BS: Have you changed your religious views?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 05:10 PM

Where is AWG? We're off topic...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

Sounds like the same process I went through, Pat.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Partridge
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 03:58 PM

Yes I have and quite dramaticaly. I used to believe in nothing. We were here, lived and died and that was it.
I thought that those who believed in any thing were using religion as some sort of crutch.

I cannot pinpoint the change, I now know that we are spiritual beings that go on forever and here to learn what ever lesson we need to.

I used to think that our conscience was like a little bit of god and perhaps I still do.

love

Pat xxx

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 12:08 PM

As I was leaving the pearlescent Anteroom, my escort furtively slipped me a note, looking both ways first.

I pretended nothing had happened until I got out on the street and had caught an ordinary taxi. Then I settled down in the back seat and opened it. This is what it said:

On the end of the world: [ 119 ]

Someday, someday, this crazy world will have to end,
And our God will take things back that He to us did lend.
And if, on that sad day, you want to scold our God,
Why just go ahead and scold Him. He'll just smile and nod.

Kurt Vonnegut

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 11:57 AM

Well, Bee, I asked Him about the charge of being nit-picky, and he just smiled benignly (He does that a lot) and said, "Well, if you're gonna make a Universe, you oughta make it right!". Besides, He has to be consistent in His Message, that chaos and randomness are the Devil's playthings. At least, that's what one of his Senior Cherubim told me while I was waiting for my interview. "We take Message very seriously around here," the cherub told me. "Even when the Boss forgets, we have to keep it on track."

So there ya go -- 's all I know!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 11:05 AM

I'm a bit miffed that I haven't heard back from Jeri about her fridge. I thought my offer was quite reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 11:04 AM

Thanks, Amos - nit-picky kinda Boss, then, what with the dust arranging. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Scoville
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:57 AM

Some people think he's retired now, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:53 AM

Why would God have to have a "job"?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:47 AM

His job is to make sure that the little men who turn fridge lights on and off, make CDs go around very fast, and organize the location of dust particles on windsheilds, are doing their jobs.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:37 AM

So, Amos, what, then, is 'God's job'?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 01:26 AM

And it's not God's job to answer prayers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:58 PM

But it's not his job to clean the oven...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:09 PM

I'd pay you a hundred bucks if you could just tell the little man who who deals with the oven light to clean the oven while he's in there doing nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 10:08 PM

The "little man" who turns your fridge light off is usually made of black plastic, Jeri. He's an electric switch. If you pay my air fare and meals for 2 days I will come down there and show you, okay? ;-) If you pay me another hundred bucks, I'll explain the little man that turns the dome light on in your car too.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST,Aleister Crowley
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 10:08 PM

"Have you changed your religious views?"

Yes I have as a matter of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 09:53 PM

Sure, it's a bit of a generalization. But, so far, it's true...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 07:08 PM

BTW - Sorry, that last post should have read 'Geneisis should NOT be taken literally" (unless of course, the Biblical translation of 'day' has some other meaning, such as 'age' or 'aeon' though I've never heard anything to this effect)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 07:06 PM

Personally, if something's unexplained I don't feel compelled to come up with just any explanation. As to proving God doesn't exist, I can't prove the little man who turns my refrigerator light off doesn't exist either. Does this mean he must really be in there? It's not possible to prove a negative.

I must say this thread stayed on-topic as to personal experiences and people resisted shoving it into the usual 'religion' argument for longer than I expected...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 07:04 PM

Guest, Ed: "That's nothing like what the astrophysicists tell us. Current estimations suggest that there was no light until about 3 to 400,000 years after the big bang. click here. Hardly the biblical account!"

300-400,000 years is hardly a huge length of time by cosmic standards. Using the time-honoured model of a 12-hr clock to represent the history of the universe, the 'light' would have been switched on a fraction of a second after the big bang...

The Bible also says the world was created in 7 days...I think astrophysicists would disagree there also! But I was saying Genesis should be taken that literally, rather that the sequence of events described are in fact quite similar to the way things happened according to the experts.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 06:54 PM

BBruce: "The problem with the 2-D person and the ( postulated) 3-d God is that it still does not resolve the problem. ALL 3-D beings would be gods to the 2-D being- as 4-D beings would be gods to the 3-D, and 5-D to the 4-D, etc. Therefore, one is defineing GOD as ANY being of transfinite dimensions"

You see BBruce, I wasn't saying that the 3-D person is a God, or that *any* trans-dimensional being qualifies as a God. I was postulating that the methods people sometimes demand in order to provide *empirical* proof of existence of God may not be up to the job because of the limit of our cognitive minds. Even if science was able to provide such proof would we even be able to recognise it, much less interpret it? How do we know that science isn't already providing such proof, but we just can't see it or interpret the data? We simply don't know, in fact.

