Sensitive question - religious - DPChallenge Forums

02/09/2007 06:26:46 PM · #151

But if god has always been in existence, then can't the universe have always been in existence too?

time exists in this universe. there is one moment after another.

in a world where time exists, there must be a beginning and and end.

which means the universe must have been created

the thought is that God does not live within our world, but of a world of his own. one where time does not exist.

therefore its possible for eternity to exist

which explains that he doesn't need a creator, he always was. there needn't be a beginning to him

hard concept to grasp but again, our minds weren't made to :)

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 18:28:47.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

02/09/2007 06:28:04 PM · #152

But not Global Warming, that's an absolute fact. Al Gore says so and anyone smart enough to invent the Internet must be right.

haha ok

and there are many things that were in text books many years ago that still hold true today

but again, many things do not hold true :)

Rebecca

Nikon D80

02/09/2007 06:43:56 PM · #153

Originally posted by EvanH:

Honestly, do you really think that God is going to condemn the Dalai Lama to hell? I mean, he hasn't come to Jesus, after all. He hasn't been saved... never mind that he's adored the world over for his dedication to good and peace. Is he making it up too? Is he wrong? (I know this analogy isn't perfect, since Buddhism doesn't believe in heaven, so no need to point it out - but is this really the sort of man who isn't going to make it into heaven by Christian standards? C'mon...

Jesus said you can't get there by good deeds, no matter how good they are. You could give 10 billion to charity and help grandma cross the street but if you don't have Jesus...

Unfortunately for this argument, quoting the Bible is a rather ineffective argument. It's a document that contradicts itself on a regular basis. In fact, this is a brilliant example of why the Bible should never ever ever ever be taken literally. It was not assembled as a pure unbiased work, but as a book with a political agenda, centuries after the fact and leaving out whatever was politically inconvenient to a scandal-plagued Vatican. It's like the tabloid version of ancient middle eastern history. It kills me that people refuse to educate themselves enough about such basic verifiable and undisputed biblical history such as this, which by its very nature should make every single Christian question its worth as a literal work. And I honestly can't think that a person of reasonable intelligence who has actually learned and thought about the history of the Bible itself, of its assembly, and of its tendency toward hearsay and fairy tale, would quote the Bible in an argument like this.

The whole point of Christianity, of Jesus' walk on earth, was peace and love, not elitism, not snobbishness, not exclusivity. Such vile elitism is not anything that the Jesus of love thy neighbor fame could ever espouse. It's frankly quite hypocritical. "Sorry, we like you, I mean, we really like you, but you smell funny so we're not letting you in." That's really how utterly trivial it is, and I could never put my faith in such a ridiculous piece of snobbery.

My Jesus isn't such an egomaniac as to claim that he is the only one capable of a good idea. My Jesus isn't such a hypocrite that he wouldn't listen or be open to ideas that could enhance his own doctrine. And that means my Jesus would never send a man of such goodness and love away over something so stupid. I look forward to meeting the Dalai Lama and Muhammed Ali and Ghandi in heaven someday, since they are/were better examples of Jesus' doctrine of peace and love than many so-called "Christians" ever will be. My Jesus and my God want me to be a good person, and that I am.

Now that this has turned slightly angry on my part, I'm bowing out. I will never tell you that you're wrong, but I resent being told that I am not right when we're on equal footing as to our uncertainty with the truth to the nature of the universe. At the end of the day, my educated guess is just as valid as your blind faith. This argument will forever end in stalemate.

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 18:45:58.

02/09/2007 06:58:13 PM · #154

The whole point of Christianity, of Jesus' walk on earth, was peace and love, not elitism, not snobbishness, not exclusivity. Such vile elitism is not anything that the Jesus of love thy neighbor fame could ever espouse. It's frankly quite hypocritical. "Sorry, we like you, I mean, we really like you, but you smell funny so we're not letting you in." That's really how utterly trivial it is, and I could never put my faith in such a ridiculous piece of snobbery.

its obvious you believe in Jesus.

