last activities in Acts are in Rome, and one way or another, that period of his life ended around 67. So Luke wrote before the end of Paul's life ca. 67.

As I may or may not have mentioned, I did a small NDE study 20 years ago, fascinating stuff. Howard Storm's experience I refer to above is a great resource for people who want to learn how Storm went from atheist to Christian minister.

So be careful. Life is a Rorschach.

Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
None of the apostles were with Jesus. Who told the story? (A prize if you can figure it out)
Traditionally, Mary is supposed to have given Luke much of the information contained in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts. I'm not sure that it's actually doctrine that she did, but there you are.

What do I win?

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
That would certainly make sense, Scott R.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay lynn:

1. Whether or not religion is good for people, which I believe is still debatable, it says nothing to the truth of a religion's claims. Which, of course, doesn't matter unless you care if what you believe is true.

2. We can certainly show that there is evidence for or against the claims that religions make, such as virgin births, talking snakes, the shape of the planet and the movement of the celestial bodies.

3. My issues still stand. Luke bases his writing on interviews. I have a book that is based on interviews...interviews of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. All that it tells us is that these are people who either believe what they say or are deliberately trying to deceive.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There are two questions. Number one: does the good that religion does/has done outweigh the evil? Number two: Is it true? If you only care about question number one, I suppose two doesn’t matter. I happen to care about both answers.
Hey, Javert! I happen to care about both, too, though my approach is a little different than yours.

The answer to the first question is one that I think a person would definitely need to get a positive answer on before signing up for a religion. In my case, I do believe that my church overwhelmingly has a positive effect on the world and on my life, King of Men's complete lack of understanding notwithstanding [Smile]

Obtaining the answer to the second question, to a rational and skeptical religious person like myself, is an ongoing process.

Religions make two kinds of claims — moral claims and factual claims.

With moral claims ("Killing is bad", "Some wars can be justified", "You shouldn't smoke", "Clergy should not profit monetarily from their work", to list a few from my own religion), scientific proof is a nonissue. How, scientifically, do you prove or disprove what a person "should" do? That is a question of conscience, and to discover the truth or untruth of a moral claim, a potential adherent to a religion needs to explore the moral question through his own spiritual ponderings, choices, and experiences, and arrive at his own conclusions. When people disagree, they can try to persuade one another, but at no point is there some scientific test that can be performed to determine who is objectively correct.

With factual claims ("God exists", "The soul lives on after death", "Jesus rose from the dead and is the Son of God"), there is an objective standard of truth. Either a thing happened/exists, or not. Or it happened/exists, but not exactly as described.

Within this realm, we can draw another division, between claims that are subjectively verifiable, and those that are not.

By "subjectively verifiable", I mean that a claim can be backed up by personal experience, but cannot be objectively proven to another person.

The (non-religious) claim "I love my wife", for example, is subjectively verifiable. You cannot definitively prove to another person that this is true. But you believe it to be true because of subjective evidence that only you can experience. And you come closer and closer to proving it to yourself by acting on it and watching the results.

To a Mormon, the foundation for a person's faith in the factual claims made by the Church is subjective verification. The Church promises that an individual who pursues a certain pattern of humble religious exploration and prayer will receive a spiritual witness that the Church is true.

This happens on a purely individual basis, and is not meant to be in any way objective or scientific — in fact, it shouldn't be. We don't want people to join because they were reluctantly won over by a mountain of evidence. We want people to join because they feel a strong internal conviction that this is where they belong, even in the face of clear opposition to their choice.

After that point, the idea is for a new convert to study and explore the religion, continually asking questions and seeking subjective evidence that both the moral and factual claims of the Church are true. It's an ongoing process that is never expected to come to a complete close.

Personally, for me, I'm completely satisfied that the Church's moral claims are aligned with my own (with a few quibbles around the edges that are well within reason).

I have subjectively verified that, from where I stand, the Church's basic factual claims (about the existence of God, the meaning of the Atonement of Christ, the veracity of modern revelation, etc) are good. This drives my own decision to be a member of the Church, though certainly, I wouldn't expect anyone to make the same choice unless they had found similar subjective evidence.

As far as the more peripheral claims of scripture go (was the Flood a universal deluge? how was the earth created? what is the historical setting of the Book of Mormon?), I've provisionally accepted the Church's claims, each to a different degree, based on subjective evidence, and (when that is lacking) on the trust I've developed in the Church in general. For some, I have my own divergent interpretations, based on objective or subjective evidence that I have found through independent exploration.

