For example, you understand free market capitalism but embrace communism. Your understanding of capitalist market economies makes you more persuasive. In the same sense, understanding radical Islam is the best way to redirect its energies to a more productive course.

BOTNST! You're a Buddhist!!! (my enemy is my best teacher)

:D
k

Originally posted by djugurba


BOTNST! You're a Buddhist!!! (my enemy is my best teacher)

:D
k

I've been outted!

I didn't actually know, but I always suspected. Whenever I applaud a half-assed concert I do it one-handed.

That's part of a belief system? Cool. To generalize your quote, I learn by recognition of my ignorance.

Botnst

Ha Ha!
buddhists are meerly seekers who reject that which they cannot prove. the spectrum of buddhists is as broad as in any other tradition- Zen to Tibetan, theraveda to mahayana, etc. All you really need to know is this:
-be compassionate yourself and others (behave as though every living thing has shown you the love of a <your> mother)
-suffering is inevitable and understanding this will help you mitigate the suffering.
-be careful what you believe- nothing worth believing should be afraid of probing questions AND noone preaching should be afraid to offer good explanations to your questions.

Stephen Bachelor's "Buddhism without beliefs" is a nice boiled-down approach. (though he's a bit questionable in some of his writing) It's a quick read-

cheers,
Kevin

... is the sound of your one hand clapping for a half-assed concert 1/2, 1/4, or 1/8 of the sound of two hands clapping for a full-assed performance? or is it MORE???? ;)

I think Kevin is correct. Atheists and agnostics get little respect in the USA. The recent public relations attempt (fiasco??) to label us 'brights' was needed.
Just to clarify a point: I am not a communist (at least in the sense associated with the Soviet Union). Neither am I a standard Marxist. I'm pretty happy labeling myself a libertarian socialist.

The Botnst is also right about knowing everything possible about positions you disagree with. For instance as you can tell, I am never tempted to be a Muslim but last Saturday I attended a seminar on Islam in America. I didn't learn that much about Islam but realized Muslims face a huge dilemma in the US. They are usually quite conservative, even when not fundamentalist. They believe in the absolute authority of a religious scripture, believe homosexuality is a sin, in strong parental authority and the in religious law as a governing force in society. Normally there is social space for beliefs like this. But in the US, that space is already occupied by conservative Christian and Jews. They are not interested in Islam because it evolved after their religions and they think it is of the devil or some such thing. So, in order to get acceptance, Muslims have to appeal to the liberal side of American culture (people more like me than Jerry Falwell). But none of us find their conservative beliefs credible. What are they to do? They seem consigned to be marginalized in the USA. They have much more hope in Europe where there is much less of a conservative religious culture to begin with.

What do you think of France's intent to ban the display of religious symbols in school - Islamic headscarves, jewish caps, large crucifixes? Seems grounded in their egalite maxim. The US (and UK) seem more interested in the liberte (ostensibly).

I'm for it. Banning it, that is.

Originally posted by jjl
What do you think of France's intent to ban the display of religious symbols in school - Islamic headscarves, jewish caps, large crucifixes? Seems grounded in their egalite maxim. The US (and UK) seem more interested in the liberte (ostensibly).

I'm for it. Banning it, that is.

That's a toughy, jjl. I don't know the degree to which the French national government influences local schools nor whether private schools have much autonomy. In the USA dissenters always have the option of organizing their own school. For that reason, I am a strong believer in strictly secularized schools. I don't see why it should be necessary to display public piety--folks can pray anywhere and anytime they want. Just don't make a spectacle of it.

If the French national government can also dictate to private schools then I favor local control as a balance. In the USA, a decade or so ago there was a Jewish sect that dominated an entire town somewhere in rural New York State. Their school was highly influenced by their culture. I don't know if they are still autonamous.

Botnst

jjl:
That did come up during the workshop. We did talk about France, but mostly about Turkey which has even more rigid rules on the topic. You can't enter any public building (library, town hall, school, univerisity etc) in muslim headgear. All the Muslims at the workshop thought it was religious discrimination and it would not happen in the USA. I think the issue is more complex than that, particularly in Turkey. The problem lies in whether religious freedom for a group that wants to establish religious law in a country which would take away some of that freedom is good?? If Christian Reconstructionists in the USA (conservative Presbyterians who want a theocracy in the USA with a law similar to traditional Muslim Sharia) wanted to carry their Bibles to school and make their girls all wear headcoverings, it would probably be permitted, but it is still very dangerous.
Forbidding such practices causes a huge amount of resentment in the Muslim community and further pushes them to oppose Western secular values because they feel they are being 'picked on'. They insist they have usually allowed religious freedoms in Muslim socieities for Jews and Christians (and they are correct). But in my mind, the status of Jews and Christians in a society governed by Muslim law is not the issue. For me that question is, what happens to gay atheists.

So while I agree that fundamentalism is a viewpoint to be rigorously opposed, I think forbidding Muslim headgear might be like telling teenagers not to drink or have sex.

I understand the Muslim's fear of some sort of persecution. But I do not believe this is the same as racial or gender prejudice in that to a great degree race and gender are not attributes over which the individual has control. Rather, the individual has a choice as to the degree of expression appropriate in his life.

If one chooses to atend public school then one must accept the consequences of that choice. If the rules are unacceptible then one may choose to fight the system or start an alternative private school.

In a rare instance of sympathy for the French, I believe they're doing the right thing by restricting public piety from public school.

Concerning Islam and other religions, it has certainly varied through time. There were times in their early history when the arab muslims allowed non-muslims to hold high office in government. There are also many instances of great repression. It depends an awful lot on the country. In must arab countries minority religions maintain a very low profile. In Pakistan, Sunnis and Shiites murder each other with about the same ferocity as they murder Hindus and Christians. Indonesia varies by island. In general, no muslim dominated country other than Turkey has successfully become secularized.

If one were a minority religion, would one prefer to to live in a Christian-dominated country or a muslim country?

Botnst

I'd not choose chrisitan dominated spain a few hundred years ago... mucho problemos
k

Exactly, djugurba. It took Christians over a thousand years of butchery to come to terms with their religious zeal. Given that Islam has a 800-year lag, it is no wonder that we fail to understand them, and they us.

Of course in terms of absolute numbers, secular western nations are right up there with killing folks, ie the World Wars and ol' Joe Stalins liquidations.
Botnst

Well, Botnst, I guess you know the answer to this already for most of us.

There are no heavily repressive Christian states at the moment, but plenty of Islamic ones.

I'd be interested in MM's opinion on the trade-off between the liberty of a believer to display their belief and that of non-believers not to see objectionable religious symbols everywhere they look.

I think the French are brave (for once) in debating this openly and even braver in acting on it.

In UK there are ghettos of Asians where state schools are >90% muslim and English language skills are poor, but more importantly there is a reluctance to integrate into the wider society. I think they are storing up trouble for the future..am I being intolerant?

JJL:
I think you have more reason to be concerned than people in the US. There is plenty of fundamentalism in the US already so Islam doesn't have a lot of space in which to expand. There seems to be less fundamentalist Christianity in the UK so Islam can use that to its advantage.
I think freedom FROM religion is a very hard won freedom. If there weren't legal protections in the US, the religious right would have a lot more cultural power. So I'm glad that in the US the separation of Church and State protects the irreligious.
Here in Colorado, the religious right has tried to deny civil rights to homosexuals. I don't think it is intolerant to oppose the political programs of the religious right.

That's not intolerance, it's a reasonable concern. We (USA) have gone through convulsive reaction to immigrants every generation or so. We're experiencing that right now with the Mexican immigrant issue. Muslims are such a small community in most of the USA that its not a significant issue in most communities in the USA.

Most immigrants work very hard for assimilation. Some don't. Part of the marvel of New York City is that it functions at all, given the strongly held ethnicities of the various neighborhoods. But the neighborhoods evolve. Harlem was once dutche, then spanish, then african-american and is not gentrifying, much to the alarm of some folks who decry the process.

I was astonished at the size of France's Muslim population--like 5 million? I'd guess most are 2nd or first generation immigrants. Assimilation must be very difficult for them. In contrast, Canada also has a large (proportionate) Muslim population and assimilation seems not too difficult.

I agree that the French are being very brave. I hope they manage to provide an avenue for the Muslims to become secularized French but retain their religion.

In the case of the USA, our country has become stronger as each wave of immigrants infuse the population with perspective and vigor with which they climb the economic ladder.

Botnst

One of the problems seems to be the degree of tolerance and the actions of the followers who interpret things one way or another. Amazing how people supposedly following the same teaching can be so divergent in methodology. But, I don't know that we can read this as a natural progression of zealousness over time. The methods of communication today make it much easier for materials deemed inappropriate by one group to reach their kids... that will light a fire every time.

I think that today's american style market capitalism (ASMC)has arguably taken the place of christianity in terms of the ends people will go to make sure it spreads. How many 'communist' regimes has the US dumped in order to get the resources of the country accessible to the market? Altrusitic 'helping liberate the people' (see the conquistadors) explanations aside, the real effect and arguably the goal of these entanglements are to get the stuff that country has got and put it up for sale. Plenty of 'old world' former communist bloc nations are hating the new democracy, as their resources were sold, making a few rich and leaving the rest to rot with no more government protections. ASMC is probably incompatible with certain ethnic and/or religious traditions, and the increasing force with which we try to spread it is drawing the ire of those very groups.

If Tibet had any resources that the US wanted, I think we'd hear a lot more about the continuous human rights nightmare that's been going on over there since the 50s. BUT, it doesn't, so we never hear about it. Rwanda is another example, but one that the country sort-of feels guilty about now. Point is, if there is nothing worth buying/selling, we don't take up the cause.
THAT is WEAK, and embarassing to me. The thing that is especially irritating is that the american public seems to be the only group fooled.

Please don't take my criticisms of Muslim intolerance to be an implicit acceptance of the intolerance of capitalism!!! This connects us with many other threads.
By the way, the American public is the only group of people that needs to be fooled in order for the elites to carry out the policy. Since we live in a democracy an 'aware' public could stop the policy. US political elites don't care about public opinion in other countries because it doesn't effect their ability to hold power. Chomsky's The Manufacture of Consent is about just this issue.

Oh Kerry, that assumes the worst of your compatriots, doesn't it?

What if we do not subscribe to the belief that you (two) accept as axiomatic but instead believe have an alternative explanation and belief? Does that mean we're stupid, ignorant, malevolent, duped, crazy, or what?

How about this: There are some people who are so ignorant that they actually believe that the USA is a representative democracy in name only; that actually multinational corporations drive government; that global conquest is the goal of the USA.

Botnst

Me thinks you protest too much.... YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!!
ha ha.

No, I don't think that connection is there. You seem a bit more well-considered than that...

I think that all belief systems may not be able to embrace pluralist society. When teachings appeal to an absolute, it takes the backing of the totality of the society to reinforce the teaching. I think most religious traditions have encountered this pressure in their own times. Some more gracefully than others. In today's internet-small world, it's tough to keep the lid on the story... which is one reason why few closed societies remain, and dogmatic religions are losing faithful rapidly.

Now, back to the al qaieda question:
Is it possible to have sympathy for the issues raised without implicit sympathy for the methodology of raising the issue? OF COURSE. But, to suggest as much in the US is usually branded unpatriotic.
Because of the action, people can't (for good reason!) see past it. The method damaged the message probably for good. So few will ever look back to see if there were any grounds for the frustrations expressed- The actions taken cannot be justified.

...though, the justification for the aircraft attack is not terribly dissimilar to the US justification for the Bomb in Japan. Both went something like this: "We gave the government many warnings and attacked the government directly, we gave the people chances to tell the government to stop doing what it was doing. With the failure of the public to make a change, we hold the public responsible and now feel justified to attack the public as well."
It's deplorable justification both ways. Absolutely horrible.

Noone make the mistake that this is MY argument. Both of these events still make me ill. But that does not mean I can deny certain similarities in the reasoning- ugly as they might be.

Cheers to the weekend!
K

I'll take it as a compliment that you referrred to me as a patriot and didn't ask me to leave the country!
Two things: First I don't believe either Kevin or myself (or Z) take our political beliefs to be axiomatic. I think we all try to base them on the concrete historical behavior of the political systems we look at. None of us accepts the interpretation of that behavior given by the political actors themselves. Those interpretations are almost always self serving (from the left or right).
You also are a critical political thinker, so I am not suggesting you are one of the fooled. (though you may be one of the foolers:D )

The interpretations of US actions available in the mass media and even in high school textbooks fall within a very narrow range from outright praise to mild criticism. Two examples: I asked my class a few weeks ago how many of them knew about the Ludlow Massacre. They were all raised and educated in Colorado. Not one knew of it. One of the horrific acts perpetuated in the name of capitalism in Colorado and no one even knew it had ocurred.
A political science teacher at our school was accused by a student (who was in the armed services working for military intelligence) of lying to the class in a discussion of US civil rights during wars. The teacher told the class that Japanese Americans had been interned during WW II. The US would not do such a terrible thing according to the student.

Yaeh, I agree you and Kerry aren't as benighted as most fellow travelers. ;)

The major difference between Japan and Al Queda is that Japan focused its attention (against the USA) on military targets.

To me, there's a moral distinction between targeting military and civil gov facilities and targeting civilian facilities. I certainly don't think that Japan's sneak attack on the USA was an appropriate response for our restricting sale of steel and oil to Japan. But at least they went for military targets.

With Al Queda, had they restricted their attacks to warships and embassies I'd say we'd be justified in hunting them down. We would never have invaded Afghanistan had they restricted their atacks to military targets. But their attack on civilians loosed the whirlwind on themselves and anybody who supports them. This is entirely justifiable.

The grievances which the arab countries have expressed are understandable, that is, rational. To me, some are even legitimate. Wise leadership in the USA would offer the arabs two alternatives--the fate of Al Quedistas for people who would murder civilians and an honorable path toward some sort of accommodation with the West for their grievances.

Oh, I was comparing the motivation for the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with that of al queda's WTC/Pentagon attack.

I certainly agree that there ought to be a distinction between targets of those in the business of war and those who are not. It is tougher today to tell who is who... a problem likely experienced by the British as the guerilla rebel colonists were indestinguishable from the other civilians. Tough to know who you are fighting...

Does anyone think our current tactics are going to produce the stated desired result of decreasing the risk of terrorism?

P.S.
Kerry, It has been determined that you have a glut of canoes. Please ship one to Georgia at your earliest convenience.
:D

Originally posted by djugurba
Oh, I was comparing the motivation for the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with that of al queda's WTC/Pentagon attack.
...

Does anyone think our current tactics are going to produce the stated desired result of decreasing the risk of terrorism?

I have a tough time with the city killing. Had we lost the war I'm sure the other side would have prosecuted our generals for bombing civilian targets. Its not something that we discuss an awful lot, even sixty years later. There is still an awful lot of passion that makes analysis difficult. Some portion of the city bombing was due to targeting errors --it wasn't very accurate so bombs fell willy-nilly or bombers went off course and bombed the wrong targets, etc. But Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and other Japanese cities (names escape me) would be awefully hard to excuse especially in our current definition of fair targets.

I'm still curious why people see a moral distinction between killing a large number of people with a lot of bombs and a large number of people with a single bomb. I kind of have that same feeling but I can't explain it. Is this a common feeling?

That's difficult, but I'll make a suggestion. The big-bomb small-bomb angst may be that lot's of small bombs need many people to do it, whereas one large could mean just a few people doing the bombing. I guess we want some kind of ethical version of the law-of-large-numbers to apply to such devastating consequences?

Big bomb/ small bomb
This seems like the result of a little too much feminization of the culture--like the teacher at recess--Now Johnny, it isn't FAIR that you have a bigger bomb than does Joe, so you can't use your big bomb until everyone has one.
Are the people killed any less dead?
If it is in your power to reduce the number of casualties, is it moral to do so? Is it immoral not to act? Should we have not used the A bomb and let a million ( or so) US troops die just to be fair?
The war is over when one side quits---and is incapable of continuing the effort. Anything less and you invite continued insurrection.

There's an article about the Smithsonian's Enola Gay display here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/national/16MUSE.html

At least it will spark some conversation. Better that than sweeping it under the table like Native Americans.

Good Read: Forrest Carter "The Education of Little Tree"

k

Good Read: Forrest Carter "The Education of Little Tree"
I read that book about a dozen years ago -- I got a little weepy at the end (but don't tell anyone). I cried when I read the end of Cider House Rules too...what a wimp. Too much feminization of the culture I guess.

It's alright to cry... got me too...

Self investigation is fundamental to science. It is at heart the antithesis of religion.
No matter how many individuals question various tenets of faiths ultimately at the heart of religious belief is a contention that is not subject to any kind of investigation (the God hypothesis) and thus inherently incompatible with science.

- Peter.

I’m only about half way into this thread, so I hope I’m not re-hashing something now. It’s too thought provoking, and I’ve got to work.
The Baha’i Faith holds that over time science will help explain religion, and that they go together perfectly. Without going into all that the Baha’i Faith is about I’d just have you do a Google search – there’s a lot on the Internet. Self-Investigation of the truth, without having a clergy as guide, is also a cornerstone of Bahai’s. The interpretations of religious writings can be vastly different as I learned trying to communicate with a friend of mine that became a four square Christian. He no longer will even communicate with me. Baha’i scholars (I’m certainly not there-yet anyway) have no problems with anything written in most religious texts, but put a totally different spin on many things.

Tell us more about Bahai. What view of God does it hold? In what ways does its view of God fit with science? How fast is it growing? To what social classes does it appeal? What is its appeal? Its tolerant attitude towards other world religions and emphasis on peace seems appealing to me but this would seem to preclude it's having much effect on people drawn towards fundamentalisms of various stripes. Consequently my guess is that it is a religion of social and intellectual elites. In Denver, it seems to have financial resources disproportionate to its membership. Does it use missionaries or require missionary effort of any kind by its members? If it doesn't I can't imagine how it can compete with religions like Mormonism. It would be like the local hamburger stand going up against McDonalds.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to turn this into a discussion of any one faith, and proselytizing is not promoted by Bahai’s. Answering questions, doing public service as a group, marching in parades, or music and dance performing groups, is about as intense as it gets. I think that on many college campus’s many of the kids are a little more forward, but essentially the belief is in individual investigation, and that some unforeseen future event will focus attention to the Faith. I guess quality not quantity is the idea – work and it’s value to society is considered a form of worship – so that many Bahai’s are very successful, but it’s not a wealthy community – there’s never a collection plate passed – there’s no clergy, no ritual.
My own attraction was simply that discussion always is without finger pointing or condemning others, and that there is no pressure – even on the youth – much like the Anabaptists.

What view of God does it hold? In what ways does its view of God fit with science? How fast is it growing? To what social classes does it appeal? What is its appeal

I’ll simply point you to the following links on the Baha’i World site

http://www.bahai.org/article-1-2-0-2.html


Please feel free to e-mail me privately, but again, lets not turn this forum into a discussion of any one faith.

Isn't Bahai actively persecuted in Iran?

Why would Iranian muslims feel so threatened by a small sect that they'd treat them so badly?

Botnst

Isn't Bahai actively persecuted in Iran?

Yes – little of this is known in the West – Other than the arrest and execution of ten Baha'i women and girls in 1983 very little has been focused on by the press. The charge against them: teaching children's classes on the Baha'i faith - the equivalent of Sunday school in the West. Less of this is happening, but it’s not just in Iran.
Why would Iranian muslims feel so threatened by a small sect that they'd treat them so badly?
The very short answer IMHO – We’d do away with a professional clergy that often promotes their own agenda to the detriment of God’s messenge. We’d elevate the status of women. We’d promote education – a huge threat to the status quo in the Mid-East
Muslim teaching is to be tolerant of other Faiths, but Bahai’s are considered heretics by Shi'ite Muslim’s and therefore not considered a separate Faith.

See
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/bahi.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm

Hi Kerry and all -

I can hardly believe that a NY Times article started this thread.

What are you trying to accomplish Kerry, so that I will understand you point of view. Have you ever discovered the Urantia teachings? (or has anyone here on this thread?)>>>>http://www.urantia.org

If someone can answer these simple questions, maybe we all could "get along"....

1. Who is in control of the universe that you live in?

2. Who created you? (other than your parents)

3. Are you happy with yourself as a human be-ing in your current life situation?

Now that wasn't too hard now was it? Those are easy questions that do not involve religion, and even though I hold my own belief and faith (non-denominational) I have had many spiritual first-hand experiences that have been life changing, and that has altered my personality, my thinking, my emotions, and my spiritual aspects of this human be-ing that I am.

I honor and appreciate each and everyone's opinion, and respect your belief system (religion)....and, I also, like you, do not have the authority to judge nor condem you. I just find it hard to believe that a NY Times article lead to this, but maybe they will prove good for something after all, huh? :D

PEACE :)

I think the thread got started as a result of comments on other threads at about the same time. I think I am interested in the contemporary evolution of religion and its implications for culture and politics.
I have read something about Urantia but I can't remember anything about it at the moment.

Answers:
1. A lot of different people and forces. There's local, state and national government. There are sets of ideas and things like gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces etc. I don't see any evidence for any one thing or person controlling the universe.

2. No persons other than my parents had a role in my creation (to my knowledge).

3. Relatively happy. It depends on whether the toilet is plugged and the cars running well and the viruses in my body are under control.

I too believe most belief systems are worthy of consideration even though I don't think all are equally credible to me.

The situation for Bahai's in Iran is terrible. It can serve as a model for what happens to deviant ideas in a fundamentalist society.

Crash9: You should post the answers to my questions that you pm'd me, to the thread. I don't think it would constitute discussion of just one religion. I also don't think it would be proselytizing.

Here's Crash's answers to my questions:

What view of God does it hold?
Everything (animal, vegetable or mineral) is a reflection of some aspect of God – Humans have the potential to reflect every aspect of God. But weather God is a force, a chemical reaction, something a physicist may better contemplate, it’s beyond any current understanding. Just know you can see it in the good. Bahai’s don’t believe in hell or a devil – that’s just a lack of God.

In what ways does its view of God fit with science?
“If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.2 “

How fast is it growing?
As a Baha’i it’s very difficult not understand why it’s not growing very rapidly, but it’s not. In fact it’s irrelevant – it’s a personal thing – many people share the values of the Baha’i Faith, but to be a Baha’i you accept the Divinity of the founders of the Faith. That is challenging to the intellect that would understand and believe in the basic beliefs. I went to Fireside meetings (informal discussions open to anyone interested) for years not being able to accept the divinity of any human. Then I read the “Book of Certitude” a 256pg letter Bahá'u'lláh wrote to the uncle of the Bab.

See http://www.sacred-texts.com/bhi/iqa.htm
When I considered that he wrote this in just one day – the beauty of the words – and the way it spoke to me, I understood there was something beyond mortal involved.

To what social classes does it appeal?
Now days in the US Bahai communities have a large Persian influence. Bahai’s are not tolerated by good Muslims in the way other religions are. Bahai’s are considered heretics and not a separate religion. After the fall of the Shaw, Bahai’s were not allowed to attend school or own property – were persecuted in Iran and many lived in that same refugee camp in Pakistan that we see so much of on the news lately. Many wound up in the US. There are many couples of mixed race in the faith – many women’s rights types – many Bahai’s seem very gentile and shy. Pre-marital sex, drinking, and drugs are no no and I’m always impressed how the youth adhere to this – As there are Jack Mormons I’m sure there a few strayed Bahai’s also, but I’m always impressed that the only response is to offer a helping hand, and never a pointed finger. In fact the one who points the finger is more apt be asked to leave, or consoled too.

What is its appeal?
Starts out being intellectual
Its tolerant attitude towards other world religions and emphasis on peace seems appealing to me but this would seem to preclude it's having much effect on people drawn towards fundamentalisms of various stripes.

Yes for sure - tolerance is big
Consequently my guess is that it is a religion of social and intellectual elites. In Denver, it seems to have financial resources disproportionate to its membership.

Each assembly will have it’s own character, but I have not found this to be the case. There are definitely some very well off Bahai’s though – a lot more poor ones

Does it use missionaries or require missionary effort of any kind by its members?
Not really – sometimes-musical groups go on tour – Seals and Crofts in the 70’s Dizzy Gillespie etc. and always had firesides after the concerts.

If it doesn't I can't imagine how it can compete with religions like Mormonism. It would be like the local hamburger stand going up against McDonalds.

– Not trying to – Like the marines say – this isn’t for everyone

Does it use missionaries or require missionary effort of any kind by its members?

I should expand on this, as teaching and sharing the Faith is expected, it’s just not to be pushed on others. Goes like this – I’m at a social gathering and asked if I’d like a drink – I reply “Sure, but not alcohol, I’m Baha’i” If they then respond “You’re a what??” I’m then off on a discussion to explain and answer questions.
Chan

back from the 12th page of threads! *snif* how I've missed this thread...

Saw the now and again coach of the Wash Redskins *Joe Gibbs* on Cspan talking to the national prayer breakfast this week.
He provided a proof for the existence of God.

If I (he) were to show you a watch here, on my (his, you get the deal) arm, you would naturally assume that somewhere out there there is a watchmaker. You have not seen the watchmaker, but you just know that someone had to make it.
But, when we get all the complex interconnected systems of the world around us, people dont think that there has to be a world-maker. Why not? If it is reasonable to deduce that there is a watchmaker when looking at a watch, it is just as reasonable to conclude that there is a world-maker when looking at the world.

He went on to talk about the fact that no other planets have life or people, so duh there has to be a maker.

I'm convinced now. Please someone say it isn't so!?! ;)

I definitely ain't so. It only takes a moment's thought to see the flaw. There isn't just one watchmaker, there are a whole bunch of watchmakers working together. So if Mr. Gibb wants to win the football game, he's better make sure he's in touch with the universe maker responsible for football.

This question looks stupid to anyone with a scientific background - evolution etc. (no offence) - then it looks clever again - origin of the universe etc, but on the whole this 'Payley's watch' argument (naive version) is annoying the way it keeps cropping up, like a bad card trick. Anyway, who designed god?

One reason it is cropping up is that there is a very rich person bankrolling the argument in the United States with the help of Philip Johnson and William Debski and the Discovery Institute. I thought one of your fellow Scots, David Hume had put the argument to death even before Paley wrote his book. So much for the power of reason in the face of irrational faith.

By the way, the new statue of Hume on the High St. in Edinburgh is quite goofy. Why did they dress him in a toga?

The "Watchmaker" argument has many, many guises. Its one of the main arguments that lead phycists to a supernatural universe.

It keeps cropping-up because it addresses the human need for both rational causality and supernatural relationships.

Arguing against the "watchmaker" may be a proper refutation, but it is unsatisfying to people who want more of life than chemical accidents and "red in tooth and claw" explanations.

it neither enhances the argument against the watchmaker nor does it draw people to seek more profound understandings of life to belittle their seeking after rational explanations. I should think it would be valuable to people unfamiliar with the rich history of the philosophy to be presented with the whole of teh argument, not merely dismiss it as old and outmoded thinking.

B

It would seem a minimum requirement of a rational explanation, that it follow basic rules of reason. There are so many holes in the argument that unless is morphs into something unrecognizable as the watchmaker argument, it is worthless. I get sick and tired of hearing it over and over (even from professional philosophers) who fail to take into account the most basic and obvious objections to the argument.

The most basic objection is that we know a watch is designed because we have seen the raw materials that go into a watch and know they have to be manipulated in order to end up as a watch. In other words, we can compare the undesigned state to the designed state. Since no one has an experience of an undesigned universe to compare this one to, it is impossible to know whether this one is designed or not.

Add to that the fact that even if there is a designer there is absolutely no evidence that designer is the Judeo-Christian God, or that the designer is good, or that the designer gives a rats ass about what happens in the universe, so one has to wonder what is going on in the minds of the people that rely on it to support their Christian theology.

djugurba wrote:

He went on to talk about the fact that no other planets have life or people, so duh there has to be a maker.

O.K., so tell me where your facts come from....because no human on this planet has traveled to all the planets within our local universe, nor to any other universe, so where do these fact arrive from? How are you so sure [in your own mind] that no other forms of life exist other than on Earth? That's very limited thinking, just like the watch concept, but I understand that you are trying to convey your thoughts. But you too forgot that there are many watch-makers, here on Earth.

But what about the other watch-makers on other planets that keep their own version of time? I suppose that idea slipped by you, huh? Why not use your own thoughts to convey your own ideas of the universe and a creator?

jjl wrote: Anyway, who designed god?

You did jjl...because you are a co-creator with God, just like all humans are. We co-create when we have children, when we cultivate our gardens, or our landscapings. We interact with God on a daily basis....no matter if you believe it or not, I know it happens on a constant basis....while sleeping, while awake shopping in a mall, or where ever you may be.

Humans are spiritual beings in human form...and until a human starts to see life this way, they will see it the way they are comfortable with. There are many questions we could ask about the universe and God, but all of your answers will come from within yourself...from the spirit energy that created your physical body. We [humans] are energetic beings...just as the sun has energy, and our energy has a certain level, like a light bulb....some of us are at 100 watts level of spiritual energy, and some are at 40 watts, and then some are like the night-light bulb of 4 watts. When you seek to increase your awareness of who you are, without worrying about anyone else, you will become more self aware, and that self-awareness will open doors in your mind that will start to answer those questions that you have....but the answers will be for you only. You may receive answers in a large crowd, like I did once, and when I received my answer, no one else around me saw what I saw...because it was for me.

Maybe everyone here reading these posts will look at one word that has plenty of meaning, and that is live.

If we start to live in our lives, life itself will bring us all that we need and require, but if we don't live, it's the oppisite of the spelling of the word....which I will leave you to spell the word live in reverse order, and see if you are actually living or the oppisite.

Hope all is well with everyone on this post. Maybe Kerry Edwards could explain his ideas of God, instead of talking around the issue. Hey maybe he would make a great politician, huh? I hear Al Gore is open to ideas....:D

I've never been accused of dancing around an issue before. I think there is virtually no reason to believe there is such a thing/person as the traditional Christian God.

In a summation to the question-

“These obvious arguments are adduced for weak souls; but if the inner perception be open, a hundred thousand clear proofs become visible. Thus, when man feels the indwelling spirit, he is in no need of arguments for its existence; but for those who are deprived of the bounty of the spirit, it is necessary to establish external arguments. “
Abdu'l-Bahá from “Some Answered Questions”

"Some Answered Questions" is a compilation of questions put to Abdul Baha, son of Bahaullah, founder of the Baha’i Faith by one of his followers, Laura Clifford Barney. She was allowed into the prison Abdul Baha was being held in and asked these questions from her Christian perspective over lunch’s that they were allowed to have together. The Q’s and A’s are an array of topics: Biblical prophecy, comparative religion and scripture, social issues, Baha’i perspective on traditional Christian topics.

http://www.lvbahai.org/Some_Answered_Questions.htm

O.K. Kerry, so who is Jesus Christ to you, and what importance does He have in your life? Straight answers is what I have been looking for from your many posts, instead of talking the issue up like CNN. I didn't accuse you, just made a statement of fact, as I see it. :D

I respect your thoughts on a traditional God, as I do not follow tradition either, but i do follow the teachings and beliefs of Jesus Christ. Now, you have my straight answers ;)

By the way, hope you didn't feel insulted by my statements, as that was not my intention. I feel that we have many things in common Kerry, but your views of God have not been clear, that's all, and I'm one for getting to the point, without trying to hurt anyone's feelings. There has been so much left out of the bible that it's very difficult to believe in a modern day religion, because the facts of history do not add up, compared to what is in the bible. We have been born into a world of misconception, and if we use our inner indwelling spirit (which we all have) we will become more aware of who we are, and of the world that we are currently in.

:)

ok, to be clear, I was not REALLY convinced by Joe Gibbs' argument. and all of the argument stuff I wrote was his, not mine, including the piece regarding no people on other planets. I did succeed in resurecting the thread, however, much to my delight.

Yes, that watchmaker thing is old and tired, and Hume (toga? and all) was succinct in his critique. Just sick of talking politics, war, and boobs on the other threads.

Santa claus was responsible for making toys for me and delivering them when I was eight. And, there was an evil genius (two of them, actually, whose genes I share) keeping me mystified by the whole process. The tooth fairy was a bit more transparent, easter bunny a joke, and I've come to understand God to be the phoniest of all. All of these examples of selfless other beings concerned about ME made me feel special for a while, but once you figgure out Santa, you must be pretty stupid to still hold out for the tooth fairy. God (as an Other) is nothing more, though there is a whole lot more infrastructure to keep the wool pulled down tight.

Now, if you are to define God as the set of all knowledge known (hence all-knowing) the set of all sights seen (hence all seeing) etc., then all you need is the not neccessarily interactive in any way sum of all consciousnesses. Might there be ways that we communicate across this panpsyche? sure. but does this give rise to an Other? not with my math. x+x+x+x=4x not 4x+Uber4x.

cripes, did you really think I'd suspend critical evaluation of my life after listening to the pseudo-philosophy of a football coach? :eek:

I got your sarcasm. At least the argument is on a little more sophisticated level than what comes from Coach McCartney.

