This is a continuation of off-topic aspects of another topic with ForeverHers. If critical discussion about religion upsets you, you probably should not read this thread. I'm posting this here to keep the original thread on-topic.

ForeverHers,

I do not believe one religion is as good as any another. I believe Secular Humanism is better than any religion, otherwise I would not belong to it. However I do not believe in pressuring someone to convert if they are not interested in converting. Free exchange of ideas is good, but so is being respectful of people's right to make up their own mind. Also, people have different experiences so that an explanation of the world that makes sense to one person might not make any sense at all to someone else. And you can't expect someone to believe something that goes against their own experience, at least not without a really good explanation.

I think Secular Humanism does answer ultimate questions better than any other philosophy or religion I have encountered. We are here to help each other because if we don't, no one else will. We got here through natural processes. What happens after death is that we cease to exist except metaphorically in the minds of people who loved us.

God as a standard of morality doesn't make any sense to me because that means if God said torture was okay, then torture would be okay. Or adultery for that matter. If he can't say that because it isn't true, then there is a standard of morality ABOVE God, which makes God unnecessary. Morality has to be something more than just obedience to authority.

The normative standards I mentioned are based on what people need. What people need can't be put to a vote. It's fact-based. How can we determine what people need? Through history and the social sciences.

As for selfishness, clearly if everyone was selfish all the time the world would be a terrible place. It follow then that if everyone would care for each other the world would be a much better place than it is now. Everyone wants to live in a good world, so it makes sense we should be good to each other.


True. But IF ****** and God exist, then God is immoral by definition. If torture is wrong, then eternal torture must be even more wrong. And it doesn't matter that he has Satan do it or that people choose ******. ****** can't exist without God allowing it to exist. Torture is always wrong in every case and that's just it.

Of course there are some who say ****** is nothing more than separation from God. To which I would say, we have that now, and life doesn't seem all that bad.


You can ask the other person. If that's not possible you can ask, would it hurt me if someone did that to me? Another way is to look at research and see if whatever it is you want to do leads to bad consequences. If it's your opinion that nobody will feel bad about it, then the only way it would be okay is IF YOU ARE RIGHT. If you turn out to be wrong, then the action was wrong even if you mistakenly thought that it was right. So to do the right thing sometimes requires not just good intentions but knowledge and wisdom.


Torture is always wrong in all cases. Every state that uses torture uses the ticking-time-bomb scenario (similar to the one you posed) as an excuse for torture. The evidence shows that testimony acquired this way is usually wrong because people lie. The innocent lie to stop the torture and the guilty lie to lead you away from the truth while appearing to be confessing to something real. Not to mention the very real possibility that the person you are interrogating might well be innocent.

BTW, I find it amusing that the curse word filter is filtering out H-E-double toothpicks <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

i'm gonna love watching this thread :}

rltraveled, thanks. I think <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

FH,

Here are some responses to your other post:

You said Secular Humanists are atheists. Yes, that's absolutely true. And in some contexts I use the label "atheist" to describe myself. However, not all atheists are Secular Humanists. It's like theism and Christianity. All Christians are theists (well, except Bishop John Shelby Spong, my favorite Christian), but theists can also be Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and maybe some others I haven't thought of.

Jesus? Some atheists do doubt that a historical figure named Jesus existed and started the Christian religion. I think he did exist but that he was only human and none of the supernatural miracles attributed to him are true. Either they are metaphors or someone made it up. I also think it is very likely that Jesus was a good person who said all the nice things that are attributed to him. I think Paul was the extra cook who spoiled the brew.

How do I know God doesn't exist? Well "know" is a strong word because what's convincing to me, may not be convincing to you. But I will try to explain why I think God does not exist. I won't focus on all gods, but just the God of the Bible because my answer would be different for other types of gods. To believe in the God of the Bible, we have to believe in such a thing as disembodied personhood. (A personality with no material reality). When in people, we call them souls. A soul can exist for eternity without a body. What else does a soul entail? Well a very long time ago, a very unpopular idea was proposed by one Christian theologian that a soul is just an immaterial substance that survives death for all eternity but has no other properties. In other words, you lose all your memories and personality traits. The reason that idea is so unpopular is that without your memory and personality, "you" are not really "you." So the you who survies death and goes to the afterlife has to contain your "self" - which of course will include your memories and personality. You can call it your psyche or your mind. Your soul without a mind just doesn't seem like "you" does it?

So most Christians will agree that your mind has to continue within your soul somehow. So your mind is also eternal and can survive bodily death. If something can survive bodily death, logically it must also be able to survive bodily injury and disease. But it can't. Certain types of drug use, brain tumors, brain injury and Alzheimer's disease can erase memory and completely change one's personality. They can destroy the mind by destroying parts of the brain, a very physical, material object. If the mind is part of the soul, then damage to your physical brain can damage your soul. But that doesn't make any sense if the soul should be able to survive bodily death.

Next question...You say that Secular Humanism is faith, just as much as religion is. Well, one of the things that people say to me when I tell them I don't believe in God because there is no evidence is, "You just have to have faith!" What that implies is that they have made a choice to believe in something without evidence, or even in spite of the evidence. The problem with that is once you do that for one unproven claim, why not all unproven claims? Why not believe in all the gods? Why not horoscopes, rabbit's feet, numerology or psychic powers? There is no filtering system whereby you can say this is worthy of faith, but this is not. Your Bible might say God is the only thing worthy of having faith in, but a Hindu also has scripture (Rig Veda, I think?) supporting faith in their gods. Why believe one over the other if both of them are based on the same thing? There is nothing about Secular Humanism that demands you have to believe something just for the sake of believing it. Everything is reality-tested. We expect claims to be demonstrated in some way.

You say Secular Humanists want to believe there is no God. I'm not sure why anyone would *want* to not believe unless they already did not believe. I mean, most of us were raised Christian and taught we would go to heaven when our bodies died and we would never actually die. We could cheat death. Who wouldn't want that? Most ex-Christians are really disappointed when they come to the realization that there is no afterlife. There are ways of coping with that, of course, but it's still a big disapointment. And then of course there are social pressures to be Christian. Most Americans won't even consider voting for a qualified atheist for president, for example. Some atheists living in the South have even been fired for being atheists. The point is, there is no motivation to believe there is no God other than being dissatisfied with the amount and quality of evidence that there could be one.

Aph, I'm waiting for FH, or Mortarman, or Mark, or someone who's way smarter than me to jump in here.

I'm new to the Christian faith. Prayer and reading the Bible are what got me through my walk through He77 (infidelity). I believe that God, and only God, resurrected my marriage from the ashes. In my mind, there could be no other explanation. You'll think I'm nutty, but when Mr. RLT was in his A, I really did see Satan in his eyes. He wasn't even the same person. It was truly scary.

I think in a bizarre way, the A was a wake up call for both me and Mr. Rlt. If I were an athiest, I never could have gotten through this.

How do you know, btw, that there is no afterlife?

I think there are more social pressures not to be a Christian as the world moves ever secular.

And, btw, I really do love a to watch a lively debate on this stuff. I find it SO interesting.

rltraveled,

I can't be comforted by something I don't think is true. I've seen atheists go through a lot and get through just fine, and some Christians who are not nearly as resilient. I suppose religion helps some people, but it's not the only thing that can help people cope. And sometimes it can backfire, like the woman who thought her husband's cheating was some sort of punishment from God. I felt really bad for her.

Europe might be becoming more secular, but I think the US is not becoming more secular as much as it is turning into a sort of civil religion. The rules of the civil religion are: believe in God but don't take God too seriously; you need religion to be moral; the Ten Commandments are something everyone should follow but you don't actually have to know what they are; be nice to each other; it's not polite to criticize anyone's religion; be patriotic; go to church on some Sundays when you feel like it - or at least on Christmas and Easter; ignore God Monday through Saturday unless you have a problem; pray for solutions to your problems because God is Santa Clause for grownups; and God cares very deeply about which football team wins, and he's always rooting for your team.

Of course there are many Christians, both convervative and liberal who take their religion seriously but when American Christians believe without thinking, their religion tends to resemble the one described above.

As for the afterlife question - same as the God question I answered above. The effects of Alzheimer's alone on the human mind is enough proof for me that an afterlife is not even possible. It can destroy a person's identity...what makes that person who they are. And isn't your soul supposed to be who you are? If it's immortal and spiritual (instead of material) how can it be destroyed so easily by biological attacks on the physical structures of the brain? If a "soul" can't survive Alzheimer's, then it can't survive bodily death.

Aphaeresis,

Those that claim that their faith is merely accepting that for which there is no evidence, do not have a clear understanding of what faith is and likely don't even know what it is they precisely believe. Faith is only as valuable as the object of that faith. Faith itself has no meaning if that object cannot be verified. If I do not know that in which I have placed my faith, my faith is but a shadow of my ignorance rather than a strength of my beliefs.

There is evidence for not only the existence of the historical Jesus, but also for His claims about himself. There is evidence for the Bible being accurate in things in which it can be tested by scientific and archaeological means. There are also additional proofs and methods for examining the evidence for the writings of the early church and even the likes of Paul.

As I have recently learned on another thread on this board, I cannot convince anyone of my position through written debate. Whether that is because of my own ineffectiveness as a communicator or because I simply remain ignorant of enough of the material to overcome objections and speculations I do not know. Perhaps it is a limitation of the format itself.

I can tell you that evidence does exist and if you wish to examine it for yourself, you are able to do so. Books by Josh McDowell (The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict) and Lee Strobel (The Case For Christ) are but a beginning. McDowell lays out what amounts to a lengthy bibliography pointing to many other sources, most of which can be examined in and of themselves, at least in so far as copies of these materials and others are often available, some within other books and writings. by reference and or direct quotation. Strobel began an examination of the evidence for Christ in an effort to refute it to his wife who had recently become a Christian. It was his effort to debunk Christianity that led to his conversion, not a debate or argument with a Christian.

I do not think I can convince you of my beliefs within the context of this forum any more than I think you can convince me of the truth of yours under the same limitations.

I have, in fact begun reading some of the materials of the Secular Humanist website and do already acknowledge the differentiation you make between atheist and a secular humanist. While this is a subject about which I have studied very little, I will likely do so, at least for a while, if for no other reason than to understand the argument from the Secular Humanist POV.

I will, however, refrain from attempting to debate in this forum either on this thread or any other the relative merits of our differing points of view even when I do have a better understanding of your beliefs, for the reasons I have already given.

I will defend my beliefs if it becomes necessary, but will not attempt to change yours. I will caution you though that lack of evidence that is known does not constitute evidence against and is why it is possible for a guilty person to be acquitted in a court of law. Not knowing a thing to be true is not the same as knowing it to be untrue.

With that, I now bow out of this discussion though I will continue to read and perhaps even comment from time to time as my conscience dictates.

Mark

Mark,

fair enough. I know that people can't be converted without first being open to it because of dissatisfaction with their own religion or philosophy. All I care about is that people recognize that reasonable, good people can reach very different conclusions on the question of God.

(Of course I realize I haven't been a good person lately, but I was once and can be again.)

Of course they can. But choosing against what is true does not make that choice true, as I explained to you previously with the gravity analogy.

That "people can reach very different conclusions on the question of God" is nothing new. That's been going on since the Fall of Man.

But with respect to your disbelief in God, Jesus, life after death, this too is "nothing new."

"He said to them, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16:31)

Aph, all of your statements are from a "human reasoning" viewpoint and a rejection of anything that might call some of that "reasoning" into question.

There are two basic areas that you "beg the question" on with respect to this "human reason" issue.

First, the person of Jesus Christ and the reliability of Scripture in recording the events of His time on Earth.

Second, you automatically (because of your belief in atheism) accept on FAITH that everything came about by random chance, that matter/energy ALWAYS existed (can't "create" something out of nothing), that a life (contrary to the Biogentic LAW) arose at least one time from non-life, that macroevolution occurred and continues to occur that ADDS information to a preceding lifeform that enables it to become something more complex and completely different from the species it began with, etc.

But that belief is based in FAITH, not in provable Science. There is NOTHING that "guarantees" that your belief is "right" anymore than people who used to think that the earth was flat were right. It wasn't until someone showed others that the "alternative" was true that many were convinced, in themselves and NOT by the forcing of someone else, that their old "flat earth belief" was wrong that MANY (but not ALL) "flat earthers" gave up their false belief and chose to embrace the true nature of things.

So what "proof" has God provided to the people of earth?

Jesus Christ. No myth. No "made up" person.

Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Death is NOT the "end of all things."

God demonstrated conclusively His power over the natural laws that HE established and that HE maintains.

But, "they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

The human heart IS NOT receptive to God, nor will God "force" you to accept Him. But the CHOICE is yours, as are the consequences of your choice. God HAS provided the way out of your chosen destination and will "reroute" you to a much better place, but He will NOT do anything other than make the gift available to you. You have the responsibility to accept or reject it, and in accepting the consequences for YOUR choice. That's reality, regardless of whether or not anyone choses to even believe that reality exists.


Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and dies without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. it was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose whife wll she be, since the seven were married to her?"

Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising - have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!" (Mark 12:18-27)

Now, has this "good man," Jesus, LIED, knowingly, to those who did not believe in life after death?

What could He do to "PROVE" that there is life after death and that God DOES have the power to "override" nature anytime God chooses to do so?

Was this man, Jesus, a sincere "loon" who sincerely believed that He was God, but really wasn't?

Feeding thousands by creating enough for all from 5 loaves and fishes. Bringing back to life others, demonstrating HIS, command over "natural law." Not only did He claim "god-like power," even if the claim was based in a lunatics sincere belief, He actually proved the claim to be REAL, not imaginary. He demonstrated TRUTH, not insanity.

Aside from others who were raised from the dead as proof of Jesus' command over even death, Jesus Himself was raised from the dead by God. He appeared to thousands AFTER His resurrection. There eas "ample" time and way for the "unbelievers" to "prove" that Jesus had not risen from the dead, but they could not because this was NOT "done in secret and available "secret" information for only the 'select few'." It (the resurrected Jesus) was openly available for thousands to see.

But, "they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

Faith IS involved. But not "blind faith." It is faith based upon the truth as faithfully recorded in the Scripture. The "purpose" of the Scipture is NOT a mere record of miracles that "defied" natural law.

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30,31)

FH,

No, not everything came about by random chance. It was random chance and non-random natural processes. I have no idea if matter and energy always existed or if they started at the Big Bang. But I think "I don't know" is a better answer than "God did it." "God did it" doesn't explain anything and has been used throughout history to explain things that later turned out to have natural causes after all.

As for life from non-living materials (abiogenesis), time will tell. There are scientists working on recreating that process in the laboratory: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18524861.100

I don't need faith in evolution because it has been demonstrated. See http://www.talkorigins.org/ for everything you ever wanted to know about evolution. All the common arguments against it have been debunked thoroughly so I feel no need to go over them here.

Furthermore, there is no alternative to evolution. Yes, I've heard of creationism and intelligent design, but they don't explain anything. All you have is "God did it." You don't have details on how it happened, such as materials or processes used. "God did it" is not a theory. It is a religious belief.

Jesus Christ existed. So what? Lots of other people existed who claimed to be God or the son of God also.

There is no evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Anyone can write a book saying so-and-so rose from the grave. That doesn't make it true.


No, God has not done that. There are stories of God violating natural laws in the Bible, but in this day and age nobody sees them. Supernatural experiences are NOT part of everyday life. That's why a natural universe makes more sense to me. It's the universe I live in, and I have no experience of any other.


That's one theory and he certainly would not have been the only one in history. But other theory says that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God. That these claims were made after his death. I really don't care either way. All that's important to me is that he was 100 percent human.


And all of those thousands are dead, so we have no way of knowing if they were telling the truth.


Every religion has scripture.

FH, you are never going to convince me because the world of the Bible that you describe is a world full of magic. That's not the world I live in and experience everyday. The world I live in and experience everyday operates according to predictable natural laws that are not violated by "miracles." Oh sure some people claim there are miracles but none that can't be explained by natural causes.

Aph,

I said I would not attempt to change your views and that is not my intent here. I did also state that I would defend my beliefs, if I felt warranted, and that is my reason for this post.

[color:"blue"]"There is no evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Anyone can write a book saying so-and-so rose from the grave. That doesn't make it true."[/color]

The books of the New Testament were written by those who claimed to be contemporaries of Jesus and were eyewitnesses to the things He did and said. This alone is not my argument against the assumption on your part in the above statement.

I point to the fact that recent (within the last 100 years) archaeological finds, previously unknown by "modern" science, that have shown the reliability of the NT authors in having knowledge that only a contemporary of that time period could have known.

At the time Paul compiled his list of those who had seen the risen Christ themselves, many of those same people were still alive. Any of Paul's readers who cared to challenge his claim had only to question the witnesses to see if the claim was false. No examples of literature of the ancient world exist pointing to such a debunking of Paul's claim.

In his debates with his severest critics, Peter often turn his argument around by saying, "And you, too, know this to be true." IF his detractors had not known what he was saying to be true, you can assume that they would have taken action to defend themselves and put an end to what Peter was saying.

Not only did the writers of the NT claim to have been eyewitnesses to the risen Christ, but most died rather than to recant that claim. Many died horrible deaths, were tortured and had all personal property taken from them before their executions. Not one NT author ever recanted...none.

How many people do you know who would submit to torture and death in defense of what THEY knew to be a lie?

[color:"blue"]"No, not everything came about by random chance. It was random chance and non-random natural processes."[/color]

Just for clarification, random does not mean "no order." Neither does it mean "without pattern." In fact, it is the very nature of randomness that makes modern statistical analysis possible. Left to itself, all things fall into randomness and where no randomness occurs, there is always someone or something that has tweaked the numbers.

By definition, when applied to any number set relating to a specific characteristic, RANDOM implies the classic Gaussian distribution, known by any high school student as the "bell curve." Statistically, anything that does not fit that curve within nature is NOT random, but has been manipulated by someone or something.

It is because of this uniformity of all things random that manufacturers can predict a process that is about to become unstable. It is also the method by which a political poll can predict, based on a small sample what the outcome of an election might be.

It is also the strongest argument for intelligent design, since the more complex a system is, the less likely it is to happen by random process, and all processes within nature are in fact random. If a process is not random, it is NOT natural, since in nature, only randomness can exist.

And passage of time is not the salvation of random choice in the universe evolving since Newton's second law applies to all things in the universe. All things in nature tend to go from complex to simple, from organized to random and from equilibrium to chaos. If evolution is correct, an increase in speciation should be evident. Rather we have ample evidence to the contrary, that more species are extinct than remain.

The sun, the stars and the galaxy are all hurtling headlong into oblivion, through natural processes. Any complex system left to itself, ceases to function as it began and falls into simpler subsystems until the day when it reverts to it's original state, not one of complexity, but one of individual atoms and molecules in a random pattern.

The probability of a single cell occurring by random process is so small as to be statistically insignificant, that is, so unlikely to occur that the number may be ignored and in fact, in statistics, numbers on the order of magnitude of billions of times more likely are ignored as unattainable as a matter of routine.

[color:"blue"]"And all of those thousands are dead, so we have no way of knowing if they were telling the truth. "[/color]

By the same logic, we cannot determine if the signers of the Declaration Of Independence were in fact those whose signatures we see, since they and all contemporaries are in fact now dead. We also cannot verify that what is known as "the Trail of Tears" actually took place or any battle of the French revolution, since all eyewitnesses are now deceased and only their written accounts survive.

Truth does not cease to be true when the witness dies.

As I pointed out above, other claims and observations made by the writers of the NT have been shown to be accurate, often in minute detail. Any witness that is shown to be reliable in cases where he can be verified by other means, should be considered trustworthy in absence of any evidence to the contrary for matters in which no verifiable evidence exists.

[color:"blue"]"Every religion has scripture."[/color]


Archaeologist Nelson Gluek said, "It is worth emphasizing that in all this work no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

William F. Albright states:"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament."

Millar Burrows (Yale) writes:" On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record." And:" The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from careful evaluation of available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."

When any witness has been shown to be reliable where the facts can be verified, even in a court of law, it is assumed that any testimony given is to be considered as truth, in absence of any evidence to the contrary.

The fact that the writers of the NT were close to Jesus, does not disqualify them as witnesses any more than survivors of the Holocaust can be disqualified for being too close to that about which they have testified. The same can be said for those who landed at Normandy on D-day in 1945.

In fact, in any court of law, the testimony of an eyewitness is given greater weight than any second hand or theorized account of events involved in a crime. In absence of evidence to the contrary, testimony of an eyewitness is given the weight of evidence itself.

And if two witnesses claim the same account of an event, they are considered to be verification of each other's testimony. What then do we do with dozens, or hundreds of such cross-verifiable accounts, even if the witnesses are now dead?

Mark

Mark,

I reponded to your last post, but I think I will drop the thread. There's no point in debating evolution because there is information about it all over the place.

There is no way of knowing what really happened because none of us was there. It could be that Jesus was in a coma and not dead. Back then, they wouldn't have known the difference. But there is also evidence that the writers of the Bible were not contemporaries anyway, so it's a moot point.

You are completely wrong about randomness and natural processes. From Design Yes, Intelligent No by Massimo Pigliucci: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html



And Newton's second law of thermodynamics only applies to CLOSED systems. The earth is not within a closed system because we get energy from the sun. The universe itself is also not closed. You should have learned this in high school science classes but if you want to hear from experts check this out: http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm


Besides the fact that random and natural are NOT the same, this is a common abuse of mathematics. See

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html


But there's one HUGE difference. Neither of those examples involve the violation or suspension of the natural laws of the universe. The claims you are making do. Therefore you are making an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

--
The majority of archaeologists do NOT claim that all events in the Bible are shown to be accurate through archaeological evidence. You are cherry-picking. I'm sure there are places that were as and where described in the Bible, but that is to be expected. People usually write about places they know.

uh huh. Aphaeresis, this "dropping of the thread" is a very common defense mechanism. I am a little surprised by your pulling that one out of your hat since it flies in the face of your Secular Humanism tenet:

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

There is little chance for, let alone commitment to, the applying of reason and science to the "how did we all get here" question when you summarily refuse to examine the facts and rely solely upon "like-minded" sources to support your contentions. What you argue for is simple rejection of the creation possibility and that, de facto, evolution is "proven" because you've eliminated the only other option by CHOICE, not by fact. The FACT that acceptance of evolution is based in FAITH and not proven or provable science seems to somehow escape notice, but it is nonetheless true. It IS a "faith based" system that has NO bearing in facts that cannot be equally well explained by the existence of a Creator.





Aph, this is an extremely weak attempt to grasp at straws rather than to discuss facts. So without getting too detailed, let me simply state that you seem to have very little understanding of Roman Military life. Not only were the soldiers VERY familiar with the difference between DEAD and "not yet dead," there were SEVERE penalities imposed upon the soldiers who did not carry out their orders. Let's assume for one minute that you are right, Jesus was in a coma and somehow revived in a cold tomb and had the strength to roll away the massive stone sealing the tomb. The Roman Guards were there. What do you think they would have done? Perhaps they were sleeping? The penalty for sleeping while on guard duty was DEATH. That's one of the reasons the Jews requested a Roman Guard, they knew the guards would carry out their duty on pain of death.

This "swoon theory" is nothing new and has been totally debunked every time it has been raised as a "possibility," or an excuse to deny the reality of the resurrection.



Aphaeresis - I am a Biology major with my degree in Biology and minor in Math and Science, so yes, I "learned" all this stuff many times over. I understand the science. I "embraced" all this stuff as I was an agnostic all through College. It is also equally obvious that you do not understand this stuff but are merely parroting what sources write who are in agreement with your chosen faith.

But here's where scientific training comes into play and can "play havoc" with "accepting evolution on Faith, not on facts." Perhaps I'll address this issue of "CLOSED" and "OPEN" system, but I'm not at all sure you are "open" to a rational discussion of this. Science disproves your contention and only a predisposition against any possibility that evolution might be wrong results in a misapplication of the Laws of Thermodynamics and their application and impact on abiogenesis and increase in information that is REQUIRED for evolution. There simply is not enough 'time' for random chance to have a chance, let alone to actually increase information where none existed before.





Yep, and Evolution of the universe, and especially of LIFE, from NON-life, from "always existing" (where did it first come from since it must have then had no beginning?) matter, is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

WHERE is the EVIDENCE upon which you violate or suspend the natural laws of the universe?

You cannot merely "say" that we are in an "Open System," you have to show how that available energy is APPLIED and USED to make something violate the rock hard LAWS of Thermodynamics (which ARE established by Science).

ForeverHers,

It's not my job to teach you what you should have learned in high school biology class. I'm sorry to hear that you are a biology major because it would seem that you did not learn very much. It would take me weeks to cover all the material you missed. In order to have an intelligent debate, you at least need to understand the basics and you clearly do not. I pointed you to sources of information. If you choose not to read them, it's not my problem.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing controversial about evolution. The scientific community has a broad consensus that evolution happens. It is only within the religious and political arenas that it is not accepted. In fact, very little of science, esp. biology, can be understood without understanding evolution. Now given your religious views I can understand why you would not want to believe that evolution is true, but that doesn't mean you can't try to understand what it is. You don't even grasp that.

But there's something even more important that you don't seem to get. And that is that even if evolution were flat wrong, that would do absolutely nothing to prove Biblical creationism. To support creationism, you need to do more than just poke at evolution. Why do creationists never want to talk about creationism? Can't it stand on its own without resorting to attacks on evolution?

That's good, because I don't think you are a biology professor nor a student of the sciences. Having you teach me about the subject would be sort of like going to psychologist to learn how a cell functions. They don't have the requisite knowledge. But I COULD have a discussion with a psychologist about the subject and discuss what science, rather than opinion, has learned about cell function and perhaps we'd both learn something.






No doubt. I've had these sorts of discussions before and they DO take a lot of time. You have "asked a question," and I am willing to take some time to attempt to answer them, but are you willing to start with the basic scientific premise that "I might be wrong, so let's really examine the data?"



Aphaeresis, you are replete with disrespectful judgments. What makes you think that I have not read the "pro-evolution" information, lots and lots of it? If I listed, and I can if need be, a long list of articles against evolution, would you read them?

Here, let me give you just one example. I was taught, and the "Scientific community" believed, that "Phylogeny recapitulates Ontogeny" as a truth of "evolutionary theory."

That "fact" has since been disproven and abandoned by biologists even though it WAS taught as FACT, not opinion.

Aphaeresis, in order to have a very good understanding of what you believe, one must not only know "your" supportive material, but all the cogent arguments "against" your chosen position. I do. I "could" argue effectively FOR evolution if it were an "academic debate," because I understand the data and KNOW how the data is interpreted by scientists with a predisposition FOR evolution. The data is "neutral." "Facts are facts." It is NOT "Science" that is "for or against" creation or evolution, it is "scientists," people who approach the interpretation of the data with a presupposition bias that eliminates any consideration that God created. In your case, that presupposition is clear, "since there is no God, nothing existed that could have created, therefore evolution MUST be correct." You argue from a philosophical bias, not a scientific examination of the data that looks at ALL of the possible explanations for what is observed and what explanations "best fit" with what is actually observed.



Yes, of course there are a lot of scientists who believe in evolution. That isn't the issue. It never has been. "Broad Consensus" does NOT necessarily equate to truth. There are a lot of scientists who believe in creation. That does not necessarily equate to truth either. But "scientific honesty" does require that data NOT be manipulated to achieve a preconceived outcome, and that has been done MANY times by supporters of evolution in order to "prove" that evolution is the answer to "how everything got here."



Now this is a statement that I would love to see you support. I understand the theories and hypothesis of supporters of evolution, but that has NOTHING to do with HOW biological organisms function or WHY they may function as they do in concert with other biological functions.



More disrespectful judgments, something you seem prone to do in many situations.

So let's just assume you are right. What are some examples that I don't understand? Perhaps we could start there.




This statement is indicative of your lack of understand, or preference to state untruth as a means to silence opposition. So let me be very clear about this statement, Creationists do NOT say that evolution is "flat wrong." Evolution (microevolution) DOES occur, but it does equally nothing to prove "Evolutionary Theory" (aka Darwinian evolution).



I AM willing to talk about creationism. It is YOU who wanted to summarily "abandon this discussion." What do you consider to be an "attack" on evolution, is it that someone disagrees with the "theory?" That's not an "attack," that's a difference of opinion and that should then lead to an honest and open examination of the "predictions" of each "theory" and what facts are "best explained" by what is actually found and observed.

ForeverHers,

I know that a broad consensus does not equate to truth. But peer review is an important part of science and helps as a corrective mechanism. That's why something believed to be true by the scientific community can later be determined to be false if that's the case. If creationism really is true, then the rest of the scientific community will become convinced. However, creationists have been presenting their case for decades and haven't made a dent. I may not be a biologist, but I've spoken with biologists and other scientists about this subject. When evolution becomes a serious controversy within the scientific, not political, community then I'll examine the new arguments. But I'm already familiar with the old ones that have been around since the days of Darwin.

The reason I don't want to continue discussing evolution is that I've already had this debate with dozens of people online and I'm bored with it. I'm tired of trying to explain that no, we didn't evolve from monkeys - humans and apes just had a common ancestor. No, evolution doesn't mean we have to be racists. No, not everyone who is convinced evolution is real is an atheist. I know plenty who are not. No, evolution does not mean dolphins will spontaneously turn into elephants. Yes, there are examples of speciation. So you see, I'm not afraid of talking about it because I've talked it to death already.

And yes I know some creationists don't deny that all evolution happens. My statement was hypothetical. Even IF evolution were flat wrong, that would still not prove creationism is true. Evidence for creationism has to be able to stand on its own apart from any real or perceived flaws in evolutionary theory. But whenever I ask about the evidence I either get "The Bible says" or "Evolution (or macroevolution, depending on which type of creationist) is wrong because." But if you have something I haven't already heard, I'm willing to listen.

Not knowing what you may or may not have already heard about, I'd have to just throw out some topics and/or areas and you'd have to comment as to whether or not you've already heard of them.

So since you are familiar with many things, let me see if I can choose a few that you may or may not have heard or, or may or may not have really looked at.

Let's begin by understanding that while the word "theory" is often used to describe both Evolution and Creationism, the more precise descriptive word would be "Model."

Inherent in a Model is that one can compare and evaluate what is actually seen (data) with what each Model would predict should be seen if that Model is correct.

But before going further with that thought, I want to digress to something else you said in your post.

"Even IF evolution were flat wrong, that would still not prove creationism is true."

I would contend that this is a false statement because there ARE only two possibilities as to how everything "got here" and how life came into being where there was no life previously.

This really IS a case of "either/or." And yes, I know of the theories that postulate life was "seeded" on earth by some unknown aliens. But the "alien origin" idea merely begs the question because ultimately life HAD to have had a beginning, and that beginning was either Creation or Evolution from non-living.


"Evidence for creationism has to be able to stand on its own apart from any real or perceived flaws in evolutionary theory."

Why? If a theory is flawed, then it is either discarded or replaced with a "new theory." But the problem with using "Evolution" as the standard of "standing on it's own" is that it doesn't stand on it's own. It stands on the interpretations of data that are founded on a presupposition that Evolution is "fact."

Neither Evolution nor Creation "has all the answers" to everything. That's why I said earlier that they are best referred to as Models.

However, as a Model, Creation "best explains" a wide variety of things, including things that Evolution cannot explain. It is in that area, perhaps, that there might be some "new" things you might find interesting to discuss.

Let me suggest one as a starter. Information Theory as it applies to what is observed and what would be predicted by the two Models.

Or we can also look at specific things that exist and how the two Models "fit" with what would be predicted and what is actually observed.

No, there is not. Every culture has creation stories and most of them are incompatible with each other.


Because there is a logical fallacy called the false dichotomy. That's when you assume there are only two choices when in fact there may be three or more. I see no reason to assume there are only two choices. There's no possible way we could know that. Thus, saying evidence against evolution proves creationism is a false dichotomy.


Funny, I don't hear anyone saying evolution must be true because creationism is false.

