• bloc said on Aug 18, 2006....

  i love your thoughts, but this post has a lot of gross factual errors which are then used to draw unsupported conclusoins or implications. There are far too many for me to even get into, but I'll pick the first as an example.
  
  "theories and popular thoughts today in science are rendered obsolete in 5-10 year"
  This is very far from the truth. Theories are often tweaked a bit, but the fundamentals stay about the same. The apple still falls from the true at the same rate it did 5-10 years ago. My radio and tv stations still transmit just as they did 5-10 years ago, etc, etc, etc. I could give many more detailed examples if you wanted.
  
  The implication you seemed to be making is that science isn't any more dependable than the rantings of a bible interpretation. That's a gross fallacy. Funny, the science that said the earth is round 100's of years ago is still fundamentally true, and the flat earthers are still wrong.
  
  p.s. - you mentioned moral ambiguity. Funny thing is that christians supported torture more than non christians in a recent poll. hehe, moral ambiguity.
  

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 18, 2006....

  Haha, oh bloc...
  
  I apologize for the confusion. I'm not questioning fundamentals of science, I'm questioning once-popular theories (including the belief that the world is flat) that were taken as truth, only to be proven wrong later. THAT is what I meant. You're quite right about the apple, and the radio signals.
  
  One thing about science. It does explain as much as we understand, but it cannot explain everything there is to existence. It can explain exactly what something does, and how it does it, but it doesn't necessarily explain why. The concept of love is one such thing. Just because something can't be tested in a lab doesn't mean it's worthless. My entire point is simply that science has its limitations.
  
  If you do not ascribe to Christianity, that's cool. Please understand that just as a nonbelieving world thinks of some Christian beliefs as outdated, silly, or inaccurate, the Bible does also point out the futility of what "the world" values the most. It goes both ways. If you're not a fan of religion or of Christianity, or if you are, I'm fine either way. But what might seem like gross factual errors to you might have more truth than you assume it does (or doesn't).
  
  Perhaps my comments were too general, not giving enough examples to explain my position. I'll go into greater detail on something if you'd like, but I think we'd cover more ground if we didn't start out assuming the other is wrong.
  

• hotaka said on Aug 19, 2006....

  Someone I heard recently say that we need the chief to guide our tribe in wise decisions and we need the medicine man for our spirituality. Science can't explain everything. It's still trying and always working towards better and beter theories. So, wonderful though science might be, we as humans require more than just knowledge about things. The spiritual aspect is important too. We can't explain it, or why it seems we need it. But we all need to believe in something. Christianity would seem to a good thing to believe in for all the good it brings to the world when people follow it right. You can say Christians supported torture but Christianity itself does not support it. All the evil that has been done in the name of Christianity has actually been against Christianity.
  
  I have nothing. I just wanted lidstrom82 to know that I am reading and listening. Hey, if you post only gets a few views and a couple of comments don't feel so bad. It's like my world. There are those of here who celebrate when our views go over ten.
  

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 19, 2006....

  hotaka, you've got some sweet ideas, bro. I think we have a spiritual aspect because we all have a "God-shaped hole" that can't be filled by anything but a relationship with God, like we do with a spouse or a family member or a best friend, only on a higher level.
  
  God created us to share His love with us, and so we're designed to rely upon Him, especially now that lots of us reject Him and hurt ourselves in many ways. He gives us the gift of grace, which gives us something we don't deserve. He also has mercy, by withholding what we DO deserve, which is a whole lotta punishment. Some may say that it looks like God punished lots of people anyways, but in those cases a person rejects God and leaves themselves open to the consequences. Nonchristians may say this sounds judgmental and threatening to not believe in God, but it's really similar to disobeying a parent or authority figure: if you insist on playing in the street, don't be surprised if you get hit by a car.
  
  surrendering a life to God fills the God-shaped hole, puts us in community with other Christians and gives us acceptance, and lets us know the Creator of the universe. Those are amazing benefits for a world so crazy we ask if having children is a selfish thing. We all want acceptance, or love, or access to power, in some way or another. God offers that in a way no lover, group of friends, or positions of authority can give us - it lasts forever. Tap into it, and a new world opens up. That's all i gotta say cuz I need some sleep! Thanks again hotaka, your insights are so thoughtful and open-minded that it begs healthy dialog to happen.
  

• bloc said on Aug 20, 2006....

  agreed that science doesn't explain everything. Thanks for the clarification.
  
  "God punished lots of people anyways, but in those cases a person rejects God and leaves themselves open to the consequences."
  
  This doesn't only sound judgemental, but egotistical. I.e. not Godly. That's my issue with christianity. God doesn't seem very godly. Oh, your 8 years old, egyptian, and don't believe in my; I smite thee. Die little boy.
  

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 20, 2006....

  Well, concerning the biblical circumstances, God punished people that went against His rules. Even if someone doesn't take the Bible as truth and sees it as mere story, God handed out some severe punishments, but they weren't without reason. Like, the Egyptians were wack in letting God's people go, so their army got owned when they tried to go back on their word and recapture Israel at the Red Sea. There ARE times when it seems like God is a little too harsh - like a Psalm where David wishes that God would destroy his enemies, including smashing little children on the rocks. Honestly though, just as none of us know exactly how things were in the times the Bible was written, we don't know just how BAD the enemies of God were. If it just says "they're wicked", that implies that their mistakes warrant punishment.
  
  My overall point is, if God is beyond our understanding apart from what He reveals in the Bible, wouldn't that include His sense of justice? If a man steals from another and God outright kills them, we say it's harsh because the man simply stole something. But if God knew the heart and mind of the man, and saw far worse that we didn't see, then the punishment is justified because God knows the whole person that we don't see. Does that make sense? In that case, it's not egotistical of God to say, "serve me, because if you do you own thing, you're open to punishment"...the reality is that He actually does know the rap sheet of the offender much better than we do.
  

• bloc said on Aug 21, 2006....

  my issue is that I don't think the bible is the word of god. I think that some of it may be inspired, but there is a lot of human bitterness and ego in it. It was written by mere humans and even if inspired they put their own anger and ego into it. I also think that the bible was put together via a political process that is corrupt as all political processes are, i.e. The Council of Nicaea
  

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 21, 2006....

  I hear you, bloc ...it's an old joke that politics are corrupted, it's a given now. No man is perfect, but when you add the ingredient of power and influence, there's a predisposition toward corruption - unless there is another authority to hold them accountable.
  
  That is the role God plays for all human hearts, whether they listen or shut it out.
  
  The Council of Nicaea is an interesting one. Ultimately, there were guidelines that each book was held up to, and I think for anyone to decide on something so important is a miracle in itself.
  
  If the council members listened to God's authority to hold them accountable in making an honest decision, then I trust the current books of the Bible to be handled with great care.
  
  Corruption is nothing new, bloc, but seeing it as reason to discount a God beyond our understanding is shortsighted. Just because there's a crack on our glasses doesn't mean what we're focusing on is ugly, flawed, or bad. For instance, if my father was a jerk (which he isn't), and that led me to think ALL fathers were jerks, then my own experience has incorrectly decided that everything else is the same, I've limited myself. I think realmenluvporn limited himself by assuming all Christians were judgmental. If you assume God can't put words in a book through chosen people because people are corrupt, you risk limiting yourself to counting out God's power and authority.
  
  The Bible does have some minor inconsistencies in matters of ages or exact dates, but the actual message of salvation is very much intact. Some will cite verses as reasons the Bible is outdated or bad in some way, but judging by the verses I've heard in Soulcast, about 90% of them are taken out of context. Honestly. And how many are quoted from people who were just looking for a reason to prove it wrong? If you try to find fault in something just to go along with your beliefs, you will probably find it.
  
  God DID use human beings to write the Bible, and that included their personalities and words God knew they would use in explaining the nature of God and the life of Jesus. There is human bitterness and ego in the Bible, you're quite right, but there is also the solution pointed out to get past it - the Gospel.
  

• bloc said on Aug 21, 2006....

  I really don't agree that god is required for people to have morals. Look at Bush, he's the most openly God fearing Prez we've had in a while, and he's the one trying to make it legal to torture people. Like I said before, there was a poll down not that long ago and far more christians were in favor of torture than the more secular people. You could say that these people are really following christ, and I'd agree, but it shows that god isn't required for ethics and morals. Some of the buddhists in history have been extremely moral and ethical yet they don't believe in god.
  

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 21, 2006....

  Question: who conducted the poll and who was the population? That would help substantiate the poll in my eyes.
  
  Let me ask you to keep an open mind with this thought, bloc: God has everything to do with morals if He invented them. Other religions are built around deified people, say, Buddha, Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and so on. They are regarded as an ultimate authority, if not THE ultimate. But if they are men, then they really are at no higher level than the average joe. Why should they warrant worship? Is it possible that every one of their truths are somehow derived from Biblical sources? I'm not assuming it's true, but it is a possibility that all truths have been taken from God's words in the Bible and through Jesus and the prophets. The rest of the teachings of religions other than Christianity make them distinct, but also tend to lead them away from God. I believe that is intentional, and not just from the founders of the religion.
  
  Anyhoo, if God has originated morals and other religions have taken from it or shaped those words to suit their own religion, they could be seen as elaboraters, pretenders, falsifiers. Again, if God authored morals, He has everything to do with it.
  

• bloc said on Aug 22, 2006....

  buddha wasn't deified.
  
  I understand your points, but when I read the bible i see less morality than when I read something like the walden by henry david thoreau or the buddha's teachings. When I read the bible I see a lot of ego, a lot of judgemental pettiness, and a lot of glorification of killing and vengenance even towards children. However, I also see strong morals, but that's my point. The bible seems like a collection of human writings. We could go back and forth on this all day, but I simply don't see holiness when I read most parts of the bible.
  

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 23, 2006....

  My sincere apologies, bloc, in that you are right, buddha wasn't deified. I confused him with another religious figure.
  
  I looked through a source of mine and based upon Buddhist establishments (stupas, temples, etc.), images and relics of Buddhas are objects of devotion, prayer, and offerings. If Buddha wasn't officially deified, he might as well be if he is worshipped as a god is. I'm not assuming Buddhists claim that Buddha is their god, but I am saying that if devout buddhists have an object of worship (the buddhas), it is hard to say that they don't have a virtual god as the object of that worship.
  
  It's been said of Buddhism that pain and suffering are present in life, and that one can become enlightened by giving up desires and cravings - if you eliminate them, you eliminate sufferings.
  
  I would like to discuss Buddhism with you more, bloc. My initial thoughts are, I simply do not believe human beings can achieve Enlightenment, nor do I feel any Buddha is deserving of prayer or worship or offerings. Human beings are not perfect, and even if enlightenment does not equal perfection, it is unattainable. We simply cannot be "good enough" to achieve something like that.
  
  Any religion that stresses making good choices, living a good life, doing good deeds, and anything to do with us earning a favorable afterlife, suffers from one question: what is the standard of "good"? One culture will value something as good while another abhors it. Plus, just exactly how many good deeds or good thinking is required for a "good" afterlife/successive life in Buddhism? Islam? Hinduism? If the person who decides all these things says 100 good deeds must be met, but doesn't tell us, how are we to know if we weren't told? That's a crappy thing on the part of the decider - it's like giving us a final exam without the semester's lectures.
  
  What if 10% of our life was "good" enough? 50%? 100%? If we didn't need good deeds at all, no standards, why not just "do what thou wilt", as the satanists teach?
  
  I believe in Christianity because God says "we are saved by grace, through faith". Grace is receiving something we don't deserve - salvation, by professing faith in Jesus Christ. So there's nothing I can do to gain a higher status or level, to try and attain a percentage of good deeds to get a minimum score I don't know of, to get into Heaven. My life is for Christ, and as my life continues, I know that as long as I am faithful in whatever comes up, I can do well.
  
  Good deeds ARE part of Christianity, but they are a byproduct of the faith that's already there. It's not the basis of gaining favor with a deity or scoring points for the afterlife, but rather an overflow of God's love. That love comes from words in the Bible and from other believers. And that encouragement and community is exactly what many people are in need of today, but they don't know it yet.
  
  Hey bloc, I read some of the book of Deuteronomy last night, and Moses was giving a sermon to the Israelites before his death, and he recalled how God told them to enter another people's land and destroy/kill everything and everyone, as a "holy destruction". This is difficult because God Himself tells us that we should not murder. But there's two things here: we don't know the hearts of the people God's nation killed - and if God knew they deserved death for whatever reason - He's God, and He owns everything on this Earth; we're just here as stewards - God would then be in the right. We can't label Him as evil or a bad God just because we don't understand the situation.
  
  Remember this: God is perfect, but He had to do much in order to care for an imperfect people. Think, bloc, about something you are VERY good at. Then think about sharing it with someone who isn't nearly as proficient at it. IF you're trying to teach them, and they're just not catching on, chances are you're gonna get a bit flustered towards them because it's so easy for you.
  
  It's the same with God and the Old Testament people. He was their shepherd, but the sheep just kept walking off a cliff. God has been way more patient: if mankind got exactly what they deserved, we'd all be dead because we all screw up and break some commandments. So in reality God IS being gracious, despite the ego and pettiness of mankind. That is the point of the stuff you speak of in the Bible. It is in there, but it's to illustrate that God is much more patient than I am at teaching my friend how to play Mario Party - I, the champ, trying to teach my friend, the rookie, and we're on the same team, and he's stinking up the joint. I'd probably call my friend an ass clown or something, but thankfully God goes to much greater lengths to take care of us.
  

Comment on "Jesus - the original badass!"

Currently tagged	Bible Christ faith Science (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously