What do you believe? (Part 1)

[spongebob]

IMO, scientists should spend more time doing useful things like finding cures for cancer and making faster iPhones and less time speculating about questions their discipline does not equip them to answer (i.e. origins). Their are a lot of assumptions in the theory of evolution that I do not hold. Further, naturalistic evolution is not anwering the questions that I am asking.

Ahem...this isn't my quote.

That comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek--a witty retort to those who say that religions should focus more on teaching morals and less on telling people where they go when they die.

I'm afraid I didn't catch your reference. A little to subtle for me, or for a forum with no indication that you weren't serious. In this case the difference is pretty huge. After reading it again, it sounded pretty sincere to me. Are you sure this was intended as tongue in cheek?

And you didn't answer my question. What questions are you asking that science isn't answering? That's a rather important point.

Well, if you insist on believing in the six day creation, then you are truly delusional. That's just the nicest way to put it, matt. Do you also believe that disease is caused by black cats or broken mirrors?

Didn't we already talk about ridicule?

And didn't I say there was limit? Six day creation is a delusional myth. This isn't a real personal insult, just reality. And this isn't making any claim about the existence of god either, just the six day myth. If I claimed that Piltown man was a real missing link, I expect I'd get the same treatment. 2+2 does not = 5.

[Matt]

Ahem...this isn't my quote.

LOL sorry.

I'm afraid I didn't catch your reference. A little to subtle for me, or for a forum with no indication that you weren't serious. In this case the difference is pretty huge. After reading it again, it sounded pretty sincere to me. Are you sure this was intended as tongue in cheek?

Thus the disadvantage of electronic communication

And you didn't answer my question. What questions are you asking that science isn't answering? That's a rather important point.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there so much beauty in the world? Why is there so much evil?"
"What is wrong with the world?"
"What is God like?"
"Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?"

This isn't a real personal insult, just reality

Nice.

[spongebob]

What questions are you asking that science isn't answering?

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Good question. Scientists would like to know that as well. And in fact they are working on it. But it is a tough one.

"Why is there so much beauty in the world? Why is there so much evil?"

Not as good a question. The terms "beauty" and "evil" are too subjective to be of much use. One creature might ask why there's so much poop in the world (considering it to be a bad thing), while another creature thinks, wow, I wonder why there's so much great poop here? And they are inherently opposites. It's kind of like asking "why is there so much light and dark in the universe?"

"What is wrong with the world?"

A much worse question and totally irrelevant for science. The question itself is too vague to make much sense. What part of the world? What kind of "wrong"? What do you mean by "what"? The most straight forward and simple answer to this question is "nothing". The world is just what it is. There's nothing wrong with it. Maybe there's something wrong with your way of looking at it. The more you struggle with the question, the less you are able to comprehend this.

"What is God like?"

Gee, that's a dozy. To even hope to answer that question, one would have to A) demonstrate that a "god" exits and B) be able to define it. Maybe we'll know when we are dead.

"Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?"

That one's easy...ME!

BTW, none of my answers are intended to be cynical or insulting. I think these are things everyone struggles with at one time or another, but it's important to really think critically about them and not to expect an answer where one is unlikely to be provided. It's also very important to be willing to look at any question from a different perspective, to turn it upside down. Sometimes we find that the question is not important at all and that there was a really important question hiding within it that makes much more sense to ask.

This isn't a real personal insult, just reality

Nice.

Thanks. Glad you understand. BTW, would you consider it an insult to say that it's just a "fact" that I will be going to hell when I die? Same diff.

[Mr. Sluagh]

"Why is there so much beauty in the world? Why is there so much evil?"

Why is there so much fun in the world? Why is there so much boredom? Did God create the world perfectly entertaining, and then did His highest angel rebel and give humans knowledge of tedium?

I could go on like this with any duality I could construct. Gay and straight. Communism and capitalism. Punk and emo. All are completely subjective judgments that are created by our human needs and desires. The only reason why "good" and "evil" seem so important is because of the intense emotions they cause.

[spongebob]

Why is there so much Coke and Pepsi in the world? Why not more RC?

[TheFonz]

"Why is there so much beauty in the world? Why is there so much evil?"

Why is there so much fun in the world? Why is there so much boredom? Did God create the world perfectly entertaining, and then did His highest angel rebel and give humans knowledge of tedium?

I could go on like this with any duality I could construct. Gay and straight. Communism and capitalism. Punk and emo. All are completely subjective judgments that are created by our human needs and desires. The only reason why "good" and "evil" seem so important is because of the intense emotions they cause.

MS

I am curious to know your perspective on good and evil. Are they merely emotional responses? In your opinion, where did the concept of morality come from?

[TheFonz]

Thanks. Glad you understand. BTW, would you consider it an insult to say that it's just a "fact" that I will be going to hell when I die? Same diff.

I am not speaking for Matt here.
As a Christian, I have never told someone that it is a fact that they will go to hell. Never. Come to think of it, I have never met another Christian who used semantics like that. I think most Christians yield final judgment to God.

[whoosanightowl]

spongebob wrote:

Thanks. Glad you understand. BTW, would you consider it an insult to say that it's just a "fact" that I will be going to hell when I die? Same diff.

Fonz wrote"

I am not speaking for Matt here.
As a Christian, I have never told someone that it is a fact that they will go to hell. Never. Come to think of it, I have never met another Christian who used semantics like that. I think most Christians yield final judgment to God.

Fonz,
I think that's because the concept most people have of hell is such an awful one that most Christians can't even bear to think of anyone going there, especially their unsaved loved ones. They probably realize deep down that the punishment is far worse than any sins that any one person could commit in a single lifetime, and don't even want to believe that their good, loving, father-like God is capable of such a horrible judgment. So in order to sleep at night, they water the doctrine down to where unbelievers will just be separated from God rather than being tortured by fire for eternity.
But even if most Christians won't say it, my bet is that many of them wholeheartedly believe those who don't accept Jesus as their lord and savior, will end up in hell, whatever their idea of hell happens to be.

[spongebob]

Thanks. Glad you understand. BTW, would you consider it an insult to say that it's just a "fact" that I will be going to hell when I die? Same diff.

I am not speaking for Matt here.
As a Christian, I have never told someone that it is a fact that they will go to hell. Never. Come to think of it, I have never met another Christian who used semantics like that. I think most Christians yield final judgment to God.

Well, I can assure you that it has happened and does continue to happen all the time. Not everyone is so restrained, both at the member level and the pastor level. But that's kind of beside the point. The point I was making is that even if you refrain from telling someone this, Christians still have that belief and consider it a fact. You wouldn't likey consider it an insult even though you may refrain from making such a statement for fear of feeling judgmental. But if your religion states that non-christians go to hell, then that makes it a fact for you and not an insult. Just as someone who accepts science as valid, six day creationism is a myth. This isn't an insult, just a fact.

[JustJim]

As a Christian, I have never told someone that it is a fact that they will go to hell. Never. Come to think of it, I have never met another Christian who used semantics like that. I think most Christians yield final judgment to God.

Christians say non-believers are going to hell all the time. They may not express it exactly in those terms, like, "If you don't accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, you'll go to hell", or, "It's a fact that people who don't accept Jesus as their Savior are going to hell." But the meaning is the same.

Does John 3:16 not, by implication, mean that those who do not believe in Jesus shall perish and not have eternal life? So many of you here claim that doesn't mean they'll go to "hell", in the fire-and-brimstone and lake-of-fire traditional understandings of hell, but that is how most people - Christian or otherwise - take it. Call it annihilation, separation from God, or whatever other gentler ways you want to describe it, but that doesn't change the implication. Non-believers are screwed....

Jim

[mikedsjr]

As a Christian, I have never told someone that it is a fact that they will go to hell. Never. Come to think of it, I have never met another Christian who used semantics like that. I think most Christians yield final judgment to God.

Christians say non-believers are going to hell all the time. They may not express it exactly in those terms, like, "If you don't accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, you'll go to hell", or, "It's a fact that people who don't accept Jesus as their Savior are going to hell." But the meaning is the same.

Does John 3:16 not, by implication, mean that those who do not believe in Jesus shall perish and not have eternal life? So many of you here claim that doesn't mean they'll go to "hell", in the fire-and-brimstone and lake-of-fire traditional understandings of hell, but that is how most people - Christian or otherwise - take it. Call it annihilation, separation from God, or whatever other gentler ways you want to describe it, but that doesn't change the implication. Non-believers are screwed....

