Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Why don't you agree God created our personalities? Who did then?

Why is it always a "whodunnit?"

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Impact is what I hope for. Everything in life suggests to me that life is haphazard, which is why I don't believe in a god.

I suppose you're talking about human beings' lives. It doesn't look that way to me. When I look at nature, I see incredible order and fascinating beauty, complexity and mystery. The universe does not look like random chance. It seems insinctively absurd to me to imagine that all the astounding facets of life, existence and even a universe like this one without life, could be considered to be random chance. The idea that it's all random chance is completely unsupported by any evidence, and is mind boggling to me in the leap of blind faith required to accept it.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

But I also think that while I'm alive, I might as well make other people's lives easier on them in whatever little way possible. (Of course I'd prefer to leave a big impact on everyone's life, but I have to work within the confines of reality.) To me, if there is a purpose in life, which I doubt but don't care to speculate on anymore, this is it: improving the lives of others.

I definitely respect the desire to make a positive difference in the world. That's an extremely important desire in me too. Keep it up!

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

What are you insinuating?

Interesting word choice .

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

That you think leaving a positive impact on the world is probably not what we should be doing with our lives, because there is something better? ( I'm not attacking you, because I don't know yet. But if so we'll probably argue until one of us dies.) What do you "hope for"?

I love your post. I'll respond now, with great pleasure, though with some trepidation because my answer is religious and this is a philosophy thread. Religion and philosophy are often highly intertwined though, so separating the two might be tricky in this thread. Anyway, I'll answer the question.

I watched a play performed today where the speaker at one point exclaimed, "given time, who will remember the sound of our voices?" Who will remember our personalities? They might remember us for our achievements for a time, but given enough time, even those will fade away, except in a few very rare cases. Given enough time, even our world will cease to exist, and then who will remember us humans? Short-term impact is nice and has short-term meaning, but in the end, it's all meaningless unless one believes in an afterlife.

So this is one unpleasant aspect of the situation. Here's an even less pleasant aspect, however:

Us humans are innately corrupt. You have said, "life is haphazard". Granted that we are thrown about by haphazard circumstances and also are corrupt beings ourselves (or "decent people", the PC term. Decent according to our own society's current standards ), the chances of us making even a short-term difference that is not as negative as it is positive is very slim.

Humanity is lost, flailing in a tide of seeming pointlessness and struggles to do what's right. Even many of the Nazis were doing what they believed was right. So were the Carthaginians while they burned their babies. So are we now while we murder millions of our children through abortion, IMO.

So what do I hope for? I don't believe that meaninglessness is real. I also believe God has provided an answer to human corruption. I also believe that God guiding humans with his wisdom and his power can bring a heck of a lot better of results than we can achieve through our own effort alone. Doesn't that make sense? Assuming that God exists, of course.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Here's a quiz for Christians on their understanding of Jesus in relation to the received orthodox tradition:

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=131773

You can take it on a secular level too, but the ranking is per the received tradition.

I'm a heretic because, in short, Original Sin is dumb.

Go Pelagianism! I wonder what Pelagius thought about gay marriage?


Results:

You scored as Pelagianism.

You are a Pelagian. You reject ideas about man's fallen human nature and believe that as a result we are able to fully obey God. You are the first Briton to contribute significantly to Christian thought, but you're still excommunicated in 417.

Pelagianism - 92%
Chalcedon compliant - 75%
Monophysitism - 67%
Apollanarian - 50%
Nestorianism - 50%
Modalism - 33%
Monarchianism - 25%
Arianism - 25%
Gnosticism - 17%
Albigensianism - 8%
Donatism - 8%
Adoptionist - 0%
Socinianism - 0%
Docetism - 0%


edited to add: That's 417 AD.

[Lotesse]

I'm so glad you quoted Inked, there, Nurvi, because it confirms what I've always asserted - Inked can post links to quizzes he's obviously taken,and expects us to do his online quizzes, yet when we post quizzes and invite him to participate, he claims that it is not possible for him to do so, with whatever lame excuse he tosses our way.

Yeah, that's right, Inked, there are some things around here I just will not let go, even though I'm sure you wish I would just forget. I'm enjoying this opportunity to call you on your - well, you know the term. T-H-I-N-K S-L-O-W-L-Y, Inked. Yeah, that's right. Lotsy doesn't forget.

But I'm going to take this quiz, for the fun of it. I'm sure to be shown to be a nice, honest, simple down to earth heretic.

[Nurvingiel]

I wonder if this quiz has a non-heretical option, or if you are only shown the type of heretic you most closely approximate.

Inked, I know you're busy with your real job and family and stuff, but I'm really curious to see what you'd get. The quiz takes three minutes, tops. Please!

I'm not asking so I can be like "Ha, you're a heretic!!" in the gay marriage thread later, but just because I'm genuinely curious.

Lotesse, I'm curious as to your heretical results as well. Maybe you'll join me in Pelagianism.

[Mercutio]

Me:

You scored as Chalcedon compliant.

You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.


And for this source's other quiz, which theologian are you...

You scored as John Calvin. (I'm not surprised!)

Much of what is now called Calvinism had more to do with his followers than Calvin himself, and so you may or may not be committed to TULIP, though God's sovereignty is all important.

[Lotesse]

This is a silly kind of quiz for me to take, becaue the bottom line is, I believe Jesus Christ was an outstanding, brilliant thinker and leader who was born, lived and died a couple thousand years ago in the middle east. Not for a moment do I believe any of the God stuff, so the god/'God deity questions are lost on me, and that's what the entire quiz is tailored toward - how deep or shallow a person's belief in a deity or deities is.

This is what I scored:

Socinian. You deny the doctrine of the Trinity because you think God exists in a simplified unity. Since this makes the Incarnation impossible, you see Christ's work as simply exemplary.

Socinian n: 1: an adherent of an early Protestant movement that denied the divinity of Christ and held rationalistic views of sin and salvation. 2: an adherent of similar theological views, esp. : a a Christian who rejects orthodox Christian doctrines of the divinity of Christ, the Trinity and original sin; b a Unitarian. 3: an occasional journal of liberal religion, liberal politics, outdoor recreation, and other musings.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm a heretic because, in short, Original Sin is dumb.

What do you mean?

[Lotesse]

Hee hee! Here we go...

[Lotesse]

This guy Pelagius was onto something...

Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. He denied original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him.

Pelagius was definitely onto something right, here.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I suppose you're talking about human beings' lives. It doesn't look that way to me. When I look at nature, I see incredible order and fascinating beauty, complexity and mystery. The universe does not look like random chance. It seems insinctively absurd to me to imagine that all the astounding facets of life, existence and even a universe like this one without life, could be considered to be random chance. The idea that it's all random chance is completely unsupported by any evidence, and is mind boggling to me in the leap of blind faith required to accept it.

I like the way you argue. I'm not talking about random chance either though. I agree that life and time progress systematically and are beautifully complex and mysterious, but that doesn't mean that a supreme being is behind them. That leap of faith seems almost laughable to me. Maybe I'm missing something in between the time when you recognise something beyond total human comprehension and when you say "it must be God"?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I watched a play performed today where the speaker at one point exclaimed, "given time, who will remember the sound of our voices?" Who will remember our personalities? They might remember us for our achievements for a time, but given enough time, even those will fade away, except in a few very rare cases. Given enough time, even our world will cease to exist, and then who will remember us humans? Short-term impact is nice and has short-term meaning, but in the end, it's all meaningless unless one believes in an afterlife.

So this is one unpleasant aspect of the situation.

That isn't unpleasant. It's right. So what? I've accepted that my life is temporary and when I think that [relatively] short-term impact is my highest potential, that doesn't bring any sort of emotions to my mind, pleasant or unpleasant. That's a fact. I'll die one day and be forgotten.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So this is one unpleasant aspect of the situation. Here's an even less pleasant aspect, however:

Us humans are innately corrupt.

