|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 05/24/2001 : 02:59:30 [Permalink]
|
I have noticed that a few people have automatically assumed that broven is trying to convert, or even to preach. From his (and I use that pronoun loosely: as far as I can tell, broven has not indicated which gender "he" is) posts, he seems to be merely seeking information regarding the reasons people choose atheism.
In my own example, I am not an atheist. I am also not a theist. I consider myself to be agnostic: I really have no idea, and I greatly appreciate any valid evidence in either direction. Too often, I get emotional appeals, like, "how could God allow these things to happen?" or, "how could this beauty happen without God?" I know at least one person who is a devout atheist because she decided the bible was wrong. She saw the way women are portrayed, along with the various acts committed in the name of religion and she just gave up on the whole thing. I know some people, like broven, who choose to follow the good parts of the bible ("what is good?" is a topic for a different forum).
As for the origonal question, I am an agnostic because I am a scientist. I see no true evidence that proves or disproves the existence of God. (It is also not true to say that one cannot disprove something: simply assume it is true, and find a contradiction.) The reason a proof-by-contradiction of the nonexistence of God does not work is that we cannot agree on what set of axioms we are dealing with.
|
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2001 : 09:03:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In my own example, I am not an atheist. I am also not a theist. I consider myself to be agnostic: I really have no idea...
If you are not a theist, you are an atheist. Sorry... 
If you don't have a definite belief in a god/gods, whether or not you think it's possible to even know they could or couldn't exist, you are by definition an atheist. An agnostic atheist, from your description.
Are people really afraid of labelling themselves atheist? Or is it just a misapplication of the term 'agnostic'?
------------
Gambatte kudasai!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/24/2001 09:08:36 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2001 : 10:57:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is also not true to say that one cannot disprove something: simply assume it is true, and find a contradiction.
That doesn't sound like you have been dealing with Fundies that much.
After Carl Sagan died the" invisible green dragon" that lived in his garage moved into mine. It only talks to me and chooses not to be apparent to other people. How can he be invisible and green at the same time you ask? That is a mystery that is beyond our finite minds (same argument as with the trinity).
Prove my dragon doesn't exist.
If you've read Sagan's writings you'll know why you cannot and why you don't actually have to.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2001 : 17:01:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
God tells them that if they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they will die. ... The snake tells [Eve] that she won't die if she eats the fruit.
And she didn't.
-------
But, whether this was a consequence of the Forbidden Fruit or not, Adam died, so (since the bible has a habit of not fully discussing even the most influentual women) we can assume that Eve died as well.
Sure Adam & Eve died, hundreds of years later. Remember Yahweh commanded the man saying, "you may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." So he was not telling the truth.
What you must keep in mind is that this is mythology and not history. To understand it you have to study the myths of surrounding cultures and the myths that it is replacing in that culture. These myths never exist in a vacuum.
One of the most notable things about it is that it is all the woman's fault. The man is actually being noble and sacrifices himself for love of her. (See John Milton)
You find the same myth in Greece. Here the first woman is called Pandora and she releases all the evils on the world.
Both Pandora and Eve (and Orpheus, and etc. etc.) are in a class of myth called The One Forbidden Thing (a chamber, a door, a road, a piece of fruit, don't look behind you-- that sort of thing)
What happened here to cause this is that in the Near East you had an agrarian based culture that naturally had a religion based on a goddess. The Earth mother who gives birth to the crops. You know her as Persephone. This culture was over run by a nomadic warrior culture which, of course worshiped a male war deity. This new myth is not intentionally subjugating women (although that is it's effect) it is denigrating the goddess of the conquered people.
You can still see the original story between the lines of the Yahwist version. Note that Adam and Eve are born as a composite creature out of Mother Earth. The male god only has to separate them. The woman is called Eve which means The Mother of All Things. That name (title) shows her to be a goddess or more accurately a Titan. Being Titans would completely explain Adam's and Eve's behavior.
