Wow - what a hot topic! I just wanna throw in a coupla things here though. I am not religious - to me, religion is the set of rules and regulations stated in a holy book of some sort that require little use of the heart, of passion, of relationships and of faith. I have faith - I have a personal relationship with God (albeit a tad strained right now due to personal reasons) but I have had enough proof of His hand on my life to satisfy me. Those who do not believe can kick off and say "where's your proof?" and that's all very well and good, but where is your proof that electricity exists? How do you prove it? You prove it in the simplest way by saying that when you plug a light into a socket and flip the switch, the light comes on due to electrical current. Well that's lovely, but how do I know you're telling the truth? I don't - I see the effects of electricity for myself and I believe. It's like if I were to tell you there is a tower in Paris and it's really famous. You don't know I'm telling the truth unless you've seen it for yourself, climbed it, bought the souvenirs. When you see the effects of God, it's hard to ignoe His existence too. The point is, we live in a world that is increasingly wanting fast results - answers, solid proof of something before we even start to dare to believe in it. And God isn't dumb - he knows us better than we do and He also knows just what we need to understand His truth. For some people it's a quick and easy thing - for others, notably CS Lewis, it's a reluctant conversion from Atheism to Christianity because, lets face it, it's harder to prove something doesn't exist than it does exist. If I lose my keys I can go nuts and say they're lost - at any time I can be proven wrong because the keys could turn up. It must be awful to be in a state of never quite knowing if you're gonna be proved wrong - something Christians never stress about...I know I am right because I know God. I can't prove that to anyone and I am not called to prove it. God does not ask that we prove Him - He's more than capable of doing that on His own - we're just called to spread the word of the gospel and those who choose to believe, choose to believe. God is, in effect, on everyone's case because He doesn't want anyone to go through life not knowing Him. But we have choices and if we choose not to believe then so be it. Paul (Saul) still had a choice even when he was blinded and told to be prayed for by someone else. He could have just said, "screw you, I don't believe Jesus is who he says he is - this was a fluke" But having been presented with irrefutable evidence that Jesus was the Son of God, he chose to believe. We can sit here and argue the toss about whether God exists or not but to be honest, those who are Christians can go one better and pray for those who do not believe and are so vehement in their objections to Christianity. That's the real issue to be addressed here - don't forget that dissention in the ranks is one of the enemy's most powerful weapons at destroying God's army. Careful you don't get so caught up in the battle that you neglect the war. (cue the shooting down of the new poster )
Every Animal and Bird knows more of God than Humans do. -Nietzsche. AKA, your an Idiot. Jekka Interesting post, do you think Christianity has it right though?
Are you his personal secretary? ., Can you ask him to send me 1 Billion Dollar worth of Gold? .. If you Think, christianity is a path to god, its false, No Religion can be a path to god., You must come out of religion to feel god., Other than that, If you feel, you had personal relationship with god (LOL!), then it means some missionary guys hynotized you!
@ sarathy - I've never had any kind of missionary brainwash me or hypnotise me or whatever. As for personal secretary - well, no one can claim to that and I certainly didn't. You want a billion dollars of gold? Get a job and work hard. You don't believe in my God so why should He give you a load of money - He might do but then you would probably explain it away anyways, so what's the point? I should like to hear your reasons as to why you think no religion leads to God coz that is quite a sweeping statement you've made there and you are either uneducated in other religions or you have spent your life searching and have come up with nothing. Read the entire post next time, because I seriously doubt you did in the first place otherwise you would have understood my point. I am more than happy to reiterate and explain any point that you did not understand.
I appreciate your polite/Yet straight forward attack ., Actually i dint understand your point where it states someone named paul., ..... ====== But having been presented with irrefutable evidence that Jesus was the Son of God, he chose to believe. ======= My point is., Jesus alone is not son of god., All (everyone/everything) belongs to god., All are sons of god., Also., Religion is man made., Following something which is manmade and believing it as a path to god is weird., Iam not an Atheist., I believe in god., I just dont believe in man made religions.,
yeah, Hindusim is not man made., That too not a single man made., There was no mention of hinduism during the Lord krishna period, There is nothing called as hinduism ============ Origins of the term Hindu is not found in Sanskrit. Many believe that the name Hindu was developed by invading forces who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. Hindu is derived from the Persian pronunciation of the Sanskrit word Sindhu (Sanskrit: िसनà¥à¤§à¥, the ancient name of the Indus River), located in what is now Pakistan.[6] The Persians, using the word "Hindu" for "Sindhu", referred to the people who lived near or on the other side of the Sindhu River as "Hindus", and their religion later became known as "Hinduism." Prior to that time, Hindus had called their religion SanÄtana Dharma (the eternal religion - see also Dharma), Vaidika Dharma (the religion of the Vedas), Ä€rya dharma (the noble religion), or mÄnava dharma (the religion of mankind). Eventually the word "Hindu" came into common use among Hindus themselves,[7] and was borrowed by the Ancient Greeks as Indos, Indikos ("Indian"), into Latin as Indianus.[8] and into Sanskrit, as hindu (हिनà¥à¤¦à¥), appearing in some early medieval texts.[9] ============= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu#Origins_of_the_word_Hindu
Then is this Krishna god not man made? Great post. But it's funny how you prove electricity as you probably know, like in math, using examples aren't the best way to prove something when it comes down to science. There is a difference between wanting solid proof and ignoring to believe in the first place. If someone said 0.9999.... = 1, would you believe it? In a first glance, probably not. Let's say you do not believe that the above equation is correct for a decade. But if someone shows you that since 1/3 = 0.3333.... and 1/3+1/3+1/3 = 0.3333.... + 0.3333.... + 0.3333.... = 3/3 = 1, would you believe it? What I'm trying to point out here is that Christianity tends to ignore proofs. Sure there could be a supernatural being called God, but the fundamental facts that we know of... just too many of them contradict God and His words, the Bible. The Bible actually begins straight from the beginning by contradicting the Conservation of Mass. It's rather funny how you state that we tend to desire rapid answers when it seems as if Christianity tends to try to find loopholes around laws and theories that contradict itself.
Well then, neither is everything that "Christians" believe which is encompassed by the invented word "Christianity." After all, the "truth" can't be invented now can it? Trees are trees no matter what you call them and they existed before they had a name. You mean conservation of energy? Let's see, now where would an all powerful being get enough energy to convert to mass to create a universe... And, if you have infinite energy to work with and you take away a finite amount, how much is left... I can see where the problem lies...
Darksat, you are illiterate. Didn't you know that Nietzsche was an Atheist? You are completely misreading and misunderstanding the quote that you yourself posted. Also, please learn the difference between "your" and "you're." Is suicide a sin in your religion?
Often assumed by the unwashed masses. Perhaps you might want to go read The Antichrist and Thus Spoke Zarathus again my Friend. Nietzsche spent most of his energy raging against the catholic idea of god. But I again refer to one of the many quote By Nietzsche referring to a god of sorts, a free god, beyond religion and concepts of good and evil. Nietzsche, God is Dead God, Nietzsche is Dead, and Will Spencer is still an idiot. Ps I dont have a religion, I have an understanding. Religion is for Idiots. Atheism is for cynics. Spirituality is for the free.
You have managed to delude yourself into believing that Nietzsche was not an Atheist? You are truly mad! Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them? I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers -- at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think! -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
I was referring to Saul who was mentioned earlier and his conversion on the road to Damascus - he was renamed Paul after that event. I firmly believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light - however, Christianity as a religion often fouls things up because of man's selfishness and basic humanity. Look at just how many different factions there are that claim to be Christian when in fact a true Christian is not someone who goes to church, reads the bible or even prays - it is someone who has recognised Jesus for who He is and forms a relationship with Him like you would any friend. I'm not saying all other religions are utterly wrong because that would be ignorant and, to a degree, false. My apologies for a poor example, but I am not a logical person by default and I merely picked something that was invisible yet with real effects. There would have been even less point in me going on about how I once had three angels in my living room or how I believe God sent someone to care of my baby when I was unable to move. Little point in explaining the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in my life. Those are personal experiences and I had no care to have them belittled by others. Call it an opiate of the masses, call it what you like - but I know what I have seen and I can only testify to that effect. I am not a scientist but it is my understanding that all science is theoretical and yet many people believe in what science tells us. Why not have the same open mindedness with religion? You may say there is no solid proof - but the same can be said for science, surely? No idea what conversion of mass is - but I am a simple girl with simple beliefs, I suppose .
haha i love how people say "just listen to some modern scientist" and yet they never back that up with anything factual. its because they can't. the truth is that scientists cannot explain how the entire universe is set up just right for there to be life on earth. the chances of it being a coincidence are so astronomically small that no one in their right mind could say that evolution as an explanation for our universe is even possible. sure scientists can explain a lot about atoms and the stars and things like that but all that does is point even more towards a creator. nothing scientists ever prove will disprove God. obviously no one can ever actually truly prove that there is a God and that is how God designed it. He wanted us to freely choose him or freely choose death.
- Example(s), please? I believe the job of the scientist is to seek to explain nature, via empirical searching. What isn't known...invites further study, not ascription to the divine. Were the divine to exist, I'd imagine this is what he, she, it intended.
I agree north, with one exception. See, I do ascribe everything to the divine. Simply because I do not have the answer doesn't deny the divine influence. Oh, Lord don't make me the last line of defense And I agree with your premise that any knowledge can only bring us closer to the divine mind ("Were the divine to exist, I'd imagine this is what he, she, it intended"). To be sure I have found Davinci's struggles with the church hard to swallow, nor have I ever been at odds with scientific progress. I have always felt it only illuminates His manifest greatness discovering how things work. I don't fear evolution, I think it quite likely, at least to some very great degree. What I still can't seem to get so many in my own circle of faith to admit to is that the Bible does NOT deny the possibility. It says God created the earth, and man from the dust of the earth. Well, isnt this essentially what those who posture themselves evolutionists or athiests also agree to? Do they not believe that man and everything else on this planet essentially came from the dust of this planet? Yes, scientists seek to explain nature but I also believe that the more we understand nature the more this explains God. I am confounded that so many find the two at odds.
Dead, I really appreciate your posts. Eloquent and thought-provoking. I remember reading a book eons (like, 30-32 years) ago, I believe it was "God's Plan for Man," in which the author posited the co-existence of evolution and a divine plan in Lucifer's fall - the shining one, inheriting an earth filled with precursors to man; a sort of pre-opening to Eden...forgive any errors due to time, stress, too many lives, too much wine...but it was an interesting perspective from a literalist interpretation of the Bible. I fully admit that "last" empirical gap - that bit of knowledge not yet known by any given empirical search - is unknown. For all I know, the divine may be found there. Which is why I limit my atheism to things known. I do not preach anything, much less the absence of God. Interesting thoughts, Dead. PS: HA! Came across the book on Amazon...first published in 1949, revised 1977 (OK, I was off by a year "ago"): God's Plan for Man - Finis Dake.
Um... no. Conservation of Mass. I think this is a principle that we learn before we learn about the Conservation of Energy, but infact, many tend to "forget" this principle. One thing that religious people tend to not know the difference of is the Conservation of Mass and the Conservation of Energy. Conservation of Mass is basically that the total mass remains constant despite the shape that it may be in. Ok. Infinite energy. God being beyond time. Saying that energy exists without the concept of time is in some sense extremely contradictory. The chances of everything being a coincidence is indeed astronomically small. But the important aspect is, is that the universe is astronomically huge. Simply mind-boggling. If you look at it that way, the chances of a coincidence is just immense. Our minds can't understand this chance, but does that mean that there is no chance? Not a single chance that it will occur in this vast amount of space? There are more stars than grains of sand in Earth. Stars, not planets. So times that by a few numbers again because there are more stars than planets. The chance being astronomically small is just something that people tend to say because we don't know the exact size of the universe. But heck, check Europa out. The chance of a spontaneous generation exists. There is a far greater chance that it will fail (since its beyond the habitual zone that WE know of), but then, something may be created. Something that may be able to adapt to that nature. We're talking one moon in OUR solar system. There are uncountable amount of solar systems just in the Milky Way. There are uncountable amount of galaxies in the universe. Small chance? I find it an amusing proposal that one should actually think more deeply about before asserting. The fundamentals of science is what we know of as Physics. In physics, there are laws. Laws that the nature must follow (in mostly all situations). I don't see how an open mindness or a closed ignorance will have a choice whether to accept or not to accept a law. I see religion (no offense in any means though) as more of ignoring such laws. (Although Christians very much like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) Laws, there are proofs. Religion, eh... I don't think so, but then, I'm not a religious guy. Maybe you could enlighten me on this aspect.