Oh no! I totally disagree. I bet you're basing that assumption on original sin. ( I just realized, if we disect this point, we might get much deeper into psychology.) But for now I'll just call it a moot point.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You have said, "life is haphazard". Granted that we are thrown about by haphazard circumstances and also are corrupt beings ourselves (or "decent people", the PC term. Decent according to our own society's current standards ), the chances of us making even a short-term difference that is not as negative as it is positive is very slim.

Well, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that exactly the way I interpreted it, so could you elaborate? When you talk about a person's "chances" of making a positive impact, are you assuming that they aren't even trying to?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Humanity is lost, flailing in a tide of seeming pointlessness and struggles to do what's right. Even many of the Nazis were doing what they believed was right. So were the Carthaginians while they burned their babies. So are we now while we murder millions of our children through abortion, IMO.

So what do I hope for? I don't believe that meaninglessness is real. I also believe God has provided an answer to human corruption. I also believe that God guiding humans with his wisdom and his power can bring a heck of a lot better of results than we can achieve through our own effort alone. Doesn't that make sense? Assuming that God exists, of course.

Assuming God exists. We can't change each other's views on that. You don't seem to have much faith in the human race, though. I wonder if you've ever tried living ignorant of God for a while, and if so, for how long? I'm not gonna challenge you to do so, because that would make me Satan or something I think, and I'm content with just blasphemer. I have found it satifactory to say that history repeats itself, bad things happen, good things happen, and life gets increasingly complex just because, not because there's God behind it. The existential question is the only one I, as a human, can never really hope to answer. Maybe instinct tells us to answer "because of a supreme being," but I don't see the necessity for that.

[Rían]

frankly, I think only those without children can believe that people are born without a sin nature!

(funny, but entirely serious!)

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

This guy Pelagius was onto something...

Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. He denied original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him.

Pelagius was definitely onto something right, here.

Whoa! I thought I was ahead of my time. Pelagius knew what's up in 417 AD!

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

Bombadillo, you are the bomb!


I'm not going to make a long winded post. If it is possible to get winded while posting. Something for the philosophy thread maybe.


Anyway, we were not put here by God, I'm going to italicize the name cause each person has a different name for their deity, we were not given this planet. We took it. In the begining we were mearly scavengers looking for food and trying to keep our species alive. We took this planet when the greater species died out and was no longer a threat to us and we could evovle into something unafaid of the other creatures around us.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I suppose you're talking about human beings' lives. It doesn't look that way to me. When I look at nature, I see incredible order and fascinating beauty, complexity and mystery. The universe does not look like random chance. It seems insinctively absurd to me to imagine that all the astounding facets of life, existence and even a universe like this one without life, could be considered to be random chance. The idea that it's all random chance is completely unsupported by any evidence, and is mind boggling to me in the leap of blind faith required to accept it.

Wouldn't believing that some higher power did all this be the real "leap of faith"? These things did not happen over night, or in 7 days. The beauty, complexity, and mystery of life took many millennia to take shape, and is ever changing. Hence, "The circle of life". These living things learned to adapt and life with the other things around them. They wern't told how to do this.

I'll stop here for now and wait for a reply.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I'm not talking about random chance either though.

If you're saying the universe is not intelligent design at work, you're saying it's random chance. Which seems more likely to you?

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I agree that life and time progress systematically and are beautifully complex and mysterious, but that doesn't mean that a supreme being is behind them.

It is not proof, I agree. But it is a strong indicator. Design implies a designer. Beauty implies an artist. The universe cries out great artistic wonder and splendor, and I have trouble believing that that would all come from chance.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

That leap of faith seems almost laughable to me.

What seems utterly bizarre to me is atheism. Atheism is just so irrational, it's mindboggling. It's absolute blind faith. There is no evidence that there is no God and there never can be. If any religion has even a shred of evidence to support its accuracy, that will be more evidence than atheism ever could have.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Maybe I'm missing something in between the time when you recognise something beyond total human comprehension and when you say "it must be God"?

I'm not saying it must be God. I am saying that the beauty and splendor of the universe is an indicator of a God, for the universe could so easily have been random and ugly. There are so many other ways the universe could have been that would have been grotesque or at least not beautiful.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

That isn't unpleasant. It's right. So what? I've accepted that my life is temporary and when I think that [relatively] short-term impact is my highest potential, that doesn't bring any sort of emotions to my mind, pleasant or unpleasant. That's a fact. I'll die one day and be forgotten.

Then according to your views, you are utterly worthless. Everyone you know and everything you do is worthless and pointless. Nothing has any value. The chance of making impact too is hopeless, for you and everything will be forgotten and as though it never was. You are irrelevant. If I kill you, I won't have done anything bad. It's irrelevant whether you're alive or dead. Life is irrelevant and of no importance whatsoever.

This seems a most horrible point of view, to me. What convinced you that this is the state of reality? And wouldn't it be smart to check out alternative possibilities?

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Oh no! I totally disagree. I bet you're basing that assumption on original sin. ( I just realized, if we disect this point, we might get much deeper into psychology.) But for now I'll just call it a moot point.

Selfishness is a sin, by the Christian definition of sin. Everyone has selfishness in them. Doesn't that prove original sin?

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Well, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that exactly the way I interpreted it, so could you elaborate? When you talk about a person's "chances" of making a positive impact, are you assuming that they aren't even trying to?

No, I'm assuming they are trying to. As I pointed out in the next paragraph of my post, people's opinions of what is good and what is bad strongly differ and continue to evolve. Let's suppose you think abortion is acceptable (I don't know if you do or not). You think Pro-Choice is a worthy cause. So you attempt to make a difference in the world for good, and you succeed. You make abortion legal all over the world. But what if you were wrong? What if abortion actually was murder? You've the deaths of millions of people on your hands.

Carthaginians believed they were doing right when they threw their children into the flames to their idols. Romans thought they were doing right when they sent gladiators into the arena (or at least didn't think they were doing wrong). But we don't have to get into life and death issues. There are many others which are disputed. Making a difference for good is hard to do when you don't know for sure what good is, and I expect it's even harder when you don't even believe it exists.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Assuming God exists. We can't change each other's views on that.

Why do you think he doesn't exist? Because life seems haphazard? But I'm sure you know that just that it seems haphazard to puny mortal minds like ours, that is no proof at all that it is haphazard.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

You don't seem to have much faith in the human race, though. I wonder if you've ever tried living ignorant of God for a while, and if so, for how long?

I didn't know God personally until I was 15. That was five years ago, as I'm 20. Why do you ask?

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I have found it satifactory to say that history repeats itself, bad things happen, good things happen, and life gets increasingly complex just because, not because there's God behind it. The existential question is the only one I, as a human, can never really hope to answer. Maybe instinct tells us to answer "because of a supreme being," but I don't see the necessity for that.

It's not instinct I rely on at all. I promise you that. Millions of Christians would say the same. Instinct is nothing. Meaningless . I don't rely on blind faith either. And the structure of the universe is only one evidence for God, a blatant one I see around me all the time, whenever I appreciate the beautiful colors of the world, and which can also be appreciated in all our five senses. But that's one I don't depend on. It's just the kind of "duh." I primarily rely on personal, ongoing experience of God. Relationship with him. That is the most important evidence for me. Another important evidence would be the astronomical improbability that Jesus could have fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament by chance. There are more along the line of historical evidence of Jesus and the reliability of the Gospels. Personal relationship and experience of God, along with many, many wierd testimonies from millions of people around the world would confirm the improbability of God being nonexistent from it all. The evidence for God's existence is flabbergasting in its quantity.

[Serenoli]

For what its worth, I agree with Lief. Evidence everywhere, if you search for it. I don't think there is definite proof of which religion is the right one, but there is every proof that God exists... I can think of so many arguments, but I can't really put it into words, but since Lief does it so much better, I'll just sit here, listen to it all, and nod when I agree...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Farimir Captain of Gondor

Anyway, we were not put here by God, I'm going to italicize the name cause each person has a different name for their deity, we were not given this planet. We took it.

You know, there is such a thing as taking what we're given .

Originally Posted by Farimir Captain of Gondor

Wouldn't believing that some higher power did all this be the real "leap of faith"?