I was saying in another way, "what does a fish know of the water in which it swims?". This was the old philosopher's way of saying that, being a part of the system, we can only be objective about it to a certain degree. I was thinking of how science is heavily relied on to provide explanations of everything, since it is so successful in providing explanations of the physical world. In a sense, a belief in the all-pervasiveness of science has in effect, become a religion: a system that is relied upon to provide an explanation of everything, now or in the future.

Don't get me wrong - I am not rejecting science, just commenting on its limited ability to explain things beyond its scope. Once you reach the spiritual, and even aspects of our nature (questions like 'why do we sing?' 'why do we like music?' 'why indeed do we want to know where we come from?' 'why do material things alone seem inevitably to fail to satisfy?' etc., etc.,) science ceases to be a useful tool. We don't try to hammer in nails with turpentine!!

But there has been a paradigm shift in the last 300 years. The alchemy etc., of old were replaced by more experimential and empirical sciences from the 1600s onwards. Since this approach produced verifiable data and explainations of natural phenomena, it came to be seen as a means of explaining our whole rasion d'etre little by little. And where no verifiable data for our rasion d'etre could be produced, it was then assumed there must be none. This is the weakness of relying on a system that provides numbers and statistics - it is an excellent tool for certain jobs, but absolutely useless for others. We must learn to recognise the areas where science cannot be relied upon to provide answers and find other ways to explore these areas.


Mrzzy: The above kind of doubles up as a reply to your post, basically covering the same points. It's a bit of a generalisation though, isn't it, to say that science has provided natural explanations for everything claimed to be supernatural?

I know lots of cases of hauntings etc., proved to be fakes and so on, but, by way of example, has any convincing and final scientific explanation ever been out forward for the events (and apprently miraculous cures) at Lourdes in France, or the events at Medjugore or Fatima?

On a similar note, even though I am a UFO sceptic, I find it intruiging that Project Blue Book was able to explain 95 per cent of the sightings as having some natural explanation. Of course it's the other 5 per cent that interest me....!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 06:21 PM

It sounds a lot like the Big Bang! Once, there was nothing, then in a split instant (as the astrophysicists also tell us) light etc., was created.

That's nothing like what the astrophysicists tell us. Current estimations suggest that there was no light until about 3 to 400,000 years after the big bang. click here. Hardly the biblical account!

This has been a really interesting thread though, and I'd like to pay particular tribute to Bill D's contributions.

The following was intended for Carl Sagan, but I think it fits Bill just as well:

"He is wise, humane, polymathic, gentle, witty, well-read, and incapable of composing a dull sentence."

And if you don't like the fact that I'm posting as a 'guest' you can....

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 01:39 PM

Nobody has the authority to decide for you how you should live, Bill. Of course, the civil powers that be in this world have civil authority over you and me...there's not a whole lot we can do about that, short of launching another revolution.

So we compromise and put up with it, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 12:59 PM

Bill, you are SUCH a stick-in-the-mud sometimes!! LOL!!

I take it you don';t consider yourself to be a candidate for inclusion in the set of potentially infinite but temporarily bound, natively God-like spiritual entities wandering around Earth wondering what the hell hit them?


:D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:29 AM

If infinity has any use at all in our daily discourse, it might be to refer to the number of "what ifs" we can posit to rationalize our various viewpoints *wry grin*.

It can be fascinating to speculate about 2-D gods & 3-D gods and n-dimensional space and meta-realms which we can only approach mathematically...but very few of these concepts have any relation to our need to cope with the practical problems of accepting or rejecting religious claims about how we should live our daily lives and who has the authority to decide.

Old saws like "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." are not just clever word play...they illustrate real problems in reconciling the possible & probable inherent in life.

My grandmother used to sing...."If I had the wings of an angel, over these prison walls I would fly." Yup...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:25 AM

"the multiple personalities described as belonging to God through the Old and New Testaments" The way you used this seems to imply that all the Biblical accounts of what God did, or instructed people to do, have some validity. I prefer (whether or not on with logical reason) to think that people dreamed up a rational for the various atrocities they committed. If we are actually being toyed with by any number of capricious, sadistic "deities", we're in deep doodoo
and in serious need of help from Dr. Who.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:15 AM

Actually, we ALL could be 3-D manifestations of a single ( or of several) (3+N) dimensional being(s)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM

BB has put his finger on the problem of monotheism. It is possible that we are discussing a universe set in which there is in fact an infinite number of n-dimensional beings capable of impressing people in bodies as God. In fact each of us might be one of them, temporarily battened down by the burdens of body-hood.

