scott_harpell

I am not a fundamentalist... in fact far from it. Atheists always think that they are so much smarter and they have it figured out. Is it possible that you are wrong? Can you conced this much? The fishing is great! Layed into some cutties in the last few days and one of em took me into the backing... far into the backing...

I am glad you qualified that statement, because I defy you to find one instance where Christianity breaks down. But Oh! it fails to explain 'certain things.' What system pray-tell does not?

Is that all you have to base a your whole life's devotion on? The mystery man Q is highly contorversial....a theoretical person....likely an avatar of Trask. No documentation has ever been found that anyone ever actually saw or met Q, and the theory of Q didn't even arise until the 19th century. There are numerous technical and literary problems with this theory, too, that I don't think anyone here really wants to read about. That's really reaching.... Uhm Q isn't a person. It is a text. Mabe you should read it before you dismiss it. Why is it controversial? Because you say it is? It is the accepted explanation for believers and non-believers.

Scott- People don't try to find solace, they do. Organized religions are creations of man - arguing about perversions, superiority, original intent, etc. is absurd to me. You are still missing the point. Whether or not they do or dont (hell I agree many do). They shouldn't and that is precisely the point.

Thinker said: A very interesting question. The associated question: Why does religion try to make us feel guilty? is even more interesting. IMHO, the severe feelings of guilt that Christianity has instilled in millions of people is counterproductive to living a joyous life (fyi, joy is one of the fruitages of the spirit...that's somewhere in the New Testament). When one steps out from under the oppressive bonds of "Christian" guilt, life takes on a whole new meaning....I've seen it happen many times. That begs the question, is 'Christianity' in it's modern form anything like Christianity was in the first century? Scotty said: Thank you! I agree. Modern Christianity is nothing like it was in the first century. I try to subscribe to the 1st century ethic, but admittedly, it is tough. Look at who Christ was. He was oppsed to big churches and prefered small philosophical chats by the fire. He abhored money and was enraged by the desecration of the temple by the money changers. The list of differences goes on, but I assure you that there are Christians who know this and are trying to fix this problem. Likely this problem originated in the creeds of Calcedon etc. where the first kinds of orthodoxy were created. Thanks for the question. Scott, how can you possibly think the belief system you have today could be anything like the one that existed 2000 years ago? Divine Revelation? I would seriously be interested in hearing about the unique evidence you may have. (And the argument that an all powerful god would not allow that to happen has been proved false over and over.) The scriptures you hold in your hand today have been altered so much by the reigning religious (and political) powers over the last 20 centuries that they likely bear very little resemblance to the originals, especially in the area of controversial dogma...the most important aspects of Christianity. Have you researched this? I have. Wouldn't there be numberous historical faults then? Then you could jsut disprove it right then and there. There is evidence there were written versions "Q" writen just a few years after the death of christ and that these were compliled to create the synoptic gospels. That is the reason that many of the verses in the gospels are very similar. So like i said. Read up on it and mabe you will open your mind.

Do you also ask your climbing partners to produce a photocopy of their MS in material science before you let them belay you with their gear? Only Catbird. All I am saying is, if you are going to argue in public you should have some basis other than a discipline that does not address your question. In other words, science does not refute nor substantiate religion. The basic questions still exist in both. To argue the ultimate question of where we came from, you should consult some of the brilliant minds of our culture who devoted their lives to the question. Without a firm basis for your beliefs, you will likely be swayed by the next good motivational speaker and the next,....................... No insult intended to the good people of CC.COM Thanks Bug. I would never presume to lay into the theory of Evolution as I know it takes years and years of studying to understand. Likewise, I would suggest you at least read the 'theories' you are trying to refute...Generally a good idea.

Tru nuff' CBS. Either way I think it is too much for us to comprehend. Fascinating to think about from a philosophical standpoint to try and visualize/rationalize non-existence. The contrary is admittedly as hard to imagine. Isn't that what makes life great? I do take solace in the fact that i may or may never know and just leave it at that.

It does if you understand Hebrew and Greek (or enough). Alpha and Omega is one name attributed to him. He transcends time. Perhaps the reason athiests are so hostile towards an omniscient God is that they cannot explain something that is beyond their comprehension. This is where some delve into pantheism saying that God IS the universe and that he is forever expanding and boundless like the universe and that inside him are the laws of our existence which he is immune to. He temporarily relinquished this power by sending Christ. The general conclusion is that he has always existed. I know you will write that off as B.S. or whatever, but that is what I believe. I dont think my views are orthodoxy, but what the hell? Eventually, you always get to this. "God is too much from our puny human minds to deal with. He 'is' and we can't question it." Hence, it's a win-win situation. Either you convince the other guy logically, or you simply revert to "God is beyond logic". I am not trying to convince anyone. I am just stating that is what I believe. Do you not have scientists that say that there are things we cannot explain yet? Yes. The same is true with me. I feel that one day I will know. When I have reached enlightenment after death. You are more than welcome to question it. That is because he gave us free will. Ironically enough, I believe that this is what mires us as humans. Read Genesis and then talk to me. It is not worth arguing with you when you dont know what you are talking about. I wouldn't mind sharing with you, but please dont run your mouth when you haven't read the text book.

It does if you understand Hebrew and Greek (or enough). Alpha and Omega is one name attributed to him. He transcends time. Perhaps the reason athiests are so hostile towards an omniscient God is that they cannot explain something that is beyond their comprehension. This is where some delve into pantheism saying that God IS the universe and that he is forever expanding and boundless like the universe and that inside him are the laws of our existence which he is immune to. He temporarily relinquished this power by sending Christ. The general conclusion is that he has always existed. I know you will write that off as B.S. or whatever, but that is what I believe. I dont think my views are orthodoxy, but what the hell?

If this is how you see it then how about, Evolution is society's coping mechanism for the harsh reality that they're going to hell. They provide a half-baked hypothesis that is supposed to comfort them so they can feel guilt free while sinning. Huh? How so? Christianity says that if you're good then you'll go to Heaven when you die, and you'll keep living up there. Thus it's comforting when your son dies, because you know he'll keep living in heaven and you'll see him there. Also, when life sucks, you can console yourself that you'll go to heaven soon and life is perfect here. That's how it's comforting. But how does the theory of evolution comfort us and keep us from feeling guilty? Christianity isn't peaches and roses. It also provides rigid guidlines that you have to follow in order to obtain heaven. It's a lot harder to live these guidlines than it is to deny they exist through the belief of Evolution. As a Christian you also know and belive in a hell. Simply having a good son doesn't mean you'll see him in heaven. He too has to give his life to the lord. Evolution says we are free to do whatever we want. There is no afterlife simply science. I disagree S.L. True Christianity is not about the works, but about salvation from love that we neither earn nor deserve.

Scott- Spend some time around the dying (the old, the sickly, the infirm) and you'll see the solace that religion brings to people before their end - and to those who are left behind. It's amazing religion's ability to bring peace. Ok. I will say this once again. Yes; people try and find solace in religion, but that doesn't mean that is the way it is supposed to be. Do you think that the Inquisition was also the way Christianity was supposed to be? Regardless, any attempt to be wholy Christian is, in itself a bastardization of the perfect example.

I am the guilty party: I thought it would be intersting to juxtapose the issue and see of those of us who believed it was a bad idea to ban the mention of evolution also thought it was a good idea to ban mention of creationist theories that are attempting to get a foothold in the scientific world. To get back to the orginal topic - I think attempts to censor words and ideas is pretty spooky in an Orwellian sort of way. And it probably makes the ideas seem more powerful if people are so threatened by them. So by the same standard, I think its fine to discuss creationism in school since it is a very prevalent idea and I hope that kids could be armed with some ability to debate the validity of creationism in a scientific context.

Yes I do. It's hard to respect something that doesn't exist! If you want to play the semantic game... then fine. I respect your belief system.

Yes I do.

I see that you have chosen not to respect my wishes for you to stop ostracising other religions. I respect yours and I just wish you could do the same.

Probably not. As a devout Jew, I would assume that he remained chaste till death.

Scotty, I thought you said you were going to bed almost an hour ago. You're mom is going to be real mad if she finds out you're still online. I, on the other hand, must sign off now and go to my Salsa lesson. Later suckas' edit: I'll get to your other comments about first vs 20th century philosophies tomorrow if it's still relevant. But in the mean time, what church do you belong to if you feel so strongly about pursuing the pure doctrine? I really do not affiliate myself with a denomination. I dont think that Christ would have either. So there you have it. Have fun at Salsa!

That's fine OW. I was just asking out of courtesy. I know that people get mad over Feng Shuey being ostracized and thought mabe i would point out that a fairly important symbol in the Christian faith is being mounted by a fish. I just wanted to show the difference in attitudes about two different religions. ave a nice night.

Well Paul, in scripture, Christ says, "I am the way, the Truth and the Light; No-one can go to the father except through me"... The mere belief in Christ as one's savior is all that is required to salvation. Christ associated with the prostitutes and tax men, to show that all can be saved and our eternal destination is not determined by a life of good works. I am not really aware of any verses that conclusively say that there is a tangible hell or that someone will go there if they do not believe... for what it is worth.

A very interesting question. The associated question: Why does religion try to make us feel guilty? is even more interesting. IMHO, the severe feelings of guilt that Christianity has instilled in millions of people is counterproductive to living a joyous life (fyi, joy is one of the fruitages of the spirit...that's somewhere in the New Testament). When one steps out from under the oppressive bonds of "Christian" guilt, life takes on a whole new meaning....I've seen it happen many times. That begs the question, is 'Christianity' in it's modern form anything like Christianity was in the first century? Thank you! I agree. Modern Christianity is nothing like it was in the first century. I try to subscribe to the 1st century ethic, but admittedly, it is tough. Look at who Christ was. He was oppsed to big churches and prefered small philosophical chats by the fire. He abhored money and was enraged by the desecration of the temple by the money changers. The list of differences goes on, but I assure you that there are Christians who know this and are trying to fix this problem. Likely this problem originated in the creeds of Calcedon etc. where the first kinds of orthodoxy were created. Thanks for the question.

Paul, Iain said that Religion creates solace, no? I believe that it does not and likely is supposed to do the opposite.

If this is how you see it then how about, Evolution is society's coping mechanism for the harsh reality that they're going to hell. They provide a half-baked hypothesis that is supposed to comfort them so they can feel guilt free while sinning. Huh? How so? Christianity says that if you're good then you'll go to Heaven when you die, and you'll keep living up there. Thus it's comforting when your son dies, because you know he'll keep living in heaven and you'll see him there. Also, when life sucks, you can console yourself that you'll go to heaven soon and life is perfect here. That's how it's comforting. But how does the theory of evolution comfort us and keep us from feeling guilty? You are wrong about salvation Paul. That is not the way to Heaven.

was in reply to a post by me. I don't REALLY think you're implying that I've shown any disrespect to any religion on this thread.... And this posting of yours: was in response to Cracked: I still have to say I'm not tracking with you. What minority in Cracked's posting are you referring to? Were you REALLY implying I was disrespecting someone's religion. And on a further note, sure, I think people should be free to believe what they want to. But I also think they should be willing to discuss it and back it up with solid reasoning for WHY they believe what they do, unless of course they are not secure enough in their beliefs to have such a discussion. I've encountered young people, people very new to their faiths, and insecure people, and I typically recognize that it wouldn't be kind to question their belief system as it's forming. But when someone has been steeped in the dogma for years I love to pick their brains and find out how they rationalize any obvious contradictions. edit: maybe the 'circus' comment could be construed as disrespectful, but I claim it's still within the bounds of fair play for this thread. I was not blaming you solely. I just think that we should try and tolerate everyone else's opinion, no? I DO think you (and others) have disrespected a religion in this thread. Do you know what those letter mean (the ones geting mounted by the fish)? I dont care if a minority of the posts are disrespectful; There are still some that are disrespectful. I think that: 1) we should not disrespect other's beliefs and if we must, 2) We must fully understand the position before doing so. That is all.

Scott, since you don't seem to get it I'll explain what Iain said. Life sucks. But Jesus says that we should embrace suffering. Since Jesus tells us to embrace[life], we feel less like victims, and more as noble stoics. As such, religion makes you feel better when life sucks. Complicated, no? YOU are not getting it Paul. Religion is not supposed to make you feel better. That is my point.

Sorry Iain, but you said precisely the opposite...