However, I'm fully prepared to learn that any random one of those claims is incorrect or misunderstood. In fact, the Church boldly asserts that in the future, our understanding is going to broaden and change, many times, as new revelations are received from God.

In the light of future evidence that alters my understanding, I am perfectly willing to revise my interpretation of any and all of these claims, the way a scientist revises his interpretation when a new experiment finally invalidates a long-held scientific theory.

Relativity, for instance. A good theory, which fits with all the evidence that we've been able to collect so far. Do I believe it? Sure! Am I willing to trust inventions and decisions that are based on a relativistic understanding of the universe? Sure! Would I be at all surprised if, at some time in the future, a better theory were to overturn Einstein the way he overturned Newton, forcing me to revise my understanding? Not at all. The same goes for many of the peripheral claims of my religion. It's all theory (in the scientific sense), but in my experience, it is good theory that I'm willing to base my life on.

However, I think the difference between us here is actually over a moral claim. You make the moral claim that the only sort of evidence that a person "should" base his personal beliefs on is objective evidence. I make the counterclaim that while objective evidence is critical, I have found great value in basing my personal beliefs, in part, on subjective evidence and the provisional acceptance of unproven ideas taught to me by a church I have learned to trust.

Since the issue here is primarily a moral one, regarding what people "should" or "should not" do, there really isn't any final test that can "prove" one of us right or wrong. Our only tool is persuasion. My intent here is to persuade you that my position is tenable by a rational person, and not that my beliefs are objectively true [Smile]

King of Men, I realize that it's been a long time, but if you actually intend to reengage me on this subject after slinking away ages ago, I'd recommend that you actually respond to my last post to you, rather than sweeping that discussion under the rug with the same empty claims I criticized you for in the first place.

[ November 09, 2007, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
However, I think the difference between us here is actually over a moral claim. You make the moral claim that the only sort of evidence that a person "should" base his personal beliefs on is objective evidence. I make the counterclaim that while objective evidence is critical, I have found great value in basing my personal beliefs, in part, on subjective evidence and the provisional acceptance of unproven ideas taught to me by a church I have learned to trust.
Which is exactly why religious belief is so potentially dangerous. When you start basing actions on your own personal subjective evidence, with no care for objective evidence, you start down the path where you can justify anything.

Now, I understand that you do care about object evidence. However, I believe you are putting far too much stock in the subjective. Putting stock in the subjective can lead to treating the subjective on equal footing with the objective, and eventually lead to giving it precedence over the objective. Which is what religious extremists do.

I would never say that you were a religious extremist, Puppy. But at the core, what you use to justify the tenants of the LDS Church and what extremists use to justify their actions are the same animal.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There are people who think that video games are a blight on the world, and would prefer that I didn't make them. They could say to me, "There are creative professions outside the game industry that you could get, and any benefit of being a game designer that you could name, I can match with a similar benefit in another field."

Should that change the fact that I feel happier as a game designer than I can imagine being in any other line of work? Can it alter my innermost wordless dreams of creating wonderful creative works of art within this particular field that I love? Can it change the fact that in some strange way that cannot be justified or explained, I WANT to be a game designer?

No, it shouldn't and it can't. I love games, and I'm going to keep making games, and I dream of one day realizing my dreams of creating amazing games, in spite of what other people might tell me I ought to do instead.

Very well, let us use this analogy. Suppose the nutters who think games cause school shootings were shown to be absolutely and completely correct. Suppose they were able to trace an exact causality from your code (or design, or whatever part of making games it is you do) to some hapless student firing his Kalashnikov at the rest of his school. Would you still assert your desire to be a game designer?


quote:
quote:
quote:
I would stop raising my children to share my beliefs.
Nonsense. You would stop raising them to share the beliefs you have now.
I believe that is what I said. The phrase "my beliefs" refers to Mormonism. I'm wondering if you could be a little more picky in your selection of arguments.
Let me rephrase. Since we are assuming that you would actually lose your faith, ceasing to teach your children of that faith would have to be considered a good thing. I assume you would not want to teach them anything false. In the hypothetical we were considering, you are no longer a member of the Mormon church, so what do you care if your children get taught its doctrines?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eowyn-sama
Member
Member # 11096

 - posted      Profile for Eowyn-sama   Email Eowyn-sama         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM, it sounds like you're trying hard to be as obtuse as possible. Do you actually think that Puppy hasn't shown that her religion is very important to her happiness? (Her personally, that is. You can argue about people at large til you turn blue in the face, have fun)

As far as the gaming analogy goes, I can't answer for someone who actually works in the game industry, but I don't think it would be enough to turn me from my work. If a school shooter wrote in his suicide note that something I created was the reason he did this, I'd be unhappy and horrified but not particularly guilty. Someone with that much rage, hate and despair would have found an outlet or inspiration no matter what.

