The biotech industry has come up with numerous examples of how GMOs might offer the opportunity for better lives. Rice that contains beta-carotene, potatoes and corn that repel insect pests, tomatoes that have longer shelf lives, among others. These are plant examples, but it is certainly possible to alter animals in similar ways, such as beef with less fat, chicken with more protein, or fish that can eliminate mercury from their systems.
There are scientific as well as ethical objections to these practices, and many are uncomfortable with "accelerating the evolution" of different species. But some see a food supply in the world in danger. Pollution, deforestation, the rise of food-borne diseases, and corrupt food donation programs all contribute to human malnutrition and famine. GMOs offer a scientific solution to these problems, but at what cost?
Should GMOs be allowed or banned, and why or why not? Should we allow only plants to be modified? Or maybe limit the modified animals to seafood?
Genetically Modified Organisms
Moderator: Moderators
-
Gangstawombatninja
- Student
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:34 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Post #11
John, if I'm not mistaken (which I very well may be so please correct me) this is what you're saying (again, please correct me if I'm wrong):
*God is the Creator and thus any creation should be left to Him.
*Genetic modifications are an act of creation.
*Thus genetic modifications are wrong because all acts of creation should be left to Him.
*Anyone who subscribes to the policies of genetic modifications or anyone (scientists) who use in any way shape or form are creating and thus are running afoul with God.
*Anyone who subscribes to the policies or anyone (scientists) who use GMs are insolent (disrespectful of custom or established authority).
*Anyone who subscribes to the policies or anyone (scientists) who use GMs in any way shape or form are against making the world a better place.
*Following the teachings of Christ are the only way to end the worlds sufferings.
*The reason there is suffering in the world is because people don't follow the teachings of Christ.
*If everyone was Christian there would be no suffering in the world; this is the only way to end the suffering of the world.
*God gives humanity a choice.
*In giving us a choice God does not intervene in our affairs.
*Although God gives us a choice, and won't intervene, although it is in his power, God does not want us to use GMs to end the sufferings of the world even though God won't end them Himself.
*Atheists and people who are not Christian are against ending the worlds sufferings.
Wow, that's a lot of stuff. I hope I got that right, so correct what I got wrong.
Now, what disturbed me most about your comment was this:
Well, Buddhists don't follow the teachings of Christ and they're all about ending the world's suffering. Besides attaing nirvana (connecting with God albeit an unanthropomorphized interpretation of the Mystery) Buddhism is all about ending the worlds suffering.
Even though I'm an atheist that doesn't mean I'm contribute to the suffering of the world any more than you. Personal beliefs don't necessarily correspond to goodness and kindness of the person. To say that would be very short sided. As if being an atheist means that you're automatically a bad person who doesn't care for other people and humanity as a whole.
Yes, brotherly love and loving thy enemies and turning the other cheek are very good ideas. But even Christians don't necessarily follow these preachings. Loving one's enemy is one thing a lot of Christians SEEM to overlook. Everyone is different. Different societies and zeitgiests and parental intructions iffluence what a person believes. You can't expect a person born in India to be a Christian if all his parents told him about at an impressionable age was Hinduism. Just as one can't expect an American (like you or me) to be a Hindu if society and parents have told us believe that since before we learned to talk.
A person has perfect memory simply imperfect recall. What you've been told as a child is your mental foundation which you continue to draw upon throughout the rest of your life. Most everyone has the same psychological yearning to believe in the spiritual. But what incarnation that belief takes on is a result of what society and parents have told them. A child can't invent an image of God (can't even now what that is if society or parents haven't told them of God--a person would have no memory cell to give rise to such a thought). So he/she adopts the image society has placed upon them. People throughout the world praise God, the Spirit. But as a result of geography some praise Krishna, some YHWH, some Allah.
This is what Jesus was talking about. It's futile to try to convince all Hindus and Buddhist and Jews etc. to become Christian. So, since they are who they are and have a conviction and faith just as strong as yours just accept that and love them. I personally wouldn't want a monotomous and boring world where everyone was Christian. I think true beauty lies in diversity. And accpeting that everyone is different.
Whether or not a person believes in a God has no direct correlation on his/her desire to affect humanity positively. I'm an atheist but that has nothing to do with my wanting to help humanity as a whole as being just as strong as yours. But we merely disagree on the method. And that's one we're debating. But don't for one second confuse my goodness or my desire to help humanity as being any less strong than yours.
How to end the suffering of the world. Well, from what I understand of what you're saying, you think that God won't intervene to end the sufferings of the world even though He could and it is in His power. So, the ending the sufferings of the world is left to humanity. You say the ONLY way to end the sufferings of the world is for everyone to follow the teachings of Christ. But we all know that will never happen. Everyone is essentially different and the convictions of Buddhists and Moslems and Jews are just as strong as those of Christians. So, since God intervening, and since a global conversion to Christianity isn't likely, we're left with the question of a feasible plan by which to end the sufferings of the world.
I have provided one. I say a person derives greatest happiness by making another person happy. Utopia being the absence of suffering, I say the way to utopia lies in everyone catering, not to their own, but to the welfare of everyone else. So the question is how to get people to lose their selfishness. I have proposed a genetically engineered gland which releases massive spikes of chemical euphoria whenever a person does something nice for another person, so that everyones prerogative becomes to help others and find bliss in doing so.
You have not provided a feasible solution for ending the worlds sufffering (I don't see a global conversion to Christianity happening anytime soon). I have provided one (at least in my mind). You didn't bring up the validity of my proposal which is what bothers me most. It's almost like you didn't even consider what I said.
GM could end all the worlds suffering. Cure all diseases and feed everyone. And yet you say it is immoral. You define immorality as anything that goes against God. I define it as anything that causing suffering; the opposite, morality, being, causing happiness. You say GM goes against God because it is an act of creation and God is the only Creator, the one who should create and thus GM is immoral because it is an act of creation.
First of all, GM is not an act of creation. Creation is impossible. Everything is energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed. So GM is simply changing what is already there, not making something from scratch. Also, change is essential to life. That's what life is, in fact. I mean, you grow a new pancreas every single day, I think. Cells are always dieing and being reborn as is everything. But without that change there is stagnation. And humanity need to be growing and change because stagnation is death. And we are of course progressing toward good. This good is utopia, ending the worlds suffering. Chaning something that is imperfect is not immoral. Yes, life is imperfect. I mean, your body starts to sabotage itself shortly after reaching sexual maturity. But, I mean, relieving all the suffering of world through genetic enhancement, by changing a persons atomic structure so that their nerve cells cease to register pain--well, this seems anything but immoral to me. If God won't intervene to end the worlds sufferings it's up to us to take things into our own hands.
Second of all, gentical modification is, essentially, changing atomic structures. The changing of atomic structures is happening constantly, in our own bodies. Eating is any example of this--your boding is taking new atomic structures in and rearranging their structures to one more suitable to providing energy. So there is nothing wrong with the altering of atomic structures. But you think that if humans are behind this natural and essential-to-life altering, that is immoral and against God.
Ok. So, let's take a child born with Taysachs (sp) disease. A baby is born and lives a life of terrible and agonizing pain and dies at the age of five, and doesn't live any longer than that. Well, genetic modification could cure Taysachs (sp) disease along with all the other diseases of the world, beginning the paving of the long road toward ending all suffering.
You're probably not a Scientologist. So you're probably all for modern medicine. So you're probably all for curing the worlds diseases. This is possible through genetic modifications, when technology is ready. Your (probably existant) desire to end world disease--as well as hunger--could be brought about through GM. But mutations are an example of natural GMs. The genes of animals are being altered all the time, naturally. Like one species becoming another species through adapting to a new environment as has been documented. So genetic modifications occur natually but it's immoral for us make these already natural alterations.
It sound like what you're trying to say is that if scientiests are allowed to make genetic modifications they'll develop narcicistic deity complexes and turn away from God. Well, it doens't make any sense to say that all geneticists of the future will be atheists or nonChristians. I'm sure a lot of them (the American portion, at least) will be Christians trying to end the suffering of the world by curing world hunger and disease.
I think what you mean is that with great power comes great responsibility. It's not so much that GM is wrong, it's just that we need a moral compass as to what to apply GM to. You'd be right. We must use GM only in a productive fashion that contributes to utopia and the ending of the worlds sufferings. But as long as we have that moral compass we are only contributing to the betterment of humanity as a whole.
*God is the Creator and thus any creation should be left to Him.
*Genetic modifications are an act of creation.
*Thus genetic modifications are wrong because all acts of creation should be left to Him.
*Anyone who subscribes to the policies of genetic modifications or anyone (scientists) who use in any way shape or form are creating and thus are running afoul with God.
*Anyone who subscribes to the policies or anyone (scientists) who use GMs are insolent (disrespectful of custom or established authority).
*Anyone who subscribes to the policies or anyone (scientists) who use GMs in any way shape or form are against making the world a better place.
*Following the teachings of Christ are the only way to end the worlds sufferings.
*The reason there is suffering in the world is because people don't follow the teachings of Christ.
*If everyone was Christian there would be no suffering in the world; this is the only way to end the suffering of the world.
*God gives humanity a choice.
*In giving us a choice God does not intervene in our affairs.
*Although God gives us a choice, and won't intervene, although it is in his power, God does not want us to use GMs to end the sufferings of the world even though God won't end them Himself.
*Atheists and people who are not Christian are against ending the worlds sufferings.
Wow, that's a lot of stuff. I hope I got that right, so correct what I got wrong.
Now, what disturbed me most about your comment was this:
So what you're saying is that anyone who is not Christian, or even a theist, is against ending the worlds suffering. I happen to be an atheist but I like a lot Jesus' (Yeshua bin Miria) ideas, namely loving your enemies and turning the other cheek like Ghandi said. So, you think global Christianity ushers in utopia and that the diversity of religions know is why there is suffering in the world.He\'s not, it\'s people who are against this and those people are the ones who stand against God, reject Christ, and make the world what it is.
Well, Buddhists don't follow the teachings of Christ and they're all about ending the world's suffering. Besides attaing nirvana (connecting with God albeit an unanthropomorphized interpretation of the Mystery) Buddhism is all about ending the worlds suffering.
Even though I'm an atheist that doesn't mean I'm contribute to the suffering of the world any more than you. Personal beliefs don't necessarily correspond to goodness and kindness of the person. To say that would be very short sided. As if being an atheist means that you're automatically a bad person who doesn't care for other people and humanity as a whole.
Yes, brotherly love and loving thy enemies and turning the other cheek are very good ideas. But even Christians don't necessarily follow these preachings. Loving one's enemy is one thing a lot of Christians SEEM to overlook. Everyone is different. Different societies and zeitgiests and parental intructions iffluence what a person believes. You can't expect a person born in India to be a Christian if all his parents told him about at an impressionable age was Hinduism. Just as one can't expect an American (like you or me) to be a Hindu if society and parents have told us believe that since before we learned to talk.
A person has perfect memory simply imperfect recall. What you've been told as a child is your mental foundation which you continue to draw upon throughout the rest of your life. Most everyone has the same psychological yearning to believe in the spiritual. But what incarnation that belief takes on is a result of what society and parents have told them. A child can't invent an image of God (can't even now what that is if society or parents haven't told them of God--a person would have no memory cell to give rise to such a thought). So he/she adopts the image society has placed upon them. People throughout the world praise God, the Spirit. But as a result of geography some praise Krishna, some YHWH, some Allah.
This is what Jesus was talking about. It's futile to try to convince all Hindus and Buddhist and Jews etc. to become Christian. So, since they are who they are and have a conviction and faith just as strong as yours just accept that and love them. I personally wouldn't want a monotomous and boring world where everyone was Christian. I think true beauty lies in diversity. And accpeting that everyone is different.
Whether or not a person believes in a God has no direct correlation on his/her desire to affect humanity positively. I'm an atheist but that has nothing to do with my wanting to help humanity as a whole as being just as strong as yours. But we merely disagree on the method. And that's one we're debating. But don't for one second confuse my goodness or my desire to help humanity as being any less strong than yours.