Jim

Fonz, As a fundamental part of Christianity, Jim's bottomline point is correct.

[mikedsjr]

WOw,

this thread drew legs all of the sudden. It had been sitting around un-evolved since February.

SO let me stir the pot with this statement, what if the intent of the myth had nothing to do with history?

Sorry to sound stupid, but I just want to make sure I'm on the same page. Are you talking about Genesis 1-11 as a myth?

[Mr. Sluagh]

"Why is there so much beauty in the world? Why is there so much evil?"

Why is there so much fun in the world? Why is there so much boredom? Did God create the world perfectly entertaining, and then did His highest angel rebel and give humans knowledge of tedium?

I could go on like this with any duality I could construct. Gay and straight. Communism and capitalism. Punk and emo. All are completely subjective judgments that are created by our human needs and desires. The only reason why "good" and "evil" seem so important is because of the intense emotions they cause.

MS

I am curious to know your perspective on good and evil. Are they merely emotional responses? In your opinion, where did the concept of morality come from?

Since you asked, I'll give you my quasi-Buddhist liberal arts student rant, pasted from when I posted it at Godrides.org:

I don't think "justice" isn't really the best way of looking at morality. Morality is just those around oneself with love and respect and considering the consequences of one's actions. I only have this one short life, but that life is only a fragment of the whole human race, the whole universe, that has convinced itself that it is separate and special. I am the culmination of everything that has come before me, and my actions will remain a part of everything that comes after, even if the consciousness I like so much isn't there anymore. In a way, each person is a part of the suffering and joy of each other person across space and time. All we are are perspectives, blinks of the eye through which the world beholds itself. What use would my perspective have been if I wasted it on self-indulgence? The world has seen enough of that. It might as well have kept its eye shut. It may sound dramatic or new-agey, but I believe that the life on this planet is the emerging self-awareness of the cosmos. Only by helping one another become more aware can we prove that we shouldn't have stayed asleep.

[mikedsjr]

I had to break your statement up, because you lost me.

1) i don't think "justice" isn't really the best way of looking at morality.
2)Morality is just those around oneself with love and respect and considering the consequences of one's actions.
3) I only have this one short life,
4) [my] life is only a fragment of the whole human race,
5) [my life is only a fragment of] the whole universe,
6) [my life ] has convinced itself that it is separate and special.
7) I am the culmination of everything that has come before me, and
8 ) my actions will remain a part of everything that comes after, even if the consciousness I like so much isn't there anymore.
9) each person is a part of the suffering and joy of each other person across space and time.
10) All we are are perspectives [through which the world beholds itself]
11) [All we are are] blinks of the eye through which the world beholds itself.

12) CONCLUSION:What use would my perspective have been if I wasted it on self-indulgence? The world has seen enough of that. It might as well have kept its eye shut.

It may sound dramatic or new-agey, but I believe that the life on this planet is the emerging self-awareness of the cosmos. Only by helping one another become more aware can we prove that we shouldn't have stayed asleep.

Do I have this right? I'm a little confused.

[Mr. Sluagh]

I had to break your statement up, because you lost me.

1) i don't think "justice" isn't really the best way of looking at morality.
2)Morality is just those around oneself with love and respect and considering the consequences of one's actions.
3) I only have this one short life,
4) [my] life is only a fragment of the whole human race,
5) [my life is only a fragment of] the whole universe,
6) [my life ] has convinced itself that it is separate and special.
7) I am the culmination of everything that has come before me, and
8 ) my actions will remain a part of everything that comes after, even if the consciousness I like so much isn't there anymore.
9) each person is a part of the suffering and joy of each other person across space and time.
10) All we are are perspectives [through which the world beholds itself]
11) [All we are are] blinks of the eye through which the world beholds itself.

12) CONCLUSION:What use would my perspective have been if I wasted it on self-indulgence? The world has seen enough of that. It might as well have kept its eye shut.

It may sound dramatic or new-agey, but I believe that the life on this planet is the emerging self-awareness of the cosmos. Only by helping one another become more aware can we prove that we shouldn't have stayed asleep.

Do I have this right? I'm a little confused.

Sure.