Edited for wording

Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
Eowyn, just so you know, Puppy's a guy. Not that I imagine he'd be terribly upset about the pronoun mix-up, but I'm a little anal-retentive about that sort of thing.

Carry on. [Smile]

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eowyn-sama
Member
Member # 11096

 - posted      Profile for Eowyn-sama   Email Eowyn-sama         Edit/Delete Post 
Whoops :-p sorry.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
When you start basing actions on your own personal subjective evidence, with no care for objective evidence, you start down the path where you can justify anything.
You can do this with objective evidence, too. (Eugenics, for example)

A subjective morality can prevent both the misuse of religious fervor, and the misuse of scientific data.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
When you start basing actions on your own personal subjective evidence, with no care for objective evidence, you start down the path where you can justify anything.
There is no objective (in the sense you are using it here) evidence for what one ought to do. Science is not capable of producing a single moral principle.

Science, to the extent that it's the best way to predict the consequences of one's actions, is absolutely necessary to acting morally. But it's not enough.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Religion, on the other hand, is actively harmful, because it gives you false premises to reason from.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
No, it doesn't.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
Puppy, I think the concept of "subjective evidence" can only be taken so far. As I understand it, subjective evidence can provide you with evidence for the existence of God however it cannot provide you with historical evidence. In other words, you cannot have subjective evidence for something like The Great Flood. A geological event like The Great Flood demands physical evidence because it would literally be impossible for something of that scale to occur and not leave behind hard evidence.

EDIT: I don't mean to imply that you believe in The Great Flood. That was just an example. My main point is that subject evidence has limits that arguably make total acceptance of the Bible illogical (total acceptance as in putting faith in concepts such as Young Earth Creationism and Noah's Ark that have been thoroughly debunked by hard evidence).

EDIT2: [slightly off topic rant] Concepts such as Young Earth Creationism and Noah's Ark are so irrelevant to the actual message of Jesus that I don't know why some Christians make them an issue.

EDIT3: Make that "majorly off topic mini rant"

Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
No, it doesn't.

What are the true premises that religions give us to reason from?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
EDIT2: [slightly off topic rant] Concepts such as Young Earth Creationism and Noah's Ark are so irrelevant to the actual message of Jesus that I don't know why some Christians make them an issue.

Not to start a side issue/argument, but not everything that Jesus is supposed to have said is all that great or relevant either.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott R believes in God. Therefore, he doesn't believe he is reasoning from "false premises" when he reasons based off of his belief in God. You two are going to end up talking past each other.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
No, it doesn't.

What are the true premises that religions give us to reason from?
The Golden Rule.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
No, it doesn't.

What are the true premises that religions give us to reason from?
The Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule is trivial to justify without religion.

EDIT: Trivial to justify as in a normal, rational atheist will easily see the logic behind The Golden Rule without requiring any appeal to religion.

Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eowyn-sama
Member
Member # 11096

 - posted      Profile for Eowyn-sama   Email Eowyn-sama         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, but almost every religion in the world gives us some equivalent of the Golden Rule. You can't trivialize it by saying 'oh we would have come up with it anyway'. Religion does give it, and it is true and good.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
I was pointing out that the Golden Rule is not a religious concept.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
Yes, but almost every religion in the world gives us some equivalent of the Golden Rule. You can't trivialize it by saying 'oh we would have come up with it anyway'. Religion does give it, and it is true and good.

Actually, this could equally imply that the Golden Rule is a human concept, and it appears in every religion because every religion is created by humans.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eowyn-sama
Member
Member # 11096

 - posted      Profile for Eowyn-sama   Email Eowyn-sama         Edit/Delete Post 
Depends, do you think humans are inherently, naturally good? If so, then you could be right. If, however, humans are flawed, this rule would have to come from a higher power.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
Not really. The Golden Rule, at its core, has a basis in all societies. It is virtually impossible to have a society where murder, robbery, rape, etc. are permitted. In the interest of self-preservation/well-being, most people will not commit overtly "bad" acts anyways under the expectation that bad acts will not be committed against them in return (bad grammar but w/e).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The Golden Rule is trivial to justify without religion.

EDIT: Trivial to justify as in a normal, rational atheist will easily see the logic behind The Golden Rule without requiring any appeal to religion.

It's impossible to justify the Golden Rule without some premise that is not subject to objective evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
the Golden Rule is a human concept, and it appears in every religion because every religion is created by humans.
The Golden Rule-- that is, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," does not feature prominently in most world religions (which is not to say it is not represented among most people of the world).