So if you don't believe what the bible says, why do you believe Jesus existed?

By believing Jesus existed, you're believing the same authors of the book you claim to be false...

you obviously don't have a very good grasp as what the christian religion entails.

this is why we believe you can't get into heaven by good deeds

God is holy. very holy.

Humans are not.

This seperates us from god. Because we sin everyday (and everybody sins), we cannot reach his level of holiness. therefore we cannot be with him.

Thats why in the old testament people had to sacrifice animals to God everyday so they could be forgiven.

Then God decided that was enough sacrificing, and he sent his son Jesus to earth.

Jesus said that he was the way, the truth, and the light, and that no one would get to the father (or in heaven) unless it was through him.

then he died so that we could believe he did all of this.

SO...

even though somebody leads a very VERY good life, their sin seperates them from the holiness of God.

now if they accept Jesus into their life and put their faith in him, through Jesus they can get to the father (or into heaven), even if they sin. Because they are forgiven for their sins! yey :)

im just confused why you believe Jesus exists but don't believe what he says. the evidence you're relying on that he exists is the same evidence that states God's word.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/09/2007 07:18:08 PM · #155

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

You can't PROVE anything...

Let me give you an example crayon:

If you were to have access to a time machine and could go back to the moment Jesus was born, could you prove he was the son of God?

IF you could also witness the crucifixion, could you prove he died for the sins of humanity?

Even as advanced as we are over the people that existed in Jesus' time. We could not prove anything. I seriously doubt any science 2000 years from now will be able to prove/disprove the existence of God.

But, then again, there wouldn't be much need for faith, if it could be proven would there?

With a time machine you should be able to prove whether or not Mary was in fact a virgin.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

02/09/2007 07:20:00 PM · #156

But, then again, there wouldn't be much need for faith, if it could be proven would there?

even if it was proven, there would still be people who deny it.

:(

Rebecca

Nikon D80

02/09/2007 08:44:24 PM · #157

Originally posted by EvanH:

Last words:
(1) I'm actually more of a believer in Jesus as the editorial personification of a concept than as an actually living breathing person, but there's also non-biblical evidence to support that such a person did exist. Whether or not he was endowed with superpowers is not terribly relevant to the overall message, which is what I am very closely bonded to.

(2) Even though I spent nine years in Catholic school, have an aunt who is a nun of the Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and have taken pains to educate myself not only about my religion and its actual historical origins, but also have kept up with the current state of Vatican politics and have explored the religions of others, I clearly have no clue what I'm talking about. Recent popes have reached out to other world religious leaders without trying to convert them, seeking only peace and mutual understanding. How interesting! What does this tell us about the Catholic church's views on proselytization? It seems like you think that Catholics aren't Christians. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard such a bizarre, bewildering assumption stated in public, but it always makes me sad and angry since it smacks of prejudices that should have been eradicated over a century ago. But I shouldn't be surprised, since the American public still gets their panties in a twist over Catholic political candidates (and yet elect evangelical troglodytes like Bush). The uproar over Kennedy's catholicism is well-documented. John Kerry's catholicism dogged him through the last election. Apparently Catholics just aren't Christian enough, and may not be Christian at all. What a completely asinine thing to assert. From whence do people think their little right-wing evangelical sects have sprung?

(3) I don't want any part of any religion that says that a death row serial murderer rapist who converts five minutes before his execution is more likely to get into heaven than someone who has actually made a positive contribution to society on a global scale but remains a good and peaceful Muslim (or whatever other non-Christian religion you prefer to put in that space). I find that concept morally repugnant.

(4) STOP TELLING ME I'M WRONG WHEN YOU CAN'T PROVE YOU'RE RIGHT, EITHER. This has been the whole point all along, but you refuse to even acknowledge this part. It's irresponsible for proselytizers who can't prove they are right to tempt people to their side with promises of truth that they can't possibly deliver. And you can't prove it. No one can. You might be right, but you will never know for sure. I might be right instead. Or maybe we're both right. So what if you're wrong, too? Since you refuse to even acknowledge this part and can't admit there's more than one way to interpret Christianity, there's not much I can do but put this thread on ignore.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/09/2007 08:49:02 PM · #158

Originally posted by Rebecca:

I don't want any part of any religion that says that a death row serial murderer rapist who converts five minutes before his execution is more likely to get into heaven than someone who has actually made a positive contribution to society on a global scale but remains a good and peaceful Muslim (or whatever other non-Christian religion you prefer to put in that space). I find that concept morally repugnant.

I know you're ignorin', but just wanted to say, hear, hear. I started responding several times to the "no heaven without Jesus" idea, and aborted, but this is as succinctly as it can be put.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/09/2007 09:09:05 PM · #159

Whether or not he was endowed with superpowers is not terribly relevant to the overall message

his overall message was that nobody can get to the father except through him. he repeats it many a times. he also was a good teacher and all that sorts, but his main purpose on this earth was to save us.

Recent popes have reached out to other world religious leaders without trying to convert them, seeking only peace and mutual understanding. How interesting! What does this tell us about the Catholic church's views on proselytization? It seems like you think that Catholics aren't Christians

did i ever say Catholics aren't Christians? nope. nowhere

and i am not trying to convert you or anyone else. i am simply stating my views, as you are.

I don't want any part of any religion that says that a death row serial murderer rapist who converts five minutes before his execution is more likely to get into heaven than someone who has actually made a positive contribution to society on a global scale but remains a good and peaceful Muslim

thats fine if you don't want any part of it. that doesn't mean its not true...which is why the discussion started in the first place.

STOP TELLING ME I'M WRONG WHEN YOU CAN'T PROVE YOU'RE RIGHT, EITHER

um...settle down? haha

if im telling you that you're wrong...then you're telling me im wrong with your argument as well...making you a hyporcrite...

Since you refuse to even acknowledge this part and can't admit there's more than one way to interpret Christianity, there's not much I can do but put this thread on ignore.

seems to me you want to put the thread on ignore because you're letting your anger get the best of you. I sort of expected something different from someone your age. thats okay though.

there is no reason to admit there is more than one way to interpret Christianity when Jesus said it clear and simple. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one can get to the father except through me"

anyways, im really not sure why people get so offended when talking about God. If we were debating about what our favorite hamburger was and why...I dont' think you would lash out like you are doing.

im sorry your anger had to get the best of you but if you ask me, we're both adults and should be able to carry on a conversation without having a hissy fit.

i see you went to UIUC? im going there now. i like it a lot. I live on lincoln and oregon. represent urbana!

Louis

Nikon D800

02/09/2007 09:16:12 PM · #160

Originally posted by EvanH:

anyways, im really not sure why people get so offended when talking about God.

Evan, people don't get offended when talking about God, they get offended at other people's posturing while presuming to know anything about God, and about what's good for other people, and about how others should think.

(Not talking about you, just generally.)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/09/2007 09:19:02 PM · #161

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/09/2007 09:31:23 PM · #162

Originally posted by Rebecca:

(3) I don't want any part of any religion that says that a death row serial murderer rapist who converts five minutes before his execution is more likely to get into heaven than someone who has actually made a positive contribution to society on a global scale but remains a good and peaceful Muslim (or whatever other non-Christian religion you prefer to put in that space). I find that concept morally repugnant.

I've always found this line of thinking interesting. So lets say the good and peaceful Muslim goes to heaven and the rapist goes to hell. Would you complain if you yourself missed the cut? I'm assuming you are inbetween somewhere. What if you fell just below the line of good vs. bad?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/09/2007 09:37:32 PM · #163

What if you fell just below the line of good vs. bad?

excellent point

Louis

Nikon D800

02/09/2007 09:43:14 PM · #164

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Rebecca:
(3) I don't want any part of any religion that says that a death row serial murderer rapist who converts five minutes before his execution is more likely to get into heaven than someone who has actually made a positive contribution to society on a global scale but remains a good and peaceful Muslim (or whatever other non-Christian religion you prefer to put in that space). I find that concept morally repugnant.

I've always found this line of thinking interesting. So lets say the good and peaceful Muslim goes to heaven and the rapist goes to hell. Would you complain if you yourself missed the cut? I'm assuming you are inbetween somewhere. What if you fell just below the line of good vs. bad?

Interesting concept, the "watermark of evil". Not everyone sees such a beautifully black and white universe, of course.

02/12/2007 07:58:16 AM · #165

Originally posted by Rebecca:

The Big Bang is a modern invention.

I think that should be "discovery"!

02/12/2007 08:01:41 AM · #166

Originally posted by RonB:

For me, the questions are better phrased as "Is Gravity one of the essences of God?". "Is Light one of the essences of God?". "Is electromagnetism one of the essences of God?". "Is God the 'unified field theory' that Einstein was searching for?"

If God was merely a collection of forces that behaved predictably and consistently, then that would be fine - "god" would just be the collective noun for the group of forces. However, I think that you believe there to be more to it than that.

02/12/2007 08:11:13 AM · #167

Originally posted by nova:

But I'm being serious when I say that I'm not too smart about such things... anyone out there with a strong background in physics etc. that can help me out with this subject? Am I mischaracterizing or misunderstanding the theory of relativity and it's consequences? I thought that time, as constant as it seems in our daily life, was actually variable or relative,and that space has similar variable properties.

I understand it from a layman's point of view - I can't do the necessary maths to prove it, though. Perhaps a new thread, if you are interested.

An important starting point relates to your immediately preceding post:

Originally posted by nova:

If you believed your science teacher 500 years ago when he told you our solar system is the only solar system, you'd be believing something that is false

In another 500 years I'm sure many things written in our text books will be proven false

An example of this could be said to be Newtonian physics: Einstein's theories generally displace Newton's rules. However, that is not to say that Newton's rules were wrong, or that they do not have their application. It is not until you start looking at extreme situations that Newton's rules do not describe the position perfectly: at the speed of light, or at great distances, or relating to massive bodies. Newton was not "wrong", but his theories are improved upon by later generations with better equipment and more experience (standing on the shoulders of giants). Einstein's theories are similarly being improved upon, yet remain "right" for most intents and purposes.

Rather than viewing previous scientific discovery as "false", it should largely be viewed in its context. Some theories are demonstrably wrong, but the general trend is towards ever greater accuracy.

02/12/2007 08:31:08 AM · #168

Originally posted by RonB:

Neither the Big Bang nor Intelligent Design is an "unfounded" belief. Lee Strobel shows quite clearly the foundation of belief in ID. Just because you do not choose to believe the arguments presented for ID does not make it an "unfounded" belief any more than my choosing to not believe the arguments for the big bang makes it an "unfounded" belief.

Okay - ID fundamentally rests on belief rather than evidence. The purported evidence for it has been systematically dismantled academically. Not even Pope JPII supported it.

In contrast, in over a century of analysis and huge discovery, there is no significant evidence contrary to the theory of evolution, and every scientific discovery has underpinned and developed a deeper understanding of it.

Originally posted by RonB:

[The big bang theory]offers NO explanation of why the universe works the way it does, or what it was or where it came from prior to the moment of origin. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, explains both the origin of the universe and why it works the way it does ( hint: it was designed and put into motion by [an] intelligent designer(s)).

I agree that the big bang theory does not (nor does it try to) explain why the universe is, or what came before. I agree that ID does seek to explain what came before and "why". However, since it is *impossible* to know what came before, and a *huge* assumption that the universe has a purpose necessitating the question "why", ID is nothing more than a complete and utter guess.

Originally posted by RonB:

With God, we CAN see what came before/outside the universe. The origins are detailed in the Bible. It even explains how visible matter was created ( hint: it was created from dark matter ).

This is your interpretation of this bit of one book. L Ron Hubbard's account is very different. Which religious account allows us to see more clearly?

PS - dark matter is far from established scientifically (though it appears probable and measurable) - if some other explanation were found for it, and dark matter were found not to exist, would the bible be wrong?

Originally posted by RonB:

Are you saying that science does NOT support the supposition that gravity is omnipresent in the universe? That light is not omnipresent in the universe? That electromagnetism is not omnipresent in the universe? If so, then how can we possibly hope to measure the "echo of the big bang" that you referred to earlier?

You are claiming that there is an omni-something *being* - more than a force. Omniscient and omnipowerful, as well as existing in all places. This is qualitatively different to there being consistency throughout the universe.

As a point of interest, science treats the existence of the universal application of our rules of physics as an assumption.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/12/2007 08:47:37 AM · #169

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is a very interesting line of thinking. In order to answer these kinds of questions, theologians have been forced into developing very sophisticated constructs, such as the concept of purgatory (Catholic) or Hades (Orthodox), in order to avoid the logical consequences of the debate. The development of purgatory comes with the handy sideline of allowing people to donate money to the church in order to speed relatives through it.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/26/2007 07:28:10 PM · #170

Originally posted by EvanH:

What I have always found interesting is that when a believer talks to a nonbeliever the believer will always present supposed "biblical/religious truth" as some sort of obvious, and clearly understood, given. That is, the believer will always talk in a way that says, "Well God/Jesus/the Bible says x, and that clearly means y, so I don't understand your confusion." But, and even setting aside the laundry list of clear contradictions in the text, the truth is that even believers can't agree on what the heck "biblical/religious truth" is. This is why there are so many different denominations--if everybody agreed then we would all just be christians, instead of catholics, lutherans, pentacostals, baptists, southern baptists, mormons, etc.

This is not just a Christian problem. Jews argue over whether the strict behavioral prohibitions found in the Old Testament are meant to apply to modern humans, and even if they agree on that, they argue over what exactly those prohibitions mean. Muslims are currently engaged in a deadly (perhaps for us all) fight over whether their religion is one of peace or one of domination and war.

Given the fact that believers can't agree with each other over what, exactly, God's plan is for humankind (or even what "God" is/are), it seems odd that they tend to be so strident in asserting its obviousness to nonbelievers.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

02/26/2007 10:20:35 PM · #171

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Interesting observations, and quite true - but not ODD in the least. It should come as no surprise that non-religious folks, like atheists and agnostics, for example, have the same kind of "denominational" differences. Some believe that adultery is immoral. Some don't ( as long as it is consensual and occurs in private ). Some believe that abortion is wrong. Some don't. And even those who don't can't come to a common definition as to when it's OK and when it's not ( 22 weeks? 23 weeks? 24 weeks? ). Some believe that euthanasia is wrong. Some don't. And even those who don't can't come to a common definition as to when it's OK and when it's not ( anyone? only terminally ill? is assisted suicide OK? ). Some are racist. Some aren't. Some are anti-war. Some are not. Some are feminists. Some are not. Etc.

In short, whenever you find two thinking individuals, you are likely to find three opinions. It's not a strictly religious phenomenon. And NOBODY understands why others can't understand or don't agree with THEIR position - because the evidence supporting THEIR position is so OBVIOUS.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/26/2007 11:40:08 PM · #172

Originally posted by RonB:

In short, whenever you find two thinking individuals, you are likely to find three opinions. It's not a strictly religious phenomenon. And NOBODY understands why others can't understand or don't agree with THEIR position - because the evidence supporting THEIR position is so OBVIOUS.

LOL. Absolutely true. This is a human phenomenon and certainly not restricted to discussions of religion. The quasi-religious discussions of canon versus nikon that occur here on a constant basis providing a prime example (with the third opinion, of course, being pentax ;).