Council Member
Posts: 1,926 
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
May 16th, 2007, 03:59 PM
You see, it takes God in a body of a man, and His name was Jesus. This Jesus is alive in Spirit now and may abide in temples of flesh, if we let Him.
The gap between heaven and hell could only be breached by God Himself.
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Twila
Thats a good guess, but I'm sorry that they can't fit the bill.
I know of 2. Ghandi and Mother Theresa....not only would they. they did.
they followed the teachings...heart and soul. They lived the life they didn't just preach it.
they followed the teachings...heart and soul. They lived the life they didn't just preach it.
You see, it takes God in a body of a man, and His name was Jesus. This Jesus is alive in Spirit now and may abide in temples of flesh, if we let Him.
The gap between heaven and hell could only be breached by God Himself.
Peace>>>AJ
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
May 16th, 2007, 05:01 PM
As for the rest of the folks, well, its an option, but highly recommended.
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Twila
You are absolutely right! There is a reason why the Jewish didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah.
Not everyone believes that Jesus and god are one and the same. The jewish faith certainly doesn't.
As for the rest of the folks, well, its an option, but highly recommended.
Peace>>>AJ
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
May 16th, 2007, 05:47 PM
What if you paid a price and bailed someone out of jail and that individual never even give you thanks?
What if you had the resources to make someones life better and they refused it?
What if information was available, that would help prevent undo metal anguish and suffering, but didn't know it?
The breaking heart depicts the heart of God whose sole intention is to love us, help us, and give us life forever, but yet many nothing knowing about it, wanting it, giving thanks for it, and having to suffer needlessly without it.
So His heart breaks as picture of how much He loves us.
My heart also breaks when I hear some deny the existence of the very giver of life, speak of Him as if He were just a figment of someones imagination, give Him no thanks and or accept His loving help.
So I have adopted it as a testimony of my feelings towards all others whose views are different than mine. That rather than condemn their views, I listen, communicate and exchange information that may be useful to them.
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Twila
Have you ever loved someone so much and then have them not acknowledge you for it?
Look3467, why the breaking heart?
What if you paid a price and bailed someone out of jail and that individual never even give you thanks?
What if you had the resources to make someones life better and they refused it?
What if information was available, that would help prevent undo metal anguish and suffering, but didn't know it?
The breaking heart depicts the heart of God whose sole intention is to love us, help us, and give us life forever, but yet many nothing knowing about it, wanting it, giving thanks for it, and having to suffer needlessly without it.
So His heart breaks as picture of how much He loves us.
My heart also breaks when I hear some deny the existence of the very giver of life, speak of Him as if He were just a figment of someones imagination, give Him no thanks and or accept His loving help.
So I have adopted it as a testimony of my feelings towards all others whose views are different than mine. That rather than condemn their views, I listen, communicate and exchange information that may be useful to them.
Peace>>>AJ
House Member
Posts: 3,658 
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
May 16th, 2007, 05:51 PM
1. The conflicting worlds model: science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of knowing things, only one of them can be right. This is the position of extremists on both sides.
2. The same world model: science and religion are complementary ways of knowing about things, and as both progress to a deeper understanding each will find that the other is true at the core. The late Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama are in this camp, if I've read them right.
3. The separate worlds model: Science and religion deal with different things, there's no intrinsic conflict, they are what the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria." Science has taken over the job of explaining the natural world, which renders a lot of religious stories obsolete, at least in any literal sense, but religion retains its original purposes as an institution for social cohesion and a guide to finding personal meaning and spirituality.
The first two I don't think work at all as a resolution, though I confess (hear my confession, Father
) that I've taken the first position on more than one occasion, and usually regretted it later. It just creates animosity and closes minds, including mine and that's not what I want to be like. I'm not very happy with the third one either, it seems too much like an attempt to have it both ways and explain away conflicts with word games. It's the most logically satisfying to me, but I still have a lot of issues with it, mostly because I have such difficulty with the implicit premise that there *is* a god. Most days I flip-flop between the first and third positions, depending on, I dunno, the phase of the moon or my biorhythms or something. Anybody know a fourth one? Unlike most atheists, however, or theists for that matter, I've actually read the Bible carefully several times, and some things stick in my mind, like this from Isaiah:
55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
In other words, yep, things are mysterious; deal with them. So I try, with widely varying degrees of success.
Quoting sanctus
Indeed, a key point in any attempt at understanding this. I see three ways to approach it, courtesy of Michael Shermer:
Remember though, God does not confine himself to human expectations and/or parameters of belief.
1. The conflicting worlds model: science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of knowing things, only one of them can be right. This is the position of extremists on both sides.
2. The same world model: science and religion are complementary ways of knowing about things, and as both progress to a deeper understanding each will find that the other is true at the core. The late Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama are in this camp, if I've read them right.
3. The separate worlds model: Science and religion deal with different things, there's no intrinsic conflict, they are what the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria." Science has taken over the job of explaining the natural world, which renders a lot of religious stories obsolete, at least in any literal sense, but religion retains its original purposes as an institution for social cohesion and a guide to finding personal meaning and spirituality.
The first two I don't think work at all as a resolution, though I confess (hear my confession, Father
) that I've taken the first position on more than one occasion, and usually regretted it later. It just creates animosity and closes minds, including mine and that's not what I want to be like. I'm not very happy with the third one either, it seems too much like an attempt to have it both ways and explain away conflicts with word games. It's the most logically satisfying to me, but I still have a lot of issues with it, mostly because I have such difficulty with the implicit premise that there *is* a god. Most days I flip-flop between the first and third positions, depending on, I dunno, the phase of the moon or my biorhythms or something. Anybody know a fourth one? Unlike most atheists, however, or theists for that matter, I've actually read the Bible carefully several times, and some things stick in my mind, like this from Isaiah: 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
In other words, yep, things are mysterious; deal with them. So I try, with widely varying degrees of success.
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
May 16th, 2007, 06:15 PM
One verse: Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Science then is in the things that are made, that clearly state of a superior intelligent source, that leaves us without an excuse to its existence.
We can only willfully deny its existence, other than that, it changes not whether we believe it or not.
Peace>>>AJ
Quote:
If I may vote on those three, I would vote for number 2.
Indeed, a key point in any attempt at understanding this. I see three ways to approach it, courtesy of Michael Shermer:
1. The conflicting worlds model: science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of knowing things, only one of them can be right. This is the position of extremists on both sides.
2. The same world model: science and religion are complementary ways of knowing about things, and as both progress to a deeper understanding each will find that the other is true at the core. The late Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama are in this camp, if I've read them right.
3. The separate worlds model: Science and religion deal with different things, there's no intrinsic conflict, they are what the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria." Science has taken over the job of explaining the natural world, which renders a lot of religious stories obsolete, at least in any literal sense, but religion retains its original purposes as an institution for social cohesion and a guide to finding personal meaning and spirituality.
The first two I don't think work at all as a resolution, though I confess (hear my confession, Father) that I've taken the first position on more than one occasion, and usually regretted it later. It just creates animosity and closes minds, including mine and that's not what I want to be like. I'm not very happy with the third one either, it seems too much like an attempt to have it both ways and explain away conflicts with word games. It's the most logically satisfying to me, but I still have a lot of issues with it, mostly because I have such difficulty with the implicit premise that there *is* a god. Most days I flip-flop between the first and third positions, depending on, I dunno, the phase of the moon or my biorhythms or something. Anybody know a fourth one? Unlike most atheists, however, or theists for that matter, I've actually read the Bible carefully several times, and some things stick in my mind, like this from Isaiah:
55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
In other words, yep, things are mysterious; deal with them. So I try, with widely varying degrees of success. >>>Dexter
1. The conflicting worlds model: science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of knowing things, only one of them can be right. This is the position of extremists on both sides.
2. The same world model: science and religion are complementary ways of knowing about things, and as both progress to a deeper understanding each will find that the other is true at the core. The late Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama are in this camp, if I've read them right.
3. The separate worlds model: Science and religion deal with different things, there's no intrinsic conflict, they are what the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria." Science has taken over the job of explaining the natural world, which renders a lot of religious stories obsolete, at least in any literal sense, but religion retains its original purposes as an institution for social cohesion and a guide to finding personal meaning and spirituality.
The first two I don't think work at all as a resolution, though I confess (hear my confession, Father
) that I've taken the first position on more than one occasion, and usually regretted it later. It just creates animosity and closes minds, including mine and that's not what I want to be like. I'm not very happy with the third one either, it seems too much like an attempt to have it both ways and explain away conflicts with word games. It's the most logically satisfying to me, but I still have a lot of issues with it, mostly because I have such difficulty with the implicit premise that there *is* a god. Most days I flip-flop between the first and third positions, depending on, I dunno, the phase of the moon or my biorhythms or something. Anybody know a fourth one? Unlike most atheists, however, or theists for that matter, I've actually read the Bible carefully several times, and some things stick in my mind, like this from Isaiah: 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
In other words, yep, things are mysterious; deal with them. So I try, with widely varying degrees of success. >>>Dexter
One verse: Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Science then is in the things that are made, that clearly state of a superior intelligent source, that leaves us without an excuse to its existence.
We can only willfully deny its existence, other than that, it changes not whether we believe it or not.
Peace>>>AJ
House Member
Posts: 3,658
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
May 16th, 2007, 06:47 PM
Quoting look3467
That one doesn't work for me, because in order to accept science you must accept one of its core ideas, that a claim must be falsifiable. There has to be some way to test it that could show it to be false, because if there isn't, then the evidence in its favour doesn't matter either, it's invulnerable to any kind of evidence. On the matter of god's existence, we'd have to generate a precise definition of god and measurable criteria that will let us arrive at a testable conclusion about his existence. All evidence so far offered for god's existence falls well short of science's empirical standards; given the usually presumed nature of god, no such definition or test is possible. The only resolution I can see is to postulate that body and soul exist in different realities, which is essentially what John Paul II's 1996 encyclical, Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, tried to do. Not very successfully, in my opinion.
If I may vote on those three, I would vote for number 2.
House Member
Posts: 3,658
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
May 16th, 2007, 07:49 PM
I don't see that logic either. Just because you can choose not to struggle doesn't necessarily mean you don't. We're long past being able to verify any of this stuff, all we've got is hearsay, but maybe he did choose to struggle. Would his self-sacrifice have meant anything if he'd chosen not to? I've always understood that one of the reasons he was sent was so god could be seen sharing human suffering as a human being.
That's part of the logic of it anyway, but I don't actually believe any of it.
I don't see that logic either. Just because you can choose not to struggle doesn't necessarily mean you don't. We're long past being able to verify any of this stuff, all we've got is hearsay, but maybe he did choose to struggle. Would his self-sacrifice have meant anything if he'd chosen not to? I've always understood that one of the reasons he was sent was so god could be seen sharing human suffering as a human being.
That's part of the logic of it anyway, but I don't actually believe any of it.
disturber of the peace
Posts: 1,546
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada...after growing up in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada...after growing up in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
May 16th, 2007, 08:12 PM
Quoting BitWhys
How so? I mean, I think the thing is, you can feelings of grandeur and still be able to function. I don't know. Are you sensing that you are the son of god? I think that is the key here.
In other words the very same question applies to you or I.
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
May 16th, 2007, 08:20 PM
Quoting snfu73
You never said anything about delusions of grandeur in the post I was responding to.
How so? I mean, I think the thing is, you can feelings of grandeur and still be able to function. I don't know. Are you sensing that you are the son of god? I think that is the key here.
disturber of the peace
Posts: 1,546
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada...after growing up in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada...after growing up in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
May 16th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Quoting BitWhys
Oh...well...I mentioned it in another post earlier on...I apologize. Anyway, that is what I am refering to...the fact that one can be mentally ill...and with that mental illness have delusions of grandeur and yet not appear to be...ill. It's funny, they say that one of the first signs of schizophrenia is denial...which means...well...maybe we ALL are schizophrenic?
You never said anything about delusions of grandeur in the post I was responding to.
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
May 16th, 2007, 09:26 PM
Life-what is it about it that when the spirit leaves the body dies? Where does this spirit come from?
And what gives life to the plants and trees that they also die?
Is that not what that verse I quoted that said "by the things that are made"?
Seems to me that a logical answer would be that there is a God, if life exists apart from the body.
It just doesn't make sense that life should exist all around me and there not be a power, a source by which all life could be sustained.
That would be to me a very hopeless situation, then why should i care about anything?
So, my appeal is to the heart of humanity for there is where life really is.
I identify the heart with God, for life is a gift and honorable and worthy to be lived.
Peace>>>AJ
Life-what is it about it that when the spirit leaves the body dies? Where does this spirit come from?
And what gives life to the plants and trees that they also die?
Is that not what that verse I quoted that said "by the things that are made"?
Seems to me that a logical answer would be that there is a God, if life exists apart from the body.
It just doesn't make sense that life should exist all around me and there not be a power, a source by which all life could be sustained.
That would be to me a very hopeless situation, then why should i care about anything?
So, my appeal is to the heart of humanity for there is where life really is.
I identify the heart with God, for life is a gift and honorable and worthy to be lived.
Peace>>>AJ
