The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

Discuss strengths and weaknesses of new pages added to the God And Science website
SaintConfused
Recognized Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#16

Post by SaintConfused » Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:13 pm

OK, it just seems that when Jesus is saying that when you see him, you see the Father, and that's significant.
Very significant. I wasn't promising that the Father and Son aren't the same when they are seen. I had just showed the differences (with some of God's attributes) and the relativity of meaning, purpose, and value. Hence the following: Meaning and purpose aren't strings to cut or pull, and God being omnipresent (both 'below', above, and within humanity) wouldn't understand any more than we do, with the absence of all-knowledge, it is below meaningful, valuable, purposeful, justice and above them all at the same time. Having to be both absolute (without meaning, purpose, value, justice) & non-absolute (with meaning, purpose, value, justice, provided by his 'higher' absolute 'person'). This is why Jesus says none is good, except the Father, he can't be 'good' with a non-absolute justice and lack of knowledge that the Father has. (Mark 13 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.)
I don't know how you study God's word, I was just saying.
I do my best to be as unbiased about it as usual, even though it doesn't seem to result that way.
I'm willing to look at both sides of debate to see what the best answer is, but I need to feel that the information is balanced.
For the sake of future references, could you provide an example for me to understand the 'balance' of information that you find to be a necessary feeling?
Then you're not reading the whole verse.
I wasn't even near a verse when I had replied, that was just sentimental talk not biblically supported or unsupported.
Jesus says 'glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.' This isn't just a person ascending or being glorified.
Great, now I'm urged to ask something because of what Jesus said. pre-physical ('before the world began.') glory?
Elijah wasn't 'just a person' either, he's a prophet of God. I said 'a person of God', not 'just a person'.
I would still be interested in what you think of Jesus - is he a saviour or not - and whatever else you think.
Isn't thinking a taboo usually, around these kinds of forums? I don't want my thoughts to be seen as spiritual, emotional, or whatever attacks against who someone else is all because of beliefs and world views.
How do your views differ from basic doctrine?
Doctrine has basics? what are they? we might as well survey me, I love those things.
"Jesus loves me, this I know, 'cause the bible tells me so."
Deja vu.
What does this love mean? How does it manifest itself?
Do I have to answer that or is it just being thrown out there?
You were the Chosen One! It was said you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!~Obi-Wan Kenobi.

cslewislover
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#17

Post by cslewislover » Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:46 pm

SaintConfused wrote:
OK, it just seems that when Jesus is saying that when you see him, you see the Father, and that's significant.
Very significant. I wasn't promising that the Father and Son aren't the same when they are seen. I had just showed the differences (with some of God's attributes) and the relativity of meaning, purpose, and value. Hence the following: Meaning and purpose aren't strings to cut or pull, and God being omnipresent (both 'below', above, and within humanity) wouldn't understand any more than we do, with the absence of all-knowledge, it is below meaningful, valuable, purposeful, justice and above them all at the same time. Having to be both absolute (without meaning, purpose, value, justice) & non-absolute (with meaning, purpose, value, justice, provided by his 'higher' absolute 'person'). This is why Jesus says none is good, except the Father, he can't be 'good' with a non-absolute justice and lack of knowledge that the Father has. (Mark 13 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.)
I honestly don't think God meant for us to consider meaning, purpose, value, and justice as relative or abstract (at least not very much so). God wants regular people to understand him and have faith in him (you must have faith as a child), and while we're not supposed to be blind in our faith, I do not think we're to over-think things to the point of abstraction or nonmeaning.
I do my best to be as unbiased about it as usual, even though it doesn't seem to result that way.
The methods of reading and study are different than the act of being unbiased. Looking at parts of a book only can give a much different impression than reading the whole thing. I was just saying, and wondering.
I'm willing to look at both sides of debate to see what the best answer is, but I need to feel that the information is balanced.
For the sake of future references, could you provide an example for me to understand the 'balance' of information that you find to be a necessary feeling?
I already said. Should I have just changed the word feel to think? You need to present all verses regarding a subject (or samples of similar verses) to make a case, not just ones that favor a certain view. That is what balanced is. You asked me before why the hostile attitude. It seems you are being hostile, or defensive, or something . . . :surrender:
Jesus says 'glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.' This isn't just a person ascending or being glorified.
Great, now I'm urged to ask something because of what Jesus said. pre-physical ('before the world began.') glory?
Elijah wasn't 'just a person' either, he's a prophet of God. I said 'a person of God', not 'just a person'.
You seem to be missing the point, or are deflecting it on purpose. This is one reason why I asked you what you think of Christ, because no matter what I say it seems you alter your view. But it may be that I just don't know what your view is. That's why I ask.
I would still be interested in what you think of Jesus - is he a saviour or not - and whatever else you think.
Isn't thinking a taboo usually, around these kinds of forums?
?!?! :swhat: So, you don't want to get banned, lol?
I don't want my thoughts to be seen as spiritual, emotional, or whatever attacks against who someone else is all because of beliefs and world views.
If you don't write them in an attacking way, why would they be viewed that way?
How do your views differ from basic doctrine?