I wasn't insulted.

I think it is very difficult to know a lot about what Jesus Christ believed and taught. I think we have to look behind the New Testament gospels to try to get a glimpse as to who he was. The most recent attempts to uncover his ideas which emphasize his political activism against the domination of the Romans seems somewhat credible to me. However, I am very aware of the fact that people tend to find in Jesus what they want to find so I am pretty hesitant to think this view is 'objective history.'
I don't think that what Jesus taught is of great importance. It is an interesting historical question but I am more interested in figuring things out for myself than following a traditional teacher.

While I've got your attention, I've had a burning question for some time: Was Jesus a proto-marxist? Considering his rhetorical appeal to the Christian Right, how do they square his purported teachings about treatment of the poor and usury?

A lot of liberation theologians think he was a proto-Marxist. I'm very disinclined to think of him as a proto-Marxist because I don't think Hegel had much influence on Jesus. On the other hand, there does seem to be some good evidence that he was a political radical opposed to the domination of the people of Palestine by the Roman empire.

I do think the Christian Right are way off base on their views of Jesus. For instance, most early Christians, prior to Constantine's conversion refused to join the Roman imperial army. This pacifist tendency of early Christianity seems strikingly at odds with the Christian Right's patriotic nationalism. Not to mention the immense energies they focus on opposing abortion when it is never even mentioned in the Bible.

Kerry..Do you want to believe in something? Or do you want to die? You may not wake up tomorrow, and your existance will cease. Then what? Where will you be? There will be no more you. Your body will be broken, and your soul was just a myth. You are just virtually the same as an MB diesel. You have as much distinction in the universe as an MB diesel. Your computer has as much significance as you. We are all just comprised of organic material, instead of steel and aluminum. Our personalities are determined by our genes and environment. We have no free will(I think I posted stuff like this before).

Nothing can't produce something. Something produces something, therefore something has to always be there. If nothing is there then something cannot ever exist.(or something like that:rolleyes:) Please define the universe and its origins. One thing IS known...There is a God, that's got to be a fact! And if this is true, one analyzes the book of Genesis and puts together all the theories leading to the creation of our solar system, it is true. God created the solar system, and in the Bible, the creation of the solar system started when God said "LET THERE BE LIGHT"...And there was light. Scientifically, this is accurate due to the fact that the earth was just a ball of rock and ice floating in space until the sun was created and it took orbit. The suns rays created an atomosphere which spawned life from the planet over time. The water after a period of time became unfrozen and evaporated into our clouds. Eventually, oraganisms were produced from the seas and life began on Earth.

Why do people have out of body experiences, and why do some see a white light at the end of a tunnel? Why have people come so close to death, some pronounced DEAD, come back to life with this knowledge? Why do some people gain psychic abilities after a near death experience? Why? Do you have an answer?

Originally posted by DslBnz

Why do people have out of body experiences, and why do some see a white light at the end of a tunnel? Why have people come so close to death, some pronounced DEAD, come back to life with this knowledge? Why do some people gain psychic abilities after a near death experience? Why? Do you have an answer?

All of these phenomenae have been recreated with electrical stimulation of certain brain parts during open brain surgeries. Electricity and brain chemistry is responsible for this.

One specific test that was done was regarding people who claimed to have out of body experiences wherein they could see themselves and the world around them from outside, including the surgeons. The surgeons placed flash cards with large, obvious letters on platforms that would have been easily seen by one actually out of their body as they claimed to have been. The effect was produced, every subject reported being out of body, and not one of them could identify the flash cards, even though they reported being above the platforms.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020916/020916-8.html

I agree that there does not seem to be any life beyond this one. So, yes, in the sense that a diesel will eventually rust away, so do we.

Lots of things happen in people's minds such as out of body experiences and lights at ends of tunnels. I don't see any reason for thinking that these are anything more than experiences in people's minds. Near death experiences, are just that, near death, not really dead experiences. I'm not aware of anyone dead for days or weeks returning to tell us that death is not the end.

I think the issue of wanting to believe in something is not that relevant. I want to believe what I think is true based on critical evidence. What I think might be nice or might make my existence more pleasing is secondary to what actually is the case.

It's probably a fact that something is here. Where it ultimately came from I don't know and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. Or, at least, no one has been able to convince me that they know.

Originally posted by djugurba
All of these phenomenae have been recreated with electrical stimulation of certain brain parts during open brain surgeries. Electricity and brain chemistry is responsible for this.

One specific test that was done was regarding people who claimed to have out of body experiences wherein they could see themselves and the world around them from outside, including the surgeons. The surgeons placed flash cards with large, obvious letters on platforms that would have been easily seen by one actually out of their body as they claimed to have been. The effect was produced, every subject reported being out of body, and not one of them could identify the flash cards, even though they reported being above the platforms.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020916/020916-8.html

But this doesn't address causality, only sensuality.

I couldn't imagine any sensation that would not have a corresponding response in the brain--else, how could one know that a senseation had occurred.

Thus, if God spoke to me, I would assume that my tympanic membrane would vibrate, etc. If I saw a burning bush, my retina would become excited, etc.

I have absolutely no doubt that the "white tunnel-don't go near the light-out of body-viewing from a distance" stuff will all have some physical and/or physiological basis.

So what--God can't stimulate a nerve? Gimme a break.

If a sensation is proof of occurence, then how would one distinguish a sensation of Emmanuel from random firing in a nerve plexus?

B

Actually, it proposes that the cause of these phenomenae are indeed the electrical impulses that produce the referant sensation. The cause of those impulses (when not caused by deliberate stimulation) has been traced to everything from a decrease in blood pressure in the region due to anesthesia, to epilectic siezure.

to your latter question, how to determine whether a sensation of divine intervention is distinguishable from one of random firing in a nerve plexus, I'd suggest that the burden of proof be on the case not able to be recreated, demonstrated, or proven. That be yours, not the above.

One should assume the case that can be proven, and test the footing from there. Not assume a cosmology and look for answers to defend it. Your assumption that God can interfere in our daily lives is baseless, and yet you are using it to critique a provable case?

k

Originally posted by djugurba
Actually, it proposes that the cause of these phenomenae are indeed the electrical impulses that produce the referant sensation. The cause of those impulses (when not caused by deliberate stimulation) has been traced to everything from a decrease in blood pressure in the region due to anesthesia, to epilectic siezure.

to your latter question, how to determine whether a sensation of divine intervention is distinguishable from one of random firing in a nerve plexus, I'd suggest that the burden of proof be on the case not able to be recreated, demonstrated, or proven. That be yours, not the above.

One should assume the case that can be proven, and test the footing from there. Not assume a cosmology and look for answers to defend it. Your assumption that God can interfere in our daily lives is baseless, and yet you are using it to critique a provable case?

k

Naw, I question the assumption of implicit causality.

The assumption is that because a nerve fires, the experience recounted is due to that cause alone. That's a proximate, not ultimate explanation.

I close my eye and rub my eyes and produce visions of red and blue. The proximate cause is my eye rubbing, but why did I rub my eye? That i sthe ultimate explanation.

I sense God in my mind and it is traced to a firing neuron. That doesn't disprove that I sensed God, only that a neuron fired. God spoke to me through the randomly fired neuron. Oh, you didn't hear?

In neither case does it test whether or not God caused the firing or put the derived interpretation of that firing into my mind.

Religionists are comforted by it as a revealed truth and non-religionists faithfully embrace a mechanistic explanation of the same event.

Its a draw.

B

Originally posted by djugurba
Actually, it proposes that the cause of these phenomenae are indeed the electrical impulses that produce the referant sensation. The cause of those impulses (when not caused by deliberate stimulation) has been traced to everything from a decrease in blood pressure in the region due to anesthesia, to epilectic siezure.

to your latter question, how to determine whether a sensation of divine intervention is distinguishable from one of random firing in a nerve plexus, I'd suggest that the burden of proof be on the case not able to be recreated, demonstrated, or proven. That be yours, not the above.

One should assume the case that can be proven, and test the footing from there. Not assume a cosmology and look for answers to defend it. Your assumption that God can interfere in our daily lives is baseless, and yet you are using it to critique a provable case?

k

P#1
Is the phenomenae generic? Does everybody experience that specific phenomenae? Why does it display that particular virtuality at the most critical moments in a person's life?

P#2
You cannot prove He does not trigger them, can you? No, you can't. It's impossible.

P#3
One should consider ALL possibilities. Put them together to form a conclusion. Don't be so close minded. There is much more to the brain than just electrical activity and sporadic triggering of specific segments. We cannot even begin to understand our own consciousness. That is, I know I have it, I don't know if YOU have it.:D

:confused:
Thats just silly. The comfort derived is of the ignorance is bliss variety. Comfort can be had by demanding good grounds for belief, not by buying in to a cosmology thats been passed down the telephone chain for 3000 years. Suggesting that there is an ubercause overarching every organic one with no proof whatsoever is tantamount to suggesting that scooby-doo is hiding behind you, but every time you move he's too quick and gets out of the way. He's there. I'm telling you. Really. He is. You can't tell me he's not. It's just silly.

If a tradition existed of scooby-doo-behind-you-ites for 3000 years, we'd be arguing the same. You'd still have no more reasonable grounds.
Scooby-doo made me see that light!
No, he's not there.
Oh, really, he is.

But for the masses who believe similarly, you'd have no concept of any of this, and would not have read about it and had the suggestions planted to interpret what you sense in these terms.

or would scooby still be there?
:D
k

That's why I'm trying to find a box of Scooby snacks to see if he's actually there behind me.:D

Besides Scooby Doo was too much of a coward to die for our sins.:p :rolleyes:

And if a tradition existed of atheists always trying to come up with some excuse why religion is not viable in any situation. Scooby could be right behind them but their hindsight would be blind to Scoob's prescence.

mmm hmmm. But the burden of proof should belong to the believers in things unproven, not to those who accept what is proven as what is true. the reverse is a bit bass-ackwards...

djugurba wrote: ok, to be clear, I was not REALLY convinced by Joe Gibbs' argument. and all of the argument stuff I wrote was his, not mine, including the piece regarding no people on other planets. I did succeed in resurecting the thread, however, much to my delight.

It seems that you wanted to resurect this thread just to get some kind of delight out of it, and that's ok with me, because apparenty you need some attention right now in your life.

But you should think about what kind of attention you seek. Now you will be know for instigating an argument (or resurecting one) out of the pure enjoyment from the need of attention that you desperately seek.....which by the way is selfish [ if no-one has brought that to your attention]...but you know, it may be a good thing that you did bring this thread back that was started from a writers point of view from the NY Times. :D lol.......

Hi Kerry, glad we can communicate here.
You wrote: I don't think that what Jesus taught is of great importance. It is an interesting historical question but I am more interested in figuring things out for myself than following a traditional teacher.

I'm glad to know that your thoughts and beliefs don't rule the world, or our country for that fact. It seems that you are in need of some attention like djugurba :)....which I understand.

So what makes you so sure that when you are at the end of your life, you join the Mercedes-Benz in the junk yard? I hope you eventually either open your mind and search for the God within you, or that some supernatural occurance comes into your life, that completely changes your mind, and your belief system. I will ask Jesus to help you with this process.

I hope [for your sake] that you don't have to go through something like my friends and my brother had to go thrugh. My brother was involved in an auto accident last Jan. 2003, in which he was pronounced dead on the scene, and then a LifeFlight helicopter flew in and revived him after 45 minutes. I lived over a month in the hospital, taking care of him personally because the hospital ICU staff was short handed, and could not provide around the clock care and attention. He had a hip broken in 5 places, massive head trauma, internal bleeding, swelling of the brain, memory loss for three weeks, and eyesight that had been affected. More injuries were sustained, and the doctors told me that they really didn't expect him to survive. They were completely shocked that his heart was beating at all, after 45 minutes. Each time he would wake up, he told me that he wouldn't make it, and that he wanted to give me all of his posessions.....I would tell him that he was making it, and would need his posessions after he got out of the hospital.

So no one on this board, or this thread can ever tell me, or convince me that a loving and passionate God does not exist. Now I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but from what I know, you either believe in a higher power, such as Jesus, or God, or Holy Spirit, or you remain closed minded and end up like an old computer or microwave oven....that does not continue to progress spiritually.

While I do not believe in modern traditional religion, I do believe in the existence and everlasting life of Jesus Christ, and the Christ consciousness that exists within every living thing, including yourself Kerry ;) . Like I said before, there was so much that has been left out of the bible. If anyone here was to study factual history, you would discover that the Catholics (before Constintine) actually believed in re-incarnation....but do they now? No way...they look at you like you are crazy, and wonder who you are for bringing up such a topic (the majority do).

Religion is one thing, being part of the Holy Spirit is another....which we are all part of. As we all know, this thread could continue forever, but there are so many other important things that we could do with our time while we all discover God for ourselves (like the homeless, the hungry children in America, the children that need transplants to sustain life, you know, those little everyday life situations that seem so unimportant because we don't think about them)....but it seems that some peope acquire great delight just by questioning the beliefs of others......which I find amusing :D:D:D

Hey Kerry, maybe you could get a burial plot in a Mercedes-Benz salvage yard. That would'nt be any different than your thinking of when we die, now would it?

And maybe djugurba would like his remains shipped out into outer space to join the scientific community, so that they could re-discover him one day! :)

If this photo works, it's a banner from www.holylove.org if you want to follow the link.

djugurba, you ask for proof, and say that the burden of proof should be on those that believe in some higher power, or God?

What about your burden of proof? How do we know you are a human? We don't ;)......for all we know you could be an AOL robot with crossed circuits, since you are all for the scientific reasoning with life and existence :D........so if you are an AOL robot, I have a few website that I need spidered ;).....can you help me out here?

The delight I get is out of working that complex organic mass of nerves and blood behind my eyeballs and between my ears! Not any selfish delight in promoting my own beliefs. I enjoy the discourse, the dialogue, and the debate. I think we learn better from those with whom we have differences. So, in seeking to better understand those whose opinions differ from my own, I engage in a conversation. Academically, this is called argument, but nothing negatively adversarial is neccessary. By attempting to better understand the views of others, I can hone my own beliefs. I hold that well-considered beliefs are important.

I am extra pleased to have discourse with someone like yourself. We quite obviously are worlds apart with regards to our beliefs, but I am sure you have much to share in the reasons behind your belief. I don't want to change your mind, but I want to understand better what process you and other believers have gone through that allows you to accept something on faith.

Im not sure why you feel the need to personally attack the others on the board who similarly strive for understanding. I try, to the best of my ability, to fairly evaluate what others say without admonishing anyone individually. Sometimes a joke or spar goes directly, but we're pretty civilized, and I've always thought an undercurrent of respect flows through most.

Now, when you play a game, there are rules. Here, we've more or less come to provide arguments to support what we either believe or feel strongly to be the case. Your statements are rather outside the pattern that enables a discourse. That is fine. However, when you state that:
"no one on this board, or this thread can ever tell me, or convince me that a loving and passionate God does not exist. Now I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but from what I know, you either believe in a higher power, such as Jesus, or God, or Holy Spirit, or you remain closed minded and end up like an old computer or microwave oven....that does not continue to progress spiritually"
you rather paint yourself into a corner. None of these statements are either premises or conclusions. They are simply statements of belief, that you simultaneously state are true for all and just for yourself. It's the same as ending a heated exhange with, "well I'm just sayin'..."

The value in all of this is only achieved if we all give a bit. You've asked Kerry and I to open our minds while stating firmly that yours remains closed. How will this get us anywhere? I'm quite interested in your critique of 'modern traditional religion' and how you've come to your understanding of Jesus' message. Don't you wonder how someone could come to dedicate their life to compassionate outreach independent of Jesus' touch? Would it surprise you to learn that I have worked with Juvenile delinquents, elderly and disabled low-income homeowners, children with behavior disorders and learning disabilities, and refugees? All of this without the Lord? And all of this certainly not seeking attention for myself.

I've shown no disrespect, and I think it is fair to expect the same in return. Now, as to your question regarding my body after my death, I'm quite sure I'll have no use for it, so it may be used for whatever transplants it can, and then disposed of in the most environmentally friendly manner available. Perhaps set on a mountain top to be devoured by vultures, to express a final act of compassion to lowly scavenger birds.

Cheers,
Kevin

Ya know what, you might find your beliefs in the salvage yards better than on this board, since you seem to want a debate. I'm not painting myself into any corner either, so you can keep your beliefs and keep living the way you seem fit. :D

Yes I agree that we learn from others, but it seems that you would rather argue your point of view than to accept any portion of someone's belief based from factual experience, such as I have stated in my last two posts :).

Have you ever asked anyone if there is a God in person, and see their expression on their face? Have you ever sought out a debate with other humans that you know, like you neighbors and/or your community? Have you thought of asking every church leader in your community for proof of God?

It seems to me that you are an AOL robot with short circuits :D
Because you have yet to satisfy the burden of proof that you exist as a human, since you state: "Perhaps set on a mountain top to be devoured by vultures, to express a final act of compassion to lowly scavenger birds". ............actions speak louder than words, and talk is cheap. You have yet to satisfy the burden of proof that you are human ;).....and, you have yet to satisfy the burden of proof that God does not exist.

So, you keep on living as you are, being the person you are, and I'm sure God will bring someone, or something into your life that will adjust your thoughts. I call it your "Thought Adjuster", which is part of who you are spiritually.

Have you ever visited a cemetery at night, around midnight? Maybe God would show you something interesting there, on the spot, if you were to open your mind to visiting a cemetery at that time of day, and be open to receiving anything that could come your way.

If you truly wanted to learn from others, you would never have the attitude that you need a debate. I still would recommend visiting every church in your community, within a 50 mile radius, seeking proof of God from anyone you can speak with. This way, you would get a better response, from a real human in person, instead of typing on your keyboard, remaining in a frame of mind that this is a debate, and you are right, and someone will have to convince you otherwise. I find that amusing, because apparently you are in need of attention that you can not receive here.....that needs to come from someone or a group of believers in God, in person.

Hopefully you, and Kerry won't have to experience what my brother did when he died in that auto accident.

GOOD LUCK! :D

PS>>>>If you have a beating heart, you don't need to have a debate in order to learn from others. That's pessimistic thinking, instead of positive thinking. But hey, maybe you should open a club for pessimistic, since they are always seeking attention! :)

Would it surprise you to learn that I have worked with Juvenile delinquents, elderly and disabled low-income homeowners, children with behavior disorders and learning disabilities, and refugees? All of this without the Lord? And all of this certainly not seeking attention for myself.

You make mention that you have assisted humanity without the Lord....that's what you think :)....so if you believe this to be true, why did you capitalize His name, when you typed Lord? Apparently you either have respect for Jesus, or fear, or both....that's a great sign, so why not have respect of yourself, and the God energy within you? Do you not recoginize it? Maybe you have not had your mind on the subject. "When we tend to someone else's business, we are not tending to our own"....and I refer to the way of the world that we live in, since there are many daily thoughts that take us away from who we really are, and where we come from, and where we go to when we leave the physical body.

Someone mentioned out of body experiences earlier.....well, if you've never experienced one, or two, or many, then it's easy to criticize the idea.....but after you have one, and you know for yourself that it's not an electrical energy wave from the fire alarm battery, or interference from your fridge, then you believe for yourself. So, without a debate, I ask you to believe in yourself, because Jesus does!

When you do leave your body after physical death, just tell Jesus that I made mention of Him to you, and He will remember. Actually, everything you do, and everything you are is the direct result from Jesus, allowing you to posess a physical body and become a human. Do you think He needs us more than we need Him? Not hardly, but He wants our attention, and He wants to be in our hearts and minds, since He gave us Free-Will. Without free-will, we would probably be clones by now.

So the next time you do something for someone, ask them if they believe in God. The next time you speak to someone that you don't already know, ask them if they believe in God, and/or Jesus. You could continue your debate in person, because you are missing out on the human factor, emotion......since a private message or email has no emotion attached. If you really wanted to learn from others and their beliefs, you would learn in person.

GOOD LUCK, again :D and GOD Bless You! :)

This message arrived at www.holylove.org

February 2, 2004 Public

The Child Jesus comes. He says: "I am your Jesus, born Incarnate."

"It is the Heart of My Mother that draws the soul into conversion. In Her Heart for the first time the soul is willing to recognize his most glaring faults and then seeks to overcome them. It is in the Flame of My Heart-Divine Love itself-that the soul begins his journey towards holiness and perfection. The soul's willingness to be perfected-indeed, his desire to become more perfect for love of Me-constitutes his surrender."

"Make this known."


This is just one message that comes from Jesus, and I'm posting it here just for you djugurba. You don't have to believe it, just read it, digest it, and use what you can from it, and leave the rest alone, filed into your human computer (maybe for later use).

You can recieve these messages in your email if so desired.

:)

I am a Christian, not presumptive, but according to any definition I've heard, I qualifiy.
Having said that, I am embarassed by by some who also identify themselves as Christians. There seems to be a bit of confusion between culture and belief. Too many people seem to confuse the culture of the middle of the 20th Cent. with the Christian ideal. The cry of " onward for God and Country!" speaks as if the two are related. But if you read your Bible, Jesus told His disciples that " My kingdom is not of this world". The USA is not God's kingdom; we citizens of the US are not special; God calls His people from every nation, race and tribe.
Don't misunderstand, I love my country. But there is a clear distinction between my love of country and my love of Christ. Nations rise and fall but the Lord God endures forever.
As far as trying to "prove" the existance of God.... I am not sure it is possible, any more than I think you can "prove" the existance of light, or the existance of any historical personage--try to "prove" the existance of George Washington--the arguments would be quite the same as those used to "prove " Jesus, but the skeptic can always remain unpersuaded.
By the way, I still am not satisfied that anyone answered my earlier question about the problems of rationality in a universe that is simply a result of chance. Adding countless eons of time does nothing to the argument; it is still a chance unbiverse at its core. Chance + time +time still = Chance. If life started as the chance meeting of a collection some chunks of matter, there is no reason to expect that anything will continue as it has--the past is no predictor of the future.

Having rambled enough for now, he quietly slips away....

Rationality in a non-spiritual universe....

I don't mean to digress into endless debate about definitions, but I do think its important that we know what we mean when we use words like, "rational" and "chance".

For example, would we consider a genius psychopath, rational? How about a retarded saint? I'd say that cognition and reationality are related but not synonymous. Is a comatose or sleeping or drunk genius, rational? How about an alert idiot? So rationality has some awarenes, but is not just awareness.

And so forth.

I doubt that a definition of rationality is simple. Rather, I think it is a sort of fruit salad of attributes which, if appropriately clustered, emerges as something which can follow our thoughts and emotions, at least in part. Thus, I think rationality is an emergent property of socialization and basic biological properties.

Phew, that was bad, wasn't it? Well, "chance" is easy, everybody knows what chance is.

Okay, what is "chance"? Is it the same as probability? If chance is probability, then there are strict rules to be followed. First, we have to assume that there is a property of the universe called, "random". This is a property that says the universe is fundamentally unpredictable. We often say that the restult of the roll of a fair die or the flip of a coin is determined by chance. Will a six come-up, will the coin show tails?

If chance is an attribute we see in reality, then did chance arise with the universe, after the universe, or before the universe? Well, scientists tell us that the first instant of the big bang was characterized by a highly organized singularity. In the next instant it began to dis-organize. It has been disorganizing at an increasing rate ever since. The ultimate end of the universe is uncertain, but if chance is an inherent attribute of creation, then it will dribble off into a dark, cold silence some billions of years hence.

Did chance or randomness exist before the big bang? Well, speculation of before big bang is pretty weird. But if the initial singularity was highly organized, what could have caused it to disorganize? What is the difference between a chance event perturbing the singularity and a godly thump on the precreational marble?

I see no difference.

Now I worship at the minor alter of parsimony, an acolyte to which genuflects to the simpler explanation.

B

Botnst,
WOW!! So many words; I think I knew of few of them.
My argument against your use of rationality in a chance universe goes to the thought process itself. The synapses in out nervous system transmit impulses to and from the brain. What makes it so certain that the synapses also follow the same path? If we are simple a chance creation ( opps, sorrt) ere a chance organism what certainty is there that our thought processes will not reinvent themselves in a different manner in another moment? I mean if its all a matter of probability of electrons bumping into each other, what assurance is there that they will bump the same way tomorrow?
I think agnostics are very inconsisyant on this point. They use the rational underpinnings of a Christian philosophy, and then discard the rest of the structure. But they are not entitled to that rationality--. They are entitled only to chance. But Man cannot live that way so the irrational jump to an assumed rationality.

If everthing is running down, i.e. following the 2nd law of thermodynamics, going to a stae of less order, how can you accept an evolutionary scheme which must run counter to everything else? ( By its nature, evolution assumes that it is running in the direction of improving the species. )
Must be an exercise of faith on your part.

It’s a beautiful morning – I’m gonna go out and plant some plants – looked in on this thread and so here I am instead of outside – I’ll be very quick.

Botnst - “I do think it’s important that we know what we mean when we use words”
That is certainly at the heart of the matter isn’t it.
“Well, speculation of before big bang is pretty weird”
I thought this was just the most recent big bang – that the universe bangs – expands- collapses- bangs – expands – collapses – Maybe I’m out of it, but I thought this was the current understanding?

When we talk about things like afterlife, the existence of God, and spirit, I think we’ve entered the part of our mind that is internal and sensory. Trying to communicate these things that some know as a reality too those that don’t know them is like building an idol to point too, or making a picture of God. It’s Faith – trying to conceive of God as an existent being requires that God have a creator – much easier for me to not go crazy needing a speakable proof – and to accept that to describe God, is beyond my understanding – and very likely by divine design.
Afterlife – irrelevant, I can’t even begin to understand the meaning, nor am I going to waste to much time worrying about it – I was alive in my mother’s womb, but I have know memories of it. What I do have memories of is the life I’m living now – and so I’ll strive (pitifully I’m afraid) to live as best I can, and try not to stay too terribly - stuck on stupid- no offense intended to anyone, but I’ve gotta go dig holes.
So just how low will the dollar go anyway??

Originally posted by MS Fowler

If everthing is running down, i.e. following the 2nd law of thermodynamics, going to a stae of less order, how can you accept an evolutionary scheme which must run counter to everything else? ( By its nature, evolution assumes that it is running in the direction of improving the species. )
Must be an exercise of faith on your part.

Atheists and agnostics often speak in terms of faith in their belief systems but insist that faith is rational--not unlike Thomist Christians.

Concerning the entropic argument viz evolution. Recall that any increase of order in a local system must be accompanied by an increase in disorder in the larger system. For example, if we build a 300e--that is a reversal of the entropically disordered state of various mineral substances from which metals and plastic derive. The refining and assembly of the complex parts of my little jewel required abundant expense of energy. Thus, car creation increases disorder in the greater universe while reversing in in the local.

The evolutionary argument is similar. Consider the difference in complexity betwen a heterotrophic bacterium and a human. If we accumulated a mass of bacteria equal to the mass of a little boy, which would expend the most energy in 24 hours? The energy price expended to maintain a complex little boy is way, way greater than a pile of bacteria.

Thus, as life becomes increasingly complex, it must grind-out huge amounts of energy for maintenence of its local system by dissipating heat--disorder--into the greater system.

Concerning which bang is the best bang (mentioned by crash9, I think), I believe there are several competing theories which include various bangs varying among single and multiple and continuous and repeated. Regardless of which bang is the best bang, I think the argument stands.

My favorite theory of EVERYTHING (aside from that proposed by Doug Adams) is the "Many Worlds" model in which, not only are all things possible, given time, but all things actually happen, merely diverging at each alternative. In that view, both heads and tails occur, we're just privy to seeing one of the outcomes.

B

Paley's watch opens up a whole new can of worms for theists. Assuming you grant the fact that the world is so complex that it must have been designed by god, then

1) You accept that the human race is plain dumb, and worse

2) That God not only allows evil, he created evil!

I went to a lecture by Holmes Rolston today. He won the Templeton Prize last year for his work in religion and science (1 Million dollars!!). Anyway, he was arguing the the kind of universe that biology describes is the kind of universe that has value in it and could be the work of a God of some kind. The universe has both disorder and order but without each, he thinks you couldn't have life like ours with the potential for growth, adventure and good. So God creates the potential for both good and evil.
He was very careful not to argue that our world proves the existence of such a God but that the universe as we know it is consistent with the existence of God.

I think that Botnst's point about the evolutionary process sucking in energy from a universe that is overall running down, seems to be a big challenge to his view.

Chance and randomness...Determinists argue that 'chance' is merely ignorance about more detailed clockwork -'god does not play dice' - Einstein. Accordingly, we are clockwork in this view. Quantum theory may provide an escape, but at the expense of 'uncaused' events.

If you want to know how matter can be created just read a physics textbook (matter=energy). We do it all the time in particle accellerators. If you want to know how matter creation can occur out of absolutely nothing, read one with quantum mechanics in it.

B. is right about thermodynamics - disorder always increases in a closed system, but there can be 'pockets' of increased order (e.g. us) at the expense of more disorder elsewhere.

Current universe ideas - expansion forever - not enough matter.

Current origin-of-universe ideas = 'M' theory, an extension of string theory, 11 dimensional universe.

The 'problem of pain' is the theological killer for me. I've never seen a convincing argument explaining it away.

[edited to replace 'order always increases..with 'disorder always increases' ! ] ..and none of you noticed

Originally posted by kerry edwards
I think that Botnst's point about the evolutionary process sucking in energy from a universe that is overall running down, seems to be a big challenge to his view.

Who is the "he" to whom you refer? Me?

Dang right its a challenge. Its a difficult concept to grasp even without some deity or other mucking about in it.

JJL, assuming God, what's the big deal about pain, misery, cruelty, injustice, etc? In some other thread somebody opined (through the mouth of a mythological university lecture) that these things are not things at all but, like a vacuum, merely a name for a missing attribute. This seems symmetrical with the platonic view that crime and such are acts out of ignorance.

Anyway, why must God conform to our expectations of human behavior, scaled-up to omniscience? That seems a bit too anthopocentric, doesn't it? Instead of projecting anthropomorphically, why not the reverse--ie, be created in his image rather than the reverse?

Botnst

he= Rolston
If the universe will eventually reach a single temperature, all value seems to be lost.

Originally posted by Botnst
Who is the "he" to whom you refer? Me?

Dang right its a challenge. Its a difficult concept to grasp even without some deity or other mucking about in it.

JJL, assuming God, what's the big deal about pain, misery, cruelty, injustice, etc? In some other thread somebody opined (through the mouth of a mythological university lecture) that these things are not things at all but, like a vacuum, merely a name for a missing attribute. This seems symmetrical with the platonic view that crime and such are acts out of ignorance.

Anyway, why must God conform to our expectations of human behavior, scaled-up to omniscience? That seems a bit too anthopocentric, doesn't it? Instead of projecting anthropomorphically, why not the reverse--ie, be created in his image rather than the reverse?

Botnst

re: god & pain - I meant this to refer to the religious god with all the qualites of justice and compassion and love we were taught to associate with god. The existence of so much suffering of the innocent is an insurmountable difficulty for this view.

Of course this says nothing about a non-religious creator - choose any qualities you like, although I can see a cruel streak. Like us.

Kerry
“So God creates the potential for both good and evil.”
Or
God is the potential – the process – is ordered on such a scale that it can not be comprehended and may even seem random - but is sprit, without mass, and is all good. Everything that exsists can be seen as a reflection of some aspect of that sprit of God. Pain, suffering, just a part of the process for those things which have life.
Evil is non-exsistant (as sprit has no mass) and is not a reflection - just the lack of God.

I have a mostly Lab dog. Well, he's black-haired and awfully good-natured. His head is big like a pit bull but he's as sweet as a baby. He is very well trained to voice commands. But simple commands, we're not talking doggy genius, here.

He loves my family and me and adores us and will try to do everything in his fiber to please us. We feed him and give him shelter and play with him.

The world through his eyes has got to be pretty simple and pretty wonderful. Everything gets a sniff--dead things, crotches, plants, bugs, bushes, cars, --- oh, and fire hydrants! Wow! His nose guides his life. He lives through his nose. Sometimes it gets him in trouble. He'll snuffle after a squirrel and run out in the road. He'll ignore voice commands and discipline and every promise he's ever made to chase a squirrel. So far he hasn't gotten hit, but I can practically see his future if chance goes against his favor.

Have you ever seen a dog get hurt? They look so forlorn, pleaading for relief and bewildered because we, Master!, let it happen.

His injury is certainly not my intent, though to some degree, I suppose its my responsibility. But he really shouldn't run out in the road. I've told him many times and in many ways that there are some things he just shouldn't do.

B

Is the pain in my left forearm from a pulled muscle as a result of spinning my daughter's jump rope a lack of God?


Is the Botnst suffering from illusions of omnipotence now?

Hurt forearm...

I don't know and I have no test that I can perform to determine that. So, absent any evidence, I use reason and intuition. In general, I trust my reason way more than I trust intuition--evidence from my own life leads me to believe either my intuition organ is defective or I don't know how it is coded.

