What it would take to see the light ? Sounds like a bribe. :D

"The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion."
Karl Marx

~

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." - Karl Marx

~

"Religion is this. They act as in religion that is to say they neither wait nor stay away. Religion is best as it is. If they like it at all they like it all, not only more than once but often." - Gertrude Stein

Money being a motive for people.
Animals war over food, territory and mating rights.

It depends on the person but also depends on the religion. A religion of peace cannot cause war. It's like saying 'desires cause war' or "ideals cause war."
The content is vitally important.

Chrsit was quite clear when he told us to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies and those that persecute us. He also said our struggle is not physical, but spiritual. Paul speaks of the spiritual armour of God.

Fighting a physical war in the name of Jesus is thus a contradiction.</font>[/QUOTE]As long as any animal (a human being one as well) has ANY motive, there will always be war. Religion can motivate war quite easily. And yes, a religion of peace can easily cause a war. If you claim Christianity to be a relgion of peace, I give you the crusades, and the inquisition. Granted, you could say that the people involved in these things were motivated to fight over other issues, but it's elementary that religion played a part (no matter how small, or for how few) in motivating the cause. Secondly, the mere existance of a peaceful religion can cause a war (by being attacked by somebody who covets what they have). Granted, if the first group is entirely peaceful, and will not defend, this is more of a slaughter than a war, but you get my point...

As for the teachings of Jesus, I know only of what I read and studied, and what I've read I understand to be full of holes. One day I'd like to learn the ancient languages of the time to read the earliest translation of his teachings as possible. Until then, I'm not too sure...

It may be a contradiction in prose and concept, but tell that to the crusaders, many of whom did just that. Action and concept are separated.

It all really came into focus when I started thinking about souls.

Souls are the one thing - the ONE thing - that can move from Heaven to Hell. Angels can move from Heaven to Earth. Devils can move from Hell to Earth. And back again, obviously. But not in either direction. That's the reason there IS a Hell; Devils can't re-enter Heaven.

It's a question of dimensional physics, perhaps. Imagine a one-dimensional thing - a bubble in a tube, that can only move in two directions; back and forth. Imagine that bubble trying to percieve an apple.
All it'll see is a big shape blocking the tube. It cannot percieve the other dimentions.

The same goes for a two-dimensional object, like a piece of paper. Place half an apple on a table, and the piece of paper can see there is shape to the apple, a circle - but all the paper can see is the cross-section of the apple, nothing more.

We are creatures that live in a three-dimensional world. We cannot see this thing, the soul. Does that mean it does not exist? Not necessarily... just that we can't see it. Neither can we see Heaven and Hell - yet the Soul can travel in both directions, 'up' and 'down'. Therefore I came to the conclusion that a Soul must exist in more than three dimensions.

All well and good. Then we get to the big stickler; why?

I tried to extrapolate as well as I could. Why humans? God had made many things. Why make us, and why finish with us? He'd already made thinking, intelligent beings; Angels (He must have made them; they weren't around at the Beginning). Why us then? We are, after all, imperfect beings. What marks us out? Why did God create imperfection?

It *must* be a Soul. If Angels cannot move to Hell, they must have no souls, I supposed (I assumed that Devils stopped being Angels and therefore the rules do not apply to them; I also assumed that the nability for Devils to enter Heaven was not through some dimensional inability, but by God keeping them out). But why did God simply not give Angels souls?

Then we get even more tenuous. Why all this soul business? God must need them for something, I supposed. Devils take great delight in corrupting souls, but why? Out of malice? Or would they need souls as well?

A point triggered in my head - I am projecting human thoughts and human desires onto God. But, a point countered, if we are made in his image, perhaps that's not such a wrong thing.

I had this whole theory of a traffic of souls, between Heaven and Hell, because that was the only theory that seemed to fit the facts... and then I gave up. But I was left with the impression that there was something a bit deeper going on behind the scenes - if God did exist, that is - and that He was not a creature towards I should direct worship.

And that's it. I came to a refined, if not particularly logical conclusion, not that God does not exist, but that God should not be worshipped. From there, it's easy not to believe in the guy.

[ 01-22-2003, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Tancred ]

Of course this is assuming that there is such a thing as a soul. ;)

Because God IS so powerful.

Can you make something which has enough incentive, choice, volition and emotion to love, destroy itself, build or create.</font>[/QUOTE]But there is no proof of God existing.</font>[/QUOTE]That's beside the point Goz. Stick to what we were discussing. You said "If God is so powerful, why this...." and I answered, "Because God IS so powerful." You can't just shift ground like that. The existence of war and poverty are not 'proof' that there is a God in my theological view. In actual fact it serves to illuminate how ingenious and creative he is, and how courageous he's been in givving us so much liberty, choice and free will.

I could not disagree with you more. Conflict has a perpetrator and a victim. The victim of the crime does not cause the crime by existing to be attacked/killed/raped. That is lunacy. If someone covets a Christians inner peace and attacks them, then greed causes the conflict, not Christianity. Similarly if a woman is raped, the rapists lack of control, and violent sexual urges cause the rape, not the existence of the female.

You need to seriously think about your cause and effect logic Gammit.

Re. the crusades and the inquisition, did you not read what I said about this sort of thing? Is Bush going to war over religion? He's used the name of God in his speeches.

You are looking at the surface of conflict instead of the core. Religions seek to curb the destructive primal urges of humans. If a Christian, Jew or Buddhist resorts to violence it is because they have FAILED to live up to their ideals and teachings, rather than because of their ideals and teachings. It is a simple matter to check a persons actions against their professed ideals.

A religion of nonviolence, of peace, of non-retaliation like Christianity CANNOT initiate a physical war.

The universe is not infinite. It is expanding. Expansion implies limit. If the universe was without limit, it would not be expanding because it would already be where it is expanding into.

Secondly, we have 'proof' that the universe has had a beginning. The belief in an eternal God is that he is without a beginning.

Thirdly, the universe is physical. God is not necessarily possessive of a physicality in the way we understand it. I do not believe we understand WHAT God is at all. It is like a painting trying to understand the painter. The painting does not posses the apparatus - a brain - to comprehend it's creator.

The paradox for the Christian is that though we may not know WHAT God is we can know WHO he is.

Anyhow, those three differences show that you cannot make an assumption about God from a similar assumption about the universe. It is like suggesting that Vodka will freeze at the same temperature as water, simply because it looks like another clear liquid. In reality it is a different substance, and so must be assessed on it's own merits.

[ 01-23-2003, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

If I am not mistaken, you do not believe in God right?

Why then are you using a "we" to describe feeling Gods presence? IF you have no belief you are making an assumption about anothers experience outside your own.

I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life. A palpable sensation, sometime physical, sometimes purely emotional, sometimes both. Why would I feel his presence and another not? I invite him in my life. Regularly.

Hence, a debate for me is actually kind of wierd. God is not an idea to prove or a theory to expound, but someone I know and love who loves me.

A detractor would say "Aha but that doesn't work, because you have to believe first, before God makes himself real to you."

Yes, that's the way it seems to work in many people. Free choice. You need to seek him out. If you want to.

Ok folks, this discussion could go in circles forever [img]smile.gif[/img]

As Ozzy would say: Click Here to listen)

Closing now.. (Thread is getting big, if you MUST, start a new thread) ;)

[ 01-23-2003, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]