No. I've heard that claimed, but it makes no sense at all. To believe things are incredibly complex, orderly and beautiful because someone wanted them that way is less a leap of faith than believing they all just turned out that way by chance. If I saw a painting hanging on the wall, it would be utterly wierd of me to say it was random chance that turned it out that way, random chance that the wall appeared in spite of its organizational structure, and random chance that the painting existed. I would be nothing short of a wierdo. The same principle applies with the universe. It is a grand spectacle. Believing that it just happened to come out in a beautiful way is a very odd belief. Believing it "just happened" at all is a strange belief too, IMO .

But saying it all exists in such glory, organization, splendor and beauty because it was designed that way makes sense. Yes, it is a leap of faith, if that is the only evidence for the existence of a God that exists. But saying that all that is, in all its splendor, got that way out of chance is a much larger leap.

As I said in my previous post, if any religion has even the smallest shred of evidence to support it, that's more than atheism ever could have. Atheism never could and never will have a shred of evidence to support it. It's absolute, total blind faith, and faith in pointlessness and hopelessness too, I might add, which makes no sense at all to me. Why bother having such absolute faith in that? I don't get it. Atheism isn't reason; it's the blindest of blind faith. If one is going to have complete blind faith in something, why not have blind faith in something with a bit more cheer and hope to it?

Originally Posted by Farimir Captain of Gondor

These things did not happen over night, or in 7 days. The beauty, complexity, and mystery of life took many millennia to take shape, and is ever changing. Hence, "The circle of life".

In the Bible, there are two types of things that are plainly not intended to be taken literally. These are visions and dreams. Frequently, the Lord speaks to his people and instructs them about reality through the picture language of visions and dreams. These images can be very wierd at times, and are very commonly not literal.

According to the Genesis account, man was created on the sixth day. This is after the major creation events had all occurred. Therefore man could not have been an eye witness of those previous days. He must have heard about them from God. And how does God commonly speak to his people? He speaks to them in many ways, but two very common ways throughout the Bible are dreams and visions.

The Book of Revelation is almost entirely one big vision. There is hardly anything in it that isn't vision, and it includes the symbolic use of the number 7 many, many times. So it isn't a big leap at all to say that the seven days account was also a vision, and 7 was used symbolically.

Furthermore, there is the logistical factor that the sun was only created on the fourth day. 24 hour days are calculated based on the sun, and if it didn't exist, there wouldn't be any reason to believe the days were 24 hour. If those days weren't necessarily 24 hour, why should one think the days after the sun was created were 24 hour? So technically it doesn't make sense to say the 7 days were literal, and there is a completely scripturally consistent explanation at hand for seven days being described in Genesis. One can still believe the Bible is literal and take the Genesis account as partly nonliteral, because it must have been communicated by God rather than experienced by man, and could easily have been communicated through a vision or dream.

Originally Posted by Farimir Captain of Gondor

These living things learned to adapt and life with the other things around them. They wern't told how to do this.

I think there's some of both, human learning and divine teaching. And I dare you to disprove me!

Or to prove your own comments about us having learned what we did all on our own without God's help .

And by the way, I can offer you some evidence that God actually did teach us things in the far past. There are parts of the Hebrew Old Testament which contain sound medical advice which has been ignored by modern physicians for centuries. In the Old Testament, for example, it says that people who are sick should be isolated from communities, so that the disease won't spread. That's a teaching that our modern medical practices use, but which is only a relatively recent discovery.

Also, in the Old Testament, the Lord advised his people to wash their hands in running water before treating injuries. That's a medical practice that the Israelites used, but which hasn't been used since them in any societies until the late 1800s.

These aren't proof of God. They are an evidence though that people may have heard from him, long ago, and adjusted their lives accordingly.

There are other things in the Old Testament I'd also like to point out, passages in the first chapters of Genesis that indicate a strong understanding of reality that humans, of their own knowledge, could not have known.

The Bible says that early in Earth's history, the waters of the Earth were "all in one place." Later on it says, "It was in the days of Peleg that the lands divided."