So what does reason tell me? It tells me not to exert myself so strenuously when twirling the jump rope, but reason is rather quiet about ultimate causes. It could be simply because there is no ultimate cause. How can I tell?

I cannot tell, reasonably.

All I have left is intuition, which is already an admitted deceiver.

B

“Is the pain in my left forearm from a pulled muscle as a result of spinning my daughter's jump rope a lack of God?”
No – You strain muscles – they hurt – the pain you feel is your body telling you to rest, comes from chemicals your producing to heal the strain. It’s a part of being a Being. Break a rock – the rock doesn’t feel. There is no Evil here, just a pain.
Evil was the condition in the misguided minds of the 9/11 bombers – not in the event
Evil was the condition in the mind of that man dragging away that little girl in Sarasota last week, or maybe more in the condition that have the news constantly replaying the video of it. The fear she felt was an Evil, but not her death or the pain her parents are feeling.

Re: The dog story – it’s a nice story I guess, but what’s the point. One of the most ingrained memories I have is seeing my puppy all excited to be going to the park – jumping up and down in the car, his head is out the window - I only left it open a crack. I’m going to get coffee; I’ll be right back. Some how he squirms and falls out, comes running too me – right on Main Street. He gets hit – my heart stops – I run to him – he bites me (a Chow Chow, very powerful bite) and hangs on for dear life. We both go into shock – I go to one emergency – the dogcatcher takes him to the vet. Well $3,500 and three weeks later he’s fine, but missing one hip joint – Eight years later I can still see his face in the car window (a 67 280) and I feel very guilty and responsible – he’s outside. I just don’t see the relevance.

Originally posted by crash9


Re: The dog story – it’s a nice story I guess, but what’s the point. One of the most ingrained memories I have is seeing my puppy all excited to be going to the park – jumping up and down in the car, his head is out the window - I only left it open a crack. I’m going to get coffee; I’ll be right back. Some how he squirms and falls out, comes running too me – right on Main Street. He gets hit – my heart stops – I run to him – he bites me (a Chow Chow, very powerful bite) and hangs on for dear life. We both go into shock – I go to one emergency – the dogcatcher takes him to the vet. Well $3,500 and three weeks later he’s fine, but missing one hip joint – Eight years later I can still see his face in the car window (a 67 280) and I feel very guilty and responsible – he’s outside. I just don’t see the relevance.

You gave the dog every reason to stay put, but the little rascal exerted his itty-bitty free will which in this case, was a bad choice.

He loved you dearly but in his pain and fear, attacked you. Was he evil? Probably not but he behaved badly nonetheless. It's your responsibility to train him to use is laughably shallow discretionary power appropriately and it's his responsibility to listen to your instruction.

Using one's free will always has consequences. Usually it is within one's power of discretion to choose wisely. Where does this sense of one's will come from? Is it like rationality, an emergent property, but in this case of combined desire and reason?

I gave a semi-religious, allegorical description of free will. I guess its kind of weak.

B

“He loved you dearly but in his pain and fear, attacked you. Was he evil? Probably not but he behaved badly nonetheless. It's your responsibility to train him to use is laughably shallow discretionary power appropriately and it's his responsibility to listen to your instruction.”

Now I see the problem. I have a DobieLabHound also; she does listen and can be trained. A ChowChow, well let’s say that he allows me in his world – sometimes. Actually; he behaved exactly as an injured dog will at the time – I just didn’t know, and was totally overcome.
Anyway we’re talkin Evil here, not bad. God ordered the universe so that lots-a-bad-**** happens. Some we may have control over, and that is where Evil comes to play. To my way of thinking Adam was not the very first human, but represents the first that the lights came on for. God had existed before, but it was like that tree falling in the forest that know one heard. Evil on the other hand had not existed before, until man shut out God. Lots of bad **** had happened though, just ask a small dinosaur. I’m sure God was getting pretty frustrated with the progress of his whole evolutionary plan – may have even had somebody pop over with some genetic juice for the monkeys.
--I’m watching a pretty funny show on Link TV called “Afuenza” right now – I love it to the test on Election 2004 today and found Dennis K. is my 100% candidate with Al Sharpie running a close second at 97% ----
On the other hand an absence of God in ones mind is not necessarily Evil, but I’ll tell you from personal experience (way to long or to many stories) it’s cold lonely and very scary. If you know about Diving Physiology – I was having central nervous system bends symptoms at my 180’ stop from a 384’ on the Sun Oil Platform – a few hundred mi. south of you – Well this is basically impossible – as it turns out I was just bent in my inner ear and very dizzy, but spent 71/2 hrs. knowing I’d die soon. Anyway I got God now.

Sharpton and Kucinich are the only two demos who've not shrunk from their pasts and do not mold themselves to fit an audience. I appreciaate that and wish them well. I just hope they don't get elected.

I understand about your wake-up call at 180 ft under water. Were you in a Newtsuit? Cool thing, that.

What I was trying to get at in my obscure, round-a-bout way was this: Our pets rarely fully understand what we're talking about. They get a flickering, dim-bulb concept and quickly lose it. But the love us and we love them and we try to do what we can to protect them.

Perhaps our relationship with God is similarly incomprehensible to us. If God is capable of anything and we are incapable of most things, and are perhaps only modestly self-aware and ephemeral as all get out, is it any wonder that our understanding of God and life and the universe is so muddled?

B

“Perhaps our relationship with God is similarly incomprehensible to us. If God is capable of anything and we are incapable of most things, and are perhaps only modestly self-aware and ephemeral as all get out, is it any wonder that our understanding of God and life and the universe is so muddled?”


I’m constantly impressed by your vocabulary, and frequently wrestle with what your talking about, but I think what your saying just about sums it up for me.

Newtsuit – no – this was thirty five years ago. I think Oceanearing had what they called a Jim Suit – seen in that James Bond movie. There’s no pressure in those, just like a sub or diving bell hence no bends, but you can get hung up on the smallest little wire or something – diver is the guy that goes down and cuts him loose. Anyway it’s late – go spank your wife.

You see this as an insurrmountable problem for theists?
I think it is rather simple;
Evil, or sin is not a created "thing" ; it is rebellion against God. According to the scriptures of the Old and New teastaments, God does all things for His own glory. He allows evil so that, in the end, he will recieve glory from it.
This too, is not a problem if your understanding of God is big enough. We think that for God to desire glory is awfully arrogant and proud. However, if God is Whom He claims to be, and there really is NO ONE beside Him. Then to whom is He to defer? He would have to desire that we honor and glorify someone less than Himself. Is it not proper to give honor to whom it is due.
It is an awlful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.

Umm..kinda mssing the point. Why does a caring god allow young children to die in pain? Let's have a direct answer - anyone?

I see only two answers. Either God is as MS states, in which case we either succumb to the view that whoever has the most power is the best and bend our knee to God, or we refuse to worship such egoism.

Or, there's nothing God can do about it. Newborns die but some live and valuable things result from the living ones. In that case, the universe is tragic but possibly worth the creative effort. God might be worthy of loyalty for encouraging the creative process despite the inherent possiblity or necessity of tragedy. To put it another way, God can't be all bad as long as we don't wish we had never been born.
Perhaps the end result will be awful and God will regret encouraging the process but at the moment, I'm not convinced that the bad completely outweighs the good.

This latter God is not the God of traditional Christianity but possibly an idea worth considering.

Originally posted by jjl
Umm..kinda mssing the point. Why does a caring god allow young children to die in pain? Let's have a direct answer - anyone?

I can't think of a satisfactory, non-dualistic answer that would satisfy the #1 parameter which you laid down: The modern version of the Tetragrammaton. I think the earlier version--the highly anthropomorphic god(s) of the pentateuch would be less problematic. Ask Job.

But, I'll give a dualistic attempt.

A life without pain, death, suffering, discontent, and death would be safe and comfy. Would that be the ideal life--a safe and comfy one?

That would be a life little different from a well-maintained agar plate colony. Somehow, that doesn't sound as interesting or as a life with challenges, triumphs, disasters, pain, suffering, and death.

Just as natural selection is the engine of evolution, challenges are the engine of appreciation of a life well-lived.

Oh well, C- on that one.


Anybody else?

Botnst

I think Botnst and I are saying similar things. The key is whether God could have created a world of free happy people without pain and tragedy. The traditional answer appears to be yes, since orthodox Christians believe heaven will be something like that.
But if instead we were to think that such a paradise is impossible, and give up the idea of heaven, then I think it is possible that some kind of God, Creator, or teleological 'force' could possibly be thought to be good.

A transition to such a theology seems very difficult since most people connect a belief in God with a belief in an invidivual existence in the afterlife. I see nothing but a psychological reason for drawing this connection between continued personal existence and belief in God.

So, it seems clear that, given innocents suffer, god cannot be both omnipotent and caring. Loss of omnipotence. a god-lite, seems a little ummm.. arbitrary.

I don't buy the 'cannot be good without evil' argument, or the 'darkness is just absence of light' mush either. It doesn't have to be a bland, wispy caricature. Even I can imagine a world with a lot less evil in it - pick a disease, for example - a deity ought to do better, no? And couldn't people (well, men, actually) have been made with less built-in aggression?

I think we should fire him/her/it.

Are we suggesting that this evil or Evil about which we are discussing is intrinsic- non-instrumental? Seems that bad, evil, etc, and even good, right, etc. are just words we use to indicate our preferences, but nothing that has an intrinsic, cosmic, outside of our contextual capitalized Good or Bad or Evil. The last of these is usually used to evoke some Other, to put a force behind the judement of preference, yet it seems to serve only a psychological purpose. It is comforting.

Is it Evil for God to let kids die in pain? No, as all creatures that live will die. How can the beings to whom these rules apply pass judgement that their own conditions are fair or not? Silly. If anything, it makes more sense to talk about how we have sympathies for the child, and her family, as they suffer. Their suffering is a result of their care for the child, which arrises from an attachment. So, without getting caught up in the language, if you are to cast your ire anywhere, it ought to be on the attachment between the child and anyone who suffers at his/her painful death. If you accept death as a natural part of life, regardless of the context surrounding it, you can be at better peace with the death when it comes, regardless of the circumstances.
This doesn't mean that the family must shrug its shoulders and move on, but that they would have their frustrations better served to look at the real root of their suffering rather than appeal to the perceived unfairness dealt by a cosmic puppetteer.

A lot of this other debate is interesting, but if God did create this world, our conjecture as to whether or not it is consistent with his/her vision or our knowledge about his/her vision is a bit misguided- created in his/her image or not, it seems evident that looking at ourselves is likely occuring in a two way mirror, by design. We'll not be given evidence one way or another. I'll not speak or argue the motives of this God, as how things are are most certainly fitting into God's plan, and since we can't know the plan, we can't critique the consistency, or know if consistency is a virtue to God. It's not too hard to imagine a world of your own creation where you define the virtues in a way completely different from our own world. The arguments would look different, but given the context, they'd fly within our little world.

For all who were concerned, I am indeed human, not an AOL robot...
k

why is god so often portrayed as an often failed caretaker? What is the supposedly obligatory relationship between designer/creator and janitor?

Wow – what keeps this going? Think how fortunate we are to be able sit around doing this, and are even able to get other work done at the same time. It’s amazing. Or maybe everyone here really has no life – I wonder. This draws me in, frustrates me, and still though I spend as much time looking up words in the dictionary as I do reading, I keep trying to find a way to communicate. I’m thinking about someone I met one night, I can’t remember her name.
She had just graduated from UCLA and was going to begin teaching in the fall – she was early thirties – her new husband was a little younger, they had an apt. in the SF Valley and an old beat up Datsun. Before winning a scholarship to UCLA her family and she had lived in Germany where they still reside. Before that for several years they’d lived in a large refugee camp in Pakistan and before that Iran. Anyway we were talking about the condition of people, suffering, pain and all and I thought her attitude was striking. As Bahis’ we don’t believe in giving to panhandlers or professional beggars. Give a hand to people in need, of course, but not when they keep coming back for more. I guess I was having a little problem with it – She looked sternly at me and said look –not quite verbatim, but “ That man in front of the store is there every day, he begs for ½ an hour and then goes to buy a “Big Mac” – From the time I was 10 until I was 13 my sister and I would take this 5gal can and go stand in a huge line of people for hours to get to the faucet to draw the water we cooked and washed with. Nobody was dancing and singing, but everyone was polite. My father was a physician at home and we had a pretty nice life – not like doctors have here, but better than I’m living now. Someday maybe I can help them get another faucet. So why are things this way?”
She then said without looking in any book something like the following that I will have to cut and paste – Persian people have a way with wordy talk that always amazes me – hope it’s not boring.
“Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence of a thing and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is known through its qualities; otherwise, it is unknown and hidden.

As our knowledge of things, even of created and limited things, is knowledge of their qualities and not of their essence, how is it possible to comprehend in its essence the Divine Reality, which is unlimited? For the inner essence of anything is not comprehended, but only its qualities. For example, the inner essence of the sun is unknown, but is understood by its qualities, which are heat and light. The inner essence of man is unknown and not evident, but by its qualities it is characterized and known. Thus everything is known by its qualities and not by its essence. Although the mind encompasses all things, and the outward beings are comprehended by it, nevertheless these beings with regard to their essence are unknown; they are only known with regard to their qualities.

Then how can the eternal everlasting Lord, Who is held sanctified from comprehension and conception, be known by His essence? That is to say, as things can only be known by their qualities and not by their essence, it is certain that the Divine Reality is unknown with regard to its essence and is known with regard to its attributes. Besides, how can the phenomenal reality embrace the Preexistent Reality? For comprehension is the result of encompassing--embracing must be, so that comprehension may be--and the Essence of Unity surrounds all and is not surrounded.

Also the difference of conditions in the world of beings is an obstacle to comprehension. For example, this mineral belongs to the mineral kingdom; however far it may rise, it can never comprehend the power of growth. The plants, the trees, whatever progress they may make, cannot conceive of the power of sight or the powers of the other senses; and the animal cannot imagine the condition of man--that is to say, his spiritual powers. Difference of condition is an obstacle to knowledge; the inferior degree cannot comprehend the superior degree. How then can the phenomenal reality comprehend the Preexistent Reality? Knowing God, therefore, means the comprehension and the knowledge of His attributes, and not of His Reality. This knowledge of the attributes is also proportioned to the capacity and power of man; it is not absolute. Philosophy consists in comprehending the reality of things as they exist, according to the capacity and the power of man. For the phenomenal reality can comprehend the Preexistent attributes only to the extent of the human capacity. The mystery of Divinity is sanctified and purified from the comprehension of the beings, for all that comes to the imagination is that which man understands, and the power of the understanding of man does not embrace the Reality of the Divine Essence. All that man is able to understand are the attributes of Divinity, the radiance of which appears and is visible in the world and within men's souls.

When we look at the world and within men's souls, we see wonderful signs of the divine perfections, which are clear and apparent; for the reality of things proves the Universal Reality. The Reality of Divinity may be compared to the sun, which from the height of its magnificence shines upon all the horizons; and each horizon, and each soul, receives a share of its radiance. If this light and these rays did not exist, beings would not exist; all beings express something and partake of some ray and portion of this light. The splendors of the perfections, bounties and attributes of God shine forth and radiate from the reality of the Perfect Man--that is to say, the Unique One, the supreme Manifestation of God. Other beings receive only one ray, but the supreme Manifestation is the mirror for this Sun, which appears and becomes manifest in it, with all its perfections, attributes, signs and wonders.

The knowledge of the Reality of the Divinity is impossible and unattainable, but the knowledge of the Manifestations of God is the knowledge of God, for the bounties, splendors and divine attributes are apparent in Them. Therefore, if man attains to the knowledge of the Manifestations of God, he will attain to the knowledge of God; and if he be neglectful of the knowledge of the Holy Manifestations, he will be bereft of the knowledge of God. It is then ascertained and proved that the Holy Manifestations are the center of the bounty, signs and perfections of God. Blessed are those who receive the light of the divine bounties from the enlightened Dawning-points! “
- In other words – In my street language – it’s just the way it is – you can’t explain it, but if you have the inner peace that comes from knowing it’s there you’d like to help others find it. Maybe these words don’t speak to you or you, but if you keep looking you’ll find others that do. If you want to find fault you’ll always be able too.
- I’ll be still now.

Thanks for taking the trouble to post that. I enjoyed reading it, but I think I only got the vaguest jist of it. You make a distinction between 'qualities' and 'essences' - this is similar to the objective/subjective duality, is it not? Or rather, an 'essence' is the 'thing-in-itself' of western philosophy?
Anyway, interesting.

-----------


Non sequiteur here, but I find myself in two minds (or is that mind+body) about people with religious beliefs - on the one hand, I think there is liitle ground for believing a lot of their beliefs, but on the other, I can see it does some of them a lot of good. My old mother is religious, and I wouldn't dream of rubbishing her faith and upsetting her comfortable thoughts. On the other hand, the militant relgious you-are-in-the-wrong brigade and the'you-will-not-teach-evolution-in-class guys merit some resistance..I think.

“'essence' is the 'thing-in-itself' of western philosophy?”

Just taking the time to read the whole thing means you got way more than the gist of it. Understand that this was written nearly a hundred years ago, before science discovered many of the qualities of things that we now know, and by a man that was not very educated, having lived most of his life in prison. Your second issue though – these religious practices that you refer too may be far away from the root. I don’t think anyone would ever consider religion if they were familiar with the wars, and wrongdoing that have been done in religions name – almost the exact opposite of what you’d expect. That is the doing of men though - not God. God gives you the tools – it’s totally personal – but finally the only answer is to just submit – not to what comes from the pulpit, but from a personal search that finally will cause the lights to come on.

djugurba wrote: For all who were concerned, I am indeed human, not an AOL robot...

Oh, so your burden of proof is resolved now, eh? Wow, you are so convincing, now I believe you :D :rolleyes: ;) .....darn, I was hoping that you could help me with some spidering :) but I suppose I'll have to wait it out :):D

It's official, the new religion confirms the existence of that old religion:

Odds on that God exists, says scientist

Stewart Maclean, Catherine Bolsover and Polly Curtis
Monday March 8, 2004

A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.

Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.

The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.

Factors that were considered included recognition of goodness, which Dr Unwin said makes the existence of God more likely, countered by things like the existence of natural evil - including earthquakes and cancer.

The unusual workings - which even take into account the existence of miracles - are set out in his new book, which includes a spreadsheet of the data used so that anyone can make the calculation themselves should they doubt its validity. The book, The Probability of God: A simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth, will be published later this month.

Dr Unwin said he was interested in bridging the gap between science and religion. He argues that rather than being a theological issue, the question of God's existence is simply a matter of statistics.

"On arriving in America I was exposed to certain religious outlooks that were somewhat of an assault upon my sensibilities - outlooks in which religion actually competes with science as an explanation of the world," he said.

"While I could not be sure, having slept through most of the cathedral services I had attended during secondary school, this did not seem like the version of faith I had remembered. In many ways, this project was for me a journey home - a reconciliation of my faith and education."

Despite his findings, Dr Unwin maintains that he is personally around 95% certain that God exists.

However, Graham Sharp, media relations director at William Hill, said there were technical problems with giving odds on the existence of God. "The problem is how you confirm the existence of God. With the Loch Ness monster we require confirmation from the Natural History Museum to pay out, but who are we going to ask about God? The church would definitely confirm his existence."

Mr Sharp said William Hill does take bets on the second coming, which currently stand at 1,000/1. For this confirmation is needed from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

"We do take bets on the second coming, whether that confirms the existence of God is up to the theologians to argue, most people wouldn't believe that, though."

That's so silly. It assumes that one can assign odds that a particular phenomenon is associated with a deity.

Most religions assume that all things are evidence of proof of deity. That being the case, there's 100% chance of God's existence, and I don't even need Bayes Theorem for a proof.

Now try a more objectivist approach. Assume that evidence of God must be unequivocally different from natural phenomeonon. Now what are the odds of observing an event wholly outside the bounds of nature? Would we even be able to sense something that is wholly outside of nature? Maybe its like detecting radio with your sense of smell. All of our faculties are nature-bound so which one detects un-nature? We don't have a "not-natural" detector organ. Or is that the "soul"?

B

I agree with the Botnst. I see not grounds for assigning the initial probability. It's like assigning a 50/50 probability to my existence since I either exist or I do not. It's dumb.

Also, he should have paid more attention to his Cathedral education, because as that old Archbishop of Cantebury, St. Anselm, pointed out, the non-existence of God is non-sense. The implication being that Mr. Unwin's argument is the equivalent of assigning a 50/50 probability to the existence of a square circle.

...anyone else think it's a bit strange that this 'scientist' also sees fit to declare his own personal probability percentage without any 'scientific' attribute?

It's embarassing that The Guardian apparently put three 'journalists' on this story.

Pandering to the recently aroused religious interest from, "Passion".

It's what papers do.

B

It's just meant to be provocative - it worked (P<0.05).

We will not find out until we visit the place 'where those who wait sit in the shadow of their thought'.

I'm sure this has already made the email rounds, but my mom just sent this to me.

On her radio show recently, Dr. Laura Schlesinger said that, as an
observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to
Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the internet.

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.

End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2, the passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Could we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Virginia

Two years ago.

But still cute.

B

I heard that the lady has given up on Orthodox Judaism. Where will she turn now for her moral center/

Originally posted by kerry edwards
I heard that the lady has given up on Orthodox Judaism. Where will she turn now for her moral center/

Before Orthodox Judaism, she tried using herself and that didn't work out for her either.

Crystals?

B

Maybe she should use the Ouija board for a moral center?

Dr. Laura is one obnoxious b**ch but this person has a point:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/flanagan.htm

Originally posted by kerry edwards
Dr. Laura is one obnoxious b**ch but this person has a point:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/flanagan.htm

Kerry,
I listened to her a few years ago and can attest to this author's comments concerning children. I also understand why the author finds it so unpleasant to say something nice about Laura. Dr. Laura is one of many famous people about whom I care not to burden myself.

Aklim, I like the ouija comment!

B

Server check - I'm off to roast some Bull :D

Server check - I'm off to roast some Bull :D

Uh-oh,

This thread is.....Well, shall we move for a continuance? (Guess, not...)