Seriously, though, you need to be able to defend creationism without even using the word "evolution" or there is no reason to believe that creationism is a real model. Evolutionists talk about evolution without mentioning the word "creationism" all the time except when they start talking politics. But in strictly scientific discussions, the evolutionist sees no reason to argue against creationism in order to defend evolution.

So for the creationist model, we know God is the creator. But how did he create? Why did he create? Out of what materials..and why do we call him "he" when he has no biological sex organ - never mind about the last question. Not really pertinent to this discussion.

Aphaeresis - you are obfuscating with this. You KNOW, or at least you should know, that there are ONLY two possibilities regardless of how many "creation stories" may be out there. EITHER everything came into being by entirely natural process where NO "no intelligent creator" was involved in any part to the process, OR a living Creator actually exists and was the CAUSE for all that is.

In your case, you totally reject the existence of any God and are, therefore, left with the only other possible choice, Evolution, regardless of the many difficulties that indicate that evolution may NOT be the answer.

That position does NOT allow for the examination of the data, because the "outcome" of the examination is predetermined by the presuppostional bias that is brought to the "examining table."





ALL atheists say this. They say this by eliminating any God from even existing, and, therefore, NO creative action could be "true" and only evolution is left, therefore it must be true (this is called circular reasoning).





So do you really want answers to these "standard fare" questions? Keep in mind that they apply equally to the evolution model, except for perhaps your biological sex organ question.

Why do many evolutionists call Earth "she" or "Mother Earth?" Why anthopomorphize an inanimate object?

And just so you'll know that there ARE answers to your questions, even those you don't think are pertinent, God DOES have a biological sex organ. Jesus, the second person of the Trinity was both fully God and fully human, fully human male, and was bodily resurrected from the dead, fully resurrected. He sits today at the right hand of HIS Father (not His "mother").





Of course evolutionists don't talk about creation. They reject the mere thought of it and ASSUME that evolution is a proven fact, even thought it is not. That bias extends so far as to their believing than any scientist who believes in creation is NOT scientist and any evidence to the "contrary" of evolution is discarded and refused to be considered.

Creationsist on the other had, don't deny the effects of the Fall and the subsequent changes within species that can occur as a result. Thus, they are willing to discuss both creation and evolution within the framework of what a given Model would predict and what is actually observed.

There ARE believers who don't understand much of science and they simply don't know how to evaluate or answer statements by "authority figures," so they accept as a "child" accepts truth from their own parents, they "simply believe."

Now, aside from the all the "origin" questions, let me ask you one from a strictly evolutionist position. What examples of an INCREASE in information in one species can be shown to have resulted in an entirely new and different species? This goes to the heart of genetics and replication of organisms.

Most people who are convinced evolution is true are not atheists. Most in the US are Christians. They just happen to be of a different denomination than yours.

And even atheists don't just say evolution is true because creationism is false. There is much physical evidence you can give without ever saying a word about creationism.

Evolutions only say "mother Earth" in the same sense that someone may talk about Father Time or the Grim Reaper. Nobody really believes those things are male or female or that they are anything other than anthropomorphic symbols. But I know at least some Christians are very insistent on God's maleness because they get offended if you call God "it" or "she."


But that living creator does not have to be God, and even if it is God, it doesn't have to be the God of the Bible. It could be a space alien, or a pantheist god, or Deist God. I think a space alien being the creator would make a whole lot more sense than the Bible God, but everybody knows that creationists, even ones who use the euphemism "Intelligent Design" believe in the Bible God, not an alien creator or a pantheist god. So again, the false dichotomy still applies. You have to present some positive evidence that the Bible God in particular created the universe in order to prove creationism.


The fact is that no scientist concentrates exclusively on one model and does no other research. But that's what creation researchers do. Every single one of them. There is not a single scientist in any relevant field that believes in creationism. Science corrects itself by using peer review and creationist ideas do not pass the peer review process because there is no evidence for it. All you've got is arguments that try to poke holes in evolution and those arguments have all been answered.


There's no evidence of a "fall".


Check the speciation section of the Talk Origins Archives. http://www.talk-origins.com I think. And look for speciation. It's all there.

Aphraeresis

Can you satisfy my curiosity about something, please?

Is there some requirement in SecHum that you agree with or follow each and every piece of it? And, what does it say if you don't?

I never thought non-theistic philosophies tended to work on an all or nothing basis... but I don't know much about it.

Mys

myschae,

Not really. You just have to be in general agreement with it. The affirmations are not like commandments, they are more like a creed - a statement of what most Humanists believe in order to make them Humanist and not something else. There is no punishment or excommunication for not following the affirmations. It's just that if you don't, most other Humanists would say you aren't following Humanism but something else. It's a way to distinguish between Humanists and non-Humanists and also a way to explain to non-Humanists what Humanism is.

I ran into the OT: Secular Humanism thread here a bit late, but I'd thought that I would add comments. I've noticed that responses to (longish) multifaceted posts tend to focus on just one or maybe two points; however, I'm submitting this as a single post anyway.

I'm directing it at you Aphaeresis because you were the proponent of the SecHum perspective. You wrote in the first person, and candidly about personal viewpoints. I should state that I am a christian theist. We are all entitled to our beliefs and you don't need to defend yours to me.

All the best,

- WG

From post of 6/20/07:
I think morality is essentially just that: obedience to an authority. Some authorities result in better moral codes than others.

Jesus said God's moral code could be summed up in two precepts:
(1) Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength;
(2) Love your neighbor as yourself

From post of 6/21:
The argument here doesn't convince me that personalities/souls can't survive death. Just because brain illness or trauma *prevent us from interacting with another's undegraded personality*, this doesn't mean that that person's mind no longer exists. Perhaps one's personhood is not merely a part of the brain, but 'requires' the brain to communicate and interact unimpeded in a body.

Use memory as an example of a brain process important for 'identity'. Suppose today I cannot recall an event from 20 years ago. But a month from now I can. Something was wrong with my memory today, but I still had my personhood. With Alzheimer's _we_ may not see the person recover.

From post of 6/22:
Very refreshing commentary ...

You know one trait that clearly stands out from the gospel accounts of Jesus is that he frequently made biting criticisms of the religious hypocrisy of his day. For example, he is reported as confronting (i.e., "driving out merchants", "overturning tables of merchandise") a bunch of financially motivated members of the religious infrastructure [Chapter 11, Gospel of Mark]

From post of 6/26:I don't agree. Don't you believe in some things that are not scientifically testable (e.g., that Julius Caesar existed)? As Mark1952 pointed out, there is historical evidence.

Of course not. However, one book chapter you might consider is: Moreland, J.P., 'Chapter 6: The resurrection of Jesus' in 'Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity', Baker, 1987.

Some of the points made include:
* no body was produced after the claims of his resurrection (why not)?
* specific women were mentioned as the earliest witnesses of the resurrected Jesus (at that time, Jewish women weren't deemed credible witnesses, if the story was made-up, the authors were pretty silly to include this point)
* Jesus's disciples were Jewish theists who believed lying and believing in other Gods was wrong. They declined to renounce their faith in the resurrected Jesus while being tortured to death. Would this many men all suffer such a fate without recanting, knowing that the account of the resurrection was false?

The book seems to be in print and available from amazon. Elsewhere in his book Moreland lays out several arguments for the existance of a god, including an Islamic cosmological argument, and telelogical and ontological arguments. The cosmological argument works for me.

Myschae - This question of yours ("Is there some requirement in SecHum that you agree with or follow each and every piece of it? And, what does it say if you don't?" ) really does speak to the heart of the issue and what I've been attempting to discuss with Aphaeresis. While I never got a direct response, you have, so I thank you for refocusing the discussion on this point.


The answer from Aphaeresis? "Not really. You just have to be in general agreement with it." They are suggestions not commandments.

Both Myschae and Aphaeresis - This has been my "point" all along. Myschae has agreed with my contention while Aphaeresis has steadfastly denied my contention.

For review, what is that contention? It is that without Jesus Christ as Lord and the Triune God as the "final authority," "ultimate authority," whatever terms might want to be used to cede ALL power and authority to God regardless of what any human might think, what is left is Moral Relativism that each individual gets to determine for themselves. There is NO "absolute" morality and there is NO "absolute" definition of "good" or "bad" that applies to all people regardless of their own personal "inclinations, choices, general agreement or disagreement, society they live in, etc."

When the "final authority, supreme authority, God, again whatever term someone might choose as the 'descriptor'," is denied and removed from the "chessboard of life," the individual can make up their own "code, creed, rationalizations, justification, etc." because THEY themselves ARE the "final authority."

This is precisely what Wayward Spouses do all the time. It does not matter if the WS is a believer in Christ, God, any religion or no religion. It is ALL about "self." It is each individual's "individual sovereign right" to do whatever they want to do for whatever reason they choose to use as their "excuse" for their behavior.

When I told Aphaeresis that IF she identifies her "faith," "belief," whatever term she is comfortable with using WITH Secular Humanism she should submit her will to the tenets of Secular Humanism, that is precisely what I was talking about. "Appropriating" the name of something to "identify" yourself as a "true believer" has nothing whatsoever with one BEING a Secular Humanist, a Christian, etc.

The particular faith lays out the beliefs OF that faith. For people who want to "pick and choose" what parts they "like" and what parts they "don't like" is self-centered and selfish, NOT embracing of or submissive to the actual beliefs that DEFINE a particular faith.

What is substituted is the "religion of self."

So in the context of Aphaeresis' desire (or at least the desire of the moment) to remain married to her husband despite his shortcomings and despite her multiple affairs, is the issue of WHY should her husband a) believe her repentance is anything other than "relative," and b)what will keep her from either obeying or disobeying the beliefs of Secular Humanism when they are "in conflict" with what being married really entails?

She can say that she has made a choice and may well have made a choice FOR being married to her husband, but that's only true for today. She can "unchoose" anytime she wants to because she retains the "final authority" and is "sovereign" over everything in her life. She can, by "sovereign fiat," choose anything she wants and no one has any right to say she is wrong, because as "sovereign lord" she retains the "right and authority" to determine what is right and wrong independent of anyone else and their "sovereign right" in their life. Everyone else is reduced to the level of "servant," and servants may have the right to disagree with the sovereign in their own heads but they have no right to DO anything other than what the "sovereign" wants and decrees.

Here are the definitive tenets ("affirmations") of Secular Humanism that will forever be the "stumbling block" to recovery if they are not directly addressed, and perhaps even Secular Humanism as a "faith" abandoned and replaced with something that IS "marriage friendly." I say this with certainty because of the following admission and "position statement" that Aphaeresis made in her response: " There is no punishment or excommunication for not following the affirmations."

Aphaeresis has made it CLEAR that she personally does not see Secular Humanism as "authoritative" in her life. At best the principles of SecHum are just "relative" and can be "taken or left" at will, her own will, and the individual will of ALL Secular Humanism proponents or ""followers."


* We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

There is no giving "100%" of "self" to the marriage. Things will be retained and "non-negotiable" and the "non-compromise" position of "forsaking ALL others until death do us part" is NOT on the table with this tenet. The obvious "mutual understanding of "differences" allow for "open marriages and adultery" as a "part of their concept of marriage."


* We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

Like the "intolerance" of ANYONE other than your spouse as way to "express your sexual preferences?"


* We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

WHO or WHAT determines what is "morally excellent?" Morals will be arrived at by "compromise and negotiation?" This seems to be recipe for "try it (anything) and if you like it, it's morally good for you" and all you have to do is negotiate with, and potentially compromise with, someone else who has a "different" concept of "morally excellent" behavior. There is NO standard against which all behavior is "judged" morally good or bad, it's all "relative" and open to whatever I can "negotiate" that someone else will "put up with" by compromising some competing or opposing belief that THEY hold.


* We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

Very nice sounding and eclectic, but the " Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences" is very vague, general, and tolerant of someone who simply wants an excuse to DO whatever they feel like doing. Aspirations = wants and desires. Express their sexual preferences = "if it feels good, do it" and it doesn't matter with whom. This tenet is most "enabling" of them all FOR infidelity and against monogamous marriage.


* We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

And all of these "common moral decencies" are tossed out the window anytime a Secular Humanist decides for themselves that they don't care to embrace that "tenet" of their faith. "I will apply them today, but they are NOT authoritative and I CAN change my mind anytime it suits ME. It "sounds nice," but it's really all just "relative."


* We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

No doubt. And this "clause" is the ultimate "out clause" for belief in Secular Humanism. "We are open to novel ideas." "Anything goes" would be an easier way to state this principle.

"Seek new departures in our thinking." Everything IS relative and there are NO "fixed and authoritative truths" that supercede any "new departure in our thinking."
Easy interpretation: "NOTHING you say to me or commit to me today has any lasting application to our marriage. There are NO "limits" other than personal satisfaction and changing "wants and needs" are mine to get satisfied any way that I choose."


Aphaeresis, if YOU were the one receiving this "doubletalk" as a reason to STAY married and forgive a spouse who had cheated on you in the pursuit of their own "freedom of sexual preferences," WHY would you believe that they NOW and FOREVER want to be yours exclusively, even if the marriage is in any way "unfulfilling" in some area, especially in the sexual area?

You are going to live a "marriage of compromise?" In some areas compromise will always be needed (i.e., you like sweet potatoes and he likes mashed potatoes, so you fix both for dinner). But when it comes to the COVENANT of marriage and it's EXCLUSIVITY to each other in all things, through "thick and thin," there is NO "compromise" with Fidelity. Adultery is NEVER "right" and it's not relative, nor is it open to "new departures in thinking."

"Just believe me, dear."

WHY?

What makes your statements "believable?"

Certainly not Secular Humanism, especially since you retain the right to pick and choose what principles apply to you and which don't, and retain the right to change your mind on even those you do "accept" today.

Aph, you and your husband CAN choose to sweep things under the rug, practice Conflict Avoidance, etc., but Adultery by it's nature calls into question everything that someone thinks they believe in. It SHOULD cause someone to seriously reflect on, and examine, his or her own "core beliefs." Consider this, if personal Standards and Boundaries are NOT fixed, but relative, then what ultimate good are they regardless of what they are or what someone chooses them to be for their self?

Aph, you have rejected Christianity, but rejecting Christianity and its beliefs is NOT a "justification" for you do whatever you want to do either.

While it is very true that ALL Christians are also sinners and DO violate the beliefs of Christianity that were given BY God, not by Man, there is a marked difference in, to rephrase your response to Myschae, "It's a way to distinguish between Christians and non-Christians and also a way to explain to non-Christians what Christianity is."

The "difference" is that the AUTHORITY is God, not Man himself or herself.

The "difference" is that they are Commandments from God TO Man, not "suggestions."

The "difference" is that Christians should exercise their God-given "Free Will" by choosing to submit that will to God's will whenever the two are "in conflict."

"Faithfulness" is first to God. If someone will not be faithful to God and His authority, there is little reason to believe that they will be faithful to another "mere" human, especially when they have already demonstrated one or more times that they can, and will, choose suggestions instead of commands, to "modify" what they promise today.

God HAS the inherent right to DEMAND faithfulness and obedience from Mankind because HE created Mankind. It was no accident of nature. HE created Mankind with a definite purpose. But God "went further" than simply to "command," He also paid the ultimate sacrifice so that Mankind COULD once again be able to (as existed pre-Fall) choose to submit their own will to His will. The point is that we (Christians) are no longer "our own." We were "bought and paid for" by God and, as "unnatural children," were adopted by God as His own children and the Bride of His Son. He then begins the process of teaching us (or unteaching us as the case may be) what it means to BE "surrendered" to God and to adopt HIS commandments no matter what we might think or be feeling at any given time. They are Commandments, not suggestions, regardless of what anyone "appropriating" the name "Christian" may want to do or believe that may be contrary to what God has said.

MANY people claim the title "Christian" but deny the "power of God" as the Sovereign Lord to TELL them what they can and cannot do. They refuse to submit themselves to God. It is fair to question the sincerity of such a person's belief because God has clearly stated what a Christian "should look like" who has actually accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. The "red herring" that is most often employed by those who don't want to submit their lives to God is along the lines of "doesn't the Bible tell you NOT to judge someone else?" That is an excuse, not a true expression of what the Bible DOES teach believers regarding the "judging of behaviors by those who claim to be Christians."

The "point" is that only God KNOWS the true heart of an individual. Humans do not have the capability of knowing for certain what is in someone else's heart and mind. All that humans can do is to observe the behaviors and compare what is seen to what the Bible clearly states are God's commands. We ARE "our brother's keeper" in that we need to confront, in love, behaviors that are contrary to the commands of God BECAUSE we are all "married" to Christ and "owned" by God, no longer "our own to do as we see fit."

Since they ARE commands, the Standard for behavior is GOD, not the individual.
IF someone professes to BE a Christian, then it is expected that they NOT willfully sin. IF they do sin, it is likewise expected that other believers will lovingly confront them on the need to submit their will to God's will and repent of their willfulness and "toss out" their own "choices," replacing them with God's authoritative "choice" in the matter.

"Thou shall not commit adultery." Period. No compromise, no discussion. Just humble acceptance and submission. No trying "something new," just surrender to God's authority.

God established the covenant of marriage AND the roles of husbands and wives. We choose to obey or to be disobedient to Him, but the "Final Authority" resides with God, not Man or Woman. "Moral license" is not given to humans, though those who do not believe in God will ALWAYS choose to whatever they want to do on the premise that "if it feels good, do it" makes their behavior "right." The same "trap" holds true for believers who DO NOT WANT TO relinquish their "free will" to God's will and want to abuse their "freedom in Christ" to do whatever they want to do regardless of God's clear commandments and teaching.

As Jesus put it, " And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning, 'made them male and female,' and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"

He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matthew 19:4-8 NKJV, emphasis added)

Aphaeresis - I am familiar with Talkorigins, but I went and looked up the section you referred to as having proof that "it's all there." I'd rather not get into a protracted discussion of evolution, but I'll post the following in response to the "it's all there" idea that the "discussion" of evolutionism and creationism is "closed" and "decided."

I am pretty certain that with respect to proof that Macroevolution occurs, there is nothing in there (that article) to support that. Microevolution (and I can define the term if need be) is accepted by Creationists and accounts for variations within species.

ALL of the "examples" cited at the end of the article were of this "microevolution" type. Not one of them showed a new "kind" of organism that is the required fundamental basis of the theory of evolution. ALL of the organisms described could be classified as a differing species within the broader type of organism, for example a differing species of Drosophila is STILL a fruit fly despite differences between other fruit flies, it did not "turn into a dragonfly" for instance.

As the article correctly points out, however, there is marked disagreement within the biological community as to what even is "the" correct definition of a "species." There isn't even a "consensus" of opinion that applies to ALL lifeforms.

The "point" of my previous statement, to not belabor the evolution/creation debate, is that there is not one single example that "science" or "scientists" can point to that shows Macroevolution actually occurred, much less HOW an entirely new and more complex organism came into being. Extrapolating changes within a given species to the greater problem of explaining and accounting for increasing complexity in entirely different lifeforms is not warranted. It might be "wishful thinking," but it's no kind of scientific proof.

In fact, all of the evidence actually goes "the other way," and only a presupposition that evolution "MUST" have occurred, because we DO have life on earth, is what causes the rejection of a creation explanation concerning "how life got here and how there is such diversity in the KINDS of life."

Perhaps if I have the time I can list some of the scientific and mathematical "problems" with the evolution model. Or I can point you to publications that do thoroughly discuss them. But for now, consider this point that MUST be answered in order for evolution to have ANY chance of being the "real explanation."

In order for a completely different kind of organism to exist, it requires a specific set of genetic information. The difference in the amount of genetic information that is required is enormous AND specific. HOW does evolution propose the ADDITION of genetic information that doesn't just create differences WITHIN a given species, but creates an entirely new kind of organism with a completely unique and functioning genome. Let me give you one "concrete" example of the difficulty in assuming that evolution is the "answer." How does evolution account for the evolution of the eye, let alone the multiple different types of eyes?

Put simply, how does a one-celled organism become a multicell organism? How does a multicell organism with the genetic code for a Frog (or whatever animal) become a Man? (hint: the answer is not "magic")

And first and foremost of the questions, since the Biogenetic Law states definitively that "life begets life" and does NOT originate from non-life, HOW did masses of chemicals organize spontaneously into the minimal requirements that are necessary for a self-replicating, LIVING, organism?

The answer is contained in the article:

"it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question."

The "proof" consists of a presupposition that the evolution theory is true and that creation (because it requires a preexisting "life form" referred to as "God") is untrue. Even in the cases where someone hypothesizes that life on Earth came here by way of "seeding" from some hypothetical space alien, all that does is beg the question of where did the "original" life come from regardless of it being on Earth or somewhere else in the universe.

This is nothing more than circular reasoning. It, as with evolution period, begins with the "acceptance" that since creation by a Creator is rejected there "is no other possibility than evolution even though there is no demonstrable, definitive, proof for it. We elevate "inference" to the level of "scientific proof."

This position is NOT unreasonable if someone rejects the existence of God.

The reason that it is not "unreasonable" is because things DO exist and there are only TWO possible causes that resulted in the effects that we do see and observe. Either they were Created by "some being" or they simply are the result of dumb luck and fortuitous happenstance. Either way, NONE of us were present "at the beginning" and try as science has tried, no one has been able to successfully recreate (even though they have been specifically using their intellect and will to accomplish the task) the original conditions and show life being created from non-life.

Unfortunately, science, unlike scientists, does not bring biased presuppositions to the table. That is precisely why people used to believe in "spontaneous generation," but science proved that despite the beliefs and opinions of people, Life does NOT spontaneously generate from non-life. Life requires Life in order to exist.

But most proponents of evolution don't want to "tackle" this sticky issue, preferring instead to simply assume, contrary to the Law, that "at some point in time the impossible actually did happen" and now we can assume the "evolution" of the happy impossibility gave rise to all the complex and varying forms of life, going against the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and against the requirements that Information Theory now show are required for evolution to stand any chance of being true. And, yes, in case you might be thinking along the lines of "but Earth is an Open System, not a Closed System," the availability of energy is not the same thing as putting that energy to useful work.

In answer to this sort of dilemma we are given wild hypothesis such as the "hopeful monster" and Stephen Gould's "punctuated equilibrium." Not one shred of proof, but a lot of ideas floated, all of which rest on the preconceived presupposition that creation simply could not be what actually happened because that would require an admission that God does actually exist.

Anyway, what follows are some excerpts from the article you cited for context and if anyone wants to read the entire article they can follow the link you provided.




I have to agree, the HOW is very important.

woundedgentleman,

I so totally disagree that morality = obedience to God. If that were true, then morality would be relative to the whims of God and any statement such as "God is good" would mean absolutely nothing because God would be called "good" even if God chose to do things we would consider evil. Love thy neighbor as thyself makes perfect sense from a secular standpoint because it's the best way to get along in the world, but what basis does it have if God exists? Merely the fact that God says it? He could have said the exact opposite and it still would be called "good".

FH,

You still don't get Secular Humanism. We don't believe that morality = obedience to authority. There are too many numerous examples of evil that occurs as the result of blindly obeying authority. Therefore, you can't decide right or wrong based on whether or not you'll get punished for it. You should do the right thing even if you don't get rewarded, and even if you could get away with doing the wrong thing. Yes I could decide to cheat again tomorrow, but so could you - anybody could regardless of religious background. That says nothing about whether we should or even whether we will.

So yeah you *CAN* do what you will without punishment in the afterlife (because there is no afterlife) but that says nothing about what you *SHOULD* do. And why *SHOULD* you be good if you're a Humanist? Because the world would be a better, happier place if everyone did. Because no person is an island. It's not about obedience, it's about getting along with others because we're all we've got.

So, what is morally right in Secular Humanism within marriage would be whatever is best for the relationship between the two spouses. What would help them get along better and be happier with each other? It has nothing to do with "if it feels good, do it" - that's a strawman.

As for talk-origins, there is info there on macroevolution specificially, but you haven't said much about creationism yet. What exactly is the creationist model? What exactly does creationism try to explain?

Gotta agree with ForeverHers on one point. The speciation argument on that site is very weak. Basically says the reason it isn't reported or documented is because it is a settled issue. Very dangerous territory for a scientist. I don't know that I would use that site as a reference.

Aph, for your reading pleasure, a rebuttal article to the one you cited on Talkorigins. You may find it informative too.

Rebuttal Article to Macroevolution Article cited





ahhh...now that will take some time to type up. Before I set aside time to do that, let me ask you a question as this is a "side issue" to saving your marriage. Are you sure you really want to know or would it just be waste of my time?






Nothing more than evolutionism tries to explain. Why do we see what we do see? It provides a model by which predictions can be made of what one might expect to actually see and find in nature, as does the evolutionary model, and then asks, essentially, "which model seems to best fit what is actually observed with the least manipulation of the data?"

The "presupposition" of creationism is that there WAS an living, intelligent Creator, who created things with purpose and design. We may not understand all the HOW's of the creative process itself, but IF things were created, there should be observable order and design.

Evolutionism posits NO guidance, just blind random chance and obedience to natural laws. "Blind luck" is another way to look at it. Evolution posits many mechanisms to "account for" what is actually observed in the vast diversity of life such as genetic mutation, genetic drift, etc.

The "test" is which model best provides predictions of what should be seen if the given model is correct and how do the actual observations best fit the predictions of each model with the least manipulation of the data.




Aph, this where you are wrong. I do "get" Secular Humanism and I agree that your conclusion IS "the point" of Secular Humanism. They provide a framework of suggestions that the acolyte of SecHum can choose to embrace or reject as they see fit. "Moral Relativism" is just another way to put the idea that the individual decides what is morally relevant for themselves independent of any "absolute authority." I'll give you just one example of the divergence of opinion based on the authority, or lack of authority, of God.

Abortion. Taking all conclusions about morality out of the discussion for one minute, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade decided to impose their "interpretation" on the issue and granted to women the SOLE right to decide the fate of the unborn child. NO ONE, including the husband, has any "say" in the matter, let alone God. The woman is granted the sole authority of life or death for the unborn child, for ANY reason she chooses. The opinion of the Court has led to MILLIONS of innocent children being slaughtered and the lining of the pockets of the practioners of abortion (my opinion obviously), all with NO regard to any "universal" morality that applies to all even if they "don't like it."

And as another aside, "No Fault" divorce wasn't far behind.

Aphaeresis,

[color:"blue"]"If that were true, then morality would be relative to the whims of God and any statement such as "God is good" would mean absolutely nothing because God would be called "good" even if God chose to do things we would consider evil. Love thy neighbor as thyself makes perfect sense from a secular standpoint because it's the best way to get along in the world, but what basis does it have if God exists? Merely the fact that God says it? He could have said the exact opposite and it still would be called "good".
[/color]

IF God IS the creator, His opinion is the only one that matters. Since He would be the one with the right to define right and wrong, it would be His definition of each that would be consistent.

Could you give me one example of a command, law or proclamation of God that you would consider evil or immoral? I'm not asking for what could happen or what might happen if thus and so were to take place. I wish to understand what specifically God has decreed that you find offensive and can support through argument as to why it was evil, not good or unjustifiable.

The basis for loving your neighbor as yourself, which you say makes no sense in context of God, is in fact a decree of the God you deny. If God did not say it, then on what basis does it become a viable precept from the secular viewpoint and why is it not a valid concept if God did indeed say it?

Since what makes a thing right seems to have so many common threads from generation to generation and society to society should be a flag that there is in fact a common root to what we all consider to be good and evil. Even small children have a concept of what is fair and right and even at two years old my own granddaughter when asked "What are you doing?" will respond with "Nothing" in an effort to hide what she herself thinks is wrong.

The call to submit to the authority of God is not the same as submitting blindly to human authority. The Holocaust was not because of submission to the authority of God but the total disregard for His authority and the replacing of His tenets with those of Darwin and Nietzsche. It was the result of Hitler's belief that evolution was true and that the aryans were higher life forms than other races that led to the slaughter of over 6 million "inferior" Jews and therefore not fit to survive.

So as a discussion point, what specific command or law of God do you find immoral or evil other than the requirement to submit our will to His and to have no other gods before Him?

Mark

What I said was 'obedience to an authority'. Upon reflection, my word choice may have been bad. Authority gives the connotation of personhood, and I didn't mean to say that one is not moral if they don't believe (a person) God exists. If I had said morality is adherence to a standard, leaving aside for just a moment what standard should be used, would you agree with this?

If God is a morally perfect person (as I believe), then his/her whims (if he/she has any) wouldn't be an issue.

If you did agree that morality was adherence to a standard (or perhaps equivalently, a moral code), then we could focus on the interesting question of what is the best moral code. You might say (and perhaps have said) that 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' or 'if everyone cares for each other' is a sufficient principle.

It's not bad. I'm not sure it is complete. It does seem relative to the whims of how each individual feels.

- WG

I think the Genesis account explains why we and the cosmos exist - God decided it would be a good idea to create us/it.

- WG

Again, I'm playing catch-up.

Aph said: Certainly correct. None of us would be here without good old Sun. But the next sentence: isn't so clear to me. In the article you cited http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm it seemed to me that:
(1) Alberty said that he doesn't think the universe is closed. This is an opinion.
(2) Haynie says "It is by no means certain that the universe is an isolated system."
Again - no proof, rather an admission that its scientifically unresolved.
(3) Dill seemed to only be concerend with the 2nd law and evolution, not cosmology.

I think you have to have a fair dose of faith that the universe isn't a closed system. Otherwise, why aren't we already at heat-death.

- WG

woundedgentleman,

Quote:

[/quote]If God is a morally perfect person (as I believe), then his/her whims (if he/she has any) wouldn't be an issue.[/quote]



Well, Mark seems to be saying God is "good" regardless of God's moral actions. But let's assume you mean to say something much more meaningful than that about God's moral perfection. It would mean that God is following some sort of standard outside himself. It would mean God chooses NOT to do certain actions because they would be wrong EVEN IF God did them. Such a standard then exists with or without God. However, I could see, hypothetically, how such a God could be of value as a (super)person who has perfect knowledge and wisdom of the standard and how it should be applied in every circumstance. And so I could agree that obedience to that sort of authority would be wise, although it would appear that there is a failure to communicate because different people have different ideas about what God wants them to do.

Quote:



Oh I definitely believe in a standard. I believe that there is such a thing as human nature that cuts across all times and cultures and that some things are harmful to all of us or helpful to all of us just because we're human. So to do good is to promote the wellbeing of people or humankind in general and wrongdoing involves hurting people in some way. I don't mean to ignore other forms of life, though, just trying to simplify. Animal rights is a whole 'nother topic.

I might even say God doesn't even have to choose -- it doesn't occur to him to do 'wrong' and he doesn't have that inclination or desire.

What would be a typical Humanist perspective on why we as humans do 'wrong'? (And as an operational definition of wrong, say violate whatever moral code any of us claim as our own.) I could imagine: (1) humankind or human societies haven't matured beyond where we are today; or (2) the human 'machine' has some biology-driven limit.

By the way, the clear majority of the Humanist affirmations strike me as consistent with Jesus's teachings and example, an obvious exception being the eschewing of the supernatural.

- WG

Aphaeresis - Mind if I try to answer this question for you?

Well, Mark seems to be saying God is "good" regardless of God's moral actions.

I don't believe that is what Mark was saying. You are applying your "hearing" with the "filter" that denies the very existence of God, so you seem to be anthropomorphizing God into what you would do or be like if you were God.


But let's assume you mean to say something much more meaningful than that about God's moral perfection.

What you are talking about is the "essence" of God question. The concept that you need to apply to this is that God is incapable of even looking at sin, much less committing sin.


It would mean that God is following some sort of standard outside himself. It would mean God chooses NOT to do certain actions because they would be wrong EVEN IF God did them. Such a standard then exists with or without God.

On the contrary, it does not "mean" (as in must be) that God follows anything that "outside" of Himself. That is precisely the point. God IS good, not just "acts" good.

God establishes Standards FOR humans, angels, etc. because they are all created by Him and for Him. The Standard that God establishes is Himself, His goodness and His perfection, His sinlessness. HE is the Standard, not that He conforms Himself to some "outside" Standard. NO "absolute" standard exists independent of God, and humanity alone should be "proof" enough of that. Secular Humanism, as you have said, is NOT the answer to the "Standards" question either because they are "suggestions" and not commands that anyone has to follow even if they choose not to. There is, as you have said, no inherent "judgment" attached to a person who chooses to NOT follow the Secular Humanism principles (Standards).


I could see, hypothetically, how such a God could be of value as a (super)person who has perfect knowledge and wisdom of the standard and how it should be applied in every circumstance.

If you can "see" how God "could be of value," then the obvious question would be why would someone choose to reject that perfection? If what Secular Humanism is striving for is "perfection" in relationships between people, but each person is free to choose their own interpretation of what is "good" in interpersonal relationships, and a "better, more perfect" belief system exists, why would not the "less perfect" system be abandoned in favor of the "more perfect" system?

If there is "value" in such a system that "should be applied in every circumstance," and if perfection in our relationships with each other, what would cause a "caring" person to reject that system and adopt one that DOES NOT "have to," or even "should be," applied in every circumstance? Substituting the "imperfect" creature, driven by selfishness and self-centeredness for the ONE who IS perfect seems to be not only illogical, but also rather arrogantly egocentric, don't you think? "I may not be perfect, but I know better than you anyway" sort of thing.


And so I could agree that obedience to that sort of authority would be wise, although it would appear that there is a failure to communicate because different people have different ideas about what God wants them to do.

And the question would be WHY do "different people have different ideas about what God wants them to do?"

IF, as many argue, the BASIC nature of Man is "good," then why are there "different ideas" about what "good," as a Standard, is?

WHO is it that determines what "good" is?

Regardless of the "lofty" ideas of some men who have learned that self-centeredness is not good, the "point" is that whether or not people even acknowledge the existence of God, God HAS written the moral code He has established FOR us on the hearts of all men and women. But God also created Mankind with the Free Will to choose, out of true love, to obey Him out of love FOR Him.

The love that God showed to Mankind in giving us that ability TO choose IS probably the greatest demonstration of His love for us (other than His also choosing to die on the Cross in our place). The truth is that no one CAN return love if they cannot choose to NOT love in return. Obedience and disobedience are manifest "possibilities" that are inherent in the ability TO choose, to exercise "Free Will" in love or in selfishness.

The attempt to live a "good life" by someone's own definition, or by a group's definition, seems to be an exercise in existentialism. If all things ARE "relative," then the "Standard" is a constantly moving target and ANYONE's own choice as to what THEY think is "good" IS good and beyond the judgment of anyone else.

In that sense, Man IS an "island" and is completely sovereign, able to do whatever they want to do without anyone else determining or establishing what morality is, much less what "good or bad" morality is.




Oh I definitely believe in a standard. I believe that there is such a thing as human nature that cuts across all times and cultures and that some things are harmful to all of us or helpful to all of us just because we're human.

I have to admit to being confused by this statement. You have previously stated that the principles of Secular Humanism are NOT "standards" that must be obeyed. An individual is free to follow them or not, as the individual sees fit.

What IS a Standard? A Standard is that thing, or things, that YOU, the individual WILL NOT do to someone else. There is NO equivocation, no relativism. It is "absolute." That is WHAT a Standard is. It is NOT dependent upon whether or not someone "feels like" being obedient to the standard, the Standard IS obeyed regardless of personal feelings. That's what makes Standards different from Boundaries.

So WHAT "human nature," inherent in ALL humans, "cuts across all times and cultures?" What is it that is true no matter how "good" or "bad" someone seems to be?
It CAN'T be altruism IF we all climbed up out of the slime and exist on the principle of "survival of the fittest," can it?

It CAN'T be "sacrificial love" IF the basic human nature is driven by what I want and "me first," can it?

There IS a "concept" out there that is applicable. That concept is the existence of "Sin" and our most basic human "sin nature." What IS sin? Sin is disobedience to God, THE Standard of GOOD. Sin is the opposite of that good. "It is rebellion, it is MY way rather than YOUR way, God." It is "it seems like BEING God is a desirable thing, so I will do whatever it takes to BE just like you, God, making myself equal to you."

But therein is the "catch 22" also. IF we arrive at the point where we deny the very existence of God, there is NOTHING left to try to "be like" or to be the "equal of." Humans are humans and NONE of them is someone we would want to be rather than to be ourself. ALL humans are "found wanting" in at least SOME area.

Recognizing that fact is one of the reasons WHY there are other religions that attempt to address that inherent shortcoming of ALL men. Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. are all directed at the idea that man IS, by nature, "not good" and has to continually strive, sometimes taking many lifetimes, to finally "cease to exist" by attaining a state of "nothingness."

The truth that the Word of God presents is very simple, yet very profound concerning the basic nature of Mankind that applies to everyone, everywhere and everywhen.

"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory (Standard) of God." GOD is the Standard, His very essence, who God IS.

We CAN deny the truth, but truth exists independent of our opinion. Unless, of course, there is no God and everything is just the figment of some person's mind and are just fairytales designed to get other people to provide "followers" to someone (Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Buddha, Odin, Zeus, Caesar, etc.) for their own benefit.

The "Christian" God has intervened in human history several times. Why? Because of HIS Standards and the PURPOSE, and the corruption of that purpose by the creatures, He had for creating mankind. But as Jesus said, "even if someone should rise from the dead you will not believe (they choose not to believe)."



Animal rights is a whole 'nother topic.

Ever wonder WHY God created all the animals before He created Eve?

Ever wonder why only Man was created in the image of God?

Now the issue of "animal rights" seems to have reached its apex in Hinduism, don't you think?

FH,

Do you like to argue?

Aph said:
But this was a very side comment and the context was how good or sufficient (i.e., complete) the Golden Rule was as a terse moral code.

Personally I haven't and Aph presumably doesn't because she's an atheist. So what's the point of the question? (And BTW, didn't God create the animals on 'day' 4 and Adam on 'day' 6?)

What? You don't believe woman was also created in the image of God?


Was this a perjorative remark about animal rights or Hinduism?

Proverbs 12:10 says "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal." Exodus 23:19 reads "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." In Matthew 6:26 God appears to be concerned with the welfare of birds.

Don't you think the biblical God cares for animal-kind?

- WG

I have read the Genesis creation story, but there is much in it that is not explained. Some examples...

HOW did God create? It says he created by The Word but that doesn't make any sense.

Although it's been a while since I've read it, I remember thinking the events seem out of order. There were days and nights before the sun and the moon were created, for example, if I remember right.

How old is the universe and earth? Some creationists say the earth is only 10,000 years old. But if that's true why do we find rocks and fossils much older than that?

Some creationists don't believe that dinosaurs existed. What about all that fossil evidence then?

If God created the universe just for us, why are there so many dead planets? We will never see most of them. What purpose do they serve?

If we were designed in our present form by a perfect, intelligent being, why do we have backs that are not good for upright walking (resulting in lower back pain for many people), and appendixes that don't do anything except get infected? Why do our abilities to remember and see become impaired over time? Why do we appear to be poorly designed?

Why are most species designed so poorly that they become extinct (even without humans to help along the process)?

Why are we, and other living things, designed in such a way that we are forced to kill and eat other living things in order to survive? Why not design people who can thrive on eating rocks or synthetic food? Plants make their own food through photosynthesis. Why not make a similar design for humans and other animals?

Why are there viruses, mosquitoes, harmful bacteria and parasites?

Usually when a person violates their own moral code it's because they let emotion override their good sense. Humanists assume most people want to be good most of the time. I think it would be more accurate to say we are generally pro-social. We are pack animals, more like dogs than like cats. When someone violates their own moral code it's usually a reaction to some sort of pain or an attempt to avoid pain. Think about how people typically act when they are having a bad day. They are more likely to lash out when unhappy than when they are happy. Happy people generally want others to be happy, too. But the happiness I'm talking about is not short-term hedonism but long-term, general wellbeing.

I do think human societies still have some moral growing to do, and that we have gotten better over time. For example, we're now debating the issue of universal human rights and what they should be, whereas in the distant past there was no such concept.

I agree that aside from rejection of the supernatural, Jesus' teachings and many of the Humanist Affirmations are consistent with each other. Because of empathy and an innate sense of fair play that humans have (game theory has proven we have it), most societies have had some version of The Golden Rule, even before Jesus said it. It's really the only way for people to be able to get along with each other and because we're social animals we HAVE to get along somehow.

Have you heard of Bishop John Shelby Spong? Although obviously since I'm not a Christian I don't agree with him on everything but his talks/writings about morality are very impressive. I call him my favorite Christian, although many conservative Christians refuse to call him one of their own. It's a pity since I think his views of morality are probably the closest to what Jesus actually taught.

Ah. One of the troublesome issues to get around when you are talking about a "God" or "ultimate power". The problem as I see it is anytime you talk about an external standard such as this is that the ultimate standard then becomes a higher power than the God itself. By definition God or the ultimate power must be the be all end all. Any description you give to it would then supercede the actual God. I think this is where faith must come in with any belief system. You can discuss aspects of God. You can describe God. You can try to better understand God by speaking of characteristics, but in the end you must always come back to the point of one ultimate "something". Aph, you are suggesting that the ultimate "something" might be an ideal, that exists apart from God. If that is true then the ideal would actually be the God, and the "God" that FH, WG and other describe would actually be someone on a higher conciousness than us who submits to that God.

I like the way the Tao Te Ching puts it. Words in brackets are added by me.

It all comes down to the realization that something is more than its description or its aspects. I can describe an apple to you all day long, but if you have never seen or tasted an apple at some point I will have to say, "Yes an apple is round. It could be many colors. It has a sweet taste. But you cannot understand it until you experience it." The description of the apple is not the apple itself. It is an attempt to impart a knowlege of an entity without actually experiencing the entity. Enter faith.

Sometimes, but usually I prefer to discuss conflicting ideas. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />




Woundedgentleman - I understood the "context" of the side comment that was tossed in. The Golden Rule applies to humans not animals. The Golden Rule IS a "moral code," and I happen to believe it's a fairly good one as far as it goes.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The "sincerity of belief" is not the issue nor is the applicability of the Golden Rule that is, by itself, dependent upon the "Standard" of the individual rather than the Standard of God (in my "world" that means the God of Christians).

For example: The Muslims believe that anyone who does not convert to Islam should be killed. They believe that the Koran teaches this as the word of God through their sinless prophet Mohammed.

Therefore, to a Muslim, harming you (killing you) would be precisely what they would expect, and want, for themselves if they did not believe in Islam or converted from Islam. It has been taken to the extreme of even justifying "honor killings." Some "honor," imho, as they apply the "Golden Rule" to even their own family and children.

There is a marked difference between the God of Islam and the Prince of Peace. If you apply the Golden Rule from the perspective of Islam rather than from Christianity you get a completely different "interpretation" of the rule, and that rule for Islam is founded upon the teachings AND actions of Mohammed.




The purpose of the question was to direct the thought process as to WHY God created the institution of Marriage and the NEED for husband and wife.

But if you want to reduce this question to "evolutionary" thought, which evolved first, the Man or the Woman, and how did they procreate on their own while waiting for the other one to evolve?





Oh please, don't be ridiculous. Do YOU like to argue?

"Man" is the generic term for Mankind. If I had meant ONLY Adam, I would have said Adam and clearly differentiated that I was not including Eve in the term "Man." "Woman," by the way, was the term that Adam gave her because she had been created out of a part of him.

In Marriage, the two are no longer two, but one flesh.





Of course God cares for animals. HE created them. Would like some biblical references? But God also created Man (Adam and Eve) in His image and did not created any animal in His image. Mankind, unlike the animals, was created FOR God. The animals were created for Man.

But you still have not addressed the question of WHY God created the animals FOR Adam before He created Eve?

This is a quick response, but here goes.

If God is an omnipotent being (and therefore has abilities and attributes way beyond humankind), then a few thousand words aren't going to be a full explanation. The creation/garden account probably has other purposes, perhaps: (1) to distinguish Jewish tradition from other creation stories and to attribute the creation of the universe to Yahweh; (2) to describe some of God's nature (i.e., he creates; he values beauty; he is wholesome; he is giving; he has a moral standard; he is interested in mankind; to let us know we are not alone).

That's the way it appears to me too (see below).

Age? I don't know. I recall studying some dinosaur bones in a museum and seeing healed fractures. I couldn't but believe that this was the remains of a creature that actually lived. I haven't studied it, but radiocarbon dating leaves me a little concerned (perhaps in the atomic age we've done something to the world to screw up this technique).

For me the simplest solution is to believe that the Genesis day's were not 24-hour time periods. As you point out, it wouldn't be meaningful prior to the creation of the Sun anyway. I think many christians believe similarly.

I don't know. I don't think it would shake up my faith too much if there were intelligent life on those planets.

Maybe it helps us be humble. Seriously, we do have lots of other physical limits.

I don't know. But just because medical science hasn't found a purpose today doesn't mean there isn't one. And perhaps humans living in different times (not in the modern age with high-tech and modern medicine) had/have some use for it. I think it is still the case that in the animal kingdom biologists continue to this day to find reasons and function for anatomy that were previously unknown. (Example: gecko's have micro-hairs that let them walk up walls -- way cool!)

Perhaps we are just poorly designed for potato chips, air conditioning, and television?

I'm not a natural scientist and this so isn't my area. I don't have all the answers.

Great questions. Truly I have no idea. Accoring to the creation/garden account in Genesis it looks that God didn't originally intend us to eat/kill animals?

So everyone doesn't move to Minnesota.

- WG

I don't necessarily agree with creationists on this, but I did hear an explanation that made sense to me. When God created Adam how old was he? If he was created as a grown, mature adult he would have been an instant old at his creation. How old would he have appeared. If an autopsy were performed how old would a doctor determine him to be? You could carry on this logic to everything that was created.

Just to clarify, if you come from the presupposition that the earth occured naturally then dating procedures work. If you come with the presupposition that it was created, then dating procedures based on naturally occuring events just won't work. Again, not my postion, but I believe a logical one.

My point was that God created all the animals before he created Adam.

Regarding your later comment, I'm not convinced that animal-kind doesn't have other purposes that to be 'for mankind'.



Opps, my bad. I mis-understood you.

I think you are greatly mistaken here. I do not believe that the Koran teaches this. (And I don't think it is a helpful comment.)In fact, I believe Islam holds Jews and Christians in special regard as devout, non-Islamic religious peoples.

All three religions have a lot in common, to include monotheism and the worship of the God of Abraham.

- WG

So then God is incapable of doing evil because he is incapable of thinking that way.

That is inconsistent with the Bible, though, where it says that God created everything, including evil. And if Satan was a fallen angel, then God created Satan too. A being incapable of thinking or doing evil would be incapable of creating anything capable of doing evil, and certainly would be incapable of creating evil. But I don't want to argue this point because it's just another reason why religion makes sense to some people but doesn't make any sense to me. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


Oh no, I never said there was no inherent judgement attached to a person who doesn't follow Humanist standards. Of course there is inherent judgement from your fellow human beings. If you deviate from Humanist standards you are likely to suffer negative social consequences. If you deviate from them a lot, you will have trouble getting along with other people and suffer severe social consequences possibly including isolation and lonliness.

But Humanism tries to encourage people to do the right thing because it's the right thing, not out of fear of punishment. Of course, if punishment is necessary to enforce the rules of society then it's necessary. But ideally, people should be taught to WANT to be good, not just avoid punishment.

You see I think the difference is that Christians and many other religious people want to believe that life is fair, so they want to believe that good people will be rewarded (either here or in the afterlife) and that bad people will be punished (either here or in the afterlife).

Although Humanists believe we're all GENERALLY better off if we try to be good, we don't believe that every good act will be rewarded and every bad act will be punished. We don't believe the universe has any sense of fair play, only humans do. There is no karma except in a general social sense. Bad things happen to good people and sometimes bad people get away with doing bad things. And we all suffer the same fate when we die regardless of how good we've been. So the reason to do good has to be separate from reward or punishment. And that reason is the desire to influence our own social environment in a generally positive way, so that we're generally happier and better off even if occasionally others get away with hurting us or a good deed is punished. I guess in a way it is a reward system but not a strict good deed = reward everytime sort of thing.


It's not a matter of rejection, it's a matter of what's true and what's real. We're not convinced that such perfection exists in the first place, so from a Humanist standpoint there is nothing to reject. Humans have a natural tendency to believe what is most comforting, but that often leads us to believing things that are not true. Some people have a stronger desire than others to avoid believing in falsehoods. Thus, we have believers and nonbelievers.


Because that system is only more perfect if God exists. If God doesn't exist, then the whole system is based on falsehood.

But your depiction of Secular Humanism is still not accurate. We are NOT free to choose our own interpretation of what is good in personal relationships unless you believe that we are all free to choose our own facts. Let's use MB as an example. In their research the Harley's found that "Love Busters" such as disrespectful judgements, selfish demands and angry outbursts are harmful to marriage. This was not based on armchair theorizing but on research. This is fact. Those things are bad for marriage. You could decide that selfish demands are good for your marriage, but you would be wrong and your marriage would suffer for it whether you choose to recognize the harm it causes or not. Because it is a fact that those things are harmful to the marital relationship, and because it is a fact that married people need good marriages in order to be happy and get along with each other, then it is a fact that according to Humanist ideals Love Busters are morally wrong. It is not an opinion, it is not a matter of taste, it is fact.

Now of course, humans don't have perfect knowledge of right and wrong, so occasionally we may have a wrong belief about what is right. We may try to do the right thing, but it will have unintended negative consequences for someone else. But that doesn't change the fact that we were wrong at the time. Our intentions were good, but the act itself was wrong. Such mistakes are inevitable but the number of mistakes can be reduced by factual knowledge, such as the Harleys' research.


There is no system that forces you to do the right thing in every circumstance. Even in Christianity, you have free will. Nothing forces you to do good. And statistically, Christians are no more likely to do the right thing than people of any other religious persuasion, including atheists.


There is no substitution. You are trying to interpret Humanism within a Christian box. It doesn't work. You have to go outside the box. In Humanism, there is no object of worship. People are not worshipped. We know people are imperfect. We don't try to substitute anything for God. Sure, it would be cool if a perfect person with perfect knowledge of right and wrong existed but we're not convinced any such being exists. It would be cool if I had the power of invisability and flight, but believing in it would not make it so.


Because God doesn't exist. LOL! Sorry, couldn't resist. But that honestly is the answer that seems most likely to me.


Because we don't have perfect knowledge.


Who determines that 2 + 2 should equal 4? Who determines that when you cut me, I'll bleed? A fact is a fact whether you believe it or not.


Well I don't really want to get into an argument about freewill. I don't believe in it and I don't agree that it would be a good idea even if it existed. Let's just agree to disagree.


No, what is wrong is wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. But people are imperfect and sometimes we are wrong about what is right and wrong.


No, I don't believe that at all. We all influence each other whether we want to or not. And no one determines or establishes what is right and wrong. We discover it, just like we discovered the existence of gravity.


What I meant is that there is no process of excommunication from Humanism. And there is no Humanist Pope who defines what Humanism is. The Affirmations are a description of what most Humanists believe. The description will fit some Humanists more than others, and some of the Affirmations will be interpreted by one humanist a little differently than some other humanist. For example, eating meat is a controversy within Humanism right now. Maybe someday us meat-eating humanists will discover that we were wrong to kill animals for food. But right now there is no consensus.


Well then the standard is don't hurt people, or in situations in which you'll cause harm no matter what you do, you have to cause the least harm. No Humanist would say it's okay to hurt people. And all Humanists believe torture is absolutely wrong no matter what. Not even in a ticking bomb scenario - and that's a standard Christians can't claim because you all disagree on that one. And of course rape is wrong no matter what. And discrimination is wrong, even if the person is gay. That last one is a standard Christians can't claim because you all disagree on that one.


We need other people. We need a certain amount of freedom to be happy. We need a certain amount of safety to be happy.


I have no idea what you're talking about here.


Humanists don't believe that about human nature.


Humanists don't view people as basically sinful. We view them as basically good, although like I said, I interpret this to mean basically pro-social. Obviously people are capable of doing wrong, but I don't think we are essentially bad.


Just because something perfect doesn't exist, doesn't mean we can't imagine it. I can imagine the perfect person who would never make mistakes and always do the right thing and ask myself what would this person do? That doesn't mean I have to believe this person is real.


That's where they are wrong. Humanists do not accept the idea that people are essentially bad.

Aph - As the following listing of Bishop Spong's beliefs clearly show, he may claim the title of "Christian," but he has jettisoned every fundamental belief that makes a Christian a Christian. I could go back into history, for example Arianism, for similar thoughts, but there really is no need to do so at this time.

For me personally, count me as one who does not, based upon his own statements, consider Bishop Spong to be a born again Christian believer.





Despite the fact that the above quotation was taken from a supporter of Bishop Spong, the inherent bias of the author is revealed clearly in his last statement "as they would rational thought."

Nowhere do Christian advocate "evicting" rational thought. This is simply the age old foolish argument "that to be a Christian means to leave reason at the door."

It may make the speaker feel "superior," but it is a biased opinion and nothing more. It certainly is not fact.


Here is concisely what I think is going with Bishop Spong:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to prevert the gospel of Christ. But eve nif we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other that what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am it trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:6-12 NIV)

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and with water. By water also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2Peter 3:3-7 NIV)

[color:"red"]"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." [/color] (Matthew 24:36-39 NIV)

If I "have to" evaluate the gospel according to Bishop Spong versus the gospel according to the Apostles Paul and Peter, and the truth of Jesus Christ himself, I will side with the latter 3.

What Spong wants to do is to "recreate" God in the image of Man. Not a unique desire to say the least.

As it is fair for Myschae to say that she is NOT a Secular Humanist nor a Christian nor a follower of any other faith, and it is "fair" to "judge" that she is NOT a Secular Humanist, a Christian, etc. by her own statements, so it is fair to "judge" that Bishop Spong is "something" but he is NOT a Christian.

This does, however, present a bigger "problem" or "dilemma" for Espicopalians because Bishop Spong is an Episcopalian and uses that to claim that he is a "Christian." His views on Morality are not the issue. His view of God and Jesus Christ ARE the issue since he CLAIMS to be a Christian.

If the intention of bringing Bishop Spong into the discussion is to have a supporter of Secular Humanism, I would agree that he seems qualified. If it is to bring in the idea that a Christian can deny God and Jesus Christ and still BE a Christian, I have to disagree because of the very clear teaching contained in the Word of God as to what a Christian believes.

Aph, just a quick note to let you know that I found your last post very interesting. I'll have to set aside some time to discuss your stated thoughts some more because they are truly fascinating to me.

This is an incorrect representation of all three of the eastern religions mentioned. All three believe that man is inherently good when they are born. What happens after they are born is what causes some to reach enlightenment and others not to reach it.

changed - Let's not belabor this point, okay? If you don't like the term "not good by nature" then perhaps "flawed" would be a more acceptable term.

Either way, they point to their concept of "perfection" that may be "attainable" by man. The underlying assumption is obvious, man is flawed, not perfect, and begins life at varying "levels of goodness." Some begin with very little "goodness" and lots of "badness," and others start somewhere higher up the "goodness scale." The "punishment" in Hinduism, for example, is that if you don't do better this time around than you did the last time around, you get "punished" by being reincarnated as some lower "caste," or perhaps as far back as some other creature.

If they don't achieve the level of "goodness" required by their religion, they are eternally locked into a state of repetitive trials, most likely never reaching that final state of "goodness."

In fact, there is no way for anyone to KNOW if they actually achieved it because they would "cease to exist" and the cycle of reincarnation would end without their knowing it. In short, there is no "security," as it is based entirely upon a "works based" philosophy and the "works" of the individuals themselves.

The point of Christianity is that NO person is "good enough" on their own because of their basic flawed nature (sin nature) and it takes the imputation of the "goodness" Christ to them to achieve salvation and reunion with the Standard of "Goodness," God.

We can argue all day long about "how much good" is "enough good" to make the grade on the "goodness scale." But IF people came about by way of evolution, there is NO "goodness scale." There is only the "here and now" and no reincarnation for "another attempt."

The "goodness/badness" is a function of a Creator and HIS goodness as the "measure."

Aph wrote:
I do not think Jesus taught that life is fair in this way.

In Matthew 19 it is said that a rich man who lived in obedience to the commandments asked Jesus what he had to do to recieve eternal life. Jesus told him to give his wealth to the poor and to come and follow him. The man declined. Despite his otherwise impressive good deeds, his heart seemingly wasn't in the right place. (Aside: I am not claiming Jesus expects everyone to give all of their financial assets away).

In Matthew 20 Jesus teaches a parable to describe heaven. A vineyard owner needs to hire laborers. He hires some at 6:00am and agrees to pay them a fixed rate (say $100). The owner later finds more laborers at 9:00am and noon and hires them agreeing to pay them fairly. Later he hires more helpers at 3:00pm and hires them. And still later at 5:00pm. At the end of the day (6:00pm) he pays the workers from 5pm $100. Similarly the late morning and mid-afternoon workers get $100. And so on with the 6:00am workers. The 6:00am workers complain that some worked only for one hour but got the same rate; don't they deserve more? The landowner (i.e., God-figure) tells them they agreed to work for the $100 and if he wants to give those who worked less the same about, what business is it of theirs and he isn't being unfair.

Apparently heaven isn't fundamentally about who does the most/best good deeds.

In Matthew 21 Jesus tells the chief priests and religious leaders that "tax collectors" (who were known for greed, unfairness, and being anti-social) and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of heaven ahead of them.

- WG

I don't want to belabor any point, but you are presenting a grossly simplified and flawed interpretation of all of these religions. I'm sure if someone mischaracterized the doctrines of Christianity that you would correct them. Your understanding of eastern religions is completely and utterly incorrect.


This is the underlying assumption of Christianity and yes it is obvious. It is also the complete opposite concept of most Eastern religions. In Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism the concept of "salvation" or "enlightenment" is based on realizing and aligning yourself with your true nature, which is GOOD, not sinful, not flawed.


Either is acceptable to me. Both are wrong.

Yes, I would "correct" mistatements about Christianity, as with offering of Aphaeresis of Bishop Spong as someone who claims to be a Christian but who rejects all that IS what defines a Christian. Spong, like you, wants consider all beliefs and/or religions as "the same." Essentially this means that all are true or all are false. In all cases it denies that there IS one really true TRUTH.

Is Hinduism the "true" faith?
Is Buddhism the "true" faith?
Is Taoism the "true" faith?
Are ALL "Eastern Religions" true, even though they believe fundamentally different things?

"Your understanding of eastern religions is completely and utterly incorrect."

I beg to differ. It is possible my understanding of them is incorrect, but they ALL put the emphasis on Man himself/herself. They deny the one true God that has revealed Himself to us in Bible. "You shall be like God, knowing good and evil." They are all the same, Man can become God through his/her own efforts. They all appeal to Man's pride in self, i.e. "you are all good, you just need to discover your own goodness no matter how long or how many lifetimes it takes you." The "flip side" is that if you choose to be "bad" you get a "do over," erasing the past mistakes and starting over fresh and still good. Nevermind that what you DID was pure evil and bad. Yin and yang. Tug of war. A two-headed coin. And let's not even touch on the concept of Karma.




I understand this, changd4ever. No matter how sincere the belief, it can be sincerely wrong. The OBJECT of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ and what He has done for us that we are incapable of doing on our own. The object of these Eastern religions, and many others, is Man himself/herself. That people reject Christ is no great surprise. That people want to say and believe that any other belief is "just as good as, if not better than" Christianity is as old as time. But that doesn't make it true.

Christianity does not stand on an individual's ability. It stands on the real, live, person of Jesus Christ. In ALL other religions (including Agnosticism and Atheism) they rely solely on what the individual DOES for himself/herself. Christianity, on the other hand, relies solely on what Jesus Christ did FOR us to "save us from ourselves."




That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think you are wrong too, but again, opinions are a dime a dozen. it does not change TRUTH.

Jesus Christ, not Buddha or anyone else, claimed to BE God and that is what sets Christianity apart from all other "manmade" beliefs. ANYONE "could" claim to be God, but Jesus not only made the claim, He "backed up" the claim.

People can, and they do, CHOOSE to reject Jesus Christ, preferring to "do their own thing," and God will let them. But that does NOT change the truth nor does it change the truth of who Jesus is and what He, and He alone, did for us in order to provide us with reconciliation with God.

The "issue" is not an issue of morality. The "issue" is that mankind cannot know God its own. God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind, and has most emphatically done so in the person of Jesus Christ. God "finalized" that revelation in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and provided "proof" to hardhearted mankind that there IS life after death; conscious, living, thinking, physical life. God is the God of the LIVING, not the dead and not the "annihilated."

I wasn't saying you are wrong if you believe that man is flawed. I was just saying you are wrong in saying that the religions mentioned believed that man is flawed.

MUST READ!

Question: "What is secular humanism?" Why is secular humanism so dangerous, and why is it becoming so popular?


Answer: http://www.gotquestions.org/secular-humanism.html

I have never said all beliefs are the same, nor do I believe that.
I don't believe any of them are completely true, but I think there are elements of truth in all of them. Regardless of whether they are true or not, I think they deserve to be accurately described if they are to be used in a religious discussion.


Again, this is not an accurate representation of these religions. Let's take Taoism, because it is the one that I have studied most extensively. To say that Taoism appeals to man's pride is laughable. Taoism teaches that man should put himself last. It teaches that the ego is what seperates man from the Tao. It teaches that only by submitting your egotistical desires to the "ultimate path" or the Tao can you reach a oneness with the Tao.

As far as Yin and Yang, it is not a "tug of war". Taoism teaches that everything has different aspects to it. The problem is that instead of viewing and appreciating the thing itself, man many times elevates or judges one aspect of the thing to be higher or better than another aspect. This is saying that some part of the Tao is bad or wrong, which goes against the principles of Taoism.

Taoist teachings read much like Jesus's teachings. The sermon on the Mount could be included in a Taoist text and completely agree with other Taoist teaching. The concepts of "the least will be first", "the meek will inherit the kingdom of heaven", "turn the other cheek" are all in complete agreement with Taoist teaching. Pride is probably more important in Taoism, because you can not possibly align yourself with the Tao if you have pride.

I realize you believe strongly that the Bible is the inspired word of God and any religion that doesn't teach that is wrong. That is your right. I am not trying to convert you or even convince you of the merits of Taoism or any other religion. I just want to make sure that the teachings are accurately represented. Your description of Eastern religions would be like me explaining Christianity like this.

"Christianity is a religion that believes God came down and lived among men, but was killed by religious leaders. Followers must eat crackers and drink wine which they believe are transubstantiated to the body and blood of Jesus. By doing this they go to heaven. Otherwise they go to he11."

Although there are elements of truth in my statement, there are certain distortions and it is a gross oversimplification of the Christian belief system. I think other religions deserve the same respect as Christianity. They should be discussed respectfully and accurately portrayed.

woundedgentleman,

You may be right about what Jesus taught. However, the beliefs of Christians today are not based solely on what Jesus taught. It is mixed in with some of what Paul taught, some of what they want to believe, and some of that "civil religion" I described earlier. Because of televangelists, there are even Christians who believe that being a good Christian will bring them financial success. I find this especially odd given that many of Jesus' teachings almost sound like socialism.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the story of Job. A lot of unfairness in that story. This is completely off the topic but there is a great movie, if you like dark comedy, about a Job-like character who sets out to get even with God by breaking all the commandments one by one. It's called "Commandments" (not 10 Commandments, but just Commandments.)

FH,


No, I would not say that about Spong at all. There are many beliefs that he thinks are both wrong and destroying Christianity. I can understand why you would say he's not Christian because the God he believes in is a non-theistic God. His theology is a bit radical. However, I think he is right on the mark when he talks about morality and the meaning of life.


No, that's not it at all. Humanism and possibly other belief systems, though I don't know which ones, rely on what the individual does for humankind.

Christianity is about individual salvation. What can *I* do or believe to get into heaven even though my friends and some family members are destined for ******? Oh, maybe they'll convert if I nag them long enough but if not I guess they deserve ******, so just worry about saving your own butt. Christianity is all about salvation of ME,ME,ME and not about saving the world because after all, this world is just a dress rehearsal for the afterlife. It will all be destroyed when the rapture comes anyway.

Of course not all of Christianity is like that because some Christians don't believe in ****** but then you'd probably say they aren't real Christians.


FH, We have a lot in common. I think all those religions are manmade too - I just include one more in the list: Christianity.

Connan,

I have to admit that for a site that is critical of Secular Humanism, it's description of SH is surprisingly accurate, except for maybe a few things.

For example it describes Secular Humanism as a rejection of authority but that's a bit exaggerated. Rather, we are skeptical of authority. Of course, there are two kinds of authority: power-based and expertise-based. The first kind would be political leaders, law enforcement, etc. We are most skeptical of them because they have power that can be abused, and we are concerned about the dangers of blind obedience to authority. The second kind includes experts. No one person can know everything so we do rely on experts for a lot of information. However, we know that sometimes experts can be wrong, especially when there are other experts who disagree or when that expert is making a claim outside of his or her area of expertise.

The page mentions "Yogananda, the founder of the Self-Realization Fellowship" but I can't comment on that. I'm not familiar with Yogananda. But other than that, it gives a fair description of Secular Humanism.

It also says:

I have to disagree with this. Slavery, although it is sometimes still practiced, is no longer legal or socially acceptable in most of the world. Discrimination and prejudice still exist, but they are not considered socially acceptable (except against a smaller list of minorities than in the past) and so are expressed in more covert forms because people now recognize that it's wrong.

Universal basic human rights, although still violated, are at least a concept to aspire to, whereas in the past there was no such thing. When human rights are violated it is usually done secretly because we now recognize that it's wrong. Yes, there is still much hypocrisy in the world but the first steps to securing human rights have to include invention of the concept, expressing the concept and getting people to agree, at least publicly, that it's a good idea. The Muslim world is behind the rest of us on this, but I think that eventually Islam will either die out or be dragged into the same century as the rest of us.

Progress is slow, but we are getting there.

PS to all: I am tickled pink that this board censors out 4ell as a bad word. IMHO, the concept of ****** represents the worst that Christianity has to offer so I find this hilarious.

Interesting way you have of "respecting" the beliefs of others.

As for the autocensoring of some words by the system softward, you might find additional chuckles in some of the words the system "chooses" to replace with asteriks and some that it let's through.

I've run into many of these over the years.

Not intending to "apply" the term to anyone, but solely for the purpose of illustrating how the system software "allows" some potentially offensive terms and "disallows" others let's just list a few and see how the system "thinks."

Slut
****** (w h o r e)
Bimbo
Ugly
Butter
[censored]
Titilating
Tits
[censored]
****** (4 letter "C" word used to describe some females)
Homo
Queer
****** (4 letter "F" word used to describe sex in a "vulgar" way)
idiot
pervert


The list can go on and on.

That you find something "hilarious" is expected when it applies to Christianity in particular. Scoffers and mockers are expected, but that doesn't make their "ideas" correct either.

Civil discussion is the objective, not the mocking of others. Civil discussion of different beliefs is the objective, not the mocking of the person who holds a particular belief.

"Offensiveness" is most often an emotional reaction on the part of the "hearer" or the intended "target" or the word selection and the context in which they are used.

The thought crosses my mind that we are NOT very similar. We, as human beings MAY have some "human" thoughts in common, since we were all created by God and God wrote His moral code into the hearts of all of us and gave each of us the "free will" to choose to behave "morally" or not. But we are "worlds apart" on the issue that "really matters."

It seems pointless to spend more time going around in circles when there are others who could be helped who are seeking help in humility and the knowledge that they can't do it on their own.

So, perhaps a final post or two regarding the current topics of discussion that you and changd4ever have raised, and then withdraw from the mental flagellation of issues that are diametrically opposed and without resolution this side of the grave.

changd4ever - This seems like being obtuse. The opposite of "perfect" and "pure" is FLAWED, not "good" or "good enough."

Mankind WAS created GOOD, in fact of all things created only Man was considered "Very Good." SIN is what caused the flaws and sin is what all people have been born with ever since. "Getting back" to a state of "goodness" is what Mankind has attempted to do on its own ever since, but the flaw of sin is NOT something that Man can eradicate on his/her own, it is a part of our nature. It can only be removed by the one who has the power to "recreate", not to keep reworking the same flawed material. Without the power to separate the flaw from the good, there is no way that Man can "operate" on himself and remove it, especially since he/she most often can't even see all the "sin flaws."

That Man might have the ability to rid himself/herself of all things, including pride, is itself very prideful. "See, how good I am. See how I have earned annihilation (salvation) myself!" "Man is a god who can do anything if only he doesn't have any flaws to impede or defects. But when that level is attained, I no longer can be of any use to anyone because I cease to exist as a person."

My point exactly.

You reject these religions but want to appropriate "parts" of them because YOU like some parts and reject other parts that don't suit what you like. That's called "fence sitting" and selective reasoning.

"I think there are elements of truth in all of them."

Yes there are, in the same way that dinosaurs DID exist. But the truth of where they came from, how they got there (embedded as fossils), etc. is NOT even close to be the same thing. But I'll not belabor that analogy unless you want more clarification. "Wrong" thought does not become "right" thought regardless of how many people want to believe it or how many people are "sincerely believing" that God doesn't exist and that life arose from non-living chemical "soup" all on it's own.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or belabor any point. Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. Sticking to Taoism, Taoism believes that man is "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right" at birth. It does not believe man is just "good" or "good enough". That is my only point. I realize you don't believe this is true. I just want you to stop characterizing the other religions as believing in the concept of man is flawed. This is a common belief in western religions, but it is much less common in eastern religions.



I can't argue with this line of reasoning if you believe in the original sin and fall of man argument. If you don't believe in that, though, it just doesn't make sense. I've said before I believe the fundamental difference in Christianity and many other religions is in the concept of the inherent goodness of man. I believe man is inherently good. All other beliefs follow from that. If I am wrong about that everything else I believe is wrong too.


Interesting. I see your point. I'm sure some might think that way. If they do then they most assuredly would not be aligned with the Tao, but I don't think many would actually think like that. It's not like these people who genuinely seek to follow the Path of the Tao are trying to find a short-cut to salvation. It doesn't work like that. As I said before I think Taoism is the least prideful religion of any that I have studied. It doesn't view anyone as any better than anyone else. It doesn't value achievements at all. Any achievement would have happened with or without any individual because the achievement is the Tao. You would more likely find a Taoist master homeless in a park than you would giving lectures or writing books.


This is actually the closest to Taoist teaching that you have come. I would alter your statement to read like this.

"Man is the Tao and when he aligns himself with the Tao he reveals his true nature."


Maybe this is true in Hinduism or Buddhism, but Taoists don't teach reincarnation per se. And a Taoist would say you are not really of any use to anyone anyway. To think you are is prideful. The Tao is of use and the Tao is perfect. You are perfect as you are the Tao and the Tao is perfect. If you are not here the Tao will become no less perfect.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. I realize that humans crave black and white answers. Our brains seek out patterns and we become very agitated when we can not discern these patterns. I try not to buy in to an entire philosophy just so I'll feel better. If I see truth in something I will recognize it. Just because a philosophy or religion has some truth does not mean I have to accept the other parts that appear untrue to me. I see some truth in almost every religion. I think some are closer to the truth than others. I think some contain truth, but the untruths they contain so overbalance the truths that I have a hard time accepting any of it. I still try to take the parts that I believe are true and apply them. This "fencesitting" argument is IMO complete nonsense. It makes a good talking point because the visual image is so strong. Thinking about it logically; however, when someone adopts pieces of different philosophies how is that equate to sitting on the fence? I'm obviously not trying to ingratiate myself with all of the other religions. I'm stating that I think all of them are wrong. I'm not waffling between two philosophies. I'm creating my own thing that "God" or "Tao" or "Buddha" or "The Ultimate Truth" put in my nature to search out. I guess I could categorically reject any philosophy that I do not believe is 100% true, but that seems stubborn and nonproductive to me. Everyone picks and chooses in every other walk of life, but with religion its "Your either with me, against me, or a fencesitter". I would add that there is a fourth choice, a seeker of truth and not Dogma.

I don't appropriate part of them because I "like" them. I appropriate parts of them because I think they are "true". I reject other parts because I think they are not true. It has nothing to do with what I like and do not like.

I respect your right to believe as you do, but I do not respect beliefs, especially those beliefs that I think are harmful to humankind. Asking me to respect a belief in ****** is like asking me to respect the belief that Allah wants political Islamists to fly airplanes into buildings to kill all us infidels. Historically, humor (including sarcasm, cartoons, parody and satire) has been used for thousands of years to mock political ideas in order to make a point. There is no reason why religious ideas should be exempt from that tradition.

Fair enough.

But here's the "question;" how does someone recognize, let alone know and accept, what "truth" is as you are seeking it when truth IS encountered, even if it means that someone has to change prior held opinions, convictions, and beliefs?

It would seem that there is some truth in the biblical statement about many, "always seeking but never finding."

How does this differ from "fencesitting" if no definitive "truth" meets what any one individual might think is the "truth" for them, and only for them?

Furthermore, once having found what they consider to be the truth, what is their responsibility, if any, to tell others about that truth or should they simply allow everyone to "seek their own thing" even though, having found the truth, you know that they are headed in the "wrong" direction and for ultimate disaster? How would NOT telling them about the "discovered" truth be caring for someone else when you know that if you don't at least give them the opportunity to examine that truth for themselves, you are condemning them to much pain and anguish through remaining silent and in "selfish possession" of the truth?

Isn't "truth," by definition (the opposite of falsehood) dogmatic? Granted, anyone can be "dogmatic" about about a false belief, but that isn't what the question is about. It is about truth, "the" truth among all the varying thoughts concerning God, the universe, people, etc.

This point, if you think about it, makes very little sense.

"Taoism believes that man is "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right" at birth."

Two questions seem to logically present themselves.

1. If the "point of reference" is at birth, then by deduction the "moments before birth (usually approximately 9 months) the person is NOT "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right." Perhaps during this time in womb they are "growing toward" the perfection that will be realized only at the moment of birth.

2. Once the "instant" of birth passes, the person becomes "less than" "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right." Less than perfect would logically seem to be "flawed" in some respect, as anything less than "perfect" is flawed in some way.




Given the above comments, it would appear that I am not "mischaracterizing" Taoism. OTHER THAN the instant of birth, it seems clear that Taoism considers man either have not attained perfection, "perfect goodness," PRIOR to birth and to have LOST that "perfect goodness" immediately AFTER birth.

This actually varies only little with the belief of Christianity that Man (Adam and Eve) WERE created perfect and later lost that state of perfection when they chose disobedience to God, desiring what they thought was a "good thing," to be just like God. They believed the lie of Satan because He played to their emotions and His "interpretation" that "God didn't really MEAN what He had said." They "substituted" their own reason and applied the gift that God had given them (Free Will to choose to obey or disobey Him) for a selfish pursuit instead of simply choosing to submit their will to God's will in the matter.

It also "fits" well the Christian belief that ONLY Jesus Christ lived a perfect, sinless, "unflawed" life from birth to death. Everyone else falls under the heading of "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It took God Himself to work what mankind could not work on its own.

What it "denies" IS the one true God.





I would disagree with your conclusion. There are many things that we believe that are true regardless of one's belief in, or rejection of, God. That's because the physical world operates according to the will and plan of God and operate the same regardless of whether somone believes in the Creator or not.




Well, that fits well with the theory of evolution that there is no direction to anything other that random chance and "what will be, will be." It's also an example of why most of the advances of civilization have come from the "West" where people have followed after seeking the "order" that was ordained by God. If not, perhaps we'd all be sitting around in parks and caves still waiting for unguided chance to intervene and make things "better."





And it would seem an equally good way to phrase it would be along the lines of; "Man is God when he thinks he is God, or can become God, because Man IS God."




And this really is THE answer to the questions concerning truth, and sharing truth with others. And since someone doesn't even have "multiple lifetimes to try to get it right," it would seem that the only "practical" answer would be to kill all babies at the moment of birth, to preserve their "perfect goodness" and the real possibility that they will never regain it within their limited lifetime. That might be "useful," so helping someone that way would be prohibited because only newborn babies would be "perfect enough" to qualify for the ability to help someone else, but unfortunately newborn babies can't even take care of themselves, much less be of any "use" to anyone else.


I am assuming from what you have written that the following definition is the one "in play" in your opinion, and not some of the other definitions:

Daoism, Taoism - philosophical system developed by of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu advocating a simple honest life and noninterference with the course of natural events


Noun

1. Taoist - an adherent of any branch of Taoism

Tao

Taoism - religion adhering to the teaching of Lao-tzuTaoism - a Chinese sect claiming to follow the teaching of Lao-tzu but incorporating pantheism and sorcery in addition to Taoism

adherent, disciple - someone who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of another


Adj.

1. Taoist - of or relating to the popular Chinese religious system based on the teachings of Lao-tzu but including a pantheon of gods along with divination and magic; "Taoist temples"

2. Taoist - of or relating to the philosophical system developed by Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu advocating a simple honest life

That is a great question, and let me preface my thoughts by disclosing that I have absolutely no idea. I have ideas, but I admit they are opinion and speculation only. I like your description earlier (I think you said it) of the "Character of God being written on Man's heart". I believe something like that as well, and that is an elegant way to put it as any other. I do believe that Man shares some common core values that come from somewhere innately. I think everyone instinctively knows it is wrong to lie, steal, cheat, murder, etc. And I believe it is this that would accurately be described as "God's Character being written on our hearts". Whether it is a personal God, an essence, some other force or just the synaptic firings of the human brain, I'm not sure. But I do believe that humans instinctively recognize truth when they experience it. That is why I thing there is an element of truth in all religions, because people wouldn't grasp onto them if there were not. How to recognize that truth I can't really say. I can say for me that I apply logic, experience and critical thinking, but I also look for that something about it that rings true in another way. The teachings of Jesus ring true to me. The sermon on the mount is an eloquent speech on ethics, morality, philosophy of life and what it means to be a spiritual person as any you will find. His parables are some of the most thought provoking you will find if you don't just superficially read them. I find other religious teachings that ring true in the same way. I do not; however, believe that Jesus was the son the Jewish God, nor do I believe he rose from the dead. I don't want to start a whole new discussion about the divinity of Jesus, but I believe that most of the New Testament is the religion of Paul not of Jesus (feel free to fire back, I know thats a sore subject).



I completely agree. I also agree when the Bible says, "He who increases knowlege increases sorrow." I would love to be comforted by some belief that there is a personal God that watched over me and I would spend eternity in Heaven. I just don't believe it, and I can just give up searching or continue on.


I don't think truth is relative to what someone thinks. I believe Truth is Truth for everyone. I think that no one really completely understands the truth, and there are many ways of circling the truth. I don't think that anyone has zero'ed in on it, and I don't actually know if we can. This is why I don't consider it fencesitting. People general view Agnostics as someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists; however, that is only part of it. I don't believe it is POSSIBLE to know the complete truth. I believe that some things may be unknowable, and all we can do is get as close to the truth as we can so we may end up "always seeking, but never finding". I may not find it, but I know I can get closer.


I'll let you know when I find the Truth.


I guess maybe it is dogmatic by definition, but unless you are completely sure it is the truth you can not treat it like dogma. Dogma is something that should be believed without question. I just don't see dogmatic belief as something of any value. If it is the truth what harm is there in questioning it?

To answer you last question first, there is nothing wrong with questioning if someone is seeking answers to things.

When the question is answered and the truth is seen, whether or not someone understands "everything," then by definition the truth that has been founded automatically becomes "dogmatic" or else it's not truth to begin with.

An example. The Word, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, took on the form of Man and became fully human.

I don't understand HOW God did that, but that is precisely what God did. God has not revealed the "details" of how He did that, but He has revealed that He DID do that.

In the same way, God has revealed that He has always existed and that He has always existed as three "persons" in one. Until the incarnation, they existed as spirit, not as flesh and blood. I don't understand the "details" about that either.

However, we don't have to rely on our own imaginings or on the imaginings of some other person because God, through the incarnation of Christ, gave us substantial, physical, proof of the veracity and truth.

While someone can choose to disregard what the Scripture reveals or dismiss the Scripture as "just another book," the Bible clearly speaks about itself and the "authorship" of the Bible through the various authors.

The "first truth" is very simple. And this involves what you were asking in the quotation. The question is, "Is Jesus Christ really who He says He is?"

Since Jesus was real person in history, at a specific point in time, if you will, then it is also clear that there are only 4 possibilities in answer to the question.

Either He was a liar, a lunatic (crazy), a legend, or He was God incarnate (fully human and fully God).

Each of those first three "possibilities" can be examined and a decision made concerning them. There are ample things to examine concerning each of them using all of the standard techniques for investigation (such as textual criticism, historical criticism, etc.). There are MANY prophecies in the Old Testament that include specific details about the one who is called "Messiah" that were fulfilled to the letter by Jesus.

That someone could choose to not believe is a given and is nothing new, even when the evidence is "staring them in the face." The Sadducees of Jesus' time, for example, did NOT believe in the possibility of resurrection from the dead. The Pharisees actively sought to destroy not only Jesus Himself, but after the resurrection, anyone who became a Christian (sounds eerily like the Islamists of today, doesn't it?).





Setting aside the "divinity" question for a minute, the "religion" of Paul was Pharisitic Judaism. He was a high ranking Pharisee and the "chief" persecutor of Christians. There was absolutely NO reason for Paul (known as Saul at that time) to accept anything about Christianity, let alone Jesus Christ Himself. He was CHOSEN by God to be God's instrument for taking the gospel to "all nations." Prior to that, the gospel was essentially for the Jewish people. As a practicing and very devout Pharisee, Paul(Saul) would have had nothing to do with anyone who was not a Jew.

It would seem "fair and reasonable" to conclude that "something" extraordinary happened to literally change Paul(Saul) overnight, and that something happened as he was walking on the road to Damascus, intent on persecuting the Christians he might find there.

Paul endured all sorts of things from beatings to imprisonment to death, all because of his belief in Jesus Christ. The same Jesus that he, as a major Pharisee, "nodded" at in approval when He was crucified. Paul was the also present, and approving of, the stoning of Stephen.

AS sincere as Paul was as a Pharisee of Pharisees, he surpassed that in his sincere belief that Jesus IS the Messiah.

One must also understand that ALL of the disciples of Christ DID NOT believe that Jesus would be raised from the dead, certainly not a physical resurrection. But the reality of Jesus' resurrection was NOT a "tale" made up by those same disciples because it was not done in secret. Jesus appeared to MANY people after His resurrection so that there would be no doubt that He really was, and is today, alive.

This is why even Paul clearly stated that IF Jesus was NOT actually raised from the dead, then the faith of Christians is in vain and they are "worse off" than someone who refuses to believe in Christ.

Furthermore, when Paul is writing about his own "opinions" he clearly states that. When he is speaking otherwise, he makes it clear that what he is saying comes from God and he is merely the instrument that God had chosen to use to communicate what God wanted us to know.

For what it's worth, it is NOT a "sore subject" with me. I am more than willing to discuss it with anyone. Truth has no fear of being discussed. That IS, in reality how truth functions. The response to the truth is what everyone be held accountable to by God, not by me.





changd - This is really nothing more than the age old incorrect accusation that is frequently trotted out against Christians and Christianity. The way it is usually phrased is along the line of "Christians just have blind faith and they have to check their 'brains' at the door in order to believe."

"Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind."

True belief encompasses all three. God is not afraid of questions, He encourages questions as part of the process of learning and maturing in the faith.

I'm not going to continue to debate Taoism with you. You don't have enough of an understanding of the philosophy or its tenants to have a reasonable discussion. There are a lot of books out there if you would like to learn about it. I will respond to a couple of your other points.



I am baffled by this response. Most of the advances in civilization have come from the "West"? I am assuming you mean recent technological advances, but your characterization of eastern culture as cave dwellers who have offered little contribution to society is appalling. Here is a list of contributions that I pulled off Wikipedia.



Your belief in the supremacy of Western over Eastern culture is shocking to me as well, since you are a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Didn't Jesus travel the region teaching whoever would follow him similar to Confucius, Lao Tzu, and other Eastern teachers? Didn't Jesus teach to not lay up riches on Earth? Did he not say:




and


You really believe that Jesus teachings are more aligned with our Western, materialistic, technology driven society than a more basic lifestyle? The western world has adopted a lifestyle that makes it at best socially unacceptable to live a lifestyle in the way that Jesus did, and at worst impossible to live it. Didn't Jesus say if someone asks for your coat give him your shirt as well? Which society is more conducive to that type of lifestyle? You seem to believe that your religion is the only truth and any others are false. Your society is right while other societies are backward. Your understanding of someone's religion is more important than actually asking questions and seeking to understand from someone who has actually studied it. Does your favorite football team consist of all scholar athletes while other teams consist of thugs? It seems everything you are associated with is vastly superior to any other options.

Or his teachings were distorted and misrepresented and he never claimed to be God. After hearing you explain Taoism it is clear to me that this is not all that uncommon.


Just because it is an age old assertion does not make it less true. I don't believe that all Christians "check their brains at the door"; however, any system that requires or even encourages dogmatic adherence to itself is asking people to do just that.

Well now, I seem to have "pushed" your emotional buttons. I guess once again it's "okay" to tell Christians what they believe and that what they believe is "stupid" and "dogmatic and wrong," but it's not okay to talk about other religions and ask questions about what is stated as the beliefs of that religion. Pretty much par for the course it would seem. But pushing "emotional buttons" is not what I intended. What is intended is to discuss the differences of opinions as part of your search for truth.




Yep, he said that as well as all the other things, IF you don't make the baseless and unfounded claim that his teachings were distorted and misrepresented and he never claimed to be God in an attempt to both distort and misrepresent thousands of years of opinions by supporters and opponents that what is recorded in the Bible is accurate. Applying your "logic" on this issue, one could just as easily make the claim to "invalidate" the written information about Taoism, or ANY historical events that record what was said and what was seen by eyewitnesses.

If you think that all of his teachings were "distorted and misrepresented," then all of the passages you quoted would be irrelevant and not supportive of what you are trying to say in an attempt to twist the real point of what both Jesus and the entirety of Scripture were teaching.

But you missed the ENTIRE point of what Jesus was saying, even though you included it along with the rest of the stuff. Perhaps that's because you choose not to understand the Christian religion as being GOD's "religion" FOR Mankind, the only one that IS acceptable to God, first for the Jews and second for the rest of humanity. That WOULD make sense, I guess, since your approach to searching for the truth begins with the assumption that God does NOT exist.



The "pursuits" and "desires" of Man are unimportant compared to the truth of God and attaining righteous standing before God. THAT is the "point" of those passages. It is speaking about what we "worship," not what our physical needs are. It has to do with WHO is "first in our lives."

Your desire is to "substitute" and "elevate" the thoughts of "Men" to the level of equality, or even superiority, to the thoughts of God is understandable. Understandable at least on the level of "what other option is there if God does not exist?"




If you mean by "your religion," that religion that is known as Christianity, then yes I do believe that God IS truth and that He has revealed the truth of what is needed for humans to be saved and reconciled to Him, and He provided the only means for that reconciliation Himself.

That IS what TRUTH means. Everything that is "not true" is false by definition.

By "picking and choosing" pieces of various "faith systems" (i.e., some, but not all, of Taoism) you seek to make truth over in your own image. That "some truth" can exist in all faiths is, it would seem sensible, in that there IS a common thread of truth that runs through most of the "religions" of the world. Even in those that are pantheistic there is usually one "chief god." In short, you "misrepresent and distort" the faiths you choose to borrow pieces from by saying, in effect, "this part is good but those parts are bad, indicating that the parts you consider to be bad are false, misleading, and perhaps the teachings have been distorted and misrepresented and that the author(s) of the religion never really made those statements, other people just LIED about it, or them, for their own purposes and a lot of "gullible, unthinking," people have simply fallen for it.

LOTS of people "fall" for untruth when it comes to both the physical and the spiritual world. That may say a lot about the "nature of Man," but it says absolutely nothing that changes TRUTH into falsehood. There were LOTS of people who believed sincerely, for example, that the Earth was flat. That did not change the truth of the matter, and it still doesn't change it even though there may still be some people today who CHOOSE to believe the Earth is flat (the Flat Earth Society). There ARE lots of people today who believe sincerely, and LOTS who simply believe by "blind faith," that LIFE arose from non-living compilations of chemicals in some unknown mixture in some unknown "soup." Contrary to the FACT of "cause and effect," they deny even that the universe has no "cause" for the matter and energy that existed before the universe "exploded" into existence.



But it is interesting to see you getting so "hot under the collar" about this since you claim NOTHING as truth yourself. It would seem illogical to mock someone who does have a belief in the truth when the "accuser" has no frame of reference for what IS truth and is supposedly "seeking" to find what is true. It would make no sense to accuse the writers of Scriptures of "inventing lies and misstatements" without actually examining closely all that has been written.

For example, it is written that Jesus claimed to be God. You claim that was a deceptive misstatement by the authors of the New Testament. But you ignore the fact that the CHIEF opponents of Jesus NEVER question the veracity that JESUS Himself DID claim to be God. That was the precise reason that they plotted to have Him crucified. Jesus claimed to be God and, therefore, the King of the Jews. Even the "unbelievers" in God, the Romans, acknowledge the truth of the claim BY Jesus, and the acceptance of that claim by the Jews, by nailing a board proclaiming that very claim to the world…."The King of the Jews." The Jews recognized NO "King of the Jews" other than the promised Messiah who would rule them forever.



You accuse me of not understanding the "deep truths" of Taoism. Okay, I will admit to that in so far as one does NOT have to be "disciple" of Taoism, or anything else for that matter, to understand what the "basics" are.

YOU, who claim to know Taoism intimately, plainly said; " "Taoism believes that man is "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right" at birth."

Did you mean NOT "at birth?" Did you NOT mean that at that point in time (birth) is the quintessential point in time when every individual IS "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right?" Did you "misrepresent and distort" the FUNDAMENTAL belief of Taoism?

Or did I understand you correctly?

If you didn't mean what you said, where is the logic in accusing ME of "not understanding Taoism?"




That is a "red herring" sort of statement. It has NO basis in fact and is just an opinion that someone can use to rationalize and justify in their own mind that "true" equals "false" because to accept the truth would mean that they would have undergo a radical change in their own lives, especially the part that wants to be sovereign and in control of what they like and don't like, want and don't want, moral behaviors they like and moral choices of others that they don't like, the truth that "right and wrong" IS established beyond their own control by someone who HAS the authority to "impose" His will on everyone regardless of any "opinion."

"Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened unto you. Ask, and you shall receive." "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, and soul."
"Why do you prefer the milk of babies when you should be on to the meat of maturing in the faith?"

The Bible TEACHES that faith AND reason go hand in hand for going beyond mere 'acceptance' by faith. Faith ALONE is what is required to become a forgiven and saved person. Understanding more and more of what God has revealed to us in His Word, takes "going to school," not just sitting on a bump somewhere not learning anything about the nature of God and the purpose of His creation. Born again believers are no long "slaves to the sin-nature" but have a New Nature created in them by God and for God that makes them "slaves to righteousness." Their "free will" is no longer in bondage to sin, they can CHOOSE godliness in gratitude for what God has done for them because they are no longer "their own," they are bought and paid for BY God and are His to command.

There is one "supreme commander," if you will, and "we" are not Him, nor can we become Him.




Nope. It has nothing whatsoever to with a "basic lifestyle." It has everything to do with God and His purpose for mankind. Let me ask you a question about this that might illustrate it a little, even for the "secular Westerners" who operate on a basically Judeo/Christian moral structure. WHAT people and countries "rush" to the aid of the downtrodden, such as Darfur and Cambodia, for instance, and which ones don't? What countries believe in freedom, and which countries and beliefs believe in oppressing, even killing, anyone who does not submit to THEM? Historically, as an example, how "good" was Genghis Kahn and his relations with other peoples?

What is more "basic" than the Hindu concept of Karma? What is more "basic" than the Taoist concept of "non interference" in the "affairs of men?" From the beginning of time the question was asked, "am I my brother's keeper?"

God has answered that question with a resounding "Yes!" and HE died FOR us because we could not save ourselves. So you tell me, of all the religions and beliefs in the world, which do YOU think Jesus would be more "aligned to?"




There are selfish individuals within every society and faith, without exception. But you tell me WHO rushes to the aid of people worldwide, Eastern or Western based societies and faiths? Which IS more "Conducive" to being a "Good Samaritan?" But you fail to ask the critical question of WHY Jesus said to do those things. A statement by itself, devoid of the context of "why," is rather meaningless, don't you think?


Dare we even consider the "differences" between that great eastern religion, Islam, and how IT teaches its believers should interact with those who will not accept Islam? How will Taoism react when Islam forces itself down the throats of Taoists? Once all the Taoists are dead, will it be shown that the Islamists are "good?"

"If only evil didn't exist we could all live in peace with each other." There was a time when evil did not exist in the world, and there will come a time when that will again be true. But the TRUTH is that we are "in between" and evil DOES exist and humans are, by nature, corrupted by sin and "not good." Evil and holiness are not mere "mental concepts," they are living truth and exist. Evil is embodied in Satan and holiness is embodied in God. "YOU are of your "father,"…. Means that all people ARE defined by who is their father, evil or good, because they get their "Nature," the "essences of their being," FROM their father.

"Behold, you are a new creation, the old has gone, the new has come." There is a fundamental change in the "essence" that is GIVEN to us, created in us, BY God, not by ourselves, when we accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. But if someone denies that God exists, rejects Jesus Christ, there can BE "no miracles" that result in a "new creation."

At least an Atheist has chosen to reject any possibility of God and that, therefore, the "affairs of Men" ARE strictly the affairs of Men. The "nature" of Men is, therefore, "survival of the fittest" and there is NO fundamental right or wrong to morality, no point other than SOME people can choose live in harmony with their neighbors just so long as no one else chooses to exert THEIR "survival of the fittest" at your expense. Their morality is right for them. Your morality is right for you. There is NO "universal morality" that exists regardless of the opinions of an individual or group of people when "nature" is the guiding light and Nature teaches clearly that there are "eaters" and there are "eaten." Certainly there is truth in the idea that there IS "strength in numbers" because that enhances the chances of survival of THAT group. But that does not confer moral "rightness" to what the "numbers" decide. No morality, just the way it is. Those who are "eaten" are also "eaters" of those weaker than themselves until they wind up on the dinner plate of someone else playing according to the natural rules of survival of the fittest. Does a virus "think about" what bad effects it will have on some "morally good" or "morally bad" person, does it think about what it is doing is morally good or morally bad? No, it simply does what is its nature without regard to judgments. It simply follows "survival" of fittest, it being the "fittest" and the host it is attacking as being "less fit" for survival or it would destroy the virus.

"Good and Bad" are NOT concepts of Nature, nor are they "inherent" in natural processes. The "natural process" of human development is fertilization, embryonic growth, birth, conscious life, and death. As a "pile of chemicals," there is NO "good or bad," just "IS." "Value judgments" on their own are made by people in reaction to other people pursuing their own self-centered "survival of the fittest" natural orientation because HUMANS have the capacity to choose and reason. Animals do NOT assign "moral value" to anything; they just behave according to their nature. If Man is "nothing more than a higher form of animal (having survived better than others in the game of survival of the fittest), then his NATURE is that of an animal regardless of whether they want to choose to be a socially meek individual or the "tyrannosaurus rex" of people.

FH,

I have typed out two detailed responses to your post. Each time my browser crashed right before I could post. I'm taking it as a sign. I will give you a web site that you may want to read before you get into any other debates.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

lol. Yes, it could be a "sign" that the systems designed by man are not perfect. Or it could be a sign that the weather could be disruptive to internet communications, to say nothing of the required power. I lost power last night from a storm, as an example. But without a "higher power" actually existing, it would fallacious to deduce that not being able to post was a "sign from on high" that someone thought you shouldn't post. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

If you compose in Word or some similar program, you have less chance of losing a post, especially if it's a lengthier post. My UPS allowed me to save files I was working on and not lose any data.



Okay, I read it. Your point for the link and the suggestion that I read it?