Especially when the word "neighbor" is defined as Christ defined it.

If I remember correctly, the Mayans, Aztecs, and Inca actively eschewed caring for others. For centuries, the Hindu caste system imposed a fatalistic philosophy, based on the idea that someone's current life reflected their deeds in the past life-- so alleviating someone's suffering was not exactly seen as a work of kindness.

KoM's assertion was that all religions start out from a false premise-- I assume that the premise he is calling false isn't a moralistic directive (like the Golden Rule) but the essential theological one: That there is a God.

I assert that there is a God, and thus religion does not start from false premises.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
The Golden Rule is trivial to justify without religion.

EDIT: Trivial to justify as in a normal, rational atheist will easily see the logic behind The Golden Rule without requiring any appeal to religion.

It's impossible to justify the Golden Rule without some premise that is not subject to objective evidence.
That's only true if you're talking about proving it 100% (which I clearly wasn't given my use of "normal" and "rational"). The Golden Rule only needs to be justified for the normal human being to debunk the idea that the it is a religious innovation, and, as I already pointed out, that is fairly easy to do. The Golden Rule, reduced to the form "don't infringe on my rights and I won't infringe on yours" (which is all that is required for respecting the philosophical natural rights of man), provides a certain degree of security that an average human being would not reject (religious or not). Humans are inherently social creatures and the Golden Rule is logically a good way at providing [partial] security in a society.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
the Golden Rule is a human concept, and it appears in every religion because every religion is created by humans.
The Golden Rule-- that is, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," does not feature prominently in most world religions (which is not to say it is not represented among most people of the world).
Link

The Golden Rule is not a Christian innovation.

Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
). Humans are inherently social creatures and the Golden Rule is logically a good way at providing [partial] security in a society.
Which means that it's based on the premise that providing security in a society is a good thing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
). Humans are inherently social creatures and the Golden Rule is logically a good way at providing [partial] security in a society.
Which means that it's based on the premise that providing security in a society is a good thing.
And? Thats a premise that the average human being will instinctively accept. Again, no supernatural beings required.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
Depends, do you think humans are inherently, naturally good? If so, then you could be right. If, however, humans are flawed, this rule would have to come from a higher power.

Your argument is flawed unless you accept the premise that only people who are perfect can come up with moral ideas.

I think people are inherently out to take care of themselves, which can lead to both good and evil depending on a number of variables.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
I assert that there is a God, and thus religion does not start from false premises.

And this is the point where you must show your evidence, or else run the risk of having your statement not taken seriously.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
The argument for God is one of very substantial evidence. Scientists scratch their heads at the order and precision of the universe. Vacuum force and gravity and electromagnetism and the difference between matter and antimatter, according to formulae developed by modern theorists, all balance out very precisely to allow particles to combine into recognizable matter, so that galaxies, stars, planets, and life can form. Estimates place the chances of this balance happening at such a slim factor that it has to be indicated by exponents over the negative exponents.

There are two explanations for this:

One: Universes are born from a common source of a higher level of dimension and structure all the time, and so many have been made that the chances became great enough to produce our Universe.

Two: The Universe was designed by a higher being with the recognition and ability to produce a Universe with such order and balance, with mathematical precision and the possibility for life.

I find that the best explanation is a combination of the two. I won't try to guess exactly what God is made of here, but explanation #1 suggests that there was something before the beginning of any Universe that makes Universes, as does explanation #2. Either explanation cannot explain how the Universe's Creator was created, so either way we must assume a supercosmological constant exists that is able to produce Universes with varying degrees of order and precision.

So both conclusions essentially state the same thing about the nature of the Creator. From an atheist's point of view, there is nothing but chemical and neurological if-then statements that add up, like the vastest supercomputer created, into a conscious and self-aware state of mind. For the supercosmological constant to be able to create any universes at all, with so many factors that add up to something that is recognizable, it would have to be complex enough to either (or both) a. know what factors in the supercosmological constant must be stimulated in order to form a Universe or/and b. know what factors within a Universe must be controlled perfectly to create a Universe that has a degree of order that is accurate enough to allow life to develop. For a. alone, the thing is automatic, a cycle that is unaware of itself and is essentially a perpetual machine.

For a. and b., we have a Creator that would create a Universe for the purpose of creating life, and the chances of this happening automatically are even slimmer than the chances of a Universe being randomly created into order and precision. Assuming this supercosmological constant is automatic cannot work if we assume a. and b.