Given the multiple personalities described as belonging to God through the Old and New Testaments, I think this a likely explanation. After all, if there were one God, he wouldn't be schizo, would he?   

A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 10:22 AM

The problem with the 2-D person and the ( postulated) 3-d God is that it still does not resolve the problem. ALL 3-D beings would be gods to the 2-D being- as 4-D beings would be gods to the 3-D, and 5-D to the 4-D, etc. Therefore, one is defineing GOD as ANY being of transfinite dimensions.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 09:45 AM

If something is said to cause something else, then it is by definition separate from that which it has caused, is it not?


On revisiting this post, I think you have articulated a major and important fallacious premise. While this may seem true in a non-quantum, macroscale physical universe, we are talking about the sphere of causation that is transcendent. In fact most assertions about God seem to imply It is all pervasive, not separate from anything.

I grant you it doesn't work for billiard balls, but in matters spiritual the notion of the cause being its own effect seems quite normal and fundamental, IMHO. We are not accustomed to non-local communication of effects in the body business -- that is, we assume from habit that cause moves through distance to effect a change. But the tendency to extrapolate from material patterns when trying to decode the spiritual is probably an erroneous approach.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 09:18 AM

"Atheists have no scientific proof (usually their own criteria) that God does not exist." - Almost true. There is no scientific evidence that anything nonexistent doesn't exist - goes for unicorns, dryads, centaurs, flying spaghetti monsters, and gods. What we do have is statistical evidence that there are no supernatural beings, in that so far, every time anyone has tried to explain something using the supernatural, science has demonstrate that No, it was natural.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 09:44 PM

Yep, that's right, such an entity could....assuming it IS an entity in the sense that we think of when we use the word (which I don't assume, actually...I think of it more as a state of consciousness).

And none of us know. Nor are we in any position to. We're like the 2-D person in Nickhere's example (a good one), completely unable to grasp or even describe anything that is 3-D. That's what I figure is our position...more or less...us embodied beings who are living out short lives here in space-time, and figuring that's all there is to it. We can't see what we can't even imagine.

That's why it says in a lot of religious texts (Christian or otherwise) that God is inexpressible, indescribable, beyond any means of definition in our terms.

Simpler folk in the various congregations throughout history, however, have always preferred to worship a human-like diety...in effect, a larger and more powerful version of themselves. It's something they can imagine. I regard that anthropomorphic version of God as probably quite misleading and basically a form of fairy tale or myth...but it works for a lot of people, because they can relate better to a deity that seems human.

I figure if there is a universal and intelligent "source" of everything that it would reflect all characteristics found in the Universe, not just the human ones. For instance, it would reflect those characteristics found in animals, stars, planets, comets, plants, micro-organisms, and alien life on other worlds that we presently know nothing about. It would be simply beyond describing in human terms if it did reflect all things simultaneously.

God would then also not be the property of any particular religion, and I think that's an important point to remember. Christianity may be based on Jesus...but Jesus was not a Christian! ;-) Nor was he simply a Jew (in my opinion). He was an avatar (an enlightened being). And Buddha was not a Buddhist. He was an avatar. And there have been others. I'm sure that some have been female as well, though you don't hear about them so much. People like that (enlightened beings) are completely beyond any religious labels, in my opinion. They should not BE used to spread religious labels that separate people. However, that doesn't stop their followers in the centuries after from attaching labels to them, does it? That's when the trouble begins. The moment you have a label, you've got the "insiders" and the "outsiders"...and in due course of time you've probably got a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:36 PM

LH:

Such an entity could easily cause all kinds of things, starting from Without spacetime, and, for example, creating some spacetime for entertainment. If such were we, we're still here, perhaps cut off from our ancient powers, subdivided and fractured into small viewpoints, and contained within the space of our own creations past.

Not that I think this is the way it is, but for the sake of discussion. Sounds like Nick is climbing the same mountain on a different path.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:21 PM

Bill: "(and I really do appreciate your orderly & thoughtful discussion...I hope we can disagree amicably as we proceed0 "

Absolutely Bill ;-)


I'll get back to some of the points you mentioned above asap, but I have to get to bed soon or I won't be able to function tomorrow.

In brief though - I understand your concern about wanting seperation of Church and state. I haven't worked out all my ideas about this one yet. On the one hand I understand why Christians would be concerned to see Law based on Bible, believing it to contain the best code for how to live our lives anway. On the other hand, Christ did say His kingdom was not of this world, and most previous attempts to marry church and state have been a disaster even from a Christian's point of view. It has generally brought a kind of ossification of spiritual exercise of religion into a more social kind, where religion just becomes all about rules and laws, do's and dont's, with little real spiritual love or charity. Then again, a Christian has a responsibility to speak out against and try and do what they can to prevent evil...but up to a limit beyond which it is up to God to work on the hearts and minds of men. So, while I would be in favour of say, Christians protesting about abortions, I most certainly would not be in favour of Christians blowing up doctors who perform abortions. I think this is part of what Christ meant by 'don't judge' - in other words, don't take it on yourself to act as judge, jury and executioner - that's God's job alone.

Generally I would prefer to see separation of Church and State. At the very least, people couldn't then blame religion if things then went wrong!! ;-))

Ok, I'll sign off here and catch up on this later!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:06 PM

LH: that was an interesting comment on "What if God is larger than time and space themselves, existing beyond time, beyond space"

It reminds me of a mathematical / philosphical problem I once came across that might have some bearing on the difficulty of proving scientifically, a God.

Imagine a 2-D person. Difficult, I know, but just imagine. Then draw a square around this 2-D person (once again a practical impossibility, since even the thinnest line of ink will be a few atoms high, but just imagine). You have just effectively trapped this 2-D person within the square: having only two dimensions, they are unable to escape from the 2-D square. Now imagine along comes a 3-D person. They can steap in and out of the square with no difficulty at all. Because they exist also in another (third) dimension, the 2-D square represents no barrier to them. What would the 2-D person percieve? Perhaps he would only be able to percieve the movement of the 3-D pseron as a series of infinite 2-D slices, each one appearing just after the previous one disappeared. Perhaps he would not be able to see the 3-D person at all. If he was able to percieve the action of the 3-D person, that action would appear as inexplicable as magic, as the 2-D person would have no tangible concept of 3-D.

Our physical beings are 'trapped' within our physical world, and must obey its laws. We cannot really grasp or concieve what is beyond it in its full sense in physical terms, since we don't even know what it is we can't percieve (like the 2-D person has no idea of 3-D).

My point is basically, science is like the 2-D man - it can explain very well certain things, but exists, like our bodies and tangible physical evidence, within certain dimensions. What if, as LH has postulated above, God exists beyond those dimensions? Then science would be as unable to grasp Him any more than the 2-D man can grasp 3-D.

BTW I'm not presenting this as any kind of ultimate proof or otherwise of the existence of God, but as food for philosophical thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:05 PM

" I was not saying that people are brought up as atheists but that atheists start from the premise that there is no God and then continue to explain eveything from that perspective."

I guess I was trying to combine 2 points....one IS that 'some' people are not 'brought up as atheists'....but the real thrust of my point is different, and I did not express it well. I am saying specifically that there is a major difference between the kinds of arguments used by most non-believers (who may not may not be atheists) and most believers...and that the difference is important.
Almost always, non-belief is a response TO belief. One makes a claim; the other rejects it for various reasons. Rejecting a is not always claiming the opposite. Yes, some ardent and strident atheists make sweeping statements, just as some similar Christians do...but for many, it is just a matter of "I am not convinced." Sometimes these people are just agnostics.
I, personally, am MUCH more concerned with the form and details of the claim FOR God than in any counterclaim that 'there is no God'. I can't prove any such thing, so I simply say that I find many of the details FOR belief circular, awkward, incompatible, and not convincing. At the same time I see the historical reasons why belief was easy and natural for many...it does have tremendous emotional power and promise, and many folks would be lost without that promise.




"Well, the comparison is that we both believe something - I believe there is a God, you believe there isn't. We then both model our world view from that perspective.
You say there is no comparison because e.g Christians believe X, and atheists don't believe X. But you see that statement can also be read as: atheists believe Y, Christians don't believe Y."

I sorta covered this above, but I will reiterate: the positions are not mirrors of each other. Atheists do not start with a claim...they are rejecting a claim, even if the form of their argument 'sounds' like like it if you take it out of context.

The operable philosophical position is: "The burden of proof lies with the assertor." Since we seem to agree that 'proof' is simply not what one gets with religious claims, all the 'assertors' can hope for is agreement...and obviously, they have a lot of general agreement, for some sort of religious belief is quite common.

...so, why is all this important? For me, it is relevant to how my society and laws are constructed. In the USA we 'officially' have separation of church & state, but we have many, many who would like to have Christianity (often specific types of it) inserted into the laws and institutions as if there were no question as to its truth.
This is quite different from allowing 'freedom of worship' for believers who practice it privately. I support freedom of religion...but in order for it to be fair, it MUST include 'freedom from religion' for those who wish it. Unfortunately, some adamant believers take the position that 'since Jesus did say, "go and become fishers of men" and "whosoever believeth...etc", that attempting to convert the multitudes is a duty, and if we can't convert them we must at least control them'. So far, they have not managed to do this, but you know & I know that that movement is alive and well.

I find it very awkward to walk that narrow line between wanting freedom for religious folks who practice privately, and feeling that I need to be forever alert for indications that my freedom FROM religion is being eroded. This is the practical side of my continued debate of religious positions expressed here....that is, to keep making the points about why something that is ultimately ONLY a belief should be kept in proper perspective.


(and I really do appreciate your orderly & thoughtful discussion...I hope we can disagree amicably as we proceed0

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 07:05 PM

If something is said to cause something else, then it is by definition separate from that which it has caused, is it not?

How can you have the chain of cause and effect without expressing the concept of separation? If God causes anything then God is separate.

And it must happen within time. What if God is larger than time and space themselves, existing beyond time, beyond space, and they are both simply observable phenomena that arise out of the unseen field of limitless possibility that is God, seen through the mechanism of our separated consiousness....? That mechanism being yours and mine...our busy little separated minds, observing, naming, and categorizing things...and debating about them here for a little space as if we knew!...like Shakespeare's fictional characters in his plays...strutting, fretting, and declaiming while their part lasts.

Then the play ends, and it was all seen to be a clever illusion. We're all actors, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 07:01 PM

Bill D: ""The atheists start on the premise there is no God, and work from there, "

ummm..not exactly. Many,...probably 'most', do not start that way, since religious ideals are promoted pretty thoroughly in this (USA) society. **I** certainly did not start as an atheist..(and that is not how I label myself now.)"

That's not what I meant, Bill. I was not saying that people are brought up as atheists but that atheists start from the premise that there is no God and then continue to explain eveything from that perspective.

"Nickhere: You really cannot compare the thinking of most non-religious folks to the belief structure of those who are thoroughly IN a religion...such as yourself. We are not comparing two 'different' beliefs, and debating which is right. What we usually have is a 'belief' by some, and non-acceptance of that belief by others..such as myself"

Well, the comparison is that we both believe something - I believe there is a God, you believe there isn't. We then both model our world view from that perspective.
You say there is no comparison because e.g Christians believe X, and atheists don't believe X. But you see that statement can also be read as: atheists believe Y, Christians don't believe Y.

Atheists have no scientific proof (usually their own criteria) that God does not exist, anymore than Christians can scientifically prove to atheists that He does. So in the end of the day we have two contrasting beliefs, and of course our beliefs inform our behaviour.

OK, so we both agree there is no proof as such that the Bible is actually full of embellishments and deceptions, other than to say it is possible, because embellishments and deceptions occur in other areas of recorded history. I have already commented on this and noted how we would expect the Bible to be far more grandiose if the Israelites were simply intent on leaving an account of themselves (as later chroniclers often did - I gave the example of Froissart) - though of course, that's not a proof in itself of course.

I think Joe has already mentioned the metaphorical nature of some Bible stories - indeed some are labelled as parables to make clear they are not intended to portray actual events but to illustrate a point. Interestingly 'Adam' simply means 'the father of all men' or something like the origin of men, and Eve likewise means 'the origin of all women'.

Yet even accounts like the creation in Genisis are not that far off the mark. God said 'let there be light: and there was light' It sounds a lot like the Big Bang! Once, there was nothing, then in a split instant (as the astrophysicists also tell us) light etc., was created.

"Then waters were created, the waters above being called 'sky'. Again, quite like astrophysicists tell us - huge volumes of gas condensed and condensed and cooled to become stars and planets. Indeed the water 'above' is gas, and the sea comes from a gas origin (H2O).

"The waters gathered in one place to become land" - some of the gas condensed enough to become more solid, as well as all the heavy metals spewed out by supernovae explosions over millions of years.

"After that plants began appearing on land, seed bearing plants..." We know that plant life was first to develop before animal life.

"Then came the living creatures", just as the paleontologists tell us is so from the fossil record.

And finally, at the proverbial 'minute to midnight' came 'man' Which again we know to be the case from the fossil record.

Finally "man started naming the birds and animals etc.," ...the arrival of langauge.
(I've paraphrased the above from the opening paragrpahs of Genesis, the first book of the Bible)

OK, so there are some bits and pieces here and there that to my inexpert mind, don't quite seem to fit. But you'll have to admit that, even though all this may be obvious to us now with our centuries of accumulated scientific knowledge, there was a time not so long ago that people had no idea how the earth or any of the rest of it had come about. So for someone well over two thousand years ago to have such insight was, to say the least, inspired.

".....that is where I suggest that if a 'God' wanted us poor, fallible, confused people to follow his teachings/instructions, he would need to refresh our memories of *why* a bit more often"

Not to worry: we regularly refresh our own memories every time we have a war, or see all the suffering that comes when people lie to each other, cheat on each other etc., etc., This was what God was teaching / instructing us not to do. On a more positive note, we are reminded of why everytime we feel uplifted by an act of charity or someone choosing to do the right thing.

"it is not the historical aspects of the Bible that are really the issue though, but the metaphysical truth and relevance of whatever historical events which CAN be annotated"

I quite agree with you here - above all the Bible aims to instruct us in how to live our lives. God has given us enquiring minds and a natural curiosity to explore our origins and research our history if we are interested to do so. Science is a useful tool we can use to this particular end.

Amos: "Now if you want to accept these things as metaphors and myths, and therefore say that they are not deceptive, well, fair enough.

But don't try and hand it 'round as some sort of revealed truth, pal. Leastwise, not to me. Take the comfort you can from it, but keep your devotions private, just like Jaysus said to do'

Come now, Amos, you wouldn't like me telling you to basically keep your opinions to yourself regarding your own beliefs, and I'd expect a bit better from you! Let's be fair - it's a public forum to discuss this very topic and share our ideas. If you don't like them, no problem, no-one is obliging you to accept them - at least I'm not trying to anyway, and if I somehow gave you that impression, can I take this opportunity to clear the matter up? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 06:49 PM

I don't see that such an assumption is implicit in the "first cause" proposition. If you substitute the word "We", appropraitely capitalized, it also makes perfect sense in both equations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 06:31 PM

To name God as the "first cause" of anything (such as, for example, humanity or the Universe) is to first of all make the very common assumption that God (if he exists at all) is somehow separate from us and the things we observe around us. That may in itself be a completely incorrect assumption. All those things may be integral parts and aspects OF God. God may not be separate from anything. If so, searching through time and space for the author of the first cause would be a pointless endeavour, as would most of the debate on this thread. If time and space are themselves simply aspects of God, then you won't find God lurking somewhere in the vastness of time and space, any more than you can find the ocean by looking in a bucket of seawater! ;-)

You'd probably need to study the higher levels of either Buddhism or Hinduism to know what I mean by suggesting, however, that God is not separate from anything. Or....you could read some of the recent books in the "spiritual/New Age" section of your bookstore. There's a ton of stuff out there, but I guess people here would just prefer to go on debating the pros and cons of conventional Christianity, would they?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:43 PM

You that speak of Bill D in Spandex, have you ever seen him?
I'm a tolerant man, but the sight of Bill D in Spandex is not something I can stomach.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:15 PM

Not bloody likely...


A-who-never-swoons

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John Hardly
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:10 PM

"a first cause God who since long has stopped interfering but whose works can be seen in nature is the only belief in a God that seems defendable to me."

I strongly agree, though I just wouldn't say "only".

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:06 PM

Well, you rendered Amos speechless...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:05 PM

ohhh..will there be swooning? I never had any women swoon!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:03 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 02:06 PM

Bill, if you contract your supermanly pecs alternately whilst talking, quite a few of the women will stick around...

Oh yes, my coat....

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:48 PM

...you peeked!








(funny...when I get dressed in my costume and 'come to save the day', the audience seems to wander away and head for shorter, less convoluted posts. Do you suppose.....could it be possible.....am I boring them!...*gasp*)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM

I just got this mental image of Bill D in a spandex costume, with a big "L" on the chest, for "Logic Man" : )

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:15 PM

I dunno...I treat the concept of 'first cause' rather like 'last number' or infinity, we need to refer it for some purposes, but we really can't wrap our poor, finite brains around it as an actuality. The idea of 'remote cause' is more useful, as that can be pushed further back as we learn more, and doesn't get us into such awkward metaphysical conundrums.