(Besides the Yahweh story in Gen: I is the Elohim story. He creates man and woman at the same time and not from each other--but that's for a different post)
The close association of the god with the snake is interesting. The snake represents life renewing itself. We have clear and adequate evidence throughout the biblical text that the lord Yahweh was himself an aspect of the serpent power, and so himself properly the serpent spouse of the serpent goddess of the caduceus, Mother Earth.
But you cannot lose sight of the fact that the goddess is conquered to such an extent that her name is removed from the mythology. That is a sign of a culture in desperate psychological straits.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2001 : 21:12:12 [Permalink]
|
Everyone, I am having a great time with this conversation. The response has been better than I could have hoped. I want to apollogize for not responding within the last day or so. I woke up Wednesday with a sinus infection from Hell (No pun intended) and am just now recovering. I was pretty much just wanting to drill a whole in my skull to let the pressure out. But, I've gotten some antibiotics and am feeling better (and for those of you who are interested, No, prayer didn't help as much as the drugs did  ). I'll try to catch up tommorrow.
Peace, everyone. . .
Broven
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
Edited by - broven on 05/24/2001 21:13:31 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2001 : 01:22:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have noticed that a few people have automatically assumed that broven is trying to convert, or even to preach. From his (and I use that pronoun loosely: as far as I can tell, broven has not indicated which gender "he" is) posts, he seems to be merely seeking information regarding the reasons people choose atheism.
This whole thread goes back to the one posted by Jar Jar under Conspiracy Theories. He assumed we were flaming because of the religion issue. That is not at issue here...
He was invited to enter into debate regarding religion. He accepted. I'm not assuming that he is preaching or trying to convert anyone. But this has been a lively debate, broven apparently enjoys the reparte as do I.
No one is resorting to ad hominem attacks or attempting anything other than a debate between religious belief in the christian mythos and the atheists or agnostics viewpoint on that mythos.
So please enter in with the understanding, as you pointed out, that this is an exchange of information or a discussion/debate on the previously described issue.
It takes this kind of debate to further everyone's knowledge base on any issue.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2001 : 13:46:02 [Permalink]
|
While your poor head is recovering let me try a bit of logic on you that I'm sure would make my hero, Dr. Pangloss, proud.
Dr Slater's treatise on why the Bible is not the word of god
Two attributes of god are that he is perfect and that he is not constrained by the laws of nature.
If god wanted to communicate with us, how would we recognize that this communication was from him?
A perfect being would communicate perfectly. If it did not it would no longer be perfect and therefore not be god.
Would we humans, being imperfect ourselves, know perfect communication when we saw it?
Maybe not. But, being imperfect ourselves we do know "screwed up" when we see it. I submit that if we can think of any improvement for an existing form of communication that would demonstrate this form to be imperfect.
Okay then, on to Bible criticism.
First we have to ask who it is aimed at. Who is the target audience? This sounds like Madison Avenue ad agency stuff, but no one knows more about communication than they do.
The audience is all of mankind.
But the Bible is written, and almost no one in those days could read.
Of those who could read only a small fraction could read the obscure language it was written in. The written language it (OT) is in has no vowels; you have to guess at what they are. For instance in classic Hebrew the words for "carpenter" and "biblical scholar" although pronounced differently are spelled the same.
It is given to people to distribute who don't have the technology to reproduce the book in volume. Don't have the technology to deliver it to everyone. Don't even know that the planet they are on extends past a thousand miles radius from their home. (Inca? What's an Inca?)
When it is distributed, after thousands of years, it is such a muddled mess that people cannot in good faith agree on what it says. Example: before the American Civil War both the Pro and the Anti Slavery supporters used the Bible as the primary source to support their positions. Both sides were convinced enough that their interpretation was correct to die for it, which if nothing else demonstrates their sincerity.
What it does not show is fault in the audience (mankind) as the clarity of communication is the responsibility of the communicator and not the listener.
QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM
The Bible is not perfect communication therefore it cannot be from a perfect god. It is not what it claims and is therefore a fraud and should not be used as a source of authority.
If it is from god it demonstrates that the god is not perfect and is bound by natural law (just like us) which makes the god a humbug and again should not be used as a source of authority.
"All's for the best in this best of all possible worlds!"
---------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2001 : 18:21:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This has been an interesting discussion!
I agree! In fact I think it's great. You all are putting forth some very intelligent statements. I wish I was better suited to answer some of the points that you make. If anyone was keeping score, I'm sure I'd be losing miserably
quote:
'If a man has never heard of Jesus or God but lives a good life does that mean he's condemned to eternal damnation?'
quote:
A mass murderer is scheduled for execution (picture a Timothy McVeigh or Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolf Hitler, if you will). As the moment of death approaches, this foul creature falls on bended knee with his spiritual advisor and asks God for forgiveness. He then confesses his believe in Jesus as his savior. In the Christian worldview, after this evil subhuman is executed, he quickly ascends to heaven for his eternal reward because of his last-minute "conversion". Let's say that one of the victims of this bastard is a small child who was never baptized or "introduced" to Jesus by his Hindu parents. This child died a cruel and horrible death at the hands of this murderer but did not confess his belief, therefore, he is now consigned to eternal damnation in a terrible hell.
Both Good points. Points I have considered myself. (As I'm sure many others here have.)
To answer the first (someone who has never heard of Jesus) I would offer this (admittedly hard) explanation. The Bible doesn't, so far as I'm aware, come out and say precisely what is the fate of those who were never made aware of Jesus. It implies in both Romans and Revelations (possibly elseware) that they will be judged on their works and their knowledge. In other words, those who did good will be judged accordingly. And that based on what you knew of God (according to the Bible, again in Romans I believe, your conscience is your guide) did they live their life accordingly? I have to admit though that it also implies that human nature being what it is, the odds of living your life in complete compliance with your conscience is unlikely. And in that event, you lose, so to speak. I, personally, cannot justify this method. But I also don't find it hard to believe that I don't see it in light of the BIG picture. Another cop-out, I know. Sorry, but that's my point of view. I likewise couldn't expect a dog to understand the things that I do. I'm operating on a higher plane than he is. If one species can understand things at a higher level than another, and then yet another species works at an even higher level than the first, and on and on, I don't find the possibility that another being may be on a higher level than we humans. Does than seem reasonable? I know many (maybe all of you) find fault with the underlying reasoning to that statement. . .
Secondly, to Trish: I wish I could just quote chapter and verse in answer to your question, but as Slater has pointed out, you can isolate a verse here or there and interpret it to mean whatever you need it to mean. You have to interpret it as part of the whole, which explains (in small part) why there are som many "diferent" kinds of christians.
Now, for the killer and the baby thing. . .
Yes, I believe that the Bible pretty much makes it clear that if you repent, and accept Jesus as your saviour, then it doesn't matter what you've done. I think it's made fairly clear in the Bible that sin is sin, and there doesn't seem to be much difference in magnitude. To us there certainly is a difference, but to God, no. And if the theme of christianity is taken seriously, then repetence and accepting Jesus are all that it comes down too. So, if you've done that, you've done all that you need do. So in theory, that is how that would play out. Of course, in reality, we would have to wonder, was this killer really sorry for what he had done, or was he sorry that he had gotten caught and was on the verge of execution. I suspect the latter would more often be the case, but then, that really isn't any of my business. I would suspect that if there is a Heaven and God is who He says He is, then He must have things under control in up there. Whatever this guy was like on Earth, I doubt that in heaven he's going to break into my cloud when I'm not home and steal my harp. (A little levity there - or an attempt at it, anyway. I'm much funnier in person )
As for the baby, or child that was murdered before having the opportunity to repent. . .
First, I redirect you to what I said previously about being judged on deed and knowledge. Obviously an infant has little or no knowledge to contradict. And their deeds can't be construed as evil, in anyway that I can see. There is also in Mark chapter 10, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." To me that indicates that children are not accountable. They won't be judged. Now at what age this stops being the case is debatable. I'm sure it varies from person to person. If I had to guess (which I suppose I don't) it would be as soon as they began to understand the difference between right and wrong. Not just knowing whta gets them in trouble and what doesn't, but actually understanding it.
I hope this clarifies my belief on the subject. . . Frankly, it's still alittle fuzzy to me. . .
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2001 : 18:48:19 [Permalink]
|
Oh, one other thing I'd like to say an this subject
quote:
condemned to eternal damnation?'
The bible describes Hell, damnation, the second death, etc. in many different instances. It also describes it in two fundamentally different ways. We (we christians, that is) are left to decide which is the proper way of interpreting this. One way in which it is described is the eternal fire of damnation. Never ending. I've also heard a variation on this theme, that states eternally cold and isolated. I don't think that's biblical but I could be wrong. The other description states that it is an all consuming fire (not implying eternity at all). That those cast into it (figuritively, or not - I only assume it's figuritive, though it ultimately doesn't make any difference) are entirely consumed. How to enterpret this is another matter of debate. It appears christianity is full of debates (one of the traits that initially turned me off). I have not personally found any method to help me determine which is the proper assessment. Revelation does describe the end of Satan in such a way that one would understand it to mean that he would cease to exist in the end. And so, with him, those condemned for, what is, according to christian doctrine, turning your back on the Lord. So I fall back on human perception of what is just. Is eternal torture just? Not to me, it isn't. And probably not to you, either. Is being burned in an instance (using burned, again, in what I believe to be a figuritive sense) and reduced to non-existence just? If you have rejected God, then maybe yes. You got what you asked for. This, of course, results in the out come that many of you are anticipating anyway. You just won't exist any longer. I don't mean to be harsh, by the way. (Just in case any of you took it that way ). I also don't mean to imply that I'm not destined for that same fire. I'm often afraid that I don't hav ethe kind of faith I need, according to my own professed beliefs. Case in point, this whole conversation. . . But if God created us with inquisitive minds, I can only assume he intended for us to use them.
So there's that. . . Peace, all
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2001 : 18:57:39 [Permalink]
|
Also, I want to go back to my original post.quote:
What I've gotten from perusing these posts is that there are three common arguments against the existence of God
I now realize that this statement was entirely off base. Apparently there are countless arguments against the existence of God. In fact, one well stated argument after another. It is a pleasure to find a message board that actually has intelligent conversation, as opposed to the incesant rantings,provocations and ridiculous interuptions of pre-pubescent teenagers trying to get a rise out of their "elders". I would be proud to consider any of you my friends.
Sincerely!!!!
Thanks again, everyone, for keeping my brain alive (small though it may be. . . )
Peace
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2001 : 19:06:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have noticed that a few people have automatically assumed that broven is trying to convert, or even to preach. From his (and I use that pronoun loosely: as far as I can tell, broven has not indicated which gender "he" is) posts, he seems to be merely seeking information regarding the reasons people choose atheism.
Thanks for the support. I am in fact NOT (I repeat NOT!!!) trying to preach or convert anyone. I am just enjoying a serious discussion with people who have an obviously different point of view. I don't expect to convert them, and I hope they don't expect to convert me. This simply is not an issue that I intend to decide on tonight (or this week, this month, or maybe even this year). And in the mean-time, I believe what my spirit(my decidedly un-scientific spirit) tells me I must. Meanwhile - my other spirit (the scientific one) is looking forward to some clear weather so I can get my telescope back out and start enjoying the beauty of our universe, regardless of where it came from.
Oh, and by the way, I'm a "he". (In case it made a difference).
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2001 : 20:41:55 [Permalink]
|
OK, Slater, I', going to do my best to respond to this. You, know, if we were back in my high school debate class, I would be entirely awed by you presentation. I womped on so many freshman in the area of theology back then - and at that time I didn't even believe in God. Now that I do believe, I feel like I'm being thouroughly trounced. . .
quote:
it seems funny that god has never mentioned little matter of Hell to the Jews before this. They didn't (and they still don't) know that they had fallen from grace in the garden of Eden and needed a human sacrifice to Yahweh. You would think with all the chatting he did with the prophets that he would have mentioned it.
You are right in a couple of aspects here. There is no mention of Hell in the Torah. There is, though, most certainly, the implication made that there are laws to be obeyed to avoid un-named consequences of a most permanent nature. (i.e. Hell). You are incorrect in stating that the Jews had no notion of the fall from grace. Judaism is based on the first five books of the Bible, of which the fall from grace is prominently portraid in part 1. (forgive my spelling. . .). The Judaisic answer to this (by God's own plan) was a set of laws, which, when followed, would result in "earned" salvation. The laws are, in fact difficult, and quite antiquated (Reference the law against preparing dairy and meat products on the same plate. Good practice back in the days before antibacterial dish soap, silly now). And, as I have stated before (and you quickly shot down) the purpose was intended to prove that you cannot save yourself. Even the jews admit that a messiah is coming, they merely did not believe it was Jesus.
At this point, let me also state that , in truth, many jews today (american jews, at least) doubt that there ever will be a messiah. When I was growing up my father was (and still is) either an agnostic or an aetheist. I don't know which because he refused to even discuss that much with me. My mother, who was willing to discuss this type of thing, seemed unconvinced of any religious belief system at the time, and made it perfectly clear at the time. When I was about 21 she converted to Judaism. And though she shared with me many of the things she was required to learn, I am certainly no expert on Judaism. I konw, however, that she was "taught" to disbelieve in the messiah. I think if Jesus came down from heaven and wrung her neck personnally, she would still believe it was something much more "normal". I do know, however that the Torah is LAW to them. If it is written there, then it IS WRITTEN . . .period. End of discussion.
You are also correct in stating that they had no idea that needed a human sacrifice. They didn't. According to the Judaism, they did however need a sacrifice. The OT is full of examples. It is tied to the line "The wage of sin is death". The only price to pay for sin is death. In the OT that price was payed by sacrificing an animal. Barbaric? Undoubtedly. But, suppose, If you sin against the one who has given you life, life is the price you owe. And, sorry to say for all the sheep, cattle, etc., you could, according to Hasidic law, give some other creatures life in lieu of your own. Ultimately, the law offered to the Jews was intended to make it immpossible to win. It was God's answer to the rebellion of man. Reap what you have sown. . .
TIME OUT
Let me state right now that we are (already have, in fact) entered into theological debate. I feel inclined to say that I never intended to go this route. But since you have challenged me in area's that can (to my mind - correct me if I'm wrong) only be answered theologically, I feel I must go there.
quote:
Seriously this business of hell is Zoroastrian (Mithra) theology and has nothing to do with Judaism.
You have made several refences to how the bible is nothing more than a reiteration of older folklore. I must admit that this is an entirely new argument to me. I'm not admitting you're correct (I always have to decide for myself - god save my untrusting soul - LOL) but I'd really like to have some references. Is this stuff available online? I'm afraid I can't argue against what I am unfamaliar with. . .
quote:
The Golden Rule, which is actually "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," was in common use in Greece and Persia for at least 300 years before it was adopted by the followers of Jesus.
You are correct that I took a slight liberty with the "golden Rule". I included the "love God" piece only because Jesus stated that it was the most important rule. I suspect that subconscienciously I must have abrideged it to the "Golden Rule". The fact that this principal was in use before it was actually spoken by Jesus is actually a tribute to the fact that humans do know the truth about God, regardless of wether we have been directly told or not. We know that it is wrong to screw one another over. Inherently we know it! Honestly, I would like to know how this self-sacrificial attitude (which I dare you deny that it is) fits with Darwin's idea of survival. I don't mean to say that I don't believe it's possible for darwinism (is that still a word?) and self-sacrifice to co-exist, I'm merely curious about the modern take on the situation. I really must say that in the modern age, survival of the fittest among Human's is entirely out the window. Frankly, some of the sorriest, sadest, most un-motivating people seem to be propogating like flies. Meanwhile, the truly gifted, can't seam to live long enough to have children. I know that this is an oversimplification, but does it not seem to be true? How does that fit into evolutionary principal?
quote:
one must redefine the word "love." That is something I've noticed Christians doing quite a bit. I must admit that I no longer know what they mean when they say the word.
AT LAST!!!! An easy one!!!! Whew. . .
Simple. . . and I have NO doubt that I have this correct. . . Love one another as you love yourself. Do you seek to be unenlightened? do you seek to be a class 1 asshole? Do you seek to be so lonely that you feel the need to strike out at those around you? the list can go on and on - you make up your own list of desperate people. The answer to all of those questions is an obvious, "NO". So what is the answer? Well, in my humble opinion, even if you don't believe in God, try to understand that even they are only human, they try to be "normal", they want to be loved (and more importantly, LIKED) Now I'm not saying that we have to "LIKE" everybody. Even Jesus (who I hold up as an example - It;s the christian thing to do, don't you know) didn't "like" everybody. Loving someone in the biblical sense (I know, there's a joke in there s |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2001 : 21:18:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
While your poor head is recovering let me try a bit of logic on you that I'm sure would make my hero, Dr. Pangloss, proud.
OK, I'm an idiot. I have No idea who you are talking about. . . LOL (and I honestly hate to dissapoint you - really, I do)
quote:
Dr Slater's treatise on why the Bible is not the word of god
Now this I get. . . :-)
quote:
Two attributes of god are that he is perfect and that he is not constrained by the laws of nature.
While I agree with you here, I must say that it is possible, (if God is omnipotent) that he is constrained by the laws of physics only so much as he chooses to be. In my mind it is perfectly acceptable to say that he designed the laws of pysics to regulate the world that he had created. And upon completion of the creation (which, so far as we currently are aware) did not reside within the laws set forward for it, decried that from this point forward, all things are bound by these laws. . . In much the same way we can, as humans, create a system (pick one, they're all pretty impressive) where we have electronic, digital, mechanical, etc., components working together to produce a desired outcome. Whatever that desired outcome may be, it was not incorporated into the design of the design. We created something that was capable of performing a task beyond the ability of any of it's components.
So is it possible that God designed an entire system of physics, quantum physics, biology, anthropology, astrology, etc. that worked as a unit, but could not have worked before the creators intervention?
Why is it difficult to believe that the theory of relativity, for example, could be created? On an entirely smaller scale (I don't know how to type this so that it implies how much smaller I trhink it is) someone devised the game of chess, out of nothing. . . If we can do that, why do we find it so difficult to believe that God is capable of more?
I already know the main part of the argument
Restate it if you will. . .
By the way. . . If anyone . . (I REPEAT--- ANYONE) agrees with me. . .
Help . . . .
help. . . ./ .
Peace, all!
Edited by - broven on 05/25/2001 21:34:22 |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2001 : 21:49:41 [Permalink]
|
Peace, everyone!!
I'll see you all tommorrow. (lord, my spelling is attrociatious!)
Or is it?
My spelling is so bad, I don't know if I'm spelling it right or not. . .
Happy Memorial Day everyone!
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2001 : 22:18:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If god wanted to communicate with us, how would we recognize that this communication was from him?
A perfect being would communicate perfectly. If it did not it would no longer be perfect and therefore not be god.
Would we humans, being imperfect ourselves, know perfect communication when we saw it?
Maybe not. But, being imperfect ourselves we do know "screwed up" when we see it. I submit that if we can think of any improvement for an existing form of communication that would demonstrate this form to be imperfect.
You would be, then , assuming that your translation of a higher form is more accurate than your own. If it is, in fact, a higher form of communication, how can you expect it to conform to ANY of your pre=conceived notions of what conversation must be? If it connects with you on an immotional level, yet we have been taught that emotional connections are irrelevant in things spiritual, how will you interpret it.
Dare I sugest that, when you say that we christians are acting upon some un-defined primal instinct (that, frankly, is undoubtedly un-darwinian) that, instaed you evolutionists (I apply this term without prejudice) are in fact responding to some desire to be held unaccountable for your actions?
That's a thought, anyway. . .
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