How to end the suffering of the world. Well, from what I understand of what you're saying, you think that God won't intervene to end the sufferings of the world even though He could and it is in His power. So, the ending the sufferings of the world is left to humanity. You say the ONLY way to end the sufferings of the world is for everyone to follow the teachings of Christ. But we all know that will never happen. Everyone is essentially different and the convictions of Buddhists and Moslems and Jews are just as strong as those of Christians. So, since God intervening, and since a global conversion to Christianity isn't likely, we're left with the question of a feasible plan by which to end the sufferings of the world.
I have provided one. I say a person derives greatest happiness by making another person happy. Utopia being the absence of suffering, I say the way to utopia lies in everyone catering, not to their own, but to the welfare of everyone else. So the question is how to get people to lose their selfishness. I have proposed a genetically engineered gland which releases massive spikes of chemical euphoria whenever a person does something nice for another person, so that everyones prerogative becomes to help others and find bliss in doing so.
You have not provided a feasible solution for ending the worlds sufffering (I don't see a global conversion to Christianity happening anytime soon). I have provided one (at least in my mind). You didn't bring up the validity of my proposal which is what bothers me most. It's almost like you didn't even consider what I said.
GM could end all the worlds suffering. Cure all diseases and feed everyone. And yet you say it is immoral. You define immorality as anything that goes against God. I define it as anything that causing suffering; the opposite, morality, being, causing happiness. You say GM goes against God because it is an act of creation and God is the only Creator, the one who should create and thus GM is immoral because it is an act of creation.
First of all, GM is not an act of creation. Creation is impossible. Everything is energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed. So GM is simply changing what is already there, not making something from scratch. Also, change is essential to life. That's what life is, in fact. I mean, you grow a new pancreas every single day, I think. Cells are always dieing and being reborn as is everything. But without that change there is stagnation. And humanity need to be growing and change because stagnation is death. And we are of course progressing toward good. This good is utopia, ending the worlds suffering. Chaning something that is imperfect is not immoral. Yes, life is imperfect. I mean, your body starts to sabotage itself shortly after reaching sexual maturity. But, I mean, relieving all the suffering of world through genetic enhancement, by changing a persons atomic structure so that their nerve cells cease to register pain--well, this seems anything but immoral to me. If God won't intervene to end the worlds sufferings it's up to us to take things into our own hands.
Second of all, gentical modification is, essentially, changing atomic structures. The changing of atomic structures is happening constantly, in our own bodies. Eating is any example of this--your boding is taking new atomic structures in and rearranging their structures to one more suitable to providing energy. So there is nothing wrong with the altering of atomic structures. But you think that if humans are behind this natural and essential-to-life altering, that is immoral and against God.
Ok. So, let's take a child born with Taysachs (sp) disease. A baby is born and lives a life of terrible and agonizing pain and dies at the age of five, and doesn't live any longer than that. Well, genetic modification could cure Taysachs (sp) disease along with all the other diseases of the world, beginning the paving of the long road toward ending all suffering.
You're probably not a Scientologist. So you're probably all for modern medicine. So you're probably all for curing the worlds diseases. This is possible through genetic modifications, when technology is ready. Your (probably existant) desire to end world disease--as well as hunger--could be brought about through GM. But mutations are an example of natural GMs. The genes of animals are being altered all the time, naturally. Like one species becoming another species through adapting to a new environment as has been documented. So genetic modifications occur natually but it's immoral for us make these already natural alterations.
It sound like what you're trying to say is that if scientiests are allowed to make genetic modifications they'll develop narcicistic deity complexes and turn away from God. Well, it doens't make any sense to say that all geneticists of the future will be atheists or nonChristians. I'm sure a lot of them (the American portion, at least) will be Christians trying to end the suffering of the world by curing world hunger and disease.
I think what you mean is that with great power comes great responsibility. It's not so much that GM is wrong, it's just that we need a moral compass as to what to apply GM to. You'd be right. We must use GM only in a productive fashion that contributes to utopia and the ending of the worlds sufferings. But as long as we have that moral compass we are only contributing to the betterment of humanity as a whole.
-
Gangstawombatninja
- Student
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:34 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Post #12
With a post as long as that I'm bound to forget a few things.
Getting back to the definition of immorality. I define immorality as anything that causes suffering or unhappiness whereas you probably define it as anything that goes against God. Well, you can't truly know what God thinks or if He thinks GM is immoral. According to your beliefs the only way you can know if God thinks GM is immoral is if He said so in the Bible. Find that Bible verse or even your own belief does not essentially find GM immoral.
Another thing you need to consider is that genetic modifications falls under the science (study of) genetics. And science is neither moral or immoral. A lot of people operate under the dogma that evolution is atheistic. But the simple fact is science is without morality. It is simply the study of the natural order of things, which is the way in which God set the universe to run, according to theism. Evolution is no more atheistic than it is Christian because it is not a person and thus does not have beliefs. Whether or not a lot of or most evolutionists are atheists (which I seriously doubt as being true) does not make evolution atheistic. The same is true with genetics. Genetics is not moral or immoral, it simply a system of observation and conclusion and testing to better understand the world around us. Now, how we apply genetics, that is where morality comes into play.
To me, perhaps the most disturbing of all Biblical passages is Isaiah 45:7. It reads: I create the light and form the darkness, I make the weal and and the woe, I the Lord do all these things.. To me, if this passage is to interpreted literally, YHWH is immoral. Since God creates the goodness and the badness of the world, the happiness and the suffering, that makes God immoral for creating suffering. As well as moral, but still with sin--I define transgression as causing suffering and/or depriving another person of happiness.
Now, there is suffering in the world. Genetic modifications could cure the sufferings of the world. Not applying such knowledge to end global suffering when we could; to me, this is immorality through inaction.
If God won't directly intervene to end suffering, and won't allow us to end suffering in the only realistic fashion we have available to us (again, I don't see a global conversion to Christianity happening anytime soon) then I have no choice but to conclude YOUR INTERPRETATION of God is immoral for ending or even allowing the ending of suffering or not supporting the ending of suffering in the only feasible fashion available to us.
Getting back to the definition of immorality. I define immorality as anything that causes suffering or unhappiness whereas you probably define it as anything that goes against God. Well, you can't truly know what God thinks or if He thinks GM is immoral. According to your beliefs the only way you can know if God thinks GM is immoral is if He said so in the Bible. Find that Bible verse or even your own belief does not essentially find GM immoral.
Another thing you need to consider is that genetic modifications falls under the science (study of) genetics. And science is neither moral or immoral. A lot of people operate under the dogma that evolution is atheistic. But the simple fact is science is without morality. It is simply the study of the natural order of things, which is the way in which God set the universe to run, according to theism. Evolution is no more atheistic than it is Christian because it is not a person and thus does not have beliefs. Whether or not a lot of or most evolutionists are atheists (which I seriously doubt as being true) does not make evolution atheistic. The same is true with genetics. Genetics is not moral or immoral, it simply a system of observation and conclusion and testing to better understand the world around us. Now, how we apply genetics, that is where morality comes into play.
To me, perhaps the most disturbing of all Biblical passages is Isaiah 45:7. It reads: I create the light and form the darkness, I make the weal and and the woe, I the Lord do all these things.. To me, if this passage is to interpreted literally, YHWH is immoral. Since God creates the goodness and the badness of the world, the happiness and the suffering, that makes God immoral for creating suffering. As well as moral, but still with sin--I define transgression as causing suffering and/or depriving another person of happiness.
Now, there is suffering in the world. Genetic modifications could cure the sufferings of the world. Not applying such knowledge to end global suffering when we could; to me, this is immorality through inaction.
If God won't directly intervene to end suffering, and won't allow us to end suffering in the only realistic fashion we have available to us (again, I don't see a global conversion to Christianity happening anytime soon) then I have no choice but to conclude YOUR INTERPRETATION