Doctrine has basics? what are they? we might as well survey me, I love those things.
Well, the most basic one is that Jesus died for our sins, and that if you believe in him - that he did this - then your sins will be forgiven and that you will have eternal life. I'll start with that.
"Jesus loves me, this I know, 'cause the bible tells me so."

Deja vu.
:swhat:
What does this love mean? How does it manifest itself?

Do I have to answer that or is it just being thrown out there?
It has to do with basic doctrine, so yes, I wondered what your belief was.

Here, have a cup on me. Lol.
:cheers:
Last edited by cslewislover on Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
"I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

SaintConfused
Recognized Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#18

Post by SaintConfused » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:20 pm

I honestly don't think God meant for us to consider meaning, purpose, value, and justice as relative or abstract (at least not very much so).
If you say so, that pretty much nullifies God being of meaning, purpose, and value as the foundational essence of 'hope' which is what Cross.eyed was saying, that I disagree about 'hope' not existing without God.
God wants regular people to understand him and have faith in him (you must have faith as a child), and while we're not supposed to
be blind in our faith, I do not think we're to over-think things to the point of abstraction or nonmeaning.
What's wrong with 'irregular' people? I haven't 'over thought' at all, just doing my best to keep reason and logic in the same respect that God and Science derives it's own meaning.
You need to present all verses regarding a subject (or samples of similar verses) to make a case, not just ones that favor a certain view.
That is an awkward thing to find necessary, you're telling me to show the contradictions and it's called 'balanced' when they are brought together under the same subject (?). I'm not used too that, but okay - sure, I guess I can go along with it. I didn't present them in favor of a certain view, I showed them from the context (I didn't know I had to tag along the entire chapter while I was at it) to make 'points', axioms, regarding my acceptance of what the bible says about the subject that was developing.
It seems you are being hostile, or defensive, or something.
I asked a question, I'm not threatening you're existence.
You seem to be missing the point, or are deflecting it on purpose.
What is 'the point'?
I don't understand you're reaction to what I said. If it helps, here is the entire exchange
focusing on this singular interaction, but I'm not deflecting or missing anything here:
scl: I don't know the theology of this actually, but Jesus as a man was not yet fully glorified while here on earth, so there are verses that are going to reflect that as well.
SC: I don't see how a glorification or ascension would automatically make a person of God, including Jesus. Elijah had ascended, yet he's not part of the Trinity. Don't let my opinion get the best of you, I'm just a confused human and nothing special.
scl: Then you're not reading the whole verse. Jesus says 'glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.' This isn't just a person ascending or being glorified.
SC: Great, now I'm urged to ask something because of what Jesus said. pre-physical ('before the world began.') glory?
Elijah wasn't 'just a person' either, he's a prophet of God. I said 'a person of God', not 'just a person'.
What 'point' am I missing, what have I deflected according to the above?
This is one reason why I asked you what you think of Christ, because no matter what I say it seems you alter your view.
What I think of 'Christ' probably belongs on another post/forum subject. I've made multiple responses in breaking down you're messages, but I haven't altered my view.
So, you don't want to get banned?
I don't see why I should be.
Well, the most basic one is that Jesus died for our sins, and that you believe in him -
that he did this - then your sins will be forgiven and that you will have eternal life.
OK, well sense I'm just infatuated with the Tanakh.
I'll let God speak for me through the prophets he has sent.
Death for my own sins & the actual new covenant:
Jer 31:27-36 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD. In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But [every one shall die for his own iniquity]: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [But this shall be the covenant] that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, [I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God], and they shall be my people. And [they shall teach no more] every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for [they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them], saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and [I will remember their sin no more]. Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
Responsible for my own sins/iniquities: Ezek 18:20-28 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Key items of the new covenant: God will reaffirm his existing laws with the people under a new contract. Each person will die for their own sin. God will put his existing Law directly inside people and will write it on their hearts so that they follow it without fail. Each person will be in direct contact with God's will. Each person will know God personally and directly without the need for any intermediary. God will remember the people's sin no more, as their sins will be forgiven.
One way, I accept Jesus' sacrifice and 'eternal life' - yet the laws are abolished, a 'curse', and 'no longer binding' according to Paul. The other option,
I am a sinner responsible for my own sins and no one needs to die for my actions other than myself and the law remains eternal, perfect, everlasting, etc.
I don't like to look irresponsible, so you know what my choice is already (at God's whim).
I wondered what your belief was.
Love has several 'meanings', the manifestation of love begins with verbal or physical output.y@};- ~CS
You were the Chosen One! It was said you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!~Obi-Wan Kenobi.

User avatar
Cross.eyed
Valued Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:45 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Kentucky U.S.A.
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#19

Post by Cross.eyed » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:06 am

SaintConfused wrote:
Cross.eyed wrote:Without God, there is no hope for any type of future; no justice, a mere meaningless existence, no purpose etc.
I disagree with the above statement.
Conservation law of matter, provides a universal 'meaning'/'purpose'. It might not be the expected one, it might not be the most exciting, but
it certainly serves for hope, meaning, and purpose (the universe doesn't follow a justice system, so this is why I didn't apply it with the others).
There are plentiful other independent 'parts' within nature that provide meaning, hope, and purpose for humanity. The water cycle provides
'meaning'/'purpose' as well and it doesn't require a deity attachment such as 'Lady of the lake' or 'Poseidon'. Farming is an agricultural Terran
species 'meaning'/'purpose' and it simply requires humanity knowing a certain amount about their environment including during rough seasons.
Volcanoes, provide life and take it with a 'meaning' / 'purpose' of repeated carbon-dioxide emissions (keeping the planet warm & the atmosphere
strong). Supernovae gives more chemical elements too other stars, preserving the plasma activity within the universe, another 'meaning'/'purpose'
with distant planetary systems and whatever life exists therein. Medical Technology helps our biological systems as another vital part of any
culture or populated area. There is another 'meaning'/'purpose'. Reproductive System(s) preserves the attributes of parents for children,
and sexual evolution is more in favor then asexual for a majority of species. The 'meaning'/'purpose' lies within the name, the ability to
reproduce. etc.
We see all this as divine intention, How do you see it?
I am the wretch the song refers to.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9924
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 630 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#20

Post by Kurieuo » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:53 am

SaintConfused wrote:
I would still be interested in what you think of Jesus - is he a saviour or not - and whatever else you think.
Isn't thinking a taboo usually, around these kinds of forums? I don't want my thoughts to be seen as spiritual, emotional, or whatever attacks against who someone else is all because of beliefs and world views.
How kind of you to reflect upon the community here in such a charitable manner.

You agreed to the purpose and intended audience that this board is for when you registered. If you have a problem being at this Christian board and treating beliefs held here in the same manner one would if entering a Christian church, Jewish synagogue, mosque or what have you, then perhaps you should be looking elsewhere? Proselytizing against Christianity will not be accepted on this board.

cslewislover
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#21

Post by cslewislover » Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:55 am

I normally don't do these long posts with tons of quotes, so you better appreciate it y:p , if you're still here.
I honestly don't think God meant for us to consider meaning, purpose, value, and justice as relative or abstract (at least not very much so).

God wants regular people to understand him and have faith in him (you must have faith as a child), and while we're not supposed to be blind in our faith, I do not think we're to over-think things to the point of abstraction or nonmeaning.
What's wrong with 'irregular' people? I haven't 'over thought' at all, just doing my best to keep reason and logic in the same respect that God and Science derives it's own meaning.
Lol, there's nothing wrong with irregular people. I have some irregularities that I wish I didn't have. Within the context, of thinking and meaning, I meant that uneducated (nonuniversity, everyday) people could grasp God's message. No PhD in philosophy required.
You need to present all verses regarding a subject (or samples of similar verses) to make a case, not just ones that favor a certain view.
That is an awkward thing to find necessary, you're telling me to show the contradictions and it's called 'balanced' when they are brought together under the same subject (?). I'm not used too that, but okay - sure, I guess I can go along with it. I didn't present them in favor of a certain view, I showed them from the context (I didn't know I had to tag along the entire chapter while I was at it) to make 'points', axioms, regarding my acceptance of what the bible says about the subject that was developing.
It happens all of the time that people pick and choose the verses that support their point of view, and get people to go along with it. The person doing this very often knows what he is doing, and the people follow along because they don't look into it more. So if there are some verses that you think are contradictions, then that means you need to explain why they're there and why we should believe you despite the contraditions or seeming contradictions.
I don't understand you're reaction to what I said. If it helps, here is the entire exchange
focusing on this singular interaction, but I'm not deflecting or missing anything here:

scl: I don't know the theology of this actually, but Jesus as a man was not yet fully glorified while here on earth, so there are verses that are going to reflect that as well.

SC: I don't see how a glorification or ascension would automatically make a person of God, including Jesus. Elijah had ascended, yet he's not part of the Trinity. Don't let my opinion get the best of you, I'm just a confused human and nothing special.

scl: Then you're not reading the whole verse. Jesus says 'glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.' This isn't just a person ascending or being glorified.

SC: Great, now I'm urged to ask something because of what Jesus said. pre-physical ('before the world began.') glory? Elijah wasn't 'just a person' either, he's a prophet of God. I said 'a person of God', not 'just a person'.

What 'point' am I missing, what have I deflected according to the above?
That Jesus was with God, in glory, before the world began. He's not the same as Elijah or anyone other person. Elijah was not with God in glory before the world began.
This is one reason why I asked you what you think of Christ, because no matter what I say it seems you alter your view.
What I think of 'Christ' probably belongs on another post/forum subject. I've made multiple responses in breaking down you're messages, but I haven't altered my view.
OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I just couldn't see where you were coming from.
So, you don't want to get banned?
I don't see why I should be.
You're kidding, right? Implying (strongly) that people don't think on the board? I see you didn't include what you wrote here. It's what Kurieou quoted from you as well.
Well, the most basic one is that Jesus died for our sins, and that if you believe in him -
that he did this - then your sins will be forgiven and that you will have eternal life.
OK, well sense [since ?] I'm just infatuated with the Tanakh.
I'll let God speak for me through the prophets he has sent. . . . .

One way, I accept Jesus' sacrifice and 'eternal life' - yet the laws are abolished, a 'curse', and 'no longer binding' according to Paul. The other option,I am a sinner responsible for my own sins and no one needs to die for my actions other than myself and the law remains eternal, perfect, everlasting, etc. I don't like to look irresponsible, so you know what my choice is already (at God's whim).
I wondered what your belief was.
Love has several 'meanings', the manifestation of love begins with verbal or physical output.y@};- ~CS
In the context, I was asking what you thought of God's manifestation of love, not our own. The Lord gave his word (the bible) and even gave his body and blood for us, both verbal and physical outputs, and ulitmately so. Regarding the laws, Jesus himself said they are eternal, so your concerns about that are unfounded concerning a belief in Jesus (that is, if I'm understanding you correctly). Plenty of Jews believed Jesus was the Christ, and many more have come to believe in him since. They do not seem to have this problem you're speaking of. Also, there are a great many prophecies from the OT fulfilled by Jesus. See, this is where I'm unclear about your view of Jesus, since it seems like you believe in him, yet you reject him (in one of the posts above you said something about seeing God and Jesus together). If you think he's a prophet, then you need to take into account everything he said, and since he said he was God and didn't tell others not to think of him that way, then you actually can't think he's a prophet anymore. Either he is God, or he's a liar.

As for being responsible or irresponsible for our own sins, well, what's to be done? It's a matter of where you want to be eternally. You can't do anything about your own sin when it comes to your eternal soul. Either it (sin and its effects) will still be there and you won't be able to enter the presence of God, or you can have it removed and so be able to come into God's presence. You say in your above post that God will remember our sins no more, but what is his method for doing that? It's Jesus' sacrificial work, and you need to accept it (which is God's will); it's my understanding that the Jewish sacrificial system only covers sins, it doesn't remove them like Jesus' sacrifice does. Anyway, God's law is eternal whether you want to accept Jesus or not, it's a matter of what happens to you after you die. You seem like you just want to become nothing.

