21 Sep 2004 | Randy Peterman said...

Is this a boolean question?

21 Sep 2004 | Brendan said...

PBS' Closer to Truth also looks quite interesting.

22 Sep 2004 | One of several Steves said...

I've read the book the show's based on. It's a very good read if you're remotely interested in the philosophy of religion, and Nicholi does an amazingly good job of laying out the case in both regards while not letting his own conclusions filter through. He treats the subject very even-handedly and without judgement - as much as any human is capable of such things.

If the series measures up to the book, it could be quite good. But it's an exceedingly tough subject to deal with without skewing the debate one way or another. Too many people have far too much emotional investment one way or another in the topic to make it easy to discuss the subject with anything remotely approaching objectivity. Which makes sense. People's very concept of who they are and why they're here is tied up in the topic.

22 Sep 2004 | Sean Voisen said...

Haven't checked out the PBS program yet, but anyone interested in biological aspects of religion should take a look at "Why God Won't Go Away" by Dr. Andrew Newberg. Just finished the book, and it was a good read, exploring belief systems from a neurological and evolutionary perspective. Definitely a different approach ...

22 Sep 2004 | Holy Cow said...

There is NO god. Get over it, you feeble-minded fools!

22 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

"Why God Won't Go Away" by Dr. Andrew Newberg

I enjoyed that book as well A nice short read with some interesting info about the brain (I thought it got a little nutty near the end when Newberg seemed to be pitching a new religion based on the precepts of neurobiology or maybe I misunderstood his point). Also try Mind Wide Open by Steven Johnson (says nothing about God more brain stuff).

22 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

Holy Cow, I hold out little hope for a useful answer, but what do you mean by god? Ive think that category confusion is the most frequent source of irresolvable disputes (insults dont help either).

22 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

"Ive think"

ooh, bad grammar -- make that "I have thunked"

22 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I have WAY too much emotion to contribute to this thread.

22 Sep 2004 | ale said...

I dont think that beleiving in God is such a "bad thing". I find it amusing that someone with so many mental problems like Freud, is still given so much importance today... why do we have to listen to someone who hardly could handle with his mind?

Also check Mind and Life Institute.

22 Sep 2004 | RS said...

I have WAY too much emotion to contribute to this thread.

Amen!

22 Sep 2004 | MrBlank said...

faith based on reason

Isnt that an oxymoron? If faith were reasonable then it wouldnt be faith.

A book I enjoyed that analyzed the bible from a psychiatric point of view was Psychobible: Behavior, Religion & the Holy Book by Armando Favazza. Some alternative views to Freud. The chapter on homosexuality was the most interesting to me.

22 Sep 2004 | ale said...

That is a crucial point MrBlank!
Ofr instance in Buddhas teaching faith is not a lack of reason. Faith there means confidence, and you can only develop confidence by reason.

Now here, again I dont think it is bad to beleive in God, I am just taking the Buddha aproach. What seems to happen most of the time is that people beleive in God but in a manner of someone who makes all hapen. until you start to question...

Some other folks just put donw thoose who beleive in God, that I think is not the correct aproach.

I think if one beleives in God, then one have to have confidence in Him, therefore faith. it is something that cannot be taken light.

Many who just say "I beleive" do not develop a faith based in confidence, meaning most of them do not practice spirituality, they just say "I beleive" or they just cry for help when in need.

22 Sep 2004 | ale said...

Another though: Maybe that is why many people find Him in prison...
There you go inside yourself once again and you just dont take things light, you go with lots of reason,

22 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

"Maybe that is why many people find Him in prison..."

I didn't know they locked Him up. What did He do? (Not another case of stock fraud I hope)

22 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Having been without Sattelite TV downstairs for the past 3 weeks, I've discovered this:

1) 90% of what's shown on PBS is very interesting.
2) 90% of what's shown on all the rest of the networks is very crappy.

Isnt that an oxymoron? If faith were reasonable then it wouldnt be faith.