The Bible also says that God cursed the serpent that deceived Eve by saying it would "crawl on its belly and eat dust." What does this imply about the reptile earlier? In order for crawling on its belly to be a punishment, it would have to earlier have not been crawling on its belly. It would have had to have been standing upright. The Bible acknowledges the existence of reptiles that stand upright- the dinosaurs.

Also, the Bible in many places says that living things were made out of dust. However, it also says in one place that "the land created the creatures according to their kinds." The land created the creatures according to their kinds. Modern science does accept that the land created the creatures according to their kinds- through changing environment animals are supposed to have evolved, correct?

I know that none of these things is proof of God. They are strong indicators, however.

Originally Posted by Farimir Captain of Gondor

I'll stop here for now and wait for a reply.

Good hearing from you too! I hope my post doesn't sound too aggressive. I'm very glad we're having this discussion .

[Lief Erikson]

Feel free to respond in posts that last forever, Faramir and Bombadillo! I know I'm taking that liberty .

Originally Posted by Serenoli

I can think of so many arguments, but I can't really put it into words, but since Lief does it so much better, I'll just sit here, listen to it all, and nod when I agree...

If you have any arguments or related points I haven't yet covered, it would be very interesting to hear them!

Originally Posted by Serenoli

For what its worth, I agree with Lief. Evidence everywhere, if you search for it. I don't think there is definite proof of which religion is the right one, but there is every proof that God exists...

But I think the state of nature also by default indicates something about the personality and nature of God.

1) He's an artist. The beauty would not exist without an artist behind it.

2) He's unbelievably powerful.

3) He's unbelievably intelligent.

4) It indicates that we mean something to God. The universe exists in such a way that life could exist. There are countless tiny variations to the universe's structure which would have made it impossible for it to sustain life. If even one of these tiny differences had occurred, life could not exist. The probability that we could have gotten a life-sustaining universe by chance is so low it is not worth mentioning. This counts as both an evidence for the existence of God and an evidence that life means a great deal to him, since he specifically made the universe in just such a way that life could exist. Therefore we matter a great deal to God.

5) Perhaps God is loving. This I put as a perhaps because I haven't yet thought of enough evidence to really fill the idea out as much as I'd like. But we live in a beautiful world with more than enough resources to take care of all of us. We each have five senses and great physical and IMO spiritual beauty. Most of the catastrophes we experience come from our devising rather than nature, but as Blackheart pointed out in the Danté's Inferno thread, often pain and death, horrible though they are, also have lessons to teach us that benefit us as individuals and as a species. These things indicate a loving God.

[Bombadillo]

FCoG, thanks!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you're saying the universe is not intelligent design at work, you're saying it's random chance. Which seems more likely to you?

If it must be a multiple choice question, I'd say random chance is much less impossible.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not saying it must be God. I am saying that the beauty and splendor of the universe is an indicator of a God, for the universe could so easily have been random and ugly. There are so many other ways the universe could have been that would have been grotesque or at least not beautiful.

That's the step in your logic that I was missing. I really wasn't sure. So now you make sense to me.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It is not proof, I agree. But it is a strong indicator. Design implies a designer. Beauty implies an artist. The universe cries out great artistic wonder and splendor, and I have trouble believing that that would all come from chance.

What seems utterly bizarre to me is atheism. Atheism is just so irrational, it's mindboggling. It's absolute blind faith. There is no evidence that there is no God and there never can be. If any religion has even a shred of evidence to support its accuracy, that will be more evidence than atheism ever could have.

I have no new argument against that, and I know neither of us like beating dead horses. So just let it be known: Leif and I live in parallel universes.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Then according to your views, you are utterly worthless. Everyone you know and everything you do is worthless and pointless. Nothing has any value. The chance of making impact too is hopeless, for you and everything will be forgotten and as though it never was. You are irrelevant. If I kill you, I won't have done anything bad. It's irrelevant whether you're alive or dead. Life is irrelevant and of no importance whatsoever.

I believe in good and bad in their platonian forms. If you killed someone, that would obviously be bad. If you killed an old, sadistic, dealer of acid-laced cocaine who's secondary source of income is the welfare she gets for her big starving batch of beaten and brain-damaged kids, giving birth to a new one every year since she was fourteen, headed nowhere fast in life, well that would be a bit of a gray area. I'm in no position to judge you there and no one should be.

And everybody makes an impact. They don't even have to try. Someone will remember you, and you'll change the way they think, maybe just a tiny bit, or maybe you'll change the course of just one day in their life. But in any case, you affect someone. Then they, a little bit different because of your memory, affect the other people they encounter, and your legacy lives on forever even though no one gives you credit.

Worthless, pointless? Still, I guess so. But while I exist, I might as well make it a happy existence. Happy meaning full of smiles and platonian good. That's the least I could do. But that's dangerously boring.* So I also try to spread goodness to other people. It probably doesn't matter. Destructive attitudes probably don't matter either, but destroying things all the time is less fun and never leads to anything good.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This seems a most horrible point of view, to me. What convinced you that this is the state of reality? And wouldn't it be smart to check out alternative possibilities?

You know I can't point to anything in particular. Largely observation and introspection though. I guess I read Catcher in the Rye at just the right time in my life too. I checked out alternative possibilities. Christianity first, or course, because it's all the rage, and I've been in Catholic schools and environments for all my life, then Transcendentalism, Buddhism, but they all demand some sort of devotion either to a god or to one or more strictly defined ideas. That irritated me, so I looked at the different types of atheism. I think I narrowed it down to two or three that could loosely apply to me, but I forget what they were. I see no need to label myself anyway.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Selfishness is a sin, by the Christian definition of sin. Everyone has selfishness in them. Doesn't that prove original sin?

It proves we're human, nothing more. You might be overananlyzing something very simple.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No, I'm assuming they are trying to. As I pointed out in the next paragraph of my post, people's opinions of what is good and what is bad strongly differ and continue to evolve. Let's suppose you think abortion is acceptable (I don't know if you do or not). You think Pro-Choice is a worthy cause. So you attempt to make a difference in the world for good, and you succeed. You make abortion legal all over the world. But what if you were wrong? What if abortion actually was murder? You've the deaths of millions of people on your hands.

Carthaginians believed they were doing right when they threw their children into the flames to their idols. Romans thought they were doing right when they sent gladiators into the arena (or at least didn't think they were doing wrong). But we don't have to get into life and death issues. There are many others which are disputed. Making a difference for good is hard to do when you don't know for sure what good is, and I expect it's even harder when you don't even believe it exists.

It depends on the person. It was harder for me at one point, but I changed. Now, I realize that there's a certain amount of doublethink involved in religion, and I hate doublethink. If you're OK with it, or your dependency on an organized religion outweighs your desire to think freely, or if (the rarest case) you truly do agree with every word a particular religion teaches, than go ahead and be part of that religion. Christianity disagrees and that's what first made me stray from it. Things are simpler for me now. The only real good is the unquestionably good, and the only real bad is the unquestionably bad. Anything in between, which is the vast majority of life, we can't judge and IMO we shouldn't waste our time trying to judge. It's just a big part of our lives and we should try to make it good if we can. It isn't worthless though IMO; it trains us in patience and all sorts of discipline.

(I'm wholeheartedly against abortion though, for the record. Unlike the legal courts and unlike the Church, I admit I have no idea and no authority to say at what point human life starts, but an embryo promises to be a person. That's an undeniable fact. When you kill it, you're just as bad a murderer.)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Why do you think he doesn't exist? Because life seems haphazard? But I'm sure you know that just that it seems haphazard to puny mortal minds like ours, that is no proof at all that it is haphazard.

I didn't know God personally until I was 15. That was five years ago, as I'm 20. Why do you ask?

