[Zsinj]

Well, as some people here know, I myself am a Christian, but I don't force my beliefs on anyone.

Then you can dig into such lines as 'In those days there were giants'. WHAT! Why has no one EVER questioned that line? Giants? Really? Where'd they come from? It didn't mention on the eighth day God created giants.

This has always been an interesting topic to me, Maus. There is a lot of debate among theologians and Christian Scholars on this very issue. Personally I've heard that giants come from the interbreeding of demons and mankind. From what I've heard, Cain, the Son of Adam, had a wife, and so since there was no other recorded humans on this earth at that time except Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel, many scholars assume that Cain's wife was a demon. It's a very narrow-minded theory, I know, but it's still interesting. So anyway, when this demon mated with Cane, supposedly their offspring were the giants in question. This theory/myth may also be an offshoot of the whole myth about Lillith, the first vampire-demon.
Another theory that's always interested me is the "Gap Theory", that says that God created an Earth before the one we have now, and Satan, when he was thrown down from heaven, came in and screwed everything up and set up a dark kingdom on the Earth, so God had to rebuild it again in the "Second Creation"

I kid you not. He uses demon possession to explain many things in people, such as mental illness and self-destructive behaviour.

No offense to your dad, Miri, but I think he's a bit out in left field with his explanation of mental illness being from demon posession. I have a mental illness and I am certainly not demon possessed! Obviously your dad has no clue about psychology and the workings of the brain. Again, no offense meant, I just get kind of pissed off when people say things like that. You see, I've seen several mentally ill people discriminated against by fundamentalist Christians, and frankly, it makes me sick! :mad:

Yes, Gary, they do believe in magic, and can see the similarities. But they believe that "magic" comes straight from the devil and is to be avoided at the cost of your mortal soul--as opposed to "miracles," which are a manifestation of God's power and greatly to be desired. (Interestingly, the people I know who believe this way have never witnessed either miracle or magic.)

Miri, I haven't read all of the Bible, and by no means am I a scholar, in fact I am very far from it, but I've talked with a couple of friends of mine who are much better versed in the Bible than I am, and they say that nowhere in the Bible does it say that magic is evil or of the devil, just that it's very dangerous and for that reason Christians shouldn't do it.
I even have this one Christian friend who has this idea that I think is rather wierd but interesting; he believes that magic is of God and there is a good and evil side to it. The witchcraft/demon-summoning/spells stuff is the evil side, and the miracle stuff is the good side. Again, kind of screwy in nature but it's an interesting theory.
One thing that I find to be strange in the Bible is that, when it records King Saul going to the witch at Endor and having her conjure up the spirit of that one prophet (forget his name), the writer of that seems to have no opinion on whether what Saul did was right or wrong.

[Hereford Eye]

The good thing about conversations is the opportunity to see how you are coming across to the other side. To discover that I am guilty of preempting the validity of scientific claims is rather startling. Evidently, referring to modern science as a belief system somehow indicates the truths they hold so dear are something I seem to flatly reject. I assume that's what preempting their validity means.

What I thought I said was:
""Religion: a) any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy [the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc.]" b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]"
Science: any specific branch of scientific knowledge, esp. one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and methods, as by experiments and hypotheses [the science of mathematics]"
Webster’s New World Dictionary"

And then I thought asked: "Isn't the function of a belief system to get one through the day, the week, the hour, the year, the life. Viable belief systems modify themselves over time with new input and failed experiments, i.e., daily life. If so, they all have truth on their side and competitive comparisons are beside the point."
I offered as consideration the idea that both science and religion seem to enjoy addressing:
"(1) when life began
(2) when it ends
(3) when human life began
(4) when it will end
(5) how human life is similar to and differs from other life
(6) interrelationship of humans to other life on the planet
(7) what makes people tick
(8) what makes people in groups tick
(9) what makes people normal and what to do when they're not normal
(10) whether people are alone in the universe or not
(11) what causes consciousness, rational thinking, ideation
(12) why there is order in seeming chaos and vice versa
(13) the nature of human belief systems and how these paradigms are changed"
The answers each side comes up with - to me - constitute a belief system.

Then, I remember suggesting the answers each side comes up with tends to satisfy the agenda, mythos, or faith that drove the question.

Now I learn that means I am preempting the validity of the scientific claims.

Always good to spend the day learning new things about oneself.

[kongming]

I don't even know if I claimed that it did. I was just saying that one should not say that science has all the answers and religeon has none. Because that statement cannot be proven.

Science has been and will continue to be wrong about a great many things as will the dogma of any given church.

I don't think it is the church's purpose to explain the every day and mundane. All religeon really tells us is that we have a purpose and that there is meaning to the universe and we should aspire to play that role instead of trying to end our own existence. What I mean to say is that the universe has truths or rules if you will and one day we may discover what those truths are. We know some of them and maybe some can be proven, but proving them is only necessary so that we can eliminate the possibility that we may be wrong. I have proof for myself in the existence of god and is imperical. Unfortunately it is personal and I have no way right now to share it with you, but if one of us ever becomes a telepath I will gladly do so. But I also think that all of us have this proof and if we listen for it we will hear it. I just happened to be paying attention in class a couple of days if you will. I wish I was paying attention all the time because it would be wonderful to have all the answers, but unfortunately that wasn't the case.

And I don't get this philosophy is not science. As far as I know it is the basis of science.

But if you want an example of what controversies religeon has helped to solve with evidence and reason look at the example of the holocaust:

Much of that was due to church (obviously there were many factors but evryone sees this as the big one). So it may have taken a while but you finally saw a Pope stand up and admit that the church's action set up a series of events that invitably caused a tragic loss of life. And if you look at the theme of the bible this type of thing was one of the many warnings.

"What ever you do to the least of my people you do unto me."

that pretty much summed it up but we didn't really understand it until now. And now we have to deal with the consequences. Ignoring that one teaching eventually led to even the twin towers and the invasion of Iraq and whatever else may come now.

That's a great case of cause and effect.

(as an aside, Kongming, what controversies has religion definitively settled on the basis of evidence and reason (as opposed to attrition and authority)?). Like I say, using philosophy to impeach science is like convicting the pope on Ted Bundy's testimony!

[kongming]

There are some Gnostic bibles from the Magi that puport that Jesus was the greatest Mage. Through my own research I am of the opinion that like everything else there is a good and evil magic. If one comes through god you could call it miracles, but I think that's only through his direct intervention. Same with the Devil. But if it comes from the earth or universe and it is just one of the natural energies that we can access it may come from either but it's not like either side is saying: "Ok, take that.". it's more likely that either side of the energy is imbued within the location you are taping into.

Now this I don't have much evidence for because I don't think I have witnessed a truly powerful magic act, I'm basing this on a perception of the history of magic acts which I was never witness to.

nowhere in the Bible does it say that magic is evil or of the devil, just that it's very dangerous and for that reason Christians shouldn't do it.
I even have this one Christian friend who has this idea that I think is rather wierd but interesting; he believes that magic is of God and there is a good and evil side to it. The witchcraft/demon-summoning/spells stuff is the evil side, and the miracle stuff is the good side. Again, kind of screwy in nature but it's an interesting theory.

[Gary Wassner]

HE, I very much appreciate your continued effort to clarify your POV. I sense that you believe strongly in certain values and that you crave some sense of validation in that regard. Don't misunderstand the requests for continued explanation. I also understand why you might consider science to be similar to faith in the fundamental sense that we have discussed in a prior thread here regarding premises and our effort to find a point from which we could begin to establish a value system. But, I think you are confusing the concept of needing to accept a set of premises for ethical purposes with the process of scientific reasoning and proof. As I said many times, everything we do requires a certain amount of belief. We get up in the morning and believe that we are alive. But we have good reason to believe that. We believe that the sun will rise each morning. It may not, but we believe it will. We have good reason to believe it will. We believe that if we pierce our heart with a sharp instrument and bleed profusely that we will most likely die, and we have good reason to believe that. But then many believe that God is watching over them, and the reasons to believe become quite different in nature. Many believe that they will burn in hell if they violate the principles of the bible, and the reasons for that belief again are very different in nature from the others that I spoke of. Have you met anyone who burned in hell recently? Have you met anyone credible who spoke with God recently and received an answer? Science and religion both require belief, but it's simply a word. What supports one does not adequately support the other, and vice/versa.

[kongming]

Well I never saw myself being born from my mother but I believe that I was. I have never actually seen the earth rotate around the sun but I believe it does. I have never seen an atom but I believe that they are there. I have never seen my own heart but I'm pretty sure it's there.

There are other examples but all the evidence for these things are no stronger than the evidence that I have for the existence of God.

And I'm not trying to be smarmy, I just needed really basic ideas because I didn't want to write that much and I knew you would figure out what I ws getting at.

We get up in the morning and believe that we are alive. But we have good reason to believe that. We believe that the sun will rise each morning. It may not, but we believe it will. We have good reason to believe it will. We believe that if we pierce our heart with a sharp instrument and bleed profusely that we will most likely die, and we have good reason to believe that. But then many believe that God is watching over them, and the reasons to believe become quite different in nature. Many believe that they will burn in hell if they violate the principles of the bible, and the reasons for that belief again are very different in nature from the others that I spoke of. Have you met anyone who burned in hell recently? Have you met anyone credible who spoke with God recently and received an answer? Science and religion both require belief, but it's simply a word. What supports one does not adequately support the other, and vice/versa.

[Miriamele]

No offense to your dad, Miri, but I think he's a bit out in left field with his explanation of mental illness being from demon posession. I have a mental illness and I am certainly not demon possessed! Obviously your dad has no clue about psychology and the workings of the brain. Again, no offense meant, I just get kind of pissed off when people say things like that. You see, I've seen several mentally ill people discriminated against by fundamentalist Christians, and frankly, it makes me sick! :mad:

LOL, no offense taken regarding my dad. I have come to accept that he is a very simple-minded individual. I used to argue with him about various philosophical and religious issues but eventually gave up because he was so stubborn in his views that he automatically disregarded anything that contradicted them. He wasn't willing to really discuss an issue with me, only reveal the "truth" to me, which was always something he either read in the Bible or in a book written by a fundamentalist preacher. For example the matter of mental illness being caused by demon possession: I tried to explain to him that such illnesses can often be controlled by drugs, which is a physical treatment not spiritual, therefore there must be a physical basis for the illness. He just shook his head and said, "trust me, I know, demons are behind all those things." You're right, he knows nothing about psychology, and doesn't want to know--because that's a science and science is "of the world," not "of God." Therefore false, and to be disregarded.

I've had even more exasperating arguments regarding evolution--I can't even tell you how ignorant he is on what the theory of evolution actually postulates but yet he'll argue to the death that it's all hogwash and that all scientists are egomaniacs who make stuff up to make themselves look smart.

I'm not writing all this just to bash my father. I'm mentioning it because I think it's relevant to the conversation. It ties into what Scott was saying about people confusing faith with knowledge--some people, like my dad, believe with all certainty that the things they have come to believe through their religious faith, things which are not based on empirical evidence, are in fact rock-solid truth which has somehow been proven. In other words, it's not a matter of opinion. And they'll even explain to you how their beliefs have been proven--my dad loves to talk about how the theory of evolution has supposedly been proven utterly false, and how creation has been proven true. Of course, anyone with even a knowledge of highschool science could see the gaping holes in his arguements, but he doesn't see them. Because he doesn't want to see them or because he's not smart enough, I don't know. But my point is that for many people there is no difference between faith and knowledge. There are only things that they know to be true, no matter what anyone else says...naturally not all Christians are so narrow-minded but plenty of them are. Although they would call it having strong faith and see it as a good thing. (I don't agree, I think dangerous things can happen when people stop thinking for themselves...)

I guess I should stop here before I say anything offensive, if I haven't already...I admit I don't feel very friendly to the religion that was forced upon me so strongly when I was a child. :o

[Gary Wassner]

If you think that the evidence for both is equally credible, then there is not much more to discuss. Yes, there is an element of belief in all that we do and see. An element. But if there was no way to evaluate the veracity of one claim and the falsity of another, we could not function. Those methods are simply suspended when it comes to scripture and religion in general. My question is why? Why suspend them in one instance and insist upon them in another? Why does the fantastic, shrouded in religious clothing that promises holiness and salvation and hellfire, cause us to suspend reason and believe, when LOTR simply provides us with enjoyment? Is it simply because it is not demanding that we believe?

[kongming]

Damn good question.

For me its beacause I have prayed (also read meditate, reasearch its all the same to me) on it (and don't picture me kneeling at my bed or in a yoga position, I'd rather do it while shopping or working or whenever) and I can see that some of it is the truth. How much of it is truth and how much is interpretation slowly unravels and still hasn't finished doing so. But the same can be said for a scientific hypothesis. They get new evidence every day that creates a new understanding.

As for fantasy I'm pretty sure that none of the authors or the text itself is saying this actuality is a universal truth so I don't bother to look for the truth of it. But the message or theme of the book can be one of those truths but in that case setting and plot can be changed the message of LOTR can be found in Babylon 5 and I'm sure there are other examples of this. So it's not important that say Gandalf is an Angel but what is important is that IF he was and his actions and words were truth what does that tell us? What can we learn from that?

[JRMurdock]

People need to believe in something. To believe that there is nothing is still a belief. I understand people worshiping a God because their parents did. I understand people worshiping a man (the Pope) because their parents, friends, everyone they knew did. I get that.

What I don't get is someone claiming "Hey, I talked to God the other day. He said we need a new religion." i.e. L. Ron Hubbard as well as Mormons.

I don't get it. Jesus said he was the last. How did these two create such strong religions? Is the need to believe so strong that it transcends common sense? Are certain people so complacent that they fail to look beyond a single book for truth?

I read the book of Mormon. I read the Bible. I read the Buddhist works. I read the Jehovah Witnesses' version of the Bible. I was on a quest for truth. Where did my path lead me? That all these books are VERY similar in that they tell stories of right and wrong and show you that the outcome of good is always better than the outcome of bad.

Hrmph.

So where does that leave me? I still search. I still read. But I fail to grasp why people cling so desperately to God once they 'claim' to have found him. I fail to understand why sports figures thank 'God' when they win. God doesn't care, does he? If God is busy making sure that home run gets hit, or that last second shot gets made, is he too busy to help those premature babies? Why doesn't he help the starving masses around the world? I'm a cynic, I know.

There's a lot of discussion here, but I doubt, after people doing thousands of years of theological research, we'll ever find proof of God. Yes, a story or two or three may be proven as true in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that there was a 'God' present. It just means that war happened or that city existed.

Here's my BIG question for the day.

Polytheism existed two thousand years before monotheism. Why were/are polytheists wrong and monotheists right?