Even science has faith elements. I can't prove there is ET life, but one can reason based on the size of the universe, study from nearby planets, and knowing that what we do know about the universe is still fairly small, I have some faith that there will be life found somewhere out there at some point.

That, and, well, I really like Star Wars. ;o)

I think religion (and politics ;o) would be much more useful and approachable *if* they put more reason into their practices. (And, to be fair, many do).

22 Sep 2004 | indi said...

I think religion (and politics ;o) would be much more useful and approachable *if* they put more reason into their practices.

Darrel, I couldn't agree more.

22 Sep 2004 | engelgrafik said...

We have caveman brains and our desire to find patterns around us all stems from our desire to survive.

All the patterns around us indicate that life must end. We don't like that. So we seek "secret patterns" in life that might indicate there is an afterlife.

The patterns based on things we encounter and try to synthesize are called science.

The patterns we WANT to exist, where we read into things and assume things to be true, are called religion.

Both are theory. It's just how much of it is actually testable and reproducable.

We can go to the Kalahari and watch the Wildebeests migrate every year. We can come up with a theory and since it happens all the time, we can get a lot of science out of it.

But we can't test and observe God. We think we know about patterns around us that indicate God. But we don't really KNOW for sure.

God is our desires, goals, aspirations. What we want to BECOME, not just interact with and categorize and utilize.

22 Sep 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

But we can't test and observe God. We think we know about patterns around us that indicate God. But we don't really KNOW for sure.

This is why the question "Does God really exist?" in the larger objective sense is pointless...there's no way to come up with a definitive answer. I see no reason to spend time pondering it.

However, the stuff in the PBS series sounds interesting.

22 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

This is why the question "Does God really exist?" in the larger objective sense is pointless...

Actually, I think the question is one of the most pointed (and a very sharp point too you can get a big ouch if you hold it the wrong way).
Its probably a mistake to share this but, I think that on some level the Believers are absolutely correct about something fundamental, but I have no clue to what it is (and unfortunately they dont either). Ill keep asking those questions though.

23 Sep 2004 | lisa said...

i began watching this last night --
it was so very boring, i fell asleep.

23 Sep 2004 | engelgrafik said...

i began watching this last night --
it was so very boring, i fell asleep.

Well, you know what they say about being bored. Only boring people get bored.

;)

Hey, I didn't say it... my mom did!

23 Sep 2004 | Britt said...

Lisa, I didn't watch the special but I have had similar experiences with PBS programs that I looked forward to. Upon watching, I read a magazine or did some work on the computer. The programs were so slow and dumbed down, I had to find something else to do while watching them. Was this the case with "The Question of God?"

23 Sep 2004 | lisa said...

hahhaa. sometimes i guess you could call me boring.

i think it was more the dialogue and the way it was shot. Britt, it was very, very slow. i have a ton of patience and was very interested in the subject matter, but for some reason, the way it was presented didn't grab me.

23 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Face it, religion is a dry topic, that's why so few people want to talk about it. Same goes for politics.

Yes, I'm kidding. Sometimes I wonder if PBS stetches out some programs to fit a time slot, they are that plodding. Other times the programs are great.

So, did anyone actually watch this program all the way through?

24 Sep 2004 | sloan said...

I find it interesting that so many refer to the idea of a "God" as "him". Probably a natural tendency, but inherently affects the view of what "God" is by anthropomorphising the idea and I think results in a lot of muddied theology.

24 Sep 2004 | indi said...

sloan, I suppose the alternatives are her, them, it and those. But you are right, if people discuss or believe in a personal God it is more likely to be a Him or Her since most people would have a hard time identifying with an It. Perhaps God should have a unique transpecific pronoun. Maybe something in Greek?

24 Sep 2004 | Holy Cow said...

Have you visited The Raving Atheist?

His proof has me convinced.

24 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

Can we all agree that each of us, at most has knowledge of a tiny percent of all there is to know? Is it not then possible that the remaining 99% percentage of all knowledge is where the proof that God in could exist? Anyone who questions the existence of God must be an agnostic, not an atheist, unless he/she in fact does know all there is to know.