It's not instinct I rely on at all. I promise you that. Millions of Christians would say the same. Instinct is nothing. Meaningless . I don't rely on blind faith either. And the structure of the universe is only one evidence for God, a blatant one I see around me all the time, whenever I appreciate the beautiful colors of the world, and which can also be appreciated in all our five senses. But that's one I don't depend on. It's just the kind of "duh." I primarily rely on personal, ongoing experience of God. Relationship with him. That is the most important evidence for me. Another important evidence would be the astronomical improbability that Jesus could have fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament by chance. There are more along the line of historical evidence of Jesus and the reliability of the Gospels. Personal relationship and experience of God, along with many, many wierd testimonies from millions of people around the world would confirm the improbability of God being nonexistent from it all. The evidence for God's existence is flabbergasting in its quantity.

The evidence for Atlantis would be equally overwhelming if someone said to have seen it over 2000 years ago and everyone since has been praising the idea and calling all the nonbelievers names. It doesn't change the facts. I could easily explain away prayer and the stigmata, but not consicesly enough to be worthwhile at this hour.

At the risk of sounding like I'm reproaching myself, maybe "haphazard" was the wrong word. "Unpredictable" would be more like it.


*I plan on elaborating the starred part tomorrow.
There's also something potentially misleading about my posts that I should probably clear up, but later.

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Good hearing from you too! I hope my post doesn't sound too aggressive. I'm very glad we're having this discussion .

Me too. Thank you for not just "shooting down" my ideas, also.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You know, there is such a thing as taking what we're given.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Bible also says that God cursed the serpent that deceived Eve by saying it would "crawl on its belly and eat dust." What does this imply about the reptile earlier? In order for crawling on its belly to be a punishment, it would have to earlier have not been crawling on its belly. It would have had to have been standing upright. The Bible acknowledges the existence of reptiles that stand upright- the dinosaurs.

So, if I understand this, God made the dinasours, let them rule over earth for millions of years, and then at some point said, "I'm done with you, you tricked my Adam" and turned them all to snakes? Why did he create them in the first place? Was it just an experiment he was trying? If so, why did he made them "dumb"? Wouldn't this imply god is just a kid with a science kit? You will have to excuse my knowledge of the bible, I really don't know much about it. I do have some understanding of it though.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If I saw a painting hanging on the wall, it would be utterly wierd of me to say it was random chance that turned it out that way, random chance that the wall appeared in spite of its organizational structure, and random chance that the painting existed. I would be nothing short of a wierdo. The same principle applies with the universe. It is a grand spectacle. Believing that it just happened to come out in a beautiful way is a very odd belief.

It didn't just come from nowhere, it came from an explosion. Yeah, I'm a believer of The Big Bang Theory. If god created this painting we call earth, why did he stop there? Why isn't there life on the other planets in our solar system? did he put those there just for show? Like a background for his main theme, earth?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Book of Revelation is almost entirely one big vision. There is hardly anything in it that isn't vision, and it includes the symbolic use of the number 7 many, many times. So it isn't a big leap at all to say that the seven days account was also a vision, and 7 was used symbolically.

I understand the idea of how "7 days" could actually be longer. To use Tolkien as an example, and to try and help me explain what I'm trying to say , the idea of "days" is shorter for someone like a hobbit who isn't immortal, than an elf, who is. Does that make sense? I guess I should have put some apostrophes over the "7 days".

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think there's some of both, human learning and divine teaching. And I dare you to disprove me!

Or to prove your own comments about us having learned what we did all on our own without God's help .

I'll try.

If humans were to take a creature from say, Austarilia, where they have lived for thousands of years, and place them in a strange environment, say, Cannada, (not that Canada is strange, well that's a different topic ) would god have to teach them how to adapt? Wouldn't this creature either learn themselves what's going on or parish?
Sure, if they made it, some would say "God helped them". If they didn't they would say, "God chose not to help."
The same way some would say "They adapted and changed on their own.", or; "They didn't fair well and died."

It's so hard to prove or disprove anything when it comes to this, but it sure is fun trying. There's a few other things you said that I want to touch on but I've been typing now for like 20 min and my poor fingers are getting tired. If you want you can address these things now and I'll come back to your other comments later.


P. S. I guess i used to many smillies so I had to go back and erase some. LOL. Some were in your quotes, so i'm sorry. I just thought that you would understand your mood when writing them and someone who reads mine wouldn't.