• silverwhisper said on Jul 31, 2006....

  i believe in love, truth, and nobility of spirit. i blogged about love earlier today. truth: without truth, there is no communication. without nobility of spirit, there is no desire for reconciliation. but the greatest of these is love, if i may echo the apostle paul. ed

• FaithfulDisciple said on Jul 31, 2006....

  Well said, it is said that faith, hope and love are three great virtues. But the greatest of these three is love, this is affirmed in the Bible. I respect your opinion. :)

• silverwhisper said on Jul 31, 2006....

  thank you, faithful disciple. i am not one of those who, not following your path, consequently find within no wisdom within it. :> [bows] ed

• metamorphoses said on Jul 31, 2006....

  I believe in God the creator of everything, the well spring of eternal life, the source of infinite intelligence, the home based of cosmic and unit consciousness and the perfect embodiment of love. I believe in the divinity of God within me that I am one with everything and there is nothing that I am not. I believe in the constant interaction of two opposing forces as the dual aspects of God manifesting itself that both are integral parts of evolution. I believe that the most important moment in my life is the present moment and the most important action is that which sponsors love. I believe that people, events, things and environment are perfectly occuring in my life given what my soul seeks to experience so, I may know who I really am, nevertheless, I have all the power to change if they are no longer serving the true purpose of my life in becoming who I want to be.

• ALIENated said on Jul 31, 2006....

  Jesus is Lord. I have a little scooper deal that I use to clean up the yard after my big black dog. When I get close to a pile, little bugs run in every direction. I think: wow, to those bugs the world is a pile of poo. They have no clue that big beings live in nearby houses, but we do. Then I think it is kind of that way with people. Some people live a crummy existence and do not see God anywhere near. That does not mean He is not there, in His big house. It just means they do not see Him.

• hunter_boyce_chandler said on Jul 31, 2006....

  I believe in hugs, night swimming and spicy food. I believe in tears, cool water and young love. I believe in children, hummingbirds and trees. I believe in the sky, darkness and fresh bread.

• Zayda said on Jul 31, 2006....

  I am a Spiritualist. I don't ascribe to any organized religion. I believe in children, laughter, and fresh chocolate chip cookies. I believe in nature, karma, and love. I believe in light, truth, and the human spirit. I belive in spicy food, midnight walks, and dancing in the rain.

• mrhowto said on Aug 01, 2006....

  I believe in nothing I can't percieve for myself. If i can't see it, it might as well not be there. I Respect other's beliefs, because if I didn't people would label me an asshole(and it's the right thing to do). But that's the only reason. Deep down I think they're ignorant and just too lasy to learn enough about life to know better to be honest. There is a lot of great things out there in life which require no attachment to beliefs to be able to enjoy. Not having beliefs doesn't make me a sinner, it doesn't make me an evil person. I know right from wrong, without a religion having to tell me what these are, and therefore can be free and happy with my life.

• vini said on Aug 01, 2006....

  Hi, im so glad to know about the firmness of ur faith. well, i believe in God and His son Jesus Christ. i have been a hindu all my life(by birth), but it must be His will that i got a chance to turn towards Him and open my eyes to such a Great,loving, kind Lord. Though my faith fluctuates sometimes but still i luckily come back on track sooner or later! :) Praise the Lord!

• thenack said on Aug 01, 2006....

  Firstly, I believe God is the Creator, there is no evolution, no proof for it whatsoever, only a cursed Creation. God Created from nothing, he granted free will, we messed it up along with the father of lies, his favourite lie at the moment is evolution and spiritual humanism. God is Love and God is Fair. Therefore he has to punish sin, sin is not loven, sin is selfish, untrue, spurious, selfseeking, and in all of us. Humans can't decide rigth or wrong. That would make it relative, that would make hitler ambitious,not evil, he purely tried to do what he believed to be the rigth thing. We can't decide truth, thats preposterious and illogical. God decides truth, rigth, wrong. We choose to follow or to be ignorant. Some are plainly and very sadly good people, just living blind or blinded by the father of lies. But beacuse God is not only fair and just, but LOVE, he did the one thing that only love can do, an infinite being went to hell for punishment on our behalf. We are finite, so would have to endure infinite punishment, God is infinite spirit, therefore, he could endure finite punishment for infinite forgiveness. This world is spitit and matter. There is a war, open your eyes to millions of lies around you. True Christianity is the only way toi be truly spiritually free. Sure, different churches all have some mistake, error, problem. Churches are humans, necsesary but human. Find a church that does what the bible says. there is your truth, an absolute truth. pray to God, therein is your love, and love your neighbour and you earth as God said you should. therein is the peace and happiness. I personally don't like the roman catholic church. Get a bible church. You are human, that is alot, a big thing, a spiritual thing, and very powerfull. But there is a host of other entities. Follow the Creator and his Word and you will get your reward. Being a nice person in you personal opinion is a stressful constant strugle that will fail and get you, in the end, no-where.

• thenack said on Aug 01, 2006....

  PS, Please excuse my spelling (-;

• mrhowto said on Aug 01, 2006....

  LOL - Sorry, but what utter shi*e. ^^ there is no evolution!????!? ^^ If there were no evolution, nothing could possibly exist. God or no god - evolution is a required part of existence. It is what powers movement and change from one moment to the next. It is the action of thought within us all, creating new things and ideas which are played out in life. Even if as you may well believe, god is up there as some kind of all knowing being(which he isn't - and CAN be proven), and he was pulling strings here on earth, ie in control of everything, making things happen - then what on earth would be the point of living just to be some kind of dumb string puppet? I really do find your ignorance and post quite disturbing, and insulting to the human race. I for one am more intelligent than that, so please don't try and brain wash us all with this nonsense. Serious posters only here please. Thanks.

• thenack said on Aug 01, 2006....

  Whatever dude, you didn't substantiate any of your opinions either. There is not even one single scientific proof of evolution. Name it if you can, or are u talking about natural selection, because that is the natural specilisation that is definately happening as a result of matter and organisms, environment and mutation, working detrementally on each other. If you leave carbon and stuff in a pool of mud they will deterioate not grow. Natural sellection, environmental and mutational, is the loss of DNA information. In the most extreme case backteria can swop DNA but this is still not information gaining. Evolution need a gain in DNA information. This type of gain can not be proved and has never been observed. Peoples opinions on stuff they dig up is nothing more than opinions in a certain paradigm. The worlds most famous and biggest lover ov evolution, prof Richard Dawkins himself admids that evolution, at the root of logical thinking, is a religion. if the high priest of evolution, the evolutionary pope declares that evolution is a religion, ie requires faith in an unseen, unprovable starting belief, then who are you to cal me an idiot. You clearly have very little philosofical, religios or scientific information on this idea. An insult to humanity? Evolution will have humans believed that they whewre once minerals in a mudpool, grwowing into bachteria, amoebas, frogs, rats monkeys apes neadertals and finally the prime speciman of all animal, post 2000 man. Evolution calls humans animals, then why should I not just plain kill you if I feel you are poluting the gene pool, if we were animals I think I should. I am most probably physically and mentally a more suitable speciman to mate with your animal wife to produce offspring. Now that is insulting to the human race, caling them random results of mutational accidents that happend to pond scum. And on what premise do you base your statement that you are more inteligent (inteligence does not make you right in any case) ? If evolution is true your thoughts are the result of millions of years of random accidental forces, with no purpose or meaning, so how do you substantiate that what you are thinking has meaning if it started and continues as the mere puppet of random forces over millenia. Can you answer even one of these questions mr smart-baboon

• thenack said on Aug 01, 2006....

  Oh, and who ever said God was pulling strings, the whole reason things are so messed up on earth is because humans did not follow Gods initial instructions. You have self choise as a humaniod spirit, your choises have consequeses. Stop balming God hes not pulling your strings, that however doesn't make him not exist just becasue you don't think he should. Whats your proof anyway, you sound more arrogant than anything else, but what would you expect of a puppet of random forces?

• thenack said on Aug 01, 2006....

  Oh and you say you know right from wrong, what right, what wrong? How do you know it or do you decide each case on personal opinion? Maybe I disagree with what you decide whats right? then we are left with opinions, not right or wrong. You have to measure right or wrong to something, you can't just say well do what u like for yourself, thats what Hitler did, thats what causes most of the pain in this world. So please, enlighten me on your rigth and wrong, what is it woth and why? Do you change it depending on your mood? How about the influence of drugs? Maybe people who kill someone while driving drunk should be let of the hook becasue clearly at the time they felt like they were doing no harm! Perhaps, becasue you are so inteligent, you can use a machine to prove right or wrong, or maybe if you can prove there is no god, you can prove right or wrong also, go ahead! Answer these questions, and give your proof.

• thenack said on Aug 01, 2006....

  An finaly your final coment, you don't have beliefs? Again, this is ignorance, nothing can ultimately be proven in science, everything we have in science is based on presupositions within a certain paradigm. There are some absolutes though, life and death for instance, or don't you believe in those either? See already your a believer. You obviously believe in right and wrong, you said so yourself, but what are they for you to take them for granted is the ultimate form of blind belief. If you want to be true to "not believing in anything" maybe you should reconsider right and wrong, you can't define them, you don't know where you get your idea of wright or worng from? Know that blind faith. Not the same thing I hear you say! Logically it is, so start choosing your own word more carefully if you are going to lash out and critisise someone on here about faith, because you may end up with looking the fool

• thenack said on Aug 01, 2006....

  Well anyone wishing to debate me on any of the issues I brought up to refute mrhownot-to, please coment, I may have come ofer aggresively but that was purely in reaction to mrhow not having the decency to substantiate his lashing out at my post. So, this is not my normal way of debating and I will gladly have a decent conversation with anyone who really is interested in what I have to say, but I won't stand back to the blissfully arrogant ignorance that was thown my way. Keep well I'm have to get back to work. TN

• thenack said on Aug 01, 2006....

  Zayda, I am familiar with chocholate chip coockies, but what exactly is the idea about karma? I have only a hollywood, karma for dummies, knowlege on the subject?

• mrhowto said on Aug 01, 2006....

  Wow. Hit a nerve or two did we? Calm down mate, one thing at a time. Firstly, I appologise if what I said caused your mind to generate so much pain on behalf of this simple discussion. You must learn to get a handle on it though, before it takes hold of you. Secondly, did you really feel need to say things about my apparent 'animal wife?' - that really is going rather low don't you think? Rather degenerate perhaps? Thirdly, anyone who knows me will tell you I'm no way arrogant. However, I will speak my mind when someone is speaking utter trash. I may soon give up though, because I always get bored of fanatics. It seems their brain washed beliefs take over everything and you can't talk sense to them. Fourthly, I didn't say I 'believe' in right and wrong. I said I 'KNOW' the difference between right and wrong. Knowledge does not require believe. It's either hot outside or it's not. That is something one can know for example. All the most important things in life are based on knowledge, not beliefs. You either love or don't, you either breathe or you don't. It's as simple as that, no need to complicate matters. Science based on belief is not true science. Science is the act of proving through experiments one thing or another. If you read my statement carefully, I did not say god does not exist. I said 'he' does not exist, and this can be proven. God, as a psychic principle does exist. Some call this the soul, or the collective unconscious of man. A kind of electricity if you will, which set off the initial sparks of evolution. The seperation of will and idea(idea being the idea of seperation or - not being nothingness anymore) Too many people get into an argument over big bang theory vs religious theories, when in actual fact, the truth is a scientific amalgamation of both. When I said 'he' does not exist, I only meant that god cannot exist as peple percieve. IE as this fellow in the sky who decides what happens. Lastly, evolution does not require change of dna. Take evolution in it's simplest form for example - "the evolution of an idea". Cars have evolved over time, because every year, people sit around and discuss ways to make them better, more efficient, economic etc. This does not require belief and is a simple example of how evolution does exist. The same principle applies to all life, all the time, right this moment. All that I have just said are not opinions, how can they be, for i have explained them in detail to be true(except for the whole god issue which is too complex to discuss here). However, I shall go into more detail perhaps on a blog or two about it. Take care.

• thenack said on Aug 01, 2006....

  Ok, You didn't hit a nerve, I just thought it would be easy to show that what I said was not utter Sh!#@$%t as you put it. And it was. I didn't say anything about your wife and I appologise if that how you took it. The thing is I merely pointed out what the natural consequences of the mainstream middle of the road ignorant idea of the meaning of the word "evolution" is. I know it can be used to apply to many concepts. But all of those meanings are derived from the one that I have a problem with. So, I reacted like I did because I am tired of people going on about evolution, not defining what they mean exactly and not substantiating any of their claims or realising the significance. You cast the first stone proverbailly but perhaps we could make a prpper discussion from this. You really did only evade my questions and I did not say anything about your wife, I said that a belief in evolution logically implies so and so. Where you aware that leading evolutionists are in favour of not only abortion but also infanticide? Kill unwanted children up to the age of three. Well why not, survival of the fittest is the game of evolution (and I am using the word in the original context as charles darwin intended, that of molecules to man). You also evaded the issue of rigth or wrong, as I believe you initially intended it. I know hot is hot and cold is cold, but what about moral right or wrong. Where do u get it from? the same misterious soul that gave the molecule the idea to spark? That whole bit you write about the soul which started evolution, the idea of being, prove that? That right there is your religion. You believe something you, nor anyone has ever observed, and never will, it happend (apparantly) in the past and can never be tested or repeated. You believe in this idea blindly, and are in fact a very religious person. You say you want to explain a complicated idea aboutout the colective human concious (soul/god) but its complicated. Why don't you prove it. prove the idea made the molecule evolve. the point is, I am religious and I believe in God, you believe in the electric human molecule idea god. Thats religion and as soon as you accept that, perhaps we can have a discussion on religion. Oh and I am not in pain and I have a perfect handle on everything, you taunted me and now you can't stand up to my reply. Stop evading the point and trying to make me the crazy, at least I gave philosophical arguments for my beliefs, you taunted mine and plainly stated your own. Your above reply has not done you case good. to know rigth from wrong (moraly) you have to measure it against something... You said those things about your wife without knowing it, I mere pointed to the consequece of your belief system.... Again you lable what I said as utter trash but fail to give one reason why you say so or any reason for why you believe it t be trash....People percieve godlyness through earth/creation as a whole (all religions including evolution), what they make of what they percieve it directly linked to what their starting suppositions and paradigm is, it is a opinion reulting from the processing of perception/stimulious from outside. So God can exist even though all people percieve him differently. So saying god can't exist as people percieve him is just not even an argument. You believe religiously in the molecule electrick spark god of evolution. Admit that and we have a conversation. I you don't you have to clarify your earlier post on only believing what you can see

• thenack said on Aug 01, 2006....

  mrhowto, you keep well too, and I really only tried to make a point about evolution, not about your wife, my appologies. Gotta get back home, have a good day or night( its night in SA) TN

• StupidGenius said on Aug 01, 2006....

  My faith is simple. I have faith in my ability to survive all that is thrown at me. I believe in my standards and my morals and hold deep pride in that fact. I believe that faith in ones self is all that is required, as all the un-answered questions of life will be answered when you die. Because of that, I will never subscribe to any religion other than the one that my soul dictates to me.

• mrhowto said on Aug 01, 2006....

  thenack - cool, glad we're getting somewhere - albeit at least in understanding each other a little more. ;) I'd like to take a few paragraphs to expand on wht I've said. I have not evaded any questions, in fact I thought I answered them quite well. After reading the animal wife thing over again I see your point now, no offence intended...she can be a bit of an animal sometimes anyway hehe(in good ways of course). Right...now on to the more serious stuff. It seems I got on your nerves originally because you thought I was a traditional evolutionist. I can see how my original posy may have made me look a bit like that. However I'm not. What they think of killing children etc is their own issue, not mine. I follow no path and have no leader, but common sense and instinct. Which is in itself enough to build a stable life upon. There is no name for what I am in that manner, as it is not a belief - and therefore cannot and should not be labled a religion. To explain the knoledge on which I base my argument, would take about 500 pages, before you would be able to see my entire point of view. Grab yourself a copy of Barry Long's "Origins of Man and the Universe", which can explain everything I would put across, in a much better way than I probably could. I'd like to discuss the right and wrong issue a tad more though. You don't need beliefs to know what is even *morally* right and wrong. It is something that you just know. Perhaps I picked a bad example. I know it's morraly right to buy my father a present for his birthday. I don't need to measure this against anything to know it's a good thing to do, I just know it. I know it's the morrally right thing to do to feed my goldfish every morning, because without it he would die. No beliefs are required here, just love of life and common sense. The reason I can state what I know so clearly is simple. Please do not take this as any kind of insult to your religion - it is not meant to be, it just cannot be put any other way and to do so would invalidate it. I can(to myself) prove god exists and not in the way people percieve god(ie as an almighty 'he-figure'). The way I can prove this, is because I can see and feel it and interact with it in my life right now. In fact, "to me", if i'm not here, nothing in my mind can exist. Thus, the fact that I'm sitting here writing indicates that I am at this moment creating(in my mind - as is everyone) the world in which I(they) live. Every moment, this moment, is a new creation - which cannot be percieved by me - without me. Thus I am creating the would in which I live, making me my own god - I myself in the next moment will be an evolution of myself in this moment. I will become I + what I've experienced the moment before. This is my understanding of evolution, life god etc - in brief. Take it easy - it's evening here in UK, so shall be off soon too. Am sure I shall hear from you soon ;)

• Silverhawk13 said on Aug 01, 2006....

  I believe religions are like grocery stores. They all have food for the soul, but it's not all food that you need right now. When you go to the grocery, you choose the food that fits your needs, and you know you're free to come back at another time and take more or to take something different. Other people come to the same store and they take what they need, sometimes it the same or similar to what you take and sometimes it's completely different. But we never look in our neighbor's cart and get angry at them for the food they've chosen. Imagine the peace in the world if everyone understood this.

• tifa said on Aug 01, 2006....

  i think the whole debate between mrhowto and thenack is quite unnecessary. Science and Religion cannot be debated in the same context unless they are talked about as a whole. Religion is based on faith and science is based on facts (or wannabe facts). unless you believe that science and religion are one, there is no need to debate for they are two completely different things. I agree that some people don't need religion to live..(or whatever your argument was mrhowto..=S) but if someone wants to believe, why not? I am christian and believe in the power of the message of God, but for the longest time i didnt tho. my brother was able to express perfectly how I felt, "prayer gives you the self-confidence to try to act, even on things you don't think you have control over. The balance of your world rests on the ability to make yourself smile". However, I dont think that religion is the ultimate thing to make someone smile. I dont think that the Bible should be followed word for word and that it is all there is. We live in a society that does not allow us to live the Bible word for word, if we do, we are not fully christian anymore (for example, not accepting abortion, etc.) God gave us free will, why should the will to abort be any different? I'm against abortion, but i'm not in the situation where i need to get an abortion. we are not in these women's heads and we cant know the reason why they are getting an abortion. i would rather these women get an abortion than hate their child when he/she is born. We might see it as that they are trying to not burden themselves with the child or killing an innocent life, but it might be a good thing for the child-to-be since the mother might want to end up killing him/her at birth or abuse him/her, etc. It may have sounded like im contradicting myself. I meant to say that, im against abortion for me. anyway, that was just an example of how unchristian christians are becoming. I don't think the Bible should be used as the ultimate source of knowledge. there are other things out there that men of the time didnt have and situations that werent happening at the time. If someone is to read the Bible, it should be used as a GUIDELINE to one's life. also, when thenack said: "Oh and you say you know right from wrong, what right, what wrong? How do you know it or do you decide each case on personal opinion? Maybe I disagree with what you decide whats right? then we are left with opinions, not right or wrong. You have to measure right or wrong to something, you can't just say well do what u like for yourself, ..." right and wrong is not ultimately decided by religion. it is decided by common rules in the society and how the society is legislated, which is how mrhowto KNOWS what is right and wrong, he didnt need religion to tell him that. as a personal example, i went to lebanon a couple of years ago and i had a belly ring. people there saw me as a tramp. but here in canada, it is accepted and nobody really cares about it. If it has the potential to harm someone, then it is wrong, if it can only bring good, then it is right. it is now common sense. right and wrong is not an individual thing. I can think killing someone is right, but in the context of my society, it isnt, so, it is wrong, in the grand scheme of things. Also, thenack, you said: "Oh, and who ever said God was pulling strings, the whole reason things are so messed up on earth is because humans did not follow Gods initial instructions.." You are quite embedded in your belief and I respect that. But not everyone thinks that way. You are trying to present us with something that you see as facts, but they are not facts for everyone. Also, they are not proven, therefore cannot be considered facts. But that's what makes religion what it is, its the belief. right? Religion is defined as the following on wikipedia: "Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals." So, religion is your way of explaining "humankind's relationship with the universe", however you gotta keep in mind that not everyone believes that and you should be open to other people's views on these kinds of things. You also talk like Christianity is the only true religion. Thing is, we all believe in the same message, we just practice it differently. If we (we as in me and other believers) need a higher power to understand our world, so be it. Why can't evolution be something that God intended? Speaking of which, I agree that evolution does not have something with DNA adding. according, again, to wikipedia, and also something i learned in my biology classes: "[evolution is a] development[;] a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); 'the development of his ideas took many years'; 'the evolution of Greek civilization'; 'the slow development of her skill as a writer'" So, yes, natural selection is part of evolution. I dont get why creationsists cant see the wonder of God in evolution. We used to have a tail, we don't need it anymore, why did God want us to have a tail in the first place? we used to use it, we didnt need it anymore, we got rid of it. I don't think God knew that we wouldn't need a tail today, or maybe he did but decided we needed one as a fish and then eventually we'll get rid of it. God evolved at the same time humans did. He can get surprised too, I bet He wasn't expecting Lucifer to rebel and take other angels down with him. Anyway, sorry if it sounded like i was ranting, I just think that it is important that we all keep our minds open to other people's beliefs and as christians, accept that other people can think that God doesn't exist. there's nothing to prove he does, why should they? I believe and that's what's important to me. I don't think that not believing in God will ultimately lead society to destruction. I believe there are other ways, we just need to find them.

• tifa said on Aug 01, 2006....

  i love what you just wrote silverhawk! can i quote you!? lol

• Silverhawk13 said on Aug 01, 2006....

  lol -- of course Tifa. Feel free.

• thenack said on Aug 02, 2006....

  I may not have come over as being understanding here, I am in fact quite a nice guy (-; and very understanding. However, why can't you guys understand my reaction? I didn't take anyone on, and like everyone on this post, just put down my views, and then I was ridiculed for my statement. Is that understanding and respecting my views? I believe it is not. Perhaps it is I who hit a nerve? I am not angry with anyone choosing a religion except for ones who are blatant lies and directly hurt people. I think I should take the time and expand on why I said what I did in a nice strucktured post. An maybe some people can do the same. It will take time and at the moment I think I am close to getting myself into strouble at work, gotto spend less time on here. tifa, yes sociaty decides wright from wrong, but inide you KNOW there is somethng deeper, and it is completely in contrast with the law of evolution. there is a absolute starting point for right and wrong and that is what much (whats left of it) of modern sociaties laws are based on. I believe there was a source and humans did't just stumble uppon it because it worked. mrhowto, thanks for the reply, will try to get hold of the book you recomended and will try to get back to you on these matters properly ASAP. Cheers TN

• consecrated said on Aug 02, 2006....

  Hi Tifa... My name is N8 - I'm a Canadian as well, actually a student at York University... Sorry for the length - this is too wordy ... an overwritten 'first draft' of sorts, I hope it is understandable. Just imagine someone calmly working through your post in their mind, trying to sort it out, and then responding. That's what this is. If you are interested please read at your convenience... Before I begin I feel a need to clarify what is meant when we call ourselves "Christians". Many people hold different concepts of this identity. Despite much confusion, the term may only be used authoritatively to the degree which one's concept of a Christian is aligned with the person of Jesus Christ as recorded/prophesied in the Bible. If we are to begin using some other new definition of the term, let us state this explicitly, acknowledging that we, or someone else, has apropriated the term from traditional Christendom, and given it a different meaning. Let us also understand that our 'new definition' cannot hold the same authority as the traditional one, by virtue of the fact that it is simply not recognized by history as being based on a biblical understanding. This provides room for our understanding of the traditional term to grow as we better understand its biblical roots, as well as clarity for its use in our discussion. Why this preamble? Because as I state my view it may seem to be an attack of your expressed identity. It is not meant to be so, but rather to be a request for clarification, as well as an invitation for you to justify your use of the term Christian in relation to the views you have expressed. I would also like to avoid a missunderstanding of my perspective, and to invite more direct, profitable, and educated inquiry. Therefore, as I present my beliefs, allow me to do so simply as a 'disciple of Jesus' or 'Yeshua' (His hebrew name), rather than as a 'Christian'. 'Christian' simply means 'little Christ', and was a term applied to disciples of Jesus in Antioch, years after His resurrection, as they lived out their identity in obedience to the instruction, doctrine and worldview found through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, understood in His historical context. I personally embrace the term Christian as such, however, in this conversation I would like to discard as much of the unnaplicable historical baggage that has been unessessarily created by so many who call/have called themselves Christians while propogating unbiblical/unhistorical concepts of Christian praxis. My desire is to hold fast to Jesus' teachings as best I can, despite my human weakness, and limited understanding. If you respect my opinions, please hold them accountable to this worldview, that they may trancend me as an individual, and speak both to the larger question of 'what a disciple of Jesus' believes, and also to the nature of truth as we interact with/appeal to it throughout this discussion thread. Please understand that I do not think of myself as any better than you, or than any others in this discussion. I simply dissagree with your opinion, and I would like to explain why. My goal is not merely to convince you, but to justify our appeals to truth and move towards a more forward looking discussion of the matter. I hope those with other worldviews will challenge the validity of my statements, particularly if they are not found to be the accurate representation of Jesus' worldview which I hope to express... ONward! lol... Tifa, some of the views you have expressed, according to my study and understanding of the biblical Jesus, do not reflect His teachings. They cannot be considered biblically Christian. Wellso what! Who cares anyway? Many do, and many don't... So... aside from this, they also happen to be very contradictory. Any usage of the concept 'Truth' conciously or unconciously transforms a stated opinion or idea into an appeal for authority which trancends the subject. Authority essentially indicates 'higher than'. Whenever humanity creates or observes any kind of order in creation or society we interact with hierarchies. Regardless of our belief system, we cannot avoid them. This is not a 'bad habit we can't break', its just necessary for any and all meaningful communication. So, I say to a fellow classmate that sneaking notes into a test is "wrong" not because I don't like it, but because I believe in the existence of an authority higher than both me and my friend (the school board), and have chosen to propagate what I believe that authority has decreed (Don't cheat). If my friend should choose to cheat anyway, according to society, I am not any higher in authority than my friend, and cannot stop him by virtue of authority. I can only encourage him in what I know is right, and withhold myself from participation in what I believe to be wrong, due to my personal convictions. The reason I do this, however, is because I have chosen to believe that my obedience to those which society has placed in authority over me is in line with a moral code which actually trancends the laws realized/constructed by this society. Both our opinions and personal convictions, must always appeal to our concept of something higher than we are in order to justify their existence. If they simply appeal to our ego for authority, as a singular being, than we have subconsciously elevated our view of ourself into a form of god. If they simply appeal to the ego of our confused collective consciousness, then we have elevated the collective "US" into a form of god. This is where our society largely is... however it is not justifiable. Those who say that 'We are God', may think that they believe this, but I find that their arguments generally require a belief that there is a some form of higher understanding to be espoused, one which must be above 'US'. If I say that I believe love is a virtue, I am stating that I believe Love to be of value, not merely because I experience it as so, but because my spiritual, emotional, psychological, and intellectual experience has allowed me to come to believe that there is a reality about the nature of Love which transends me. I believe this with both my mind and my heart, just as anyone believes anything else. I do not simply believe it because I have been enculturated to believe it, or because society has created this concept. Much study shows this to be false. The more we understand ourselves, the more we understand that we as human beings are simultaneously diverse, and yet profoundly the same. Our similarities can be shown to trancend our often opposing social constructs, with no help from cultural conditioning. Does this mean that we all believe in the same message, but we just practice it differently? um... for the answer to that we must honestly look at the messages we each believe. When I look at the different messages... while I do see overlaps, true the answer is an emphatic 'NO!!!' we don't all believe the same message. Every book I have read that tries to say we do is incredibly reductionistic (and is so by necessity), superimposing value judgements from our society onto historical texts to cut out any part of their message which is in conflict with the writer's construct. The result is a gross disfigurement/false representation of the messages articulated by each religion, and their historical texts, for the sake of an externally created ecumenical concept which suits our society's pressupositions. The degree to which my belief is authoritative, or true, is the degree to which I have actually understood and believed in a reality that does indeed transcend not merely me and my experience, but us, and our diverse experiences. It also follows that any such belief may not 'make sense to all' but it will ultimately 'make sense', because it is true, regardless of wether any particular society/individual understands it. Humankind is certainly limited in our ability to define and understand absolutes, or absolute truth. As a result many are able to rationalize their doubts of any absolute existence or reality, as society constructs fluctuating concepts for conceptuallizing and communicating collective consciousness. We must concede, however, that no matter what our worldview is, in order to substantiate it, even for ourselves as a personal conviction or opinion, we must constantly appeal to the concept of truth. This concept must trancend individuals and societies. Truth trancends 'me' and 'we'. The necessity of this concession is more pronounced when we begin a conversation on worldview and belief. Religious truths are not simply items on a religious grocery shelf as Silverhalk expressed. This is not merely because I believe so, but simply because each religious truth you 'pick off' the grocery shelf finds its root in a historical/doctrinal context. If I wish to understand the Koran, I must learn what order to read the text in. I must learn the historical context within which it was written. I must understand how the writer meant for the text to be read, and, where applicable, what may have been previously appropriated from an outside/earlier worldview. Here is where I am going: Religious truths can only hold the authority of the religion from which they are extracted to the degree which they are embraced within the context of that religion's doctrine. Outside of their doctrinal context they are simply ideas floating free within the creative commons of communication, available to be transformed and changed to suit any ones doctrinal pressupositions, or agenda. These 'free ideas' of 'free thinkers' once used in a new context, will only hold the authority of the doctrine to which they are attached. Any attempt to share doctrine necessitates a philosophical appeal to some concept of truth which will validate the authority being attributed to that doctrine. If this 'concept of truth' is merely created by the collective consciousness, then any appeal to a collective consciousness has zero authority. Even placing more value on the opinion of a group as opposed to that of an individual (or vise versa) suggests that our 'common sense' is appealing to a higher order trancending both. Take a radical Islamist for example (Muslim's please agree or dissagree with me in this example). One who teaches jihad and believes that she/he must kill others for the greater good of Islam. She/He may argue that the West has killed many Muslims, calling all others infidels and evil, and even believe that fundamental Christianity has been the cause of worldwide bloodshed. She/He may use as many arguments as she/he wants which are geared to move the heart of 'political opinion', but at every turn his/her belief necessitates a philosophical appeal to a concept of truth which she/he holds to be beyond oneself, and will thus validate the authority which she/he has attributed to their doctrine within Islam. Is it because she/he appeals to a higher authority that I dissagree with her/his views? No. Is it because my society tells me a plethora of messages some of which oppose her/his views? No. It is because I believe this view to be wrong. It is because I believe that what he/she believes is not the truth. Wether we admit it or not, we do this in every conversation about relativism, morality, justice, and truth... in fact in literally every conversation we have. Consequently, whenever we pass off actually engaging another's worldview for what it is (an appeal to a higher authority) using some relativistic fallacy that we think is pragmatic ("Thats ok, I guess it works for you"), you have actually passively stated that you do not respect that persons viewpoint. You cannot respect it, or you would call it what it is, and state your response as an explicit appeal to your transendant concept of truth. Instead we throw it into the nebulous world of 'equal worldviews'. The truth is that we are largely influenced by societal peer pressure. We have no trouble positing our opinion as an appeal to a higher truth if it happens to line up with what is currently the most vocalized or accepted opinion. If, however, people largely dissagree, many simply say, "well, it works for you... thats ok for you... not for me" and passively insult one anothers intelligence by sidestepping the true conversation of conflicting philosophies. I believe there is a need for society to get past semantics, and our 'people pleasing' desire to affirm everyone's worldview as valid, and just admit that we are collectively critiquing worldviews, and religious perspectives. We are constantly appealing to a concept of higher authority, one which cannot be adiquately validated by 'collective consciousness' or 'what a society deems acceptable', but must be appealed to as 'beyond us', something that we are individually/collectively grasping for, in the company of all of history. We are truly grasping for our identity as humankind. We will not be satisfied unless we believe that we have truly found ourselves. We grasp at straws, and must admit that we are collectively 'not there yet' in our understanding. Why? because there is truth, and it does trancend us. We live in it everyday, and cannot escape it. We also can't contain it within our socially constructed idea of 'common sense'. If we could, than we would all have collectively understood the depths of spiritual humanity, and the finite cosmos, via common sense... a long time ago... Why do we think we must 'evolve'? What is this concept of 'progress' which our idea of evolution constantly appeals to? It requires a value judgement that one state of being is better than, or more apropriate than another... it appeals to a higher ideal than it can account for via 'collectively self created truth'. It indicates that our present collective understanding of ourselves is both limited, and lacking. I do understand the perspective which embraces Silverhalk's opinion, along with your idea that right and wrong is not ultimately decided by religion. These opinions, however, are dependant on a number of pressupositions, the key one being that truth is simply 'self created' experientially by humankind. Neither of your views, in my experience, can lead to any form of true peace between individuals or cultures, and intellectual integrity. If you pick and choose concepts of truth and worldview from a multiplicity of religions, divorcing these concepts from the doctrine wherein they were formed, you have also divorced yourself from any authority that religion may have sought philosophically in its appeal to 'absolute truth'. It is possible for these online discussions about worldview and truth become akin to relatavism support groups, where we pragmatically share methodologies of 'what worked for me' without acknowledging why, or admitting to our collective appeal to a higher truth than is simply offered by what we self create as a society. "How are you doing at creating your truth?" To attribute any collective value to this kind of conversation is to admit a concept of collective 'truth' from which we may pick. to attribute any value to this 'collective consciousness' is to admit a concept of absolute truth which must transcend our collective. We may not admit to this, but I doubt we can philosophically escape it as a collective without constructing a fallacy. For those who understand what I am saying, I must ask: how can we collectively understand this, even as a quantifiable concept, and then not at least respect a discussion of worldview as it pertains absolute truth? And for those who believe this question to be a fallacy, how can we then even begin to attribute any form of authority to our collective opinions about political correctness... without this engagement? To do so seems to me to be a form of intellectual hypocracy, if not philosophical suicide. Wow... I should get back to practicing my guitar... for those who made it to the end... the faithful :-) Thanks for your time. Nate

• monozuki said on Aug 02, 2006....

  FaithfulDisciple: I went to Sunday Mass in a Monastery and their Apostle Creed is total different from what I commonly prayed. It's kinda long and I have to read it from a paper. I was curious about it...they say it's a old apostle creed. I kinda half believing to God. Why? I don't know I just felt it that's all.

• thenack said on Aug 02, 2006....

  Consecrated, I would love to read your post in detail, I think we may be on the same page here. I reaaaallly have to go now but will check in later. What I read so far seems to be a well written and structured version of what I was trying to say. TN

• FaithfulDisciple said on Aug 02, 2006....

  Kudos to all who posted their beliefs. Aside from being worthwhile reading, the length is enough to be an excellent and worthy posts on their own. I'm glad that those who posted have shown very strong foundations in their faith. The intensity and depth of our faith determines our adherence to our beliefs. From your lengthy discussions, it was quite obvious that all of your convictions are strong and very valid arguments.. If we can all draw the good points of our faith and learn to absorb the positive values of each philosophy, we are a step closer towards greater understanding of one another. But whatever faith we subscribed to, it is without doubt that all of humanity is part of an entire universal creation and it is but a natural reaction for the living creation to search for his Creator, whoever that may be depends on each one of us. Monozuki: The above Apostle's Creed is the most modern and simplified one that is adopted by the Roman Catholic Church as standard for all Christian Mass worldwide.

• tifa said on Aug 02, 2006....

  Hi Consecrated! First of all, i'd just like to say that most of what you said i agree with and that it was a very well written piece of work there..;) There's just one thing i still disagree with though. when you said: "The truth is that we are largely influenced by societal peer pressure. We have no trouble positing our opinion as an appeal to a higher truth if it happens to line up with what is currently the most vocalized or accepted opinion. If, however, people largely dissagree, many simply say, "well, it works for you... thats ok for you... not for me" and passively insult one anothers intelligence by sidestepping the true conversation of conflicting philosophies." I agree with the peer pressure business, because, well, its true. alot of religious people these days only believe because their friends believe or because its "the cool thing to do". I don't think that when we say "well, it works for you..that's ok for you..not for me" is insulting. Maybe I didn't understand it properly, but from what I understood from it, I don't think its true. By saying "if it works for you, that's cool", I'm not saying "oh that's ok..but my ideas are better". On the contrary, I'm stating that the person's ideas are as equal as mine and that I have no problem with what that other person believes in. As for the everyone believing in the same message part. I still remain strong on that point. If you take the major religions (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism), they all have the same underlying message. Buddhism has the eightfold path which can only end in love for each other, same thing with christianity and the 10 commandments, the Dharma of Hinduism and the Hadith of Islam. They all have the same idea of loving one another. Now, maybe i didnt make myself clear before, but i meant to say that most religions have more or less the same message (I have excluded those who don't follow a religious doctrine). I should be getting back to work, I hope I clarified some of the stuff I meant before. Cheers

• StupidGenius said on Aug 02, 2006....

  Because of the blog entries regarding this are of discussion I would like to make something clear because it is obvious that some do not actually read my posts clearly. (I'm pointing no fingers) Just because I discuss from a standpoint that picks holes in all religion devoted to a higher being doesn't mean I don't respect that person’s right to hold that view. Just because I argue my point as adamantly and intelligently as possible does not mean I intend in any way to take the piss out of that person or his faith. The bible does hold some core fundamental life guidance, which if stripped to its bare bones, does make good sense. My faith is in my ability to choose what I perceive to be right and wrong. I am not filled with blind hatred towards religion and I "do see the wisdom in it" but only when you take God out of the equation. Michael

• monozuki said on Aug 02, 2006....

  FaithfulDisciple: Thanks for the info. But I think not all mass used the modern one like what I witness. They prefer the old and complete one ..in my own observations

• Elevator said on Aug 04, 2006....

  Man, it's hot in here! and thats good. Before i write anything else, i want everyone to know that i respect all others beliefs and views, and am merely passing information on my beliefs. This is my angle. I do personally believe in evolution. But i'm not an extremist. I've taken a interest in sciences over the years, and believe that i've learnt enough to come to the belief that the Big Bang did exist. But i would not like the idea that the word 'belief' has to be hooked alongside 'religion'. If you break down all scientific principles, and took science all the way back to the Quantum Theory of Singularity, where the whole universe was compressed into one ridiculously tiny point, and with no dimensions - you could still go one better with: "What put it there?" I would strongly reccommend Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything". Within which he describes roughly along the lines of us humans holding the belief that evolution was primarily natures tool that was used in an effort to create us, when realistically, evolutionary stages could be described as having a corridor with many doors, and at each stage, some doors close. All species have to try and make their way through the remaining doors before they close, if not, tough. Apparently we are here by pure, sheer LUCK. But some things are true whether you believe in them or not. And the best thing i can possibley say is that people have a bad habit of asking the wrong questions. Or the wrong kind of questions. If you were to trace back all characters in the bible, it would work out that planet Earth is only 12,000 years old. Science has developed to a point that allows us to examine rocks and more of natures artefacts and conclude that we are talking of millions of years, not merely thousands. The universe and the world takes time and humans are impatient. This could govern beliefs.

• FaithfulDisciple said on Aug 08, 2006....

  To everyone who has something to say about their faith. HBC's latest post about the last sermon tells a lot about [b]experiencing faith[/b], go check it out. Highly recommended reading for those who have trouble defining their faith. :)

• FaithfulDisciple said on Aug 08, 2006....

  And here is the link ||{1}||

• furi said on Sep 28, 2006....

  Times of Need
  
  
  There comes a time in ones life when you reflect upon the past.
  
  You put on the brakes, no need to go fast.
  
  You look at the years that went by in a flash,
  
  And wonder how did you make it, how did you last?
  
  How did you hold your head up when the burden was too much to bear?
  
  And how did you bear that burden when you thought no one was there?
  
  How did you smile in the face of a tear,
  
  And how did you triumph in the face of fear?
  
  Who helped you up after every fall?
  
  Who was ALWAYS there…If only you call?
  
  How did you come through in your times of need?
  
  Through the grace of God, so get down on your knees.
  
  Because just when you thought you could no longer stand,
  
  The Lord was quietly holding your hand!
  

Comment on "A declaration of your faith, who do you believe in and why?"

Currently tagged	belief Truth Christian Faith freedom Science perception religion love Happiness belief truth spirituality perception religion Mass positive values Apostles Creed god metamorphoses belief spirituality (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously