scott_harpell

I was in the room where he died. Sad sad place.

That is how the Italians do it. The richest man in the country is their president and he has been arrested 8 times in 8 years (quite the record). Each time he is arrested he changes the law retroactively. Oh yeah and he owns the vast majority of the nation' newspapers.

Bach: Harpischord Contertos Oh and Paul. I am sorry if you think I was condescending about your Mariah Carey CD's...no really guy... you'da man!

Plaigerizing from Mein Kampf again?

No Music from after 1925 for one week. Who is with me?

That's the point for you - it's what you've chosen. Like most zealots, you fail to comprehend that others have a different view, different needs, and different capabilities. Many find the impossible to daunting to comprehend, and instead focus on the immediate. I dont fail to comprehend this, I just know that the faith laid out by Christ is radically different from the one practiced today. Just because I choose to align myself with soemthing doesn't mean I am encroaching on someone else. Have I ever on this board or while climbing with any of you imposed my faith position? Even in this thread have I? No. I have climbed with probably 50 people from this board and still have never said anything to this effect. Dru I hear you. I can't stand those people at my school and I wish I could try the same experiment as you with out getting tossed out.

I'm so glad the world has you to look after it Scott The comfort it brings to people in need, both inherently, and from the community the devoted tend to develop, is one of the few positive aspects I can think of in organized religions. I somehow think you're searching for a much deeper religion than much of the world is capable of grasping - and a majority of Christians have ever been able to comprehend. The problem with that being? Isn't that the whole point; to embrace something you cannot fully understand? I think that is marvellous.

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? Scott_H, I just spent a long time reading this whole thing, and I think you might be hurting what you are trying to defend, your not helping others that may agree with you . But debating religion has been around as long as the mountians. You either believe or you don't, and you can't change peoples minds -thats what it comes down to. jh I am not trying to change minds, I am jus clearing up the fallacious statements about the faith. As for hurting a position, i dont really care. I am expressing my thoughts and if it encroaches on another's so be it.

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!