So either we have a perpetual motion machine in a higher dimension that is too simple to know what it's doing, or we have a complex entity that is complex enough to be aware of itself and, with the power of creation invested in it, want to create something in its Universes that knows of its own existence in the way it does.

But here's why a. alone doesn't work. There is a mysterious force of pure "randomness" in the quantum realm that is shown by the uncertainty principle, the bonds between electrons, and the properties of subatomic particles that seems to be the driving force of the quantum world. This "randomness" determines whether a particle is bozon or a neutrino or graviton or whatever, and is mathematically described as a string. As you zoom out of the picture, random anomalies become less out-of-proportion until you get "laws" of physics. This "randomness" is like Orson Scott Card's aiuas. In fact, almost concept-for-concept, with electron pairs staying true no matter what the distance between them is, the theory that the Universe was created by a this force, and the idea that it makes up all matter and energy and the belief that it is the driving force behind consciousness.

Even without the last of those beliefs, which is mostly just a popular media idea to toss around to the bystanders who know nothing about quantum mechanics, this force seems to be connected to the supercosmological constant that gets these Universes started. I make this connection because theorists behind the evolved "string theory" suspect that our Universe was created by a sort of quantum fluctuation, and that Universes are created all the time by such fluctuations. This is exactly the process I describe in my "supercosmological constant" hypothesis, which is a mechanism that exists above the known Universe to create many universes systematically.

So there are only two ways a. could exclusively go. I. the supercosmological constant is a very large randomly generated mechanism that constantly fluctuates and creates Universes and is the same driving force behind what constantly changes the Universes after they are created, or II. the supercosmological constant is an automatic mechanism that not only creates Universes, but influences them randomly.

And now we get to my favorite part. For I., you have something random from the start. But if it constantly fluctuates, then it forever changes until it fluctuates into something that self-perpetuates (in other words, God evolved from himself. In the Beginning, there was the Word and the Word was God) and then becomes complex enough to be able to think consciously the same way people have, from an evolutionist's perspective, developed consciousness from random mutations. For II., you have to have something that was eternally constant, where the only fluctuations have a purpose which is to create Universes. This God made himself. For II., this is impossible if we assume the Bulk (that is, the collection of all Universes and dimensions membranes and all that exists, whether observable or not) is still driven by randomness here. Or else it was in turn designed by an even higher designer randomly, which was in turn designed by an even higher random designer, but that is just an infinite loop that makes no sense, has no end or beginning, and is an obvious weak stall atheist extremists to cling on to to hold their refusal to believe in a conscious higher being that creates and influences all of what exists. So assuming II. to justify hypothesizing a. alone assumes that the Bulk's supercosmological constant is itself a purpose, not a random mechanism, that creates universes by its own function and influences what is in them by its purposeful structure. This is one heck of a structure to start out everything. But no logic can come up with any explanation for everything starting with zero, neither can any logical explanation starting with negative infinity (If you want to know why, this post is getting long, so I'll tell you only if you ask), so our premises about the Bulk starting perfectly simple and then expanding might not be true.

But either way, you see, with either assuming a. or a. and b., you have to come to the conclusion that the higher order that made our Universe, and possibly others, is conscious in the same way we are, and this does not seem to be by chance. (If it were by chance, you get the infinite loop of higher and higher constants that randomly make each other to a certain purpose, which makes absolutely no sense because it stretches to infinity and only continually decreases the chance of it being true.) Therefore, I assert, by careful logic based on modern science and the best speculation available from physicists and quantum theorists, that there is a God, and that God is one force that creates, destroys, and changes what it creates and destroys, constantly aware of himself and his actions.

So there [Razz]

Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There are two explanations for this:
False dichotomy, which invalidates everything else.

I may go through the rest later, however.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
I fail to see how the idea that having two explanations invalidates everything. Care to propose a third explanation that doesn't ever let a conscious being to arise from the structure of quantum mechanics?

Unless you're so bold as to take Einstein's position that quantum mechanics are flawed. Now what was it he said... oh yeah... "God does not roll dice with the Universe."

Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
soccer-head
Member
Member # 11044

 - posted      Profile for soccer-head           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
I assert that there is a God, and thus religion does not start from false premises.

And this is the point where you must show your evidence, or else run the risk of having your statement not taken seriously.
equals:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by
King of Men:
Religion...is actively harmful, because it gives you false premises to reason from.

And this is the point where you must show evidence, or else run the risk of having your statement not taken seriously.
or:

quote:

quote:

Luke, Peter, James and John didn't know Jesus personally or even exist. Neither did Jesus.

And this is the point where you must show evidence, or else run the risk of having your (implication) not taken seriously.

Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2