Have you taken a look at this? http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/law.html

Vicki y>:D<
Image
"I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

SaintConfused
Recognized Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#22

Post by SaintConfused » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:17 pm

Cross.eyed wrote:
SaintConfused wrote:
Cross.eyed wrote:Without God, there is no hope for any type of future; no justice, a mere meaningless existence, no purpose etc.
I disagree with the above statement.
Conservation law of matter, provides a universal 'meaning'/'purpose'. It might not be the expected one, it might not be the most exciting, but
it certainly serves for hope, meaning, and purpose (the universe doesn't follow a justice system, so this is why I didn't apply it with the others).
There are plentiful other independent 'parts' within nature that provide meaning, hope, and purpose for humanity. The water cycle provides
'meaning'/'purpose' as well and it doesn't require a deity attachment such as 'Lady of the lake' or 'Poseidon'. Farming is an agricultural Terran
species 'meaning'/'purpose' and it simply requires humanity knowing a certain amount about their environment including during rough seasons.
Volcanoes, provide life and take it with a 'meaning' / 'purpose' of repeated carbon-dioxide emissions (keeping the planet warm & the atmosphere
strong). Supernovae gives more chemical elements too other stars, preserving the plasma activity within the universe, another 'meaning'/'purpose'
with distant planetary systems and whatever life exists therein. Medical Technology helps our biological systems as another vital part of any
culture or populated area. There is another 'meaning'/'purpose'. Reproductive System(s) preserves the attributes of parents for children,
and sexual evolution is more in favor then asexual for a majority of species. The 'meaning'/'purpose' lies within the name, the ability to
reproduce. etc.
We see all this as divine intention, How do you see it?
Natural order (or lacking thereof). The primary point I'm making is I don't see anything
hopeless, meaningless, without purpose, or valueless in the absence of God.
You were the Chosen One! It was said you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!~Obi-Wan Kenobi.

SaintConfused
Recognized Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#23

Post by SaintConfused » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:20 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
SaintConfused wrote:
I would still be interested in what you think of Jesus - is he a saviour or not - and whatever else you think.
Isn't thinking a taboo usually, around these kinds of forums? I don't want my thoughts to be seen as spiritual, emotional, or whatever attacks against who someone else is all because of beliefs and world views.
How kind of you to reflect upon the community here in such a charitable manner.
Proselytizing against Christianity will not be accepted on this board.
I'm not here to proselytize, even though I would like an understanding to be shared between myself and others here.
You were the Chosen One! It was said you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!~Obi-Wan Kenobi.

SaintConfused
Recognized Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#24

Post by SaintConfused » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:24 pm

I normally don't do these long posts with tons of quotes, so you better appreciate it.
I appreciate the time you put into this, yes.
I meant that uneducated (non-university, everyday) people could grasp God's message.
Seeing as how it's God's message, everyone (not just the 'regular' people) should have no problems with grasping it.
It happens all of the time that people pick and choose the verses that support their point of view, and get people to go along with it.
It's become a sport I guess, but I'm not giving verses that do not fit the subject in order to share my thoughts on the matter at hand. I keep it relative, natural.
So if there are some verses that you think are contradictions, then that means you need to explain why they're there and why we should believe you despite the contradictions or seeming contradictions.
I'm the reader not the writer. I don't ask anyone to believe in half or all of what I say, it's not the brightest thing to do. I can't explain what someone else has done, I'm in no position to do such. The only thing I haven't done is make a verse say something that isn't actually there. Now even though there are several 'versions' in production, this wouldn't make my own extracted verses unreliable as a whole. Focusing on the icing of the cake, the tip of the ice berg, is no reason to eliminate the rest of what has been said. If I'm wrong, correct me. I won't quarrel about it, even if I have trouble understanding.
That Jesus was with God, in glory, before the world began.
That's fine, appealing, great, needs some music to go along with it. Wonderful, spectacular, all I'm saying is because he is 'with God' this doesn't make him God.
Elijah was not with God in glory before the world began.
Elijah is a person of God, and so is Jesus. How can we be sure that Elijah wasn't with God before the world began? Jesus shares his glory with all before the world begins, that's okay with me, is there a reason Elijah is exempt from everyone else suddenly? How do we determine who was and wasn't in the glory? Elijah (My God is Yah), Jesus (YHWH rescues). I don't see why these two, even within the importance of name meanings, cannot share the glory before the world began. Much less anyone else. Weren't we all with God before he 'created' the heavens and the Earth? I have no problem accepting it.
Implying (strongly) that people don't think on the board?
I wasn't giving a strong implication of anything, I just asked if it was taboo because of theism within forums has a strong basis on 'faith'
and less on thinking
. I didn't imply no one thinks around here at all. I had asked a question, I wasn't saying everyone here is thoughtless.
Regarding the laws, Jesus himself said they are eternal, so your concerns about that are unfounded concerning a belief in Jesus (that is, if I'm understanding you correctly).
I respect the laws, I know what Jesus has said concerning them, Paul has perverted that though in saying that they are abolished (no longer binding) because of Jesus' atonement. Which I find troublesome.
Plenty of Jews believed Jesus was the Christ, and many more have come to believe in him since.
As such a class distinction has been made, separating these Jesus-believers from other Jews. They are still Jews, but they aren't accepted by the Jewish community or recognized as valid followers of the Torah and the one God of Israel.
Also, there are a great many prophecies from the OT fulfilled by Jesus.
There's a genuine difference between what we make 'prophecies', and what actually is from the prophets (who are from God).
(in one of the posts above you said something about seeing God and Jesus together).
Again, I only used them as examples for meaning, purpose, justice, hope, value and the opposites. How it related too being
absolute or not, why 'The Father' is good and not the 'The Son' (I used a verse showing exactly that Jesus himself had said this).
You can't do anything about your own sin when it comes to your eternal soul.
I can do a lot actually.
You say in your above post that God will remember our sins no more, but what is his method for doing that?
The sins will be forgiven on the spot, after the sins have been forgotten.
It's Jesus' sacrificial work.
Jesus sacrificial 'work', according to the basic doctrine, shows that he remembers sin and doesn't forget it. How does suicide forgive other people of their own 'sins'? According to God, through Jeremiah the prophet, a mediator isn't necessary for the forgiveness or the forgetting of sins.
you need to accept it (which is God's will).
There goes my 'free will'. Say I have hypothetically accepted Jesus' sacrifice, this does not make my sins forgiven just given too someone else, this does not make them forgotten because even when encountering the Pharisees he didn't forget the sins of Israel or anyone he met at all. I know calling people a 'generation of vipers' isn't forgiving or forgetting sins.
It's my understanding that the Jewish sacrificial system only covers sins, it doesn't remove them like Jesus' sacrifice does.
Jesus' sacrifice doesn't even follow the Jewish 'sacrificial system' /law. God's law is meant to be obeyed, to be kept, and you can't fulfill something if you change or ignore it. Humans aren't accepted as sacrifices according to the law, what separates Jesus from anyone else as a human being?
God's law is eternal whether you want to accept Jesus or not.
I know that the law is eternal, and perfect.
it's a matter of what happens to you after you die.
I'll cross that bridge when I come too it.
You seem like you just want to become nothing.
is that right? I had no idea I was giving off such an impression.
Have you taken a look at this? http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/law.html
No, but I will.
~SC
You were the Chosen One! It was said you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!~Obi-Wan Kenobi.

SaintConfused
Recognized Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#25

Post by SaintConfused » Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:49 pm

csl,
Jesus said he had glory with God - that's different than any of us being created or existing with God at the beginning (which I do believe).
Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should
repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
God doesn't give his glory, so Jesus is sharing, that's fine with me. This, in no way, makes Jesus: God himself.
With the bible, we need to go by what God told us and what we can know, not what we can't know or speculate upon.
I have gone by God's Word, even though I'm having trouble with the 'NT' more so than the Tanakh. I haven't provided
speculation, even though my questions have a speculative 'nature' regarding Elijah, Jesus, and 'before the world began'.
I could speculate that aliens from other planets were also with God from the beginning of creation, and create a whole theology on that, too.
I'm thankful technology has reached this far, we'll probably never encounter another sentient species but it could make us or break us.
Anyway, unless you're willing to think about what I write and look into it, and not just bash everything, then there's no point.
I have thought about what you have shared here and looked over it several times, I haven't 'bashed everything' and I'm sorry you've approached it in such a way that it seems that I have (even though I don't recall doing such). There's always a point, a meaning, hope, purpose, even in the absence of God.
I don't know what it is you want, actually.
What I 'want' destroys me, what I 'need' keeps me alive.y@};-~SC
Note: I apologize for drifting off the primary subject Rich, Kurieuo, Cross.eyed, scl, etc.
Last edited by SaintConfused on Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
You were the Chosen One! It was said you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!~Obi-Wan Kenobi.

cslewislover
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#26

Post by cslewislover » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:06 pm

I had no idea you quoted that message before I deleted it. That's kind-of funny, lol. So if anyone is wondering how he got quotes from me that don't seem to be there . . . :D
Image
"I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

User avatar
Cactus
Established Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:02 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#27

Post by Cactus » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:02 am

I do not think that reading the bible from front to back is a good way to go about it, cslewislover. It is kind of a good idea...to read related chapters. However that is just my opinion and other's may want to do something else.

cslewislover
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#28

Post by cslewislover » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:10 am

Cactus wrote:I do not think that reading the bible from front to back is a good way to go about it, cslewislover. It is kind of a good idea...to read related chapters. However that is just my opinion and other's may want to do something else.
I didn't mean that's the only way you should read it, but it's one way. I just meant when you read the whole bible generally you get an idea of God's character and what he's done, overall. And, if you just focus on something specific without looking up other things, you'll probably get a skewed idea of things. There are all kinds of ways to study the bible, sure.
Image
"I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

User avatar
Cross.eyed
Valued Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:45 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Kentucky U.S.A.
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#29

Post by Cross.eyed » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:44 pm

We see all this as divine intention, How do you see it?
Natural order (or lacking thereof). The primary point I'm making is I don't see anything
hopeless, meaningless, without purpose, or valueless in the absence of God.
O.K., you're not Christian and you don't believe in creation.
You and I have entirely different worldviews.
Perhaps you can educate me;

If all the universe came by random chance, what would there be to hope for?
If we are here accidentally, how could we trust that our brains are giving us accurate information?
What purpose would there be if we can't trust the information we recieve?
In a world without absolutes, could we use such words as right and wrong?
If there is no right and wrong, how could there be justice?
If there is no justice, why do we have a conscience?
What, if we merely live and die, would make for a meaningful life?
Where would we have ever gotten the concept of LOVE in a natural world?
I am the wretch the song refers to.

SaintConfused
Recognized Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...

#30

Post by SaintConfused » Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:57 am

Cross.eyed
If all the universe came by random chance, what would there be to hope for?
All the universe. The answer is in you're own question, imagine that. 'Chance' isn't random, but it's also not too common either. There is a high 'chance' it's going to rain again tomorrow, does this make the event of rain itself 'random'? no, not at all. Other factors come into account with the universe, this is why natural selection has been observed and become aware too humanity in the first place. There was no 'random chance' that we came across this principle, it was already established even before the first humans came along. We don't have to deny gravity, just because there is a 'chance' that another fire will consume the forests of California this year as well. The universe didn't come by 'random chance', even though a random, chaotic, 'living', realm (or deity, I'm not forcing you to decide either option) would provide the 'chance' for the universe to expand and to have various lifeforms. Tapeworms, and other parasitic organisms can if not already do exist inside us. Let's narrow things down by calling an organ for instance the stomach is going to be 'Earth' temporarily, these parasites will compete and eliminate each other if the environment doesn't extinct them all up in one sweep. The placement was
not 'random', and there is a high chance/probability as well as a low chance/probability that various things could have happened within the organ/Earth. It is anything but 'random', however the changes each species will go through will be 'random' and the chances are staggering near 'impossible' outcomes. This does not make existence, in itself, alone, a 'random chance' without something (or someone, whichever you prefer) to guide the 'chance' and something to avoid bringing absolute order too the 'randomness'.
If we are here accidentally, how could we trust that our brains are giving us accurate information?
We aren't here 'accidentally'. The brain is a receiver. It is the cooperation of an entire organic structure/body to analyze the given information and accept or reject it as 'accurate'. Trust shouldn't be an issue when dealing with our own conscious, unless there is a genetic history of mental illness and the like. If you fail to trust you're brain with full potential, you wouldn't be reading this, nor would you be typing on a keyboard nearby. Empirical information takes time to develop and agree upon for an entire species, this is why change is a slow process more often than a constant case of speeding mutations and imbalanced advantages and disadvantages. In other words, our brains will continue following the 'speed limit' for adaptation and survival either with an expanse or reduction in size and a future descendant will be formed to be suitable for it's environment like any other primate (or reptile, amphibian, insect, etc). Also, when coming to deny the processed information your brain provides - you become no less than a worm - limbless and vulnerable without attachments too the brain. No offense intended, but that's what it would come down too, as a result. Vision reduction, change in 'diet', loss of certain hormones, limited hearing, shorter or no limbs, basically, prey. I could continue, but I don't feel like emotionally hurting anyone with whatever I have to say. Including, when it's not my intention.
What purpose would there be if we can't trust the information we receive?
The ability to distrust serves it's own purpose. I'm not going to beg you to 'trust' any information
I provide, however it never hurts to be reasonable with you're approach towards the given data.
In a world without absolutes, could we use such words as right and wrong?
We do anyways, often able to explain why one is 'right' and the other happens to be 'wrong'.
If there is no right and wrong, how could there be justice?
'Justice' itself is capable of being unjust. Without 'right' and 'wrong', the 'justice' would be an attempt to control or correct large or small populations.
I would call the Borg a 'just' species, because they are not brought together by racial concerns, or political child's play, and 'peace' doesn't exist for permanent periods of time. Now, I also happen to know that they are less emotional and more 'fine tuned' (can I say advanced instead? seems more appropriate) too the collective purpose. Without going into too much detail. They are both 'right' and 'wrong', they are both 'just' and 'unjust', between polar opposites we are both and neither at the same time. Not absolutely synchronized with the correct alignment(s). 'Justice' would exist, like
a mixed gender, playing a double-role without 'right' direction or 'wrong' misdirection. It's an unbalanced scale, a hypocritical code, and a struggling self-deceleration that doesn't even understand itself without 'right' and 'wrong'. It's 'American', in debt and having all the world's appeal.
If there is no justice, why do we have a conscience?
We are not conscience to heed an agreement made between several people that calls itself 'justice'. We are to observe the conscience these 'justice' makers and followers, even if we disagree with them. An 'unjust' conscience can and will adapt it's own 'justice', this is why America has 'Independence' (supposedly), amongst a few others. It is self-'justice', it has never really been 'justice for all' truly. Our conscience does not depend on 'justice', 'justice' is not part of the body or even an extension of it, as much as each of us should be able to customize and share our individual 'justice' without too much trouble by exercising our wills. We have 'conscience', because we can, not because we deserved it, or we're the best the universe (or God) has ever produced/'created'.
What, if we merely live and die, would make for a meaningful life?
A temporary 'life' is more meaningful than an eternal 'life' of repetitive cycles. We can
contribute and guide ourselves, and each other, that's meaningful for a short life span.
Where would we have ever gotten the concept of LOVE in a natural world?
From the unnatural world.
A lot doesn't require a definition, an expression, or even a 'sign' to make itself culturally important.
It is these non-physical manifestations that help us cling onto 'living' instead of going suicide on-the-spot.
It's the voice, not the body. It's the sound, not the instrument,
it's the ingredients not the first step, it's the progress not the set-back.
It is this very same thing that hooks us onto fictional writings, whatever the inspirations
be (or just the chance to burn out some more creativity for you're fellow Terran's).
The conception is a failed attempt wherein,the undefinable is brought through a filter (physical presence)
and if not corrupted then cleansed after constantly going through several physical lifetimes.
We are 'love', even though we cannot be fully 'loving' too ourselves without another incarnation of 'love'.
In the same way, we shouldn't be seeking 'the truth', when we are 'the truth' and always dependent on
another 'truth' (Jesus, anyone?) to be as honest as we can in a dishonest body, universe, and 'self'.
'Love' came about naturally, even though it wasn't or hasn't actually been a constant 'thing' within or of the world or universe.
~SC
You were the Chosen One! It was said you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!~Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Post Reply