Antlerman Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 String Theory would account for the weak force of gravity, (or is brane theory separate?) I think that's why I like the idea. That and it's the closest to religion that science ever comes. This is one case where, "It's just a theory" would be applicable in that tone. It's more a philosophy, unlike the rest of the empirical sciences. I guess you just need to take a mathematical leap of faith, spamandham. I see you're not yet a believer brother RH. Save us from getting too off topic here. We need you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhuntermt Posted October 24, 2005 Author Share Posted October 24, 2005 RH. Save us from getting too off topic here. We need you! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep, you guys definitely need some salvation here. ;-) Granted, I've only scanned the last several posts that appear on this page, so my Judgment is imperfect, but here's the point I was attempting to make. More precisely, here is an illustration of the point. Imagine you've drawn a small circle, roughly the size of a U.S. quarter, on a piece of paper. Assume a second circle of roughly the same size overlaps the first circle, but not completely. Imagine you are holding that paper up to the visible universe. I think no less or more of you than of myself when I suggest here that this crudely represents your knowledge (first circle) and mine (second circle) of that universe. What we know is far less than both what is yet to be known and what will be known. Claims of all kinds (invisible dragons, historical Jesuses, cosmic Christs, string theories and so on) should be subjected to investigation, reason and logic, as seems to be the general practice I've encountered in my brief forays here. Some things that don't make sense today might however make sense o be proven in the future, although not necessarily as presently conceived. Invisible dragons? Not likely. Multiple dimensions beyond those presently known to us? Possibly. Literal resurrection, continuance of life post-mortem in some other dimensionality? Hmmmm. Resurrection offers hope for some, harmless fantasy to others and evidence of foolishness or insanity for the rest. The last group may, I suspect, reach that conclusion through a kind of guilt by association. That is, since Christian tradition with all of its tragic weirdness includes a variation of resurrection (i.e., resurrection of Christians only) then resurrection iin all of its forms must be rejected as well. Whether or not that conclusion is right, the process by which it is reached is faulted, and therefore should itself be subject to skepticism. Rob P.S. As I may have said before, October is our busiest month at work. I see what I think could be a light at the end of the tunnel, but will likely continue to be unable to benefit from much dialogue with you rabid heathens for another week or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhuntermt Posted October 24, 2005 Author Share Posted October 24, 2005 When I ran into problems working within the structural parameters of this site I was midstream in someone's message where he argued Paul only claimed the existence of a cosmic Christ, not a historical Jesus. I agree that he believed in and argued for a transcendent Messiah, and do not claim that he ever personally met a historical Jesus. It is nevertheless a leap to suggest that Paul did not believe a historical Jesus existed. Based on the circumstantial evidence of scripture, I don't think that this suggestion is reliable. The person who posted the argument (forgive me for not recalling who you are, or confirming by reading back through the posts0 likely considers the scripture to be mythical anyway, so this parsing may be of no particular consequence. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring that part of the discussion here. I sense that this dialogue ("Why am I a Christian?) is about spent - you guys can advise if you feel otherwise, and I'll check here when I return - but I'm certainly content to moving on to some other intriguing-looking topics on this site, and am sure we'll be dialoguing with each other in those contexts, as I see your names pop up as most recent posters on this and that. Y'all have a great last week of October, and please, please don't dress up as fundamentalist Christians for Halloween - think of the lasting impression on those poor little kids! Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 and please, please don't dress up as fundamentalist Christians for Halloween - think of the lasting impression on those poor little kids! ...he he "oh please don't throw me into that briar patch" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 <snip>Resurrection offers hope for some, harmless fantasy to others and evidence of foolishness or insanity for the rest. The last group may, I suspect, reach that conclusion through a kind of guilt by association. That is, since Christian tradition with all of its tragic weirdness includes a variation of resurrection (i.e., resurrection of Christians only) then resurrection iin all of its forms must be rejected as well. Whether or not that conclusion is right, the process by which it is reached is faulted, and therefore should itself be subject to skepticism. <snip> Hi Ron, welcome back. I'm actually hoping to continue with this current dialogue with you as your time permits. Again, I find your approach to belief one of the most refreshing around here I have yet heard. You’re starting to touch on my biggest barrier to the mythology and I'm hoping to hear you further perspectives. I agree as you state above that it would be a mistake to take what has been polluted over the years and discard the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Again, where I get blocked by it is in regard to it's purely, or at best it's largely mythological beginnings. Even if we accepted a historical man existed that became transformed into the messiah, everything that is written about that individual is largely or purely mythological. We could argue on historical research, but I have far more confidence with a rational versus mystical approach to historical scholarship, just as with any of the sciences. It is highly improbable that what is traditionally taught bears much if any resemblance to the original. All that said, I have wished in the past to be able to take a leap into faith beyond the reality of its purely mythological origins, and just accept and incorporate the stories into a belief system, but I could never get past feeling like I was just lying to myself. Atheism became the point at which I finally felt centered in myself, being true to my intellect. I sometimes wish I could leap beyond rationality and have mystical experiences, but I tried it and it didn't work. The most important question I would like to hear you answer from your perspective is this: Do you need the stories of resurrection, salvation, etc to have a credible historical reality; or is it basically unimportant whether is really happened or not, and what is important is what it all represents emotionally instead? In other words, you would be totally unbothered if you came to see that it had no historical reality whatsoever? I sincerely want to hear your perspectives on this question. With Regards, AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_1012 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Is it Vixentrox (I'm still learning to navigate here, but assume that is your ID above). Since Christ is central to my theology, I assume it is fairest to idenify myself as Christian. If anyone - Christian, ex-C or otherwise - wishes to identify me otherwise, I do not begrudge either their preference or practice. RH <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Christ is central to your theology... How so? In that He was a man that existed? How is He central, when your beliefs are so anti-Christ? Who is Christ, what is Christ... Why is Christ? Did He not die to save men from their sins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_1012 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 So, what you're saying is that you believe because it makes you feel comfortable? Content? I'm not sure I'm crazy about the concept of being caput when my heart stops beating. I'd lots rather believe in an afterlife of some kind, where all the wrongs are made right, and there is nothing but love and kindness and all that. But I refuse to believe something just because it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. I believe that when the physical body expires, so does consciousness. Forever. Being content or freaked out about the concept has nothing to do with anything. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You refuse to believe something just because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling... That is far from the truth. You have denied your conscience, in believing that God will not judge sin, nor is He angry with those who do. It gives you a "warm fuzzy feeling," as it gives you peace... Short lived and fake, but peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 You refuse to believe something just because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling... That is far from the truth. You have denied your conscience, in believing that God will not judge sin, nor is He angry with those who do. It gives you a "warm fuzzy feeling," as it gives you peace... Short lived and fake, but peace. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I used to believe exactly like you. Until I realized what a complete fraud christianity and jesus christ are. Too bad it isn't several hundred years ago, so that you could burn everything we write, and try to get us all executed or our tongues torn out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 You refuse to believe something just because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling... That is far from the truth. . Are you hallucinating again? I hate to be the one to throw cold water in your face, but your fantasies of "angry gods" out to "get revenge" on "unrighteous humans" will never ever be real, no matter how many times you say they are! You have denied your conscience, in believing that God will not judge sin, nor is He angry with those who do. Just because you continue to hallucinate that angry non-existent gods are "out to get us", it won't make it so! Laughing my ass off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_1012 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Are you hallucinating again? I hate to be the one to throw cold water in your face, but your fantasies of "angry gods" out to "get revenge" on "unrighteous humans" will never ever be real, no matter how many times you say they are! Just because you continue to hallucinate that angry non-existent gods are "out to get us", it won't make it so! Laughing my ass off! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree! It's not just because I continue to hallucinate that angry non-existent gods are "out to get us." Any such belief is not what makes it so. I agree! Beliefs to not negate the truth, and that's what I've been saying all along. The fact that I believe it, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_1012 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 I used to believe exactly like you. Until I realized what a complete fraud christianity and jesus christ are. Too bad it isn't several hundred years ago, so that you could burn everything we write, and try to get us all executed or our tongues torn out. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Better yet... good thing it's the present so you can make up lies about both past and present. Why should I execute you for your beliefs? I believe God is just in due time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Your entire religion is a lie. You just don't know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 The fact that I believe it, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is true. LMAO! That one went whooop, right over your head! Your hallicinations won't ever be true, even if you continue to insist repeatedly that they are! "Read my lips"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Who is Christ, what is Christ... Why is Christ? Did He not die to save men from their sins? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pretend for a moment that this made sense. If he died to save men from sin, then it's done right? -"paid in full" as they like to say (usually with blood dripping down off the letters). Why must you believe he did this in order for it to apply to you? Because Paul said so? Who the hell was Paul and why should you believe his incoherent ramblings about justification by faith? If Jesus' death atoned for sins, then it atoned for them. If I have to believe that to receive the atonement, then it is really my belief that atones, and not his sacrifice. His sacrifice becomes meaningless if my salvation is also contingient upon my faith. It's then about me, not him. If he really did "die for my sin", then you belittle his sacrifice by adding a contingency for faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Pretend for a moment that this made sense. If he died to save men from sin, then it's done right? -"paid in full" as they like to say (usually with blood dripping down off the letters). Why must you believe he did this in order for it to apply to you? Because Paul said so? Who the hell was Paul and why should you believe his incoherent ramblings about justification by faith? If Jesus' death atoned for sins, then it atoned for them. If I have to believe that to receive the atonement, then it is really my belief that atones, and not his sacrifice. His sacrifice becomes meaningless if my salvation is also contingient upon my faith. It's then about me, not him. If he really did "die for my sin", then you belittle his sacrifice by adding a contingency for faith. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Worth repeating and highlighting, good point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_1012 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Your hallicinations won't ever be true, even if you continue to insist repeatedly that they are! I know, and I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Christ is central to your theology... How so? In that He was a man that existed? How is He central, when your beliefs are so anti-Christ? Who is Christ, what is Christ... Why is Christ? Did He not die to save men from their sins? Pretend for a moment that this made sense. If he died to save men from sin, then it's done right? -"paid in full" as they like to say (usually with blood dripping down off the letters). Why must you believe he did this in order for it to apply to you? Because Paul said so? Who the hell was Paul and why should you believe his incoherent ramblings about justification by faith? If Jesus' death atoned for sins, then it atoned for them. If I have to believe that to receive the atonement, then it is really my belief that atones, and not his sacrifice. His sacrifice becomes meaningless if my salvation is also contingient upon my faith. It's then about me, not him. If he really did "die for my sin", then you belittle his sacrifice by adding a contingency for faith. Repeated again, with some color 'cuz, I'm just like that. Spammy, that was an excellent post! You won't get a decent response to it, but still. Danny, if you read Spamandham's post there, you don't have to look very close to see that he just proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is you who is "anti-christ". We'll keep the light on for ya down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Thanks for the kind words MQTA and Fwee. I guess I should post drunk more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 I see Daniel hijacked this thread with his block head, bible is infallible babble. I was actually hoping Ron was going to pick up with this again with the topic he started. Will Ron return from being away with his busy schedule? We need his voice of reason and insight to freshen the air of reason being fouled by all this fundamentalist drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts