Infidel

[philbytx]

Satan? I didn't mention Jerry Jones????

 

(Ok now Fernando LOL!!)

[EffBee]

Satan? I didn't mention Hillary????

Well, that does cross the political line and I'm pretty sure you know it. Let's keep this on track. It's been an exceptionally enlightening discussion, if not on the topic at least on the depth of some of our members.

 

I must admit that the Mod Team was concerned at first, but by and large this has progressed in an interesting and non-confrontational manner. Kudos to all for your carefully constructed wording and in many cases, your restraint.

[Dave McReynolds]

But I'll raise you one... to what extent does it even matter whether such a non-random element exists? Meaning, if in our mere humanity we cannot possibly comprehend a meaning, what effect should any of this have on us with respect to our daily lives? How do you get from 'strong and weak nuclear forces happen to be just so' to 'Jesus Christ died for my sins'

 

It matters if you change the analogy a little. I'm not saying my analogy is any closer to the truth than the ant analogy, but it pleases me so I'll use it.

 

How about a three month old child and a mother, with us as the three month old child? All we can comprehend of the mother is as a provider of food and comfort. We can't comprehend that she is also a nuclear physicist, a lover of other people with a different kind of love than she gives us, or that she prefers cabernet sauvignon over beer. She might like it if we grew up to be physicists too, but she knows better than to teach nuclear physics to a three month old child. The best way to get us to grow up to be nuclear physicists is to see that we are well fed, dry, and secure.

 

Which leads me to the conclusion that intellectually trying to understand God is probably analygous to trying to figure out your marital problems by reading a parts manual for a BMW motorcycle. It probably does no harm, other than diverting you from the real issues, but it doesn't get you any closer to solving the problem, either.

 

To carry my analogy one step further, I believe a spiritual connection with God is available to everyone equally. Bonding with a mother is just as easy or hard for the smartest or the dumbest three month old baby in the world.

[Pilgrim]

At what point does our understanding of what constitutes "intelligence" become meaningless, or at best, inadequate?

Well, pretty quickly, but I used the word for want of a better way to describe something planned vs. totally random. But I'll raise you one... to what extent does it even matter whether such a non-random element exists? Meaning, if in our mere humanity we cannot possibly comprehend a meaning, what effect should any of this have on us with respect to our daily lives? How do you get from 'strong and weak nuclear forces happen to be just so' to 'Jesus Christ died for my sins' (or any other religious philosophy)?

 

You don't, and you don't have to.

 

What works for me is to admit there are things out there bigger than I can consider. Things come up and I kid (sort of) my wife by saying, "See, everything's connected."

 

Well, it is. Or it might be. As Arthur Eddington said (Admittedly, I had to look up who it was - I know of at least one misattribution): "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." And if we can't imagine it we can't ponder it, can we? Thus, it is beyond our analysis. We see indications of things, hints, clues, vague outlines, transient flashes, and we aren't equipped to know how to think about them, much less come to conclusions. So sometimes we deny what we almost saw. Other times, we make stuff up. Like maybe religion. That doesn't mean there's not a fundamental reality, God, even, behind it, though.

 

Pilgrim

 

EDIT: That's good, very good Dave. You took the thought I tried to use and ran with it. I couldn't make it work on paper tonight.

[smiller]

But I'll raise you one... to what extent does it even matter whether such a non-random element exists? Meaning, if in our mere humanity we cannot possibly comprehend a meaning, what effect should any of this have on us with respect to our daily lives? How do you get from 'strong and weak nuclear forces happen to be just so' to 'Jesus Christ died for my sins'

 

It matters if you change the analogy a little. I'm not saying my analogy is any closer to the truth than the ant analogy, but it pleases me so I'll use it.

 

How about a three month old child and a mother, with us as the three month old child? All we can comprehend of the mother is as a provider of food and comfort. We can't comprehend that she is also a nuclear physicist, a lover of other people with a different kind of love than she gives us, or that she prefers cabernet sauvignon over beer. She might like it if we grew up to be physicists too, but she knows better than to teach nuclear physics to a three month old child. The best way to get us to grow up to be nuclear physicists is to see that we are well fed, dry, and secure.

 

Which leads me to the conclusion that intellectually trying to understand God is probably analygous to trying to figure out your marital problems by reading a parts manual for a BMW motorcycle. It probably does no harm, other than diverting you from the real issues, but it doesn't get you any closer to solving the problem, either.

 

To carry my analogy one step further, I believe a spiritual connection with God is available to everyone equally. Bonding with a mother is just as easy or hard for the smartest or the dumbest three month old baby in the world.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding how that addresses my question, or even the validity of the analogy. Whether a child understands the deeper nature of his parents or not they are corporeal beings that are eminently visible to the child, and who make their desires known in abundantly clear and direct ways (verbal commands or physical coercion, etc.) I don't see how this at all relates to communication with an unknowable spiritual presence.

 

Again, I'll assume for the sake of argument that attempting to intellectually understand God is indeed as futile as everyone is suggesting. How then can we determine anything at all from this, much less derive all of the incredibly detailed and varied theologies that exist in the world? How do we know that Jesus and Mohammad had a special relationship with God? How do we know that women and/or homesexuals shouldn't be priests? How can we have the slightest idea what God wants if his meanings (or the very nature of his existence) are so far beyond our ken?

[Dave McReynolds]

Again, I'll assume for the sake of argument that attempting to intellectually understand God is indeed as futile as everyone is suggesting. How then can we determine anything at all from this, much less derive all of the incredibly detailed and varied theologies that exist in the world? How do we know that Jesus and Mohammad had a special relationship with God? How do we know that women and/or homesexuals shouldn't be priests? How can we have the slightest idea what God wants if his meanings (or the very nature of his existence) are so far beyond our ken?

 

Colicky child....

[smiller]

Colicky child....

 

But that's not an answer.

[Dave McReynolds]

I'm thinking, and btw, thanks for taking that in the spirit in which it was intended. I have the utmost respect for you as a person and enjoy interacting with you on the board.

[smiller]

I'm thinking, and btw, thanks for taking that in the spirit in which it was intended. I have the utmost respect for you as a person and enjoy interacting with you on the board.

Same here Dave (and Pilgrim, Scott, et al.) It is very difficult to find educated individuals who can discuss this topic intelligently. I am learning something from you guys.

[smiller]

Other times, we make stuff up. Like maybe religion.

OK, you are doing a good job of explaining your own personal philosophy and I think I understand, although as I read it you may be almost as far from the religious mainstream as I am.

 

Would I be correct in deriving from your frequent dissociations from organized religion that you do not necessarily believe that many/most of the commonly-accepted tenets of Christianity were actually handed down by God? Or if so I have the same question for you that I submitted to Dave...

[David]

How can we have the slightest idea what God wants if his meanings (or the very nature of his existence) are so far beyond our ken?

 

Well, the traditional answer is two-fold:

 

1) Paul wrote, about 35 years after Jesus' death, that "now we see through a glass darkly." In other words, we don't know much. So that's someone who lived closer to the times, which should make us suspicious about how much we claim to know some 2000 years later.

 

2) Truth becomes clearer as you obey, and until that unbelievers (you) are blind.

 

Not very satisfying, and uncomfortably cult-like, but that would be the answer from the believing side.

 

It's a tad circular, but I understand the point. Sort of like saying you won't understand loving a woman until you are in love that first time, and then the things you hear about love make sense in a new way.

 

Don't shoot the messenger, please.

[smiller]

2) Truth becomes clearer as you obey,

Now there's my problem...

[KMG_365]

How can we have the slightest idea what God wants if his meanings (or the very nature of his existence) are so far beyond our ken?

 

Well, the traditional answer is two-fold:

 

1) Paul wrote, about 35 years after Jesus' death, that "now we see through a glass darkly." In other words, we don't know much. So that's someone who lived closer to the times, which should make us suspicious about how much we claim to know some 2000 years later.

 

2) Truth becomes clearer as you obey, and until that unbelievers (you) are blind.

 

Not very satisfying, and uncomfortably cult-like, but that would be the answer from the believing side.

 

It's a tad circular, but I understand the point. Sort of like saying you won't understand loving a woman until you are in love that first time, and then the things you hear about love make sense in a new way.

 

Don't shoot the messenger, please.

Wow. That is pretty scary. First you admit they/we don't know much, but just stick with "my" plan and you'll get used to it. Eventually you'll begin to see its sheer genius.

 

This isn't actually that far off from my philosophy. Since I believe that we create our own realities anyway, who's to say that one reality is any more real than any other? I mean for all we know, the folks from the Heaven's Gate branch of reality may well be on a spaceship partying with Jesus and looking down on all of us poor fools who either were not lucky enough to hear their message for redemption or heard it but just didn't believe hard enough.

[David]

Wow. That is pretty scary. First you admit they/we don't know much, but just stick with "my" plan and you'll get used to it. Eventually you'll begin to see its sheer genius.

 

This isn't actually that far off from my philosophy. Since I believe that we create our own realities anyway, who's to say that one reality is any more real than any other? I mean for all we know, the folks from the Heaven's Gate branch of reality may well be on a spaceship partying with Jesus and looking down on all of us poor fools who either were not lucky enough to hear their message for redemption or heard it but just didn't believe hard enough.

 

I can't tell from your response whether you figured it out or not, but I was suggesting what others might believe--not what I believe. I don't believe anything of the sort.

[Dave McReynolds]

Wow. That is pretty scary. First you admit they/we don't know much, but just stick with "my" plan and you'll get used to it. Eventually you'll begin to see its sheer genius.

 

Isn't that pretty much the way life works? You pays your money and you takes your choice.

 

It sounds crazy when we hear that some people think they will beam up to the Hale Bopp comet, and no doubt IS crazy.

 

Some people decide to sign on with Scott and freeze to death at the South Pole.

 

Some people decide to sign on with the South and lose everthing they have in the Civil War.

 

Some people think it's a good idea to go west with the Donner Party.

 

My SO's folks belong to a church in Spokane that once had hundreds of members, and now is down to about 20 old folks. When they can't collect enough to pay the utility bills anymore, maybe their church will be turned into a supermarket.

 

Other churches have so many members they can't all fit into the same room for the services, and have to see televised versions in other rooms. Maybe 10 years from now, they'll be in the same boat as the church I described in Spokane.

 

Some people thought it was a good idea to invest in Enron.

 

I think you get the idea.

[Dave McReynolds]

I'm sorry, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but maybe my last post was incomplete.

 

For all those who made unfortunate choices in the examples I gave, there were others who acted on equally incomplete information and made other choices where things turned out fine (for example, if you chose to go the the south pole with Admunsen).

 

Life is a gamble, and you make the best choices you can, knowing that you might lose.

 

No one is suggesting that anyone ought to abandon all their judgement and intuition and beam up to Hale Bopp. You have to do what you believe is right.

[smiller]

So what I'm getting from these responses is that it's OK to eschew the tenets of organized religion and interpret scripture as an individual sees fit, i.e. we each divine our own meanings from God's existence. But I've also heard that religion provides an external moral center not subject to the vagaries of man. How can these both be true? And if the latter statement isn't true, what purpose does a belief in God serve?

[beemerman2k]

OK, my homework assignment from "Pastor David"

 

See, I've been picking on folks all thread long, and now what had gone around is coming around!

 

This may well be the longest post in BMWST.com history! Unless you're really into this Christianity thing, don't bother reading this post. It's kinda long.

 

Here's what you're missing, though, and even though it's just one thing, it's monumental. It turns what you're saying into nonsense, really, and it's this: the claims in Christianity (and other religions, to varying degrees) don't allow for the smorgasboard approach you're taking. They claim to represent the words of God; they claim that God wrote the Scriptures by handing them down, word for word; and they claim that people who don't believe these things are condemned and going to hell.

 

Well, you can pick and choose, but that's not Christianity in the end. This very post of yours has probably a half-dozen statements that an evangelical professor would consider pure heresy.

 

First of all, my "smorgasboard approach" simply acknowledges that I am an individual with my own opinions, viewpoints, convictions, and conclusions. I don't believe in the "one truth fits all" model of spiritual understanding, thus I have no particular allegiances with any version or branch or denomination what so ever. In fact, permit me to quote the Apostle Paul here:

 

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, home and love. But the greatest of these is love". I Corinthians 13:12

 

The Apostle Paul knew in part, Moses knew in part, Isaiah knew in part, you know in part, Ph.D's in theology know in part, the Reverend Billy Graham knows in part, and I know in part. The question to me is this: who's "part" am I going to run with? The answer for me is that I stand, sink or swim by what I know in part! So if some of my views appear to be heresy then so be it. At least we all know one thing for certain: I am presenting what I truly and sincerely know in part! ("think" in part would be more accurate, actually). In any case, I really could care less what "mainstream Christianity" thinks about things. Heresy? Thank you. No really. That suggests that I am an independent thinker -- among my other faults, that is.

 

In other words, either Christianity is essentially correct or it's totally wrong. You can't pick and choose without the whole thing crashing down around you.

 

I believe that on a certain level, Christianity is spot on. The writers of the books of the bible describe many things: commands, histories, prophesies, biographies, songs, poetry, letters, and so on. Each and every book in the Protestant Bible (can't speak for the Catholic version) presents an argument and a point to the argument. Organized religion, in my view, is an exercise in mankind fixating on the argument yet missing the point that is being made!

 

OK, on one level, each of the books chronicles the events and people building up to the coming of the Messiah (from a Christian point of view of course). But there's more. It chronicles Israel's understanding of just who this Lord God is, and what exactly he wants. Some people "got it", others did not.

 

Moses was a man who "got it" (assuming he wrote the Torah). On one hand, you can read those writings and see more commands than you can shake a stick at. "Religions" have argued and fixated on those commands ever since they were written. Yet upon closer inspection one sees something much more valuable than those commands, "Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy" - Leviticus 19:1 I believe that what Moses is driving at here (whether by the Spirit of God or not, depending upon whether you consider this "holy writ") is that there's a point to these laws. The point is so that we might inherit God's values! Knowing God and his values is what I believe is the real gem the Bible is trying to convey. I mean knowing God, not just knowing the commands. The commands are temporary, God's personality and his values are permanent! This is what I believe the writer of Hebrews was getting at when he wrote, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." If you take the Bible as a whole to be the Word of God, and you fixate on the commands, this statement makes no sense at all. But if you consider the point that the writers were making -- that is, getting to know God as one would seek to know one's own father, then yes, that is a consistent message that echo's through out time in the Bible.

 

King David was a man who "got it". He is to me the greatest living example of a man who "got it", which is probably why in spite of his rather "zesty" life, he was a man after God's own heart. In the 139th Psalm, David ponders the fact that God knows him phenomenally well, "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord" (Ps 139:4). As a response to that realization, David resolves to get to know God's personality and values equally as well, "How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!" (Ps 139:17).

 

The prophet Jeremiah really nailed this concept when he wrote:

 

This is what the Lord says:

 

"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom

or the strong man boast of his strength

or the rich man boast of his riches,

but let him who boasts boast about this:

that he understands and knows me,

that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness,

justice and righteousness on earth,

for in these I delight" - Jeremiah 9:23-24

 

Now, even getting to know God has a point to it; it is not an end unto itself. The point behind the call to get to know the Lord on a personal basis is so that we will have real, grounded, rooted, deep, and abiding faith that God is really who we think he is and that he really will do or not do what he says he'll do! This is what real faith is; not simply acknowledging God's existence. These early Christians and ancient Jews were often subjected to messy and painful deaths purely because they professed an abiding faith in God and would not deny it for anyone. So it's easy for us today, sitting on our $17K BMW motorcycles, to profess our "faith" in God. None of our children will be fed to the lions. In spite of everything I have learned to date, there is no way I would allow my children to die for their faith. No way. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm only being honest. So my faith is rather weak. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

 

I've been on this forum since June of 2000. Since then I've have the privilege of virtually meeting several members. Take Pilgrim for instance. I've enjoyed his writing pretty much since I joined this forum. Fernando Beliar, too. David Baker for almost as long. There's one aspect of these men that I have total "faith" in: you cannot feed them a load of crock and expect to get away with it. These men think things through! What is the basis of my "faith"? A decision on my part to just believe it because I have been told? No, first hand experience formed the basis for my faith! That's the purpose of getting to know God and his personality and his values -- so that from our first hand experiences, we'll know what he likes, what he hates, and so on. We don't need no stinkin' commands, we know him! And that's what God really wants from us; not membership in a church, not adherence to commands, but a relationship that based upon what we know about his values, we can inherit those values and know that God will do what he says each and every time.

 

Now, even this "faith" in God thing has a point to it; it is not an end unto itself. God is portrayed from Genesis to Revelation as first and foremost a deliverer. God delivers! And when we get to know his personality, and we come to certain conclusions about his ways just like Jesus did:

 

"So do no worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?" or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do no worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." - Matthew 6:32-34. By the way, for a real good glimpse into God's personality, read Jesus Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew chapters 5-7. It's this sermon that led me to the conclusion that there is not one soul who is going to hell. Let me explain (sheesh, will this guy ever shut up?!)

 

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [why?] that you may be sons of your Father in heaven...Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" - Matthew 5:43-44,48 There is is again: from "Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy", to "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". In other words, we are called to be like our Father in heaven, to inherit his values, to trust in his personality, to have peace in our lives -- which is the ultimate end product of Christianity! "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" - John 10:10. "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." - Matthew 11:28-30

 

OK, I digress -- back to the "hell" thing. So why are we to 'Love our enemies'? Because God does! That's either true or it isn't. I cannot personally reconcile a God who would command us to do something that he himself is not willing to do, and I don't believe he is doing that. God always loves everyone whether they are his friend or enemy -- that's my present understanding of his personality and those are what I believe to be his values. Thus the greatest commandment, "'Love the Lord your God with all yoru heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hand on these two commandments." - Matthew 22:37-40.

 

All things in the Bible are there to make a point; they are not an end unto themselves. I believe the point behind laws, commands, hell, judgment, etc is an effort to help us to understand exactly what we deserve, but will not receive. Because God is always forgiving, always merciful (remember Jeremiah, "that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight"), always kind. So what am I to make of the recordings where God is not so "kind"? People called it as they understood it, but that doesn't mean they were correct in their interpretation. What else can I conclude? The sky cannot be both blue and red, right? It can only be one or the other! The Bible cannot be both infallible and contradictory, right? It can only be one or the other! If it's infallible, then its definitely contradictory. If it's just he sincere, heartfelt, writings of great and learned people, then it is what it is! A great learning tool, but that's all.

 

Jesus came along to show us that God even delivers from death. In the Old Testament, there is no concept of a heaven or a hell. Jews believed (maybe even do to this day; anyone care to comment?) that we are from "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" -- a reference from the book of Job I believe. Jesus came along and basically said, "no, there's a bit more to it than that" Read John chapter 14. Pay careful attention to the questions the Apostles ask Jesus. They obviously don't get this "after life" thing, and Jesus is trying to spell it out to them.

 

Me? I think Christianity is a religion and I want nothing to do with religion. I do have a belief system, though, that overlaps maybe 5% with Christianity. It makes sense to me and I'd die for it in a heartbeat, but I feel no compulsion to explain it to anyone, much less convince someone else of the same belief.

 

The longer I live, the fewer things I believe...but the more deeply I believe them. What I get from listening to your dialog is no real filter--in other words, what are you testing ideas against? Are there wrong ideas, and how do you identify certain ideas as wrong?

 

You're in love with the idea of no absolutes. That's your religion.

 

This is the "Gospel According to Beemerman2k". These are my personal convictions gathered after years of study and living. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household and tried my best to live the fundamentalist lifestyle. But eventually I realized that life just isn't that simple; it's a bit more complex than that. Now that I have separated myself from organized religion, I feel totally free to speak my mind and to call it as I see it. Heresy? Maybe so. Honesty? Absolutely this is how I see things.

 

I could go on forever. I would love to talk about the people who did not subscribe to the view that, "God says it, I believe it, and that settles it" -- a bumper sticker I saw sometime ago. Men like Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Habakkuk's (my favorite read, 3 chapters of powerful insight!), Job (another great read), and the countless people who challenged Jesus teachings. All these people were rewarded for speaking up and for speaking their minds, not punished! I have many more views that may be equally as heretical as what I've said so far, but I think I've said enough already.

 

Get your own convictions! Be strong in what you "know in part". One last passage that I love to support my point:

 

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings" - Proverbs 25:2. Don't be a subject who simply follows orders. Ask, seek, knock! Speak up and speak out! Demand answers and don't just be spoon fed a belief system just because you are a member of the <insert religion here> faith.

 

Now, I am reasonably confident that this is what the Bible teaches, but do I believe it's really true? Do I believe there really is a God? Do I believe this God always delivers? This is why I have a foot planted firmly on both sides of the fence. The jury is still out on this one for me.

[Pilgrim]

Well, James, that was certainly well said. I'm going to have to chew on it a bit but right off hand, I can't see a lot to argue over - which is not the same as saying I agree with all of it.

 

Or perhaps it is best if I simply wish for you the blessing of coming to a decision you can live with, that you come down on the right side - whichever side that is.

 

Pilgrim

[Couchrocket]

Was football or politics created on the eighth or ninth day and by whom? Please state your reasoning and independently verifiable proof. Ready? Go!

No, no, no.... Jamie, I keep telling you that you need to be a better scholar with scripture. It was neither politics, nor football. And, it wasn't the 8th or 9th day. IT WAS BASEBALL, and it was the very first thing God did.

 

Genesis 1:1 - In the BIG INNING! See? Whatsamattawityou?!

 

Meanwhile, back to the real thread... I gotta catch up... I've been gone all day...

[Couchrocket]

So what I'm getting from these responses is that it's OK to eschew the tenets of organized religion and interpret scripture as an individual sees fit, i.e. we each divine our own meanings from God's existence. But I've also heard that religion provides an external moral center not subject to the vagaries of man. How can these both be true? And if the latter statement isn't true, what purpose does a belief in God serve?

What a great statement, and what a great question.

 

I'd say that only part of your first statement is accurate. I think what you are hearing is more like this. There are things in scripture that are not perfectly clear (for lots of reasons that we could discuss for a very long time). But, there is a "thread" (pardon the BMWST pun) through scripture that is both clear, and consistent. And as individuals this thread touches us at different times, in different circumstances and life situations, and so you'll hear it expressed and emphasized in different ways, but the bottom line is always the same.

 

"The Church" over time has institutionalized this thread into "tenets," sometimes doing a good job, sometimes not. But the thread is clear enough so that anyone can find it for themselves. And, as you so well say, it provides an external reference point for mankind, because this thread reveals enough about God to provide a reliable external reference point, and enough about mankind to illuminate what we suspect is true about us and our situation.

 

No real contradiction.

[Lineareagle]

Unless you're really into this Christianity thing, don't bother reading this post. It's kinda long.

 

James, I am a minimalist when it comes to Christianity.I guess from having to try and explain it to illiterate but very bright individuals.

 

Basically.

God created man for fellowship, he had lots of 'toys', other creation.

Fellowship is nothing if it is not freely given. Free will.

You can choose to fellowship with God or not.

Hell is complete separation from God.

Heaven is continuing in fellowship with God for eternity.

 

Once God started the ball rolling with Adam and Eve, THEY were the creators of humanity, God did NOT create you, he has NO responsibility to you, or me or anyone. Born in sin?

 

There are NO brownie points, it does not matter how much you do for others unless you do it out of response to the relationship with God, in which case you are in touch with His heart and are responding through that response.

 

There IS a dichotomy of interest in this world, there is good there is evil. Black and white, God is not wishy washy, he has very firm and set guidelines for the relationship you are either in the relationship or out, you can choose to be in at any time but, why wait? If you wait once you understand, what is that saying about your desire for the relationship.

 

God could care less whether you are crippled, wealthy, poor, starving, lost your family, won the lottery or anything else you can think of the MOST IMPORTANT thing IS the relationship, nothing else matters.

 

God does take care of his own. How that is carried out in our present existence is not for us to worry about.

 

God has a relationship with individuals in every culture, religion, society. The fact that some claim sole recipients of this relationship IS the construct of man, NOT God.

 

These constructs, that control, deceive, manipulate and coerce individuals in the name of God, Allah etc. need to be exposed for the great blight and danger that they are to all humanity.

 

Now back to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and 'Infidel' what are we to do?

[Couchrocket]

intelligent design out to absurd specifics

Great comment. Here's why it may not be absurd. If you look at the created universe, and all that "means" as actually having been created by someone powerful enough to do so and understand that it wasn't just an exercise in creativity and "mechanics," but that this being who created is expressing himself to us as a "person" -- that makes a huge difference, potentially.

 

From that we can derive a concept of this created universe being "personal" as opposed to "impersonal." And created for a purpose, rather than no purpose.

 

And if personal and for a purpose, then it expresses the personality and characteristics of its creator. Much as does art. Both the mechanical aspect of the universe, and the personal ones.

 

This is actually what we are told in scripture.

 

Then, there can be the logical extension of saying that if this is a personal universe, reflecting the creator's characteristics, and for a "purpose" the next logical question is, "what" purpose?

 

And the scriptural answer is "love and communication." Two of the major characteristics of the creator. (Not an exhaustive, comprehensive description, but accurate in its parts.)

 

And from there it isn't a big leap to the creator having concern and input into our behavior as it coincides, OR NOT, with the creator's desired outputs.

 

So if the door can be opened to a creator at all, it doesn't have to be a contradiction that he cares about us and how we act.

 

Viewing the universe as purely a mechanical device is what suggests a contradiction because it doesn't explore the fact that the nature of the creator may be infused into his creation. There are suggestions in scrpture that this last statement of mine may be more litterally true than we've ever realized, and it is one of the reasons I'm excited by advances in science.

[smiller]

What a great statement, and what a great question.

And a great answer as well, thanks. Of course, if the central thread that you are referring to are the instructions to love thy neighbor (and other good modes of behavior that benefit the individual and society) then God isn't strictly required for that. Those positive modes of behavior are a good idea for the healthy functioning of any human society and don't require divine inspiration. As I noted earlier to Pilgrim, you can find God, or you can simply observe the world for examples of where various types of behavior lead and make an appropriate choice based solely on your own intellect. But in the end both get you to the goal.

 

It looks like I'm not going to get any details on how God created the Universe in six days (with an all-powerful and omnipotent being needing the seventh day for rest) or how Jesus actually rose from the dead, or how the world is really 6,000 years old since you are all educated way beyond a literal interpretation and appreciate the symbolic nature of it all. It's unfortunate that your numbers are so small and it's a shame so many of these meanings are obfuscated in the way religion is traditionally taught. It would be better if the world heard more from you guys and less from those whose use of religion primarily concerns the enrichment of their own wealth and power (and yes, I know the Bible has something to say about that as well. )

 

A thoroughly enjoyable discussion and I heartily thank all of the participants.

 

 

Now back to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and 'Infidel' what are we to do?

Sorry for the total hijack of your thread. I'll have to answer your question with a question though... what should we do?

[Couchrocket]

is expressing himself to us as a "person"

I'm replying to my own post! Didn't want to muck up what I was saying in my last post with this clarification / comment.

 

Often is it assumed that our seeing God as a person is mere anthropmorphological leanings on our part. That certainly is one possibility. However, scripture offers us a real alternative understanding that has great power to explain, if true. It says the opposite, that our personality, characteristics, ability to communicate and think abstractly, our creative impulses, and the like are expressions of HIS personalness that have been infused into us as "created in His image." Now, obviously that's a truth-claim, and part of what is being debated / discussed in this thread as to its potential to be true or not. But if true, this has great power to explain and provide context for human understanding and purpose, and ultimately objective meaning for life and our pursuits.

 

Anyone interested in this aspect of what we've been discussing in this thread might want to look to the works of theologian and philosopher Francis A. Schaeffer. His books, "The God Who is There" and "He is There and He is Not Silent" deal with this directly.

 

One of the things I see in this thread from those of you who have good and hard questions is that much of your current understanding is based on adolescent understandings / misunderstandings carried into adulthood. Please don't hear this as an insult. We all do this with many many things in our lives.

 

But, since these issues are potentially actual "life and death" issues, I urge all of us to look seriously into them with as much good scholarship as we can. That way, no matter what our ultimate decisions are on the merits of the claims, they'll be truly informed decisions and not knee-jerk reactions to pop-culture notions, or reactions to the lunatic fringe that anything humans touch always has at the edge, or notions that rightly belong to the simplicity and naiveté of youth, but not to thinking adults.

[Couchrocket]

if the central thread that you are referring to are the instructions to love thy neighbor (and other good modes of behavior that benefit the individual and society) then God isn't strictly required for that

That's only part of the thread. The other and more important part concerns our inability (abundantly demonstrated through human history) to "fix ourselves" and consistently make those right choices for the good of all. Without this component, you're right in saying that we wouldn't need God. But the "need for salvation" component holds primacy in scripture as an explanation of reality.

 

As to the rest of this post, I've already intimated in an earlier post that since Einstein, the whole "time thing" is an irrelevant discussion. When someone asks "how long has it been" we need to reply, "from where in the universe are you referring, and how fast have you been going" for the question to have any meaning. So, in addition to the symbolic nature of some aspects of the scriptural description of the creation events, there is even the possibility that the time elements may not be as absurd as we once thought before we understood the nature of time a little better.

[smiller]

But the "need for salvation" component holds primacy in scripture.

You left 'with regard to Christian theology.' off the end of that sentence.

 

So, in addition to the symbolic nature of some aspects of the scriptural description of the creation events, there is even the possibility that the time elements may not be as absurd as we once thought before we understood the nature of time a little better.

Uh-oh. But I'll hold my tongue as that's a whole 'nuther thread, and frankly I'm winded.

[Couchrocket]

You left 'with regard to Christian theology.' off the end of that sentence.

Guilty as charged. But... assumed on my part given my previous posts.

 

Yeah, and ain't the whole time thing interesting? No need for the uh-oh!

 

Here's an off the wall observation of my own... the whole notion that the results of some experiments at the quantum level are / can be affected by being "observed" -- may say something about "personalness" in the universe. Far out, I know.... but food for thought.

[Lineareagle]

One of the things I see in this thread from those of you who have good and hard questions is that much of your current understanding is based on adolescent understandings / misunderstandings carried into adulthood. Please don't hear this as an insult. We all do this with many many things in our lives.

 

Very true, who better to interpret the true meaning of basics of religion then those who do not have the trash of others to sort through.

My background is philosophy and theological studies both intellectual and practical, and the overwhelming impression I have is that the greater the neophyte the more perceptive and accurate their perception of the God being and the relationship.

"Suffer little children . . . etc."

"Go into all the world . . "

Why? Because what you see and experience will help you to understand!

Once the mind has 'matured' many of the very valid queries and considerations discussed here become stimulating, but must never be allowed to overshadow the basic truths from which everything else flows.

 

What should we do?

Hmmm, from her message in her book a window is opened into a part of the soul of Islam. It is not a very pretty picture.

Do the followers of Islam have the where-with-all to adapt the message, are they captive to the zealotry of the few, should we do battle, or should we just not encourage or abet the promulgation of their belief system?

What do we see happening to our own rights and freedoms if we deny those rights and freedoms to them?

Recently in Ontario we denied the expansion of funding of faith based schools from the public purse.

Yet we fund Catholic schools and have for decades!

What does this say about our society and where we are headed?

Are we right headed or wrong headed?

 

I am of two minds and they are doing mighty battle. I really don't know and hence the original question, What should we then do?

[KMG_365]

Here's an off the wall observation of my own... the whole notion that the results of some experiments at the quantum level are / can be affected by being "observed" -- may say something about "personalness" in the universe. Far out, I know.... but food for thought.

From Wikipedia "Observer Effect":

A common lay misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed — until that time, the cat is both alive and dead (technically half-alive and half-dead in probability terms). However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system. A significant minority still find the equations point to an observer; Wheeler, who probably worked more deeply on this subject than any physicist thus far, devised a graphic in which the universe was represented by a "U" with an eye on one end, turned around and viewing itself, to describe his understanding.

 

And then this:

One of the things I see in this thread from those of you who have good and hard questions is that much of your current understanding is based on adolescent understandings / misunderstandings carried into adulthood. Please don't hear this as an insult. We all do this with many many things in our lives.

 

But, since these issues are potentially actual "life and death" issues, I urge all of us to look seriously into them with as much good scholarship as we can. That way, no matter what our ultimate decisions are on the merits of the claims, they'll be truly informed decisions and not knee-jerk reactions to pop-culture notions, or reactions to the lunatic fringe that anything humans touch always has at the edge, or notions that rightly belong to the simplicity and naiveté of youth, but not to thinking adults.

This knife cuts both ways.

 

From Dawkins again:

It has become almost a cliche to remark that nobody boasts of ignorance of literature, but it is socially acceptable to boast ignorance of science [ . . . ].

 

IMHO, it is not enough to be a scholar of great scripture, if one reads with a mind looking only to support a belief already adopted, one will surely find all the evidence and justification one could want. I believe Simon and Garfunkel wrote about this phenomenon as well!

 

This is the trap that science continually strives to avoid and "I believe" this is the path to true enlightenment . . . but I’m also willing to be wrong about that.

 

As far as how to reconcile the various entrenched faiths currently locked in a struggle to the death. Science again offers a very workable solution. Look at what is here, what we can know, what we can measure, what we can describe and make accurate predictions about based on our theories. Discover objective "truths" found in all of "creation". Describe it in the language of physics and mathematics. Study the planet, the sun, the stars, the galaxies and figure out how these things evolved to their present state. Observe the fate of those things which did not adapt well to their changing environment and apply the same test to the human social, global condition. The planet is shrinking more by the day and I think that in these pursuits we could find common—and neutral—ground where we could go forward together as a species while at the same time preserving each cultures identity and religious pursuits. Either that or let the fundamentalists on both sides continue to exact an eye for an eye until the whole world is blind. The challenge will be to wrest control from those who would drive us all head-long off the cliff because "God is on their side and the end justifies the means". In either scenario the fittist will still survive, but one has us in the driver’s seat heading for a heaven on earth and the other leaves us in a hell on earth of our own creation and those who survive picking up our pieces for generations to come.

[smiller]

Well said Jamie.

 

I have often seen it said that 'one can find evidence of God's hand in virtually everything if you only believe and look hard enough.' I couldn't agree more...

[Ken H.]

There are NO brownie points, it does not matter how much you do for others unless you do it out of response to the relationship with God, in which case you are in touch with His heart and are responding through that response.

Not to single out this particular comment and you Bruce (OK, maybe that is what I am doing) but this comment really bothers me. Or I'm miss-understanding you...

 

Are you saying that no matter how good a person is, no matter what they does for their fellow man throughout their life, discover the cure for cancer even, it is all for not unless he/she believes in a god? If so, that, at best, minimizes/marginalizes all the wonderful things countless humans have and will do throughout history and in the future for mankind. Fleming's discovery of penicillin gives him nothing if he didn't believe in a god??? The only motivation to do good in the world is a god??? Seems to me if that is what you are saying it rather short changes humanity.

[Dave McReynolds]

Are you saying that no matter how good a person is, no matter what they does for their fellow man throughout their life, discover the cure for cancer even, it is all for not unless he/she believes in a god? If so, that, at best, minimizes/marginalizes all the wonderful things countless humans have and will do throughout history and in the future for mankind. Fleming's discovery of penicillin gives him nothing if he didn't believe in a god??? The only motivation to do good in the world is a god??? Seems to me if that is what you are saying it rather short changes humanity.

 

You can't apply humanistic reasoning to cosmic questions:

 

There are NO brownie points, it does not matter how much you do for others unless you do it out of response to the relationship with God, in which case you are in touch with His heart and are responding through that response.

 

is either true or false. If it's true, it doesn't make it false by complaining that it's unfair.

 

However, if you believe that it's unfair, you do still have options:

 

1. Decide that you're not going to buy into a theology that you believe is unfair; no doubt you'll regret this decision someday if you're burning in hell while others are reclining on clouds, but maybe it will be some consolation to know that with the reasoning powers that God gave you here on earth, it was the right decision to make at the time.

 

2. If you believe in God, and you believe that God believes in Dave (that's me), and cares, there's nothing to prevent you from inventing your own theology. Countless others have done that from time immemorial, and there's no way all of them, particularly all the exclusionary ones, can be right, so you probably have as good a chance as anyone else.

 

3. If you don't believe in God, or believe that if there is a God, she has no interest or influence in our lives, either here on earth or hereafter, then you can either laugh or cry at the vanity of man, depending on your mood.

[smiller]

You can't apply humanistic reasoning to cosmic questions:

Then what type of reasoning does apply?

[russell_bynum]

You can't apply humanistic reasoning to cosmic questions:

Then what type of reasoning does apply?

 

Reason and logic do not apply.

[smiller]

Reason and logic do not apply.

Yes, I had rather suspected.

[Dave McReynolds]

Then what type of reasoning does apply?

 

If you buy into a particular theology, then the usual kind of logic and reasoning applies, but is limited to whatever it's scriptures may be. For example, early on in this thread, I made a comment about my early religious education and how I rebelled against the notion of pre-election. Pilgrim made the comment, "My understanding is that it's based on the idea of God's master plan of the universe." Pilgrim's "ideas" about God's master plan have no relevance to any religion other than one he might invent, so I made the response that no, it was based on scripture. I was slammed for this by Crouchrocket because of my incomplete understanding of the scriptures, which is a fair slam in religious reasoning. But the point is, if you buy into a particular theology, to reason outside the bounds of that theology is not considered valid, or at most a thought that must be either supported or can be trumped by doctrine. Similar to belonging to a BMW board that bans political discussion; you can't debate the merits of that position, but you can subvert it by claiming that all kinds of discussions don't fall within the definition of "political."

 

The other kind of religious validation that I am aware of is personal experience, which also isn't reasoning, of course. Frankly, with my skepticism about most things in life in general, I would be unlikely to buy into any organized religion or other belief system unless it was supported by my own personal experiences, so I can sympathize with your position as you have expressed it in this and other threads, as you have apparently not had religious experiences of your own.

[beemerman2k]

Reason and logic do not apply.

Yes, I had rather suspected.

 

Well, I certainly don't see things this way. Without logic or reasoning, we have nothing in my opinion. People join crazy cults because they have put their logic and reasoning on hold and just bought into the finest argument presented to them.

 

Homework for anyone who is interested:

 

- What are the 4 "evidences" Jesus uses in John chapter 5 to prove he is the promised Messiah?

 

- What are the 4 "evidences" Peter gives in Acts 2 to prove that Jesus indeed rose from the dead?

 

Whether they have succeeded or not, they are clearly attempting to appeal to our sense of logic and reasoning. The Bible is full of writings where the author is using logic and reasoning to prove theological points.

 

BTW: Where does the Bible claim to be the "Word of God"? I realize there are places where a prophet might say, "This is what the Lord says...". And Moses often transferred words that he apparently received from God. But where in the Bible does it say that it is the complete, infallible Word of God?

 

Before you answer that question, does that apply only to the Old Testament? New Testament? Apocrypha?

 

Is this the "Word of God" or is it just Paul's personal opinion: "Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” - Titus 1:12

 

Does this mean that it's OK to view people from the Greek island of Crete in this way?

[smiller]

as you have apparently not had religious experiences of your own.

From an objective viewpoint it wouldn't matter if I had.

 

Without logic or reasoning, we have nothing in my opinion.

Agreed.

 

Whether they have succeeded or not, they are clearly attempting to appeal to our sense of logic and reasoning.

Whoa. It matters whether they succeed or not, yes? Surely a mere attempt to appeal to our sense of logic and reasoning isn't the same as actually using logic and reasoning (you have only to listen to any political candidate to know that.) As you said, 'without logic or reasoning, we have nothing', and without a successful argument (success being defined as having satisfied the requirements of a correct logical deduction) you are correct, we have established nothing.

 

The Bible is full of writings where the author is using logic and reasoning to prove theological points.

Religious texts are full of writings where the author tries logic and reasoning to prove theological points, but usually a critical fallacy exists, most commonly that of the false premise among others.

 

 

You are probably better off sticking with Russell's argument.

[beemerman2k]

The Bible is full of writings where the author is using logic and reasoning to prove theological points.

Religious texts are full of writings where the author tries logic and reasoning to prove theological points, but usually a critical fallacy exists, most commonly that of the false premise among others.

 

 

Every argument makes certain assumptions about the listener. We have to filter the arguments made in the Bible just as we would in any other context if we want to understand why the discussion is taking place and what the point being made is.

 

In the Bible, the authors usually assume you are Jewish, you are familiar with the Law of Moses, and that you believe in God. Arguments to address those who do not believe in the existence in a God are few and far between -- in fact, no examples really come to my mind! (That's not to say they aren't there, it's just to say I'm not familiar with where they might be).

 

Let me say this about that observation: in the Bible, whether you intellectually believe in God is kind of a moot point. The Bible focuses on whether you believe God, not whether you believe in God. A subtle distinction I suppose. These, of course, are just my own observations as an untrained, un-formally educated reader of the book. Your milage may vary

[smiller]

In the Bible, the authors usually assume you are Jewish, you are familiar with the Law of Moses, and that you believe in God.

A completely circular argument of course. As in saying that you first have to believe in God, then we can prove his existence.

 

BTW, I'm not taking issue with your right to say 'I believe in God because I want to', only in your confusing that with making an objective logical case for his existence.

[beemerman2k]

BTW, I'm not taking issue with your right to say 'I believe in God because I want to', only in your confusing that with making an objective logical case for his existence.

 

Oh no, I don't think I'm saying that at all. I am finding common ground with your point that these "logical" arguments are based upon "false assumptions". I'm only pointing out that they are indeed based upon assumptions -- whether they are false or not we've been debating for some time now.

 

None of the books of the Bible were not written to a people like us -- people who seriously question the existence of God. They were written to peoples, mostly Jews, who already had that assumption.

 

So if you're so inclined to believe there's a "creator" to all of this, then maybe the Bible will address your questions. If not, then push the envelope of discovery in whatever way means the most to you. Either way, we all benefit, and the God I am learning about -- if he's real -- will support you. Nothing personal, that's just his policy.

[smiller]

Nothing personal, that's just his policy.

Says you.

[Couchrocket]

IMHO, it is not enough to be a scholar of great scripture, if one reads with a mind looking only to support a belief already adopted

Couldn't agree more. That's why I'm open to the findings of science, including the possibility that this isn't a closed system of natural causes. Actually, it is looking better now in that regard, than it did 40 years ago when I first started reading scientific journals regularly.

 

I'm very often dogmatically accused of embracing a dogma that I don't embrace. I find that fascinating. It is much like my comment some time back about when I was in high school... I've either gotta be a surfer or a ho-dad and it just cannot be tolerated when I insist I'm neither.

[Couchrocket]

I have often seen it said that 'one can find evidence of God's hand in virtually everything if you only believe and look hard enough.' I couldn't agree more...

And the same happens when the a priori assumption is that this is a closed system of natural causes only. It works both ways.

[smiller]

And the same happens when the a priori assumption is that this is a closed system of natural causes only. It works both ways.

I suppose it does. So, just for the record I will say that I can certainly accept that there is at least a possibility that there could be a non-random force at work in the Universe that some like to call God, and I think that most on 'my side' of the fence would tend to agree. And I assume that you are willing to accept the possibility that the Universe is a totally natural system and that nothing that we would call God exists?

[Couchrocket]

Reason and logic do not apply.

Yes, I had rather suspected.

 

I too disagree. Reasoning and logic do apply... but they only take you "so far." And the "I had rather suspected" is hubris. Sorry, that's just true.

 

Let me give you two examples how this works.

 

One may come to believe, through reasoning and logic, (as well as a spiritual dimension that I'll leave out of this discussion) that there are good and sufficient reasons to accept the propositional explanation of humankind's dilemma as posited in scripture. What happens next? God cannot be "proved" so if one responds to these good and sufficient reasons, that response is by definition, a "faith response." And, by faith, I don't mean "wishing and hoping" but something more like "this is reasonable based on what I observe, how I've used my reason and logic as far as it will take me in looking at scripture," and so I use my volition to take action on it in implementing these principles into my life as a personal test of this truth-claim.

 

Now, lest you think, "Yeah, that's what bible-thumpers have to do in order to 'have faith' and it isn't based on provable things... see? Stupid!"

 

Let me first quote Jay Gould: "Science can no more answer the question of how we ought to live than religion can decree the age of th earth."

 

So, how is it that "you" (anyone who completely rejects the possibility of anything other than a closed system of natural causes) can know anything about how humans ought to behave, have an opinion about what is "fair," why it is better to do "this than that," or anything else in human activity? My point is, that however you get there, and you do, it is some sort of faith in "something." It isn't faith in nothing, and it isn't without any faith at all because you are presumptuous enough to want to impose some standards on yourself and others that science is completely incapable of proving to you is either better or worse one way or the other than any other way. Why don't you see this as illogical as well? In fact, in a prima facie sort of sense it is much more illogical than adopting standards of behavior because someone thinks there may in fact be reference point for behavior outside of ourselves. Now, you may respond with some sort of answer based on natural selection, the propagation of the species, "the God gene," and all that. Prove it. You can't. It is an assumption not provable by science. In other words, faith, and not subject to your "reason and logic" to prove. Again, I'm not saying that there isn't a possibility that it is true -- merely that you can no more prove it than I can prove God's existence to you. It is a "faith claim" of yours, if you insist on having a reason for standards of human behavior.

 

It is this kind of arrogance (and I don't mean this as a personal comment about anyone here -- it is about "us humans") that I find stunning.

 

I'll even take this one step further. And, I'm not kidding. If we were to embrace fully the concept of this being a closed system of natural causes, and then objectively observe human behavior as it impacts the global ecosystem, why wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the planet would be better off without human presence? It would end hatred, slavery, cruelty, global warming, the exploitation of the rest of the animal kingdom. Seems logical to me. An analysis based solely on the merits of human impact would support this position.

 

So, the point is that "reason and logic" are helpful because they are tools we have, but they are not sufficient to provide answers to human life. No more than is science, as Mr. Gould understands.

 

Let me reiterate how terrific this thread has been. Even though we take an occasional poke at each other, it has been respectful, interesting, and expanding.

[Couchrocket]

And the same happens when the a priori assumption is that this is a closed system of natural causes only. It works both ways.

I suppose it does. So, just for the record I will say that I can certainly accept that there is at least a possibility that there could be a non-random force at work in the Universe that some like to call God, and I think that most on 'my side' of the fence would tend to agree. And I assume that you are willing to accept the possibility that the Universe is a totally natural system and that nothing that we would call God exists?

 

Great. It does work both ways. I must be honest (and faithful ) and admit that my "faith position" is that there is a God. But, since I can no more prove it than you can prove that murder is bad, the possibility exists that I may be wrong. What is important here is the realization that my faith position is reasonable and not irrational, as is commonly held today by many, if not most, naturalists. It is as reasonable as a naturalist's faith position that murder may be bad. There is much that flows from this. Your statement that there could be non-random forces at work is a fine thing and shows the same sort of objectivity.

 

Now, in pursing some rationale for having standards of behavior for humans, let alone what those ought to be, the possibility of non-random forces has immense potential implication.

[smiller]

"Science can no more answer the question of how we ought to live than religion can decree the age of th earth."

I'm afraid I really lost you on that one. The statement that science cannot answer the question of how we ought to live is totally irrelevant because science never pretended to answer the question of how we ought to live. And isn't it it be equally pretentious for a faith-based system to try to answer that question?

 

Science isn't trying to impose a belief system on anyone . It merely offers a disciplined way at looking at things that you may accept or reject as you like. There is no requirement whatsoever for you to subscribe to any of its conclusions, and there are no threats that you will be denied an afterlife and/or go to Hell if you don't. After all, no credible belief system would offer threats to non-believers.

 

why wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the planet would be better off without human presence?

My guess is that the planet probably thinks so. Now it just has to figure out how to get rid of us.

 

[smiller]

What is important here is the realization that my faith position is reasonable and not irrational

If your or anyone's faith position is that there may be a non-random element to the Universe then I wouldn't call that irrational (and I didn't have to 'realize' anything to make that statement. .) It's an absolute belief in God with no question whatsoever that I find to be somewhat less than rational. That, and the sometimes bizarre extrapolations of that unknown out to the minutia detailed by organized religions. But apparently so do most of the believers in this thread as they have stayed carefully away from that.

 

So if I believe that there may or may not be a non-random element to the Universe and you believe that there may or may not be a non-random element to the Universe then after all these posts... we don't really disagree.

 

But I do hope that I don't cause you to burn in Hell for admitting that there may be no God...