Quoted: I have a hard enough time with english. __________________________________________ You're a good contributer; though I doubt you have any problems with english, you are keeping this forum in the light-hearted and discussive arena it should be approached to.

scuba_ed, do you know that you can click the button labeled "quote" in a post, and it will set up the formatting for you in a response box?

i've noticed you copying & pasting a lot, and just wanted to let you know about the shortcut.

david_g17

_______________________________________

Thanks...hey, I'm still having problems w/ my PDA!  

Quoted: david_g17 _______________________________________ Thanks...hey, I'm still having problems w/ my PDA!

ohhhh ok.  my you have serious patience to surf/type with a PDA

sorry for the hi-jack.

Quoted: I have a hard enough time with english. __________________________________________ You're a good contributer; though I doubt you have any problems with english, you are keeping this forum in the light-hearted and discussive arena it should be approached to.

I was a little worried about this forum at first...thought it would become a slugfest between religious and the non- religious. Not that a good debate is a bad thing, I use to lurk the religious forum at Glocktalk till it turned into snakepit.

StonerStudent

____________________________________________________________

I'm not sure if this is or will be a good forum or not, though it's within our abilities to make it so.  

For my part, I try to avoid scripture -- even from a Jewish perspective you may two Jews and three opinions (jewish joke )

Scripture and dogma may be a pancea for many.  Ideals above idolotry are where we may best benefit, however, for many this is difficult, and would under any circumstance prove a block to a greater understanding of one's own religion, much less someone elses.

I think the biggest thing I hope for is a level of civility. I have never understood alot of the cussing, trolling and general name calling that goes on on the net. Heck I've even tried it in the Bear Pit [which is the point of the Pit] and always felt silly afterwords.

Quoted: Quoted:Could you explain to me the reasons why you believe what you do?Is it based on personal preferences, verifiable evidence, special revelation, family tradition, etc.?I'm not going to respond with debate points or criticism in this thread.I just want to better understand why you believe what you believe.   Initially my beliefs where based on family tradition ie : I believed what I was first exposed to, Christianity--specifically southern baptist hell fire type. Currently my beliefs are based upon verifiable evidence. 1. People tend to believe what they are initially exposed to, no matter what that may be. They will however trade that belief system off for a better, less oppressive, or easier one. If I had been born on a different continent I would have had a different religion/belief system, hopefully it would not have required something crazy like human sacrifice or circumcision at age 20. 2. This is a common denominator in getting anyone to believe anything   I first tried reading the Bible using just my own human understanding. I didn't understand it, and I totally got some major messages wrong. There is a verse that says (in paraphrase) spiritual things are spiritually discerned an the natural mind can't grasp them.    Before each time you crack the Book open, say a short, simple prayer and ask God to help you understand. He has promised that when you seek Him with your whole heart you will find Him. Through prayer or autosuggestion, repetitive exposure, whatever you want to call it, you prepare your mind [or someone else’s] for susceptibility. Give a little ego stroke by saying that you are special if you can understand it. Put your entire being into the endeavor. bingo ----you are now programmed with a new belief system. Just for good measure you should reinforce it frequently with reading, singing, praying, and most importantly====pass it on. They all do it essentially the same way ,some use more repetition, some use highly charged emotional smoke and mirror shows, some use fear. It's still snake oil. 3.If you are not pre-programmed as a child (hence the get um young philosophy) You must make a choice to believe, that is, you must be convinced to start down that road. If it where crystal clear there would be no struggle. 4. Special revelation I'm not sure what I would call it, but at a particularly bleak time in my life I had a very profound -experience- sort of like the Damascus rd story lol, I became acutely aware that I am responsible for what I choose to believe, and that will in turn dictate my experience in life.

I give it a 9 out of 10.  Nothing gets a 10 unless I wrote it.

Quoted: Quoted: I have a hard enough time with english. __________________________________________ You're a good contributer; though I doubt you have any problems with english, you are keeping this forum in the light-hearted and discussive arena it should be approached to.   I was a little worried about this forum at first...thought it would become a slugfest between religious and the non- religious. Not that a good debate is a bad thing, I use to lurk the religious forum at Glocktalk till it turned into snakepit.

snakepit?  the religious forum on GT is freaking open warfare.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a hard enough time with english. __________________________________________ You're a good contributer; though I doubt you have any problems with english, you are keeping this forum in the light-hearted and discussive arena it should be approached to.   I was a little worried about this forum at first...thought it would become a slugfest between religious and the non- religious. Not that a good debate is a bad thing, I use to lurk the religious forum at Glocktalk till it turned into snakepit. snakepit?  the religious forum on GT is freaking open warfare.

Well from my end of it...I'm not here to start trouble with the religious crowd. Encase anybody was wondering what I'm doing posting in the "Lion Pit"

Before I became a Christian I didn't believe in God for many of the "common" reasons (I only believe in things I can see, evolution eliminates the need for God, God is simply in the same catagory as the tooth fairy, etc...).  By far the problem of evil was my strongest reason for not believing in Him.  

P.S. Skeptics Annotated Bile: Refuted

Quoted: By far the problem of evil was my strongest reason for not believing in Him.

Odd, that.

The problem of evil (and how well the Bible diagnoses and explains it) is one of my main reasons FOR beeliving in God.

Bad things happenning to good people is a VERY powerful illustration  of the consequences of others sin, even on innocent victims. Just as the Bible describes it.

Quoted: For my part, I try to avoid scripture -- even from a Jewish perspective you may two Jews and three opinions (jewish joke )

Didn't you say you read the Torah on the previous page?

If you avoid Scripture, what do you use for a guide in life?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:

For my part, I try to avoid scripture -- even from a Jewish perspective you may two Jews and three opinions (jewish joke )


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Didn't you say you read the Torah on the previous page?

If you avoid Scripture, what do you use for a guide in life?

____________________________________________________________________

Nice catch, though you should try to understand that reading the Torah (as with the Christian New Testament) involves study and critical review.  For example, "...what may this text say of these times, and how may it be relevant for me, today?"

You misconstrued my reference to avoid scripture as a way to live my life, as opposed to Judaisms use of scripture to additionally provoke understanding of scripture as a means of understanding.

That being said, and with my previous posts, it's obvious that quoting scripture from any source will lead to a true discussion of religious texts.   More commonly observed in this forum are claims to which every religion has a right to posess.  More to the point, what more frequenly happens is a fall-back position of simply relying upon scripts, texts, and dogma.

I had originally hoped this forum would be a place of shared ideas, without the frequently encountered baggage each of us brings to the table.  Also as a shared community of religious, or more importantly, spiritual ideas.  

We shouldn't place here absolute ideas if this forum is to have any merit...for us now, tomorrow, or in the world beyond this.  Quite often is lost upon those who believe a critical debate simply is based upon criticism.  The opposite is true.

Critical questions, much of which have been added to this forum, have a solid basis from which all participants may enjoy.

This was not created to be a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim forum for us all to singularly enjoy.  Rather, it was created (I had believed) for an expression common to us all.

Irregardless of a "Who's Who" pertaining to scritptural "ownership" or faith assoc iation, this site...this forum, once held the promise of something more.  Not exclusatory, but inclusive...otherwise, this could have been referred to as the forum for: Religion...Christian only...or Jews only...or Muslims only, or LDS only."

Were we to  not be cognizant of our differences, while understanding most that our shared experiences and values are of the greater value, then as a community, we've done ourselves a disservice.


Jewish Ed

Quoted: I had originally hoped this forum would be a place of shared ideas, without the frequently encountered baggage each of us brings to the table.  Also as a shared community of religious, or more importantly, spiritual ideas.   Jewish Ed

Another perspective -

Outside Scripture, this forum will just be an amassing of pooled ignorance about God.

Quoted: Quoted: By far the problem of evil was my strongest reason for not believing in Him.   Odd, that. The problem of evil (and how well the Bible diagnoses and explains it) is one of my main reasons FOR beeliving in God. Bad things happenning to good people is a VERY powerful illustration  of the consequences of others sin, even on innocent victims. Just as the Bible describes it.

Good and Evil are nothing more than terms applied to the scope of benevolent and malicious behavior, nothing more...

However, your post disturbs me as I must conclude that you believe that if evil was magically removed, nothing bad would happen....ever...

Quoted: Good and Evil are nothing more than terms applied to the scope of benevolent and malicious behavior, nothing more...

I can half agree with that.

However, your post disturbs me as I must conclude that you believe that if evil was magically removed, nothing bad would happen....ever...

Don't let it disturb you, dude....it'll be OK.  

Lemme illustrate. If we removed ALL the color red from the world, would there be any red??

NO.

The application should be apparent.

Its interesting to note - your position seems to dovetail with Liberals position, that people do evil  deeds er, uhhm, exhibit malicious behaviour not because they ARE evil / malicious , but because their  environment is evil and made them malicious.

Am I missing something??

Quoted: Its interesting to note - your position seems to dovetail with Liberals position, that people do evil  deeds er, uhhm, exhibit malicious behaviour not because they ARE evil / malicious , but because their  environment is evil and made them malicious. Am I missing something??

Yes, you are missing something.  Evil doesn't exist beyond being a description of an extreme form of malice.  Thus, using my def, people can be evil.  However, your def implies 'evil' is a spiritual infection, and thus can be purged by a simple casting out of the 'evil'.  

The difference is that you are in denial that human behavior occasionally naturally runs to the extreme ends of the spectrum.  The garandman spectrtum appears to be marked by 'steps' that go from:
- godly (no man can attain this)
- righteous (the highest man can attain)
- good boy (could be better)
- bad boy (needs work, but still within the frameworkof humanity)
- evil (no man can be this bad without assistance)

This is the crux of the debate.  I submit that man can naturally be in any of those categories without any extra influence.

I do not believe in anything without empirical evidence.  I do not "deny" the possibility that a "God" might exist (I doubt it though) but to think that it would fit into any of the forms descriptions by the religions of man is the greatest con ever pulled.

Quoted: This is the crux of the debate.  I submit that man can naturally be in any of those categories without any extra influence.

Indeed.

The Biblical concept of sin nature is in play.

I beelive people act on their sin nature, which is NOT an indication of external Satanic or demonic influence in their lives. These people have just allowed their sin nature to corrupt them more, and are more under its influence.

That propensity to evil is entirely within themselves.

However, Ialso beleive that evil exists as a force in the person of Satan. Yes, I believe Satan is a real entity / person.

Quoted: I do not believe in anything without empirical evidence.  .

What is your empirical evidence for love? Do you believe in love? (sorry, that sounds like a title for a  corny 80's bubblegum pop song   )

Do you beleive love exists? Why?

(Hint: Its the SAME reason I believe God exists)

For discussio purposes, I'm talking about platonic, non-sexual  love - like that of a normal father for his child.

Quoted: Quoted: I do not believe in anything without empirical evidence.  . What is your empirical evidence for love? Do you believe in love? (sorry, that sounds like a title for a  corny 80's bubblegum pop song   ) Do you beleive love exists? Why? (Hint: Its the SAME reason I believe God exists) For discussio purposes, I'm talking about platonic, non-sexual  love - like that of a normal father for his child.

"Love" is certainly observable, difficult, or even imposible to quantify but certainly empirical in nature.  It is easily explained by natural processes.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I do not believe in anything without empirical evidence.  . What is your empirical evidence for love? Do you believe in love? (sorry, that sounds like a title for a  corny 80's bubblegum pop song   ) Do you beleive love exists? Why? (Hint: Its the SAME reason I believe God exists) For discussio purposes, I'm talking about platonic, non-sexual  love - like that of a normal father for his child. "Love" is certainly observable, difficult, or even imposible to quantify .

God is observable, can be experienced, and is to large degree quantified in Scipture. Based on the dictionary definition of empirical, you should be able to accept the concept of God, as you said empirical evidence is what you demand.

...but certainly empirical in nature.  It is easily explained by natural processes

This part of your statement is paradoxical.

YOu say love is "empirical" - this means it s dependent on experience and observation alone, without regard to science and theory (Websters dictionary definition)

THEN you say it is "explained by natural processes" which is SPECIFICALLY against the definition of empirical.

YOu may wish to get better hold of your terminology.

NO ONE can say whether the chemical reactions within our physiology are CAUSED by "love" or the result of love.

The reality is (tho you are loathe to admit it) you accept the concept of love tho it is NOT completely quantifiable by  scientific analysis, which is the same basis on which I accept God.

The REAL mind bender? God IS love. Thus you defacto accept one of God's very traits and characteristics, even tho love is NOT entirely quantifiable by science.

Quoted: ...but certainly empirical in nature.  It is easily explained by natural processes This part of your statement is paradoxical. YOu say love is "empirical" - this means it s dependent on experience and observation alone, without regard to science and theory (Websters dictionary definition) THEN you say it is "explained by natural processes" which is SPECIFICALLY against the definition of empirical.

nope, you're the one who needs to check your terminology.

Empirical (dictionary.com) = 1) Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. 2) Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. 3) Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Scientific theory has to be suported by empirical facts.  This is the nature of science and why it is far more succesful at explaining natural phenomena than faith.

"Love" is represented by a set of physilogical reations that can be repeatedly observed in individual human beings.  It ( and other emotions) is explained by natural processes in that there is a reasonable purpose for them (evolutionary) and no supernatural appeal need be made to explain their existence.

NO ONE can say whether the chemical reactions within our physiology are CAUSED by "love" or the result of love.

First: I think you need to rephrase this..."caused by" and "the result of" meen prety much the same thing... maybe...

NO ONE can say whether the chemical reactions within our physiology are CAUSED by "love" or the result of love.


No one can say "say" that the sky is blue either and it is not germane.  Love is an observable phenomena.  It is empirical in nature.  It can be hypothesized and theorized about.  This is why I "believe" in love (believe is not the correct term, I accept the existence of love)

The reality is (tho you are loathe to admit it) you accept the concept of love tho it is NOT completely quantifiable by  scientific analysis, which is the same basis on which I accept God.

I am not loathe to admit that NOTHING is completely quantifiable by scientific analysis.  My personal belief system (really a lack thereof) is that something has to be able to be aproached in a scientific way for me to accept its existence.  Something has to be empiricle in nature before I recognize it as real.

The REAL mind bender? God IS love. Thus you defacto accept one of God's very traits and characteristics, even tho love is NOT entirely quantifiable by science.

Non sequitur, you have not offered the first bit of reason to support this.  Your basic argument, in a nutshell, seems to be...

"no one can say that the observable characters of love are "caused by love or they ARE love..therefor GOD is love"

Doesn't work for me, sorry, but you go right ahead.

I was raised a Christian. I am now Muslim.

Quoted: Actually I think Jesus Christ did that when He first started quoting the old Testament. St. Peter was the first Christian to yell "Dupe J-man" I think it's cover in the Book Of Moderators 1: 4 SGatr15 Sgat1r5