My beliefs

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: For all you say you believe in, I have seen nothing but a close-minded individual who expects everyone to come to the same conclusions as he. I don't think you are a person strong in his faith, rather a person blinded by his faith.

And all you see is what I choose to write.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Link: I was wondering: what do you think about all the atheists in the world, Yorick? Are they infidels, or are they rather people who have chosen not to believe in God? IIRC, God gave mankind the option to choose for him, or not (with no consequences) Just a short question, nothing more

What is an infidel? I think you have me confused with a Wahabist Muslim.

I see atheism as a remarkably arrogant position. It presumes that a mere human who inhabits a few decades on a small planet in the corner of the universe can extend their knowledge throughout the entirety of space and time and declare with certainty that there is no God. In the process completely overriding the reality of other humans who will die rather than refute their knowledge of God.

As I have said before, all you can say is "I have not experienced this" not "this does not exist". In saying "I know God" I am not devalidating your statement "I do not know God".

I find agnosticism a much more open minded and reasonable position.

I am agnostic concerning the existence of alien life for example. I find no compelling evidence that allows me to believe they do exist, but I'm not so arrogant as to extend my experience of reality into parts of the universe I have no knowledge of.

As for a charge that it's egotistical to expect the creator of the universe would come down as a human and die for me personally... well that's the beauty of it. God can do what he wants. The idea is at once humbling and esteem building at the same time.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Just comparing the previously posted accounts of the great flood, the amazing similarities and one big difference. The earlier account by the Sumerians involves a plurality of Gods, the later account known today in the bible has only one God. Furthermore, the earlier accounts of the flood left by the Akkadians and the Baylonians also involve a pantheon of Gods. So which is it? One God or many? The later works conflict with the earlier and the further back in time one goes examining the civilizations the more similiar the accounts of the flood are. I fairly certain all the aforementioned flood stories are refering to the same flood, too many similiarities. The differences between the earlier and later is the key in my opinion. Logic serves that the earliest accounts will be the most accurate. I use the flood story as one excellent example of how a tale told in today's bible is told differently from the Sumerian perspective. A full account of many of these similiaries and differences can be examined in the works of Biblical Archeologist Zecharia Sitchen, that I previously mentioned.

The Biblical account is as old if not older than the Sumerian account Chewbacca. Abram was from Ur, in Sumer. If anything, there were two divergent accounts. We kept the one that was surrounded in a monotheism that was alive and working, while the other was surrounded in a pantheon of Gods, that, if they existed, did nothing to prevent the destruction of their people or religious code. Seeing as I have accepted Abrahams God who declares exclusivity, I think it's fair for me to say that the Sumerian theology was incorrect. That the Sumerian gods did not exist. In accepting Abrahams account, one rejects the alternate account.

Therefore, if the Akkadian/Sumerian theology was incorrect, if it failed and died, then why accept the other contradicting parts that conflict with Abrahams?

The promises Abrahams God made to him have fulfilled. Even now, they are shown to be true.

Simply because we never lost the teachings and stories does not mean they are newer or more recent. Look at the Quran. The Quran makes "corrections" to the Bible. The Quran though later than the New Testament, seeks to revise the New testamants history.

If.. (and I say IF very delicately) Islam was proved to be false, and faded into oblivion, and in two thousand years people still read the bible. And if in those two thousand years, people stumbled upon the Quran with it's contradictory views, would they be correct in saying the Qurans ideas were earlier teachings than the Bible?

Of course not.

So too with these. The bible has continuous accounts of people and stories from the dawn of creation. No missing link. No missing generations. Each father to son is listed from Adam to Jesus. If the bible is proven to be correct, it goes back to the origin of mankind. If not, it at least goes back to Sumerian society.

[LordKathen]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Link: I was wondering: what do you think about all the atheists in the world, Yorick? Are they infidels, or are they rather people who have chosen not to believe in God? IIRC, God gave mankind the option to choose for him, or not (with no consequences) Just a short question, nothing more

What is an infidel? I think you have me confused with a Wahabist Muslim.

I see atheism as a remarkably arrogant position. It presumes that a mere human who inhabits a few decades on a small planet in the corner of the universe can extend their knowledge throughout the entirety of space and time and declare with certainty that there is no God. In the process completely overriding the reality of other humans who will die rather than refute their knowledge of God.

As I have said before, all you can say is "I have not experienced this" not "this does not exist". In saying "I know God" I am not devalidating your statement "I do not know God".

I find agnosticism a much more open minded and reasonable position.

I am agnostic concerning the existence of alien life for example. I find no compelling evidence that allows me to believe they do exist, but I'm not so arrogant as to extend my experience of reality into parts of the universe I have no knowledge of.

As for a charge that it's egotistical to expect the creator of the universe would come down as a human and die for me personally... well that's the beauty of it. God can do what he wants. The idea is at once humbling and esteem building at the same time. [/QUOTE]Yet, I am not just saying god does not exist. I am saying that supernaturalality does not exist, and basing that on imperical science. There is a diferance. There are scientist who do believe in god and have vast knowledge of science, granted. But to me, it is not logical to combine the two. One explains the anomaly of the other. The simple fact that there is legend after "factual" legend, and stories and myths and writings, etc. throughout time, just confirms to me that the human imagination has evolved right along with the brain. The earliest hominids, having a quarter the brain we have today, needed to "explain" that bright light streaking across the sky. And while they we're at it explain all those little sparkly lights in the sky. And fire, whoooaa! And lightning... you get my point. Meanwhile some came along with enough cleverness to "explain" these happenings to the clan and gain power. Thus started religion. To use psychological experiences to "proove" experience with god, does not sell me. Have you actually seen god? Talked to god? Touched god, physicaly? Untill this happens all you're experiencing is the very powerfull mind at work.
To you, Yorick, I am arrogant to say this is it. Thats fine, but I will not spend my only life having "faith" in the supernatural.

[LordKathen]

I was thinking, being that this thread is up to 253 posts, should'nt we start a new thread?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by LordKathen: Yet, I am not just saying god does not exist. I am saying that supernaturalality does not exist, and basing that on imperical science. There is a diferance. There are scientist who do believe in god and have vast knowledge of science, granted. But to me, it is not logical to combine the two. One explains the anomaly of the other. The simple fact that there is legend after "factual" legend, and stories and myths and writings, etc. throughout time, just confirms to me that the human imagination has evolved right along with the brain. The earliest hominids, having a quarter the brain we have today, needed to "explain" that bright light streaking across the sky. And while they we're at it explain all those little sparkly lights in the sky. And fire, whoooaa! And lightning... you get my point. Meanwhile some came along with enough cleverness to "explain" these happenings to the clan and gain power. Thus started religion. To use psychological experiences to "proove" experience with god, does not sell me. Have you actually seen god? Talked to god? Touched god, physicaly? Untill this happens all you're experiencing is the very powerfull mind at work. To you, Yorick, I am arrogant to say this is it. Thats fine, but I will not spend my only life having "faith" in the supernatural.

Basing it on Empirical science? Have you personally tested these things or are you putting faith in the tests and conclusions of others? Are you yourself the said scientist or is the scientist your priest and advisor on these matters?

You need faith to simply walk out the door Kathen. To drive a car, get on a plane, eat food you bought. You are living in faith more than you realise.

As to religion, my faith is my own. Yes I accept facts and opinions from ancient times and co-aligning with others who follow Jesus, but my faith is my own. Developed by me, in the here and now. With scientific method of perpetual testing, crosstesting and comparison. I am continually assessing my faith. It is not dead and unchallengeable, but alive and growing.

I use science to expand my faith, They are not mutually exclusive things Kathen, but harmonious.

"Have you seen God?" No,, I haven't seen the wind either, but I feel it, see it's effects and it changes me. Just as I feel God, see his effects and handiwork, and he changes me. I also haven't seen love either, yet I have felt it, seen it's effects and had it change me.

God and love. The bible says God is love. Have you seen love Kathen? Talked to love? Touched love physically?

Not all that exists is "physical".

Yes I have talked to God, and yes he has answered. In more ways than one. Yes I feel Gods love.

The question is the important thing. It is pointless to ask "have you touched God" or "what created God" as the questions presuppose ideas outside the notion of what God is.

Yes God has touched me. Physically. Spiritual connection manifesting physical reaction.

Just like love.

[LordKathen]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by LordKathen: Yet, I am not just saying god does not exist. I am saying that supernaturalality does not exist, and basing that on imperical science. There is a diferance. There are scientist who do believe in god and have vast knowledge of science, granted. But to me, it is not logical to combine the two. One explains the anomaly of the other. The simple fact that there is legend after "factual" legend, and stories and myths and writings, etc. throughout time, just confirms to me that the human imagination has evolved right along with the brain. The earliest hominids, having a quarter the brain we have today, needed to "explain" that bright light streaking across the sky. And while they we're at it explain all those little sparkly lights in the sky. And fire, whoooaa! And lightning... you get my point. Meanwhile some came along with enough cleverness to "explain" these happenings to the clan and gain power. Thus started religion. To use psychological experiences to "proove" experience with god, does not sell me. Have you actually seen god? Talked to god? Touched god, physicaly? Untill this happens all you're experiencing is the very powerfull mind at work. To you, Yorick, I am arrogant to say this is it. Thats fine, but I will not spend my only life having "faith" in the supernatural.

Basing it on Empirical science? Have you personally tested these things or are you putting faith in the tests and conclusions of others? Are you yourself the said scientist or is the scientist your priest and advisor on these matters?

You are reaching. There is no empiricaly tested science in the supernatural, only the natural. Of course I am not "the" scientist. I choose to believe the empirical sciences of educated people. That is the point of empirical testing, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the theory is fact.
In order for you to test your faith empiricaly, I would have to be able to test what happened to you. Not possable.
Just becouse faith is "tested" by many, it is all individual. It is not empirical.

You need faith to simply walk out the door Kathen. To drive a car, get on a plane, eat food you bought. You are living in faith more than you realise.

Walk? Drive a car? Eat food? Faith in what????
Now your really reaching...

As to religion, my faith is my own. Yes I accept facts and opinions from ancient times and co-aligning with others who follow Jesus, but my faith is my own. Developed by me, in the here and now. With scientific method of perpetual testing, crosstesting and comparison. I am continually assessing my faith. It is not dead and unchallengeable, but alive and growing.

Well, you got the opinions part right. The only facts are some relics and humans that lived at that time. That says nothing of the supernatural, being fact.

I use science to expand my faith, They are not mutually exclusive things Kathen, but harmonious.

"Have you seen God?" No,, I haven't seen the wind either, but I feel it, see it's effects and it changes me. Just as I feel God, see his effects and handiwork, and he changes me. I also haven't seen love either, yet I have felt it, seen it's effects and had it change me.

God and love. The bible says God is love. Have you seen love Kathen? Talked to love? Touched love physically?

But, wind is explained empiricaly. We know why its there, how it gets ther, etc.
Love is an emotion. Witch would fall under psychology.


Not all that exists is "physical".

Yes I have talked to God, and yes he has answered. In more ways than one. Yes I feel Gods love.

So you have heard his voice? Or thought you heard his voice?

The question is the important thing. It is pointless to ask "have you touched God" or "what created God" as the questions presuppose ideas outside the notion of what God is.

Yes God has touched me. Physically. Spiritual connection manifesting physical reaction.

Just like love.

Is that right? Physically? Proove it.
Becouse you have an emotion that couses a physical reaction does not make the emotion physical.
Just like love.


[/QUOTE]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: The Biblical account is as old if not older than the Sumerian account Chewbacca. Abram was from Ur, in Sumer. **SNIP*

This post is an excellent example of how science and faith can be like oil and water. The bible flood account is older than the Sumerian flood account? Can you prove that Yorick? Can you provide the archeological data and analysis to back up this claim? If not than it is based merely on faith, not on empirical data or science.

[ 11-24-2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Night Stalker]

Now this is going back to collage, but the studies in one lit class had shown works of Asyrian legend with the earlies know manuscript dating older 5000 - 6000 yrs BC where as the earliest know text from Genesis is about 4500 BC.

I may be off on dates a little bit, but my point is that the oldest known written Epic tale - The Legend of Gilgamesh is much older than the earliest know script of the Bible.

This of course does not account for oral tradition.

Originally posted by Faceman: I know this is anitpick from way back, but here goes: quote: Originally posted by sultan: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: A line of belief in the pantheist's realm is that the Infinite Universe Mind Force Awareness is all made of more or less the same stuff- Energy ('mental' energy to be exact). The realm of matter is not distinctly seperate from the rest of the Universal Mind Force Awareness, but is simply of that same energy, but vibrating at a certain level we percieve as physical or matter.

i dont mean to oversimplify or belittle, but it sounds something like that old philosophical chestnut that the universe is just a group hallucination. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]What you call a pihlosophical chestnut here is actually the sincere belief of a not so minor group of hinduistic believers and of most Jainas. They state that the world is just what you perceive it to be (i.e. an illusion) and that true deliverance is rising above that illusion and free yourself from this world by recognizing this. [/QUOTE]i stand (sit) humbled and corrected. cheers, faceman [img]smile.gif[/img]

a link to learn more would be most appreciated. [img]smile.gif[/img]

edit: fixing qb tags

[ 11-24-2003, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: sultan ]