Read the Bible, I mean really read it before casting it away so callously.

24 Sep 2004 | Holy Cow said...

Oh yeah, really read the Bible.

Read Leviticus 20:13 lately?

You really need to Google for "God of the Gaps", Kevin.

24 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Unholy Cow -- I looked at that Skeptic's Bible ... it's frickin' HILARIOUS! I can tear every one of those so-called "Problem Texts" to shreds ... as could any first-year Bible student.

When I went to Bible school, we studied those Problem Texts -- in fact, that was the name of the book we used -- and it was a blast.

Argue with me all you want, but you cannot win. Why? Because whereas your belief systems assumes no God and makes arguements based on that predication, my belief system stems from a faith in God and comes from that viewpoint.

For example, the Bible clearly states that God will purposely deceive people that don't want the truth. So anything "confusing" or "contradictory" to you is just more proof to me.

See how it works?

I know ... I know ... it's frustrating.

Point is this: It all comes down to faith. That's it, period, end of sentence, new paragraph.

24 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

Holy Cow -- I am familiar with the Gap Theory that you referred to...

The Gap Theory is consistent with God creating everything in six 24 hour days, as Scripture states.

In six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Having faith in this is one of the core beliefs of people like me, Christians.

24 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

Anyone who questions the existence of God must be an agnostic, not an atheist, unless he/she in fact does know all there is to know.

If Im reading you right, to be an atheist one has to be omniscient. So the only possible atheist is God?

Im obviously teasing. What youre saying is to be an atheist you need proof of everything, and I guess it follows to prove the existence of God you have to prove nothing other than theres something unknown. This argument can be extended to any existence claim including little blue monkeys from dimension X (not very persuasive).

Im not an atheist, just a bit of a pendant.

24 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

God will purposely deceive people that don't want the truth

Strikes me as a bit mean spirited of God, and all too convenient a warrant for anyone claiming to know what God wants (its hard to be a joiner when thats the stuff that offered up as reason).

I think people are more than capable of deceiving others and themselves without help from God.

24 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

Arne --
I missed the section in the Bible that discussed little blue monkeys. The Bible does however discuss, in great detail, "false gods" and "graven images" and the resulting ramifications.

24 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

I missed the section in the Bible that discussed little blue monkeys

Of course -- God (I think) created a lot of stuff (everything I believe). If you had to write it all down in a book, no one would ever have the time to read it all (expect possibly God).

But thats all utterly beside the point I was trying to make. I was trying to point out your reasoning was specious, not seriously proposing monkeys from dimension X or claiming anything else (I guess I was unclear - sorry).

Note: I am claiming something here. Theres a good opportunity to make a very solid attack on that claim if you try.

24 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

If Im reading you right, to be an atheist one has to be omniscient. So the only possible atheist is God?

No, that is not what I am saying. Instead I am attempting to make the point that because we (including atheists) know such a small amount of what there is to know, the atheist cannot categorically conclude that there is no God. They must instead conclude that they do not know if God exists, which is the definition agnostic. Just as Christians do not know if God exists, but they believe or have faith that He does.

24 Sep 2004 | sloan said...

well, I personally don't believe in the christian "God" (or any other for that matter) or its belief system. I have "faith" that a "God" would never "choose" one people over all the rest of the earth to be "God's" people. that a "God" would never wipe out the earth's population with a flood to prove a point. my faith is based on the belief that if there is an all powerful force to the universe that it isn't petty and demand sacrifices of sentient beings. not that i am a taoist, but they refer to the force/entity simply as The Tao, the unnameable, because trying to name it puts constraints on it...

24 Sep 2004 | Holy Cow said...

Instead I am attempting to make the point that because we (including atheists) know such a small amount of what there is to know, the atheist cannot categorically conclude that there is no God.

Replace "God" with "fairies", "leprechauns", "goblins", or "invisible pink unicorn" and that sentence pretty much holds true. Only the number of people believing it changes.

The creationists are the nuttiest bunch - believing the earth is only 6000 years old when we have clear evidence of it being being far older.

For example, the Bible clearly states that God will purposely deceive people that don't want the truth. So anything "confusing" or "contradictory" to you is just more proof to me.

See how it works?

Yes, I see you're in la-la land without smoking anything. Cool!

So, Don, are you saying God doesn't want homosexuals killed, or is that just me being deceived by your texts? (There's no "maybe" about it, btw. They must be "put to death". It's all there.)

24 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

No, that is not what I am saying. Instead I am attempting to make the point that because we (including atheists) know such a small amount of what there is to know, the atheist cannot categorically conclude that there is no God.

Oh, I think I agree with you there.

What I thought was specious was what I felt was an implied That something cant be proved negative is a warrant to think something is positive, but I guess that wasnt your intention. Lack of proof proves nothing other than youre lacking proof. If your faith is your only warrant then fine. Im looking for a little more, because if faith is all thats required, then choosing the right one is blind luck (and once I did choose Id be disallowed the tools to reconsider).

24 Sep 2004 | indi said...

here and here are interesting discussions of various interpretations of what Leviticus says about male homosexuality ... like many things in the bible, it's not so cut and dried. It's all about context and proper translation.

On the other hand being a lesbian seems to be just fine with God.

25 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Holy Cow -- you have no clue regarding dispensational truth, and I'm not about to spend all my time trying to educate you. God also said to build an ark, but you don't see Christians running around building boats, do you?

Dispensations. D-I-S-P-E-N-S-A-T-I-O-N-S. It's what separates Bible nuts from Bible scholars.

25 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

Replace "God" with "fairies", "leprechauns", "goblins", or "invisible pink unicorn"

This is the ever common argument from athiests/agnostics. However, as I attempted to point out earlier, there is no mention of fairies, leprechauns, goblins, or invisible pink unicorns in the Bible. The belief in Christ and a belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God go hand in hand, they cannot be disconnected.

Because none of us lived 2000 years ago none of us can positively confirm the events, or people of the time. It instead comes down Faith, plain and simple.

27 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

"The belief in Christ and a belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God go hand in hand, they cannot be disconnected."

Sure they can. People can believe whatever they want to. If it's a faith, then you can't really debate it, now can you? ;o)

My favorite protest to the 'but the bible said so' attitude is this site:

God Hates Shrimp

27 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

" Having faith in this is one of the core beliefs of people like me, Christians."

Oh no it's not. It's your belief. I'm sure there are plenty of christians that would put their faith in that as well. God help them. ;o)

But it is not a core belief of all christians. The bible is just a book. Some christians think and interpret/analyze the bible as a work of human hands and treat it as such. Others blindly follow it as doctrine.

27 Sep 2004 | kevin said...

--Sure they can. People can believe whatever they want to.

Of course people can believe what ever they want. However, a "Christian" who does not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God should really do some deep analysis of what being a Christian really means. Remember, Jesus is God, and no one can enter Heaven but through Jesus Christ, and Him alone. All roads do not lead to Heaven, narrow is the path.

--Oh no it's not. It's your belief...The bible is just a book.

Wow, that would be an amazing statement it came from someone who called them self a Christian!

27 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Saying the Bible is just a book is like saying the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

28 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

Remember, Jesus is God

and all this time I though God was the old guy with the white beard Michelangelo painted on the ceiling (doesnt look like Jesus at all). No wonder my prayers werent being answered (I had the wrong bearded man).

28 Sep 2004 | One of several Steves said...

However, a "Christian" who does not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God should really do some deep analysis of what being a Christian really means.

And what exactly does "inspired word of God" mean? Christians cannot agree on that. Some believe that every last word is literally and precisely true. Others believe that it is to be interpreted more allegorically. Others believe that it is not in fact inerrant, composed by human writers and that its errors and contradictions in details don't detract from the fact that it indeed was inspired by God.

When Christians themselves can't even agree on what a concept means, it's tough to expect the rest of the world to understand and accpept the significance of the phrase.

Saying the Bible is just a book is like saying the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

If one doesn't believe in God or Chritianity, it is just a book.

28 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

"And what exactly does "inspired word of God" mean?"

Christians can only share the Word of God, in an attempt to bring you to Christ. We cannot show you "proof" that the Bible is Gods Word, but we can give testimony of our belief that God so guided the authors of the Bible as to enable them to write exactly the words which convey His truth to us. This is what is meant when people state the Bible is the inspired word of God.

The entire Scripture is the inspired word of God because the Bible says so (2 Timothy 3:16). This is probably the strongest argument from a presuppositional point of view. However, non believers would rebuke that the authority of the Bible is what one tries to prove in the first place, so how can one use quotes from the Bible to sustain such a claim. In this case, the fulfillment of prophecies about Jesus, his birth, death and resurrection, proves the accuracy of the Bible and that Jesus is the Son of God, giving Him the authority to claim the inspiration and inerracy of the Bible (Matthew 21:13, Luke 4:27, John 14:24, 16:12,13).
(http://www.yutopian.com/religion/theology/Inspiration.html)

God's parameters are that we acknowledge and believe with our heart (faith) that He created everything and that He is righteous. Second is that we have disobeyed and fallen short of what He requires and that we seek forgiveness and repent our sins. Third that Jesus came to Earth to die on the cross (to pay our fine) to become that disobedience (sin) in us so that we may be righteous as God is. Forth that Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus now asks us to make Him Lord of our lives.

28 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

"a "Christian" who does not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God should really do some deep analysis of what being a Christian really means"

There are no 'rules' when it comes to religion. It's a personal thing. You can pick and choose from whatever you want and it's still an as legitimate religion/spiritual belief system as any other.

This is where people get turned off by religion...when people start saying 'if you don't follow MY rules, then you can't be in MY club and MY club is the BEST club so I am right and YOU are wrong'. It's tiring.

" Remember, Jesus is God, and no one can enter Heaven but through Jesus Christ"

Well, if I decide to start obeying the Kevinology religion, I'll consider adding that to my rulebook. Untill then, I'll pick and choose as I wish. ;o)

"Wow, that would be an amazing statement it came from someone who called them self a Christian! "

You mean you're amazed to see someone instill a bit of logic and common sense into their religious belief system? Do you NOT eat shrimp?

BTW, I don't consider myself anything these days (though I was raised a christian). I'm agnostic, if anything...truly and sincerely interested in all religions, but not being convinced that one of them is any better than the other.

"Saying the Bible is just a book is like saying the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is just a piece of paper."

Uh...it is just a piece of paper. Both documents were likely written with (mosly) good intentions for the masses. Both documents are interpreted/re-examined constantly. For better and for worse.

28 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

"Third that Jesus came to Earth to die on the cross (to pay our fine)"

I'm using that argument next time I'm in traffic court. Maybe christianity ain't so bad...

28 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Be careful, Darrel. In our town, a murder conviction was ruled a mistrial because the District Attorney quoted a verse from the Bible in his closing argument.

28 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

There are no 'rules' when it comes to religion.

There may not be rules to your religion, but there indeed are rules to Christianity. Ever heard of the Ten Commandments, not to mention all of the other implied and explcit "rules" in the Bible? All paths/religions/spiritualities DO NOT lead to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

If rules do not exist in your religion, good luck with that.

28 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

I'm using that argument next time I'm in traffic court.

That wont likely work in traffic court, but on your day of Judgment (when you die) if you are a Saved Christian, Jesus promised to pay your fine. This is the "Good News" that Christians are always talking about. Remember however, narrow is the path to salvation, once you die it is too late! Paying your own fines wont be pleasant.

Get your self right with God now.

28 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

"There may not be rules to your religion, but there indeed are rules to Christianity. "

Again, Kevin. Do you eat shrimp?

"Get your self right with God now."

Get your self right with ______ now.

a) Buddha
b) God
c) L. Ron Hubbard
d) Hare Krishna
e) Jeebus
f) The almighty brand
g) Yourself
h) Other people
i) (help me out here, folks...)

28 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

Again, Kevin. Do you eat shrimp?

You may be missing the point. If you want to go to Heaven, there is one way -- through Jesus. Not Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Hare Krishna, Jeebus, The almighty brand, Yourself, Other people, The Pope, etc. Sorry to be redundant, but all roads do not lead to Heaven.

Yes, I eat shrimp.
Jesus said, "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles" (Matthew 15:11).

28 Sep 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Kevin, I'm very familiar with the various apologia regarding the claims to the Bible's inspired-ness and inerrancy. I have a degree in the stuff. I grew up around that. And as a result, I'm very familiar with the shortcomings of such arguments.

You cannot use a document's claim about its own inerrancy to prove its inerrancy. Most relgious texts contain such claims: do you therefore believe the Koran to be literal word of God, or the Book of Mormon to be the infallible new prophecy of God?

Secondly, you completely skirted the issue I originally brought up: Christians themselves cannot agree on the nature of their scriptures - are they literally true and infallible, are they allegorical and thematically true, etc. And with that, you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone outside the community of the validity of your viewpoint unless you can address that issue, as well as use terminology and reasoning that appeals to the senses of those outside the community. That's one of the most common flaws I see amongst religious people today. They're so used to communicating amongst themselves, they are not capable of addressing legitimate questions in a fashion that doesn't use jargon and self-referential reasoning.

What it comes down to is this: You're never, ever going to "prove" that any god exists, that the Christian God is the one true god, that the Bible is infallible or merely allegorical, or any other claim about any faith. Nor is anyone going to prove there is no god, that the Bible is nothing more than the equivalent of Beowulf or any other claim about any faith. That's why it's faith, and not just as simple as believing that sitting on a chair is going to keep me off the floor. But, if you're going to make your case one way or another that your perspective is correct, you have to be willing to meet the person you're trying to convince on their terms and appeal to what's going to resonate with them. And saying that Christianity is correct because its own texts claim it to be so isn't going to cut it.

28 Sep 2004 | indi said...

"Saying the Bible is just a book is like saying the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is just a piece of paper."

If one doesn't believe in God or Chritianity, it is just a book.

Uh...it is just a piece of paper. Both documents were likely written with (mosly) good intentions for the masses. Both documents are interpreted/re-examined constantly. For better and for worse.

You both missed my point. Regardless of whether you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God or not, it is still a book that has had a great impact on civilization. Similarly the US Constitution has had a great impact. Sure you can trivialize them in the strictly materialistic, utilitarian sense and say they are just paper and ink but that belies their historical significance if nothing else, and that's what I was really getting at. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

28 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

"Yes, I eat shrimp. "

Well there you go you heathen monster!

;o)

Really, rules in the bible, or rules of any type are rididculous to follow without having a logical reason for doing so.

The ten commandmants for instance. I do not kill people only because the bible says so. I think 'hey, that's a logical rule to follow' and then do so. Not eating shrimp? I think 'hmm...that's not that logical...I think I'm going to get a shrimp cocktail'.

"You may be missing the point. If you want to go to Heaven, there is one way -- through Jesus."

I'm not missing any point. I guess my point is that your rules apply to you. I'm getting to heaven through Jeebus....and you can't deny me that. :p

" it is still a book that has had a great impact on civilization. Similarly the US Constitution has had a great impact."

Right. Didn't I imply that in my response? Apologies if that wasn't clear.

28 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone outside the community of the validity of your viewpoint unless you can address that issue

Not true. I think you can convince most of the people some of the time with little more than some little bottles of colored water and promise of miracles (particularly if theyre young or really in need of a miracle). My cynical side would say that the success of a belief has far more to with how easily it can be communicated then its bearing on reality. My optimistic side would say that a belief must provide some real value to be passed from generation to generation.

28 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

"I guess my point is that your rules apply to you. I'm getting to heaven through Jeebus."

When you say "My rules", they are not mine, they are the rules of Christians. If you continue to believe that you are getting to Heaven through "Jeebus", again, good luck with that.

If I say that when I die my "belief" is that I will be coming back as a laptop computer, or that my heaven when I die is that of me sitting in front of a TV watching Sponge Bob for eternity, would I be wrong?

Based on many of the posts on this topic I conclude that many believe that individuals can make their own heaven, including that of watching Sponge Bob, or being reincarnated as a laptop computer.

I guess all roads do lead to Heaven.

28 Sep 2004 | indi said...

I'm not missing any point. I guess my point is that your rules apply to you. I'm getting to heaven through Jeebus....and you can't deny me that.

Anyway you look at it, that was damn funny. And I have a sneaking suspicion that being funny is what ultimately gets you into heaven ...

28 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

"My optimistic side would say that a belief must provide some real value to be passed from generation to generation."

Is the salvation of your sole a generational thing? Isn't instead an eternity thing? I do believe that spreading the Word to each generation is vital. However, not so that each generation's existence is "better" than the previous, but instead to glorify what Jesus Christ did to save us from sin.

28 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

When you say "My rules", they are not mine, they are the rules of Christians.

No, they are your own interpretation of various christian doctrines.

If you continue to believe that you are getting to Heaven through "Jeebus", again, good luck with that.

Thanks! I wish you the best of luck with your god as well. We'll buy each other a drink when we get there. ;o)

If I say that when I die my "belief" is that I will be coming back as a laptop computer, or that my heaven when I die is that of me sitting in front of a TV watching Sponge Bob for eternity, would I be wrong?

Not at all. You can't state that a belief is wrong without proof denying it. There's no way to proove that heaven isn't full of sponge bob re-runs, though I certainly hope and pray that it is.

Based on many of the posts on this topic I conclude that many believe that individuals can make their own heaven, including that of watching Sponge Bob, or being reincarnated as a laptop computer.

Well, here's where I may be treading on thin water with you, but, yes, that is the basic premise of pretty much any man-made belief system. All religions are man made. Whether there's a supreme being behind that man made system is yet to be determined.

28 Sep 2004 | indi said...

... of course it's entirely possible that Terry Pratchett (of Discworld fame) is right and we'll all pretty much end up in an after-life of our own expectations.

28 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

"No, they are your own interpretation of various Christian doctrines. "

I am confident that I won't be able to convince you of anything that is based on the Christian Bible, just as I won't be convinced that people can simply create a heaven and god to fit there secular needs and still end up in Heaven with Jesus Christ.

Take a look at this: http://www.ttwministries.com/walk/whichjesus.pdf

28 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

I am confident that I won't be able to convince you of anything that is based on the Christian Bible, just as I won't be convinced that people can simply create a heaven and god to fit there secular needs and still end up in Heaven with Jesus Christ.

Exactly. ;o)

28 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Kevin, all you can expect in a hostile crowd is to plant seeds and hope they sprout and take hold. Live your life as an example and when people ask you why you alway seem to be happy and take hardships in stride, then share your faith with them.

At least that's one approach.

29 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

What indi said. Also, may I add 2 Timothy 2:24.

29 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

Indi and Don,

Thank you for your words of encouragement.

29 Sep 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

hostile crowd?

Wheres the hostile crowd?

29 Sep 2004 | Kevin said...

One last item...

The truths of Christianity have satisfied some of the greatest minds in human history, most of us are not even capable of framing a question for which there is not a phenomenal answer. Doubt sees the obstacles faith sees the opportunities.

Skeptics listen to this recent timely autio stream:
http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/swn/oneplace/wm/ww/ww20040929.wax

If it seems "too boring", advance to 6:50 minutes into the stream.

29 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

"Doubt sees the obstacles faith sees the opportunities."

And faith builds obstacles and doubt questions them enabling opporunities.

We could go back and forth on this forever. ;o)

You have a very profound belief system. That's great. Just understand that there are a lot of profound, but different belief systems on this planet and not one is more right or wrong than the other.

30 Sep 2004 | Paperhead said...

this is like watching lepers arm wrestle

30 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

... or watching someone throw marshmallows at a brick wall ...

30 Sep 2004 | indi said...

... or like watching someone throw bricks at that giant Sta-Puft marshmallow man from Ghost Busters ...

30 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

...yet people keep watching...

01 Oct 2004 | Kevin said...

Okay, I am curious. Which of us is the Sta-Puft Marshmallow man and which of us is throwing bricks?

01 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

Kevin...what ever you do...just don't let our beams cross!

01 Oct 2004 | Kevin said...

Kevin...what ever you do...just don't let our beams cross!

Balance beams? Huh?

Fellow Minnesotan

01 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

Balance beams? Huh?

Aw crap. Had my movie quotes mixed up...

"Just don't cross the streams (the particle beams). That would be "bad.""

I screwed that joke up. ;o)

(Yay Minnesota!)

02 Oct 2004 | indi said...

The unknowable infinite is the Sta-Puft marshmallow man ... we are the bricks.

"Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. "

... What happens when you cross the streams

04 Oct 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

Brick Wall
n.
A planar upright structure, constituted of man made stone. Walls of this type are often employed in the construction of secure dwellings and defensive barriers.

Marshmallow
n.
A light and spongy confection made of sugars, starches and gelatin. Commonly served as a delightful treat, but provides no substantive nutritive value.

08 Oct 2004 | Edward Cannell said...

I watched the program, A Question of God, on PBS and I found it a healing process.

I also noticed the obvious difference between the panelists that believe in a spiritual existence, and those that dont. I wonder if anyone else had noticed that the atheist and the agnostic within the panel often interrupted the other panelists with a protest. I noticed this because I wanted to hear where every speaker was going with their comments to understand their premise and why they believed in God, or not.

I call those interruptions protests because that was the nature of the remarks. It seemed apparent to me that those that do not believe in a spiritual existence have not yet convinced themselves at a core level, and they are still trying very hard to do so.

For those that have purchased the program you may want to take another look to see if my observations are grounded or not.

Debating the existence of God is a futile effort, and like the program, there is no proof as to why anyone should believe in God. Although no poof, one way or the other, can be offered the program was a wonderful experience for me.

To come at this from a different perspective is to look at, not a belief itself, but the nature of beliefs. For instance, you may want to consider that Ones beliefs become ones reality. And, if you dont believe this, then whatever you do believe IS your reality.

Here is another example:
Some people believe that a good theory will be supported by the facts, and others believe that a good theory will generate its own facts.

30 Jan 2005 | compatelius said...

bocigalingus must be something funny.

01 Feb 2005 | super bowl said...

4138 super bowl
super bowl 2005
super bowl ticket
super bowl history
super bowl sunday
super bowl xxxix
super bowl date
super bowl sunday 2005
super bowl 2005 date
super bowl 39
nfl super bowl
super bowl champion
jacksonville super bowl
super bowl party
super bowl package
super bowl ads
super bowl odds
2005 super bowl ticket
nfl super bowl ticket
super bowl ring
nfl super bowl 2005
when is the super bowl
super bowl schedule
cheap super bowl ticket
las vegas super bowl party
super bowl hotel
super bowl prediction
super bowl game
super bowl weekend
win super bowl ticket
2005 super bowl odds
maxim super bowl party
super bowl ticket package
super bowl party idea
when is super bowl 2005
super bowl football
playboy super bowl party
super bowl logo
super bowl record
past super bowl
super bowl halftime show
super bowl xxxix ticket
leigh steinberg super bowl party
super bowl 05
lee steinberg super bowl party
super bowl mvp
super bowl team
super bowl travel package
super bowl win
super bowl pick
super bowl location
super bowl stats
buy super bowl ticket

01 Feb 2005 | online pharmacy said...

I really appreciate blogs like this one becuase it is insightful and helps me communicate with others.
thanks.also, that guy billyz, I really need to talk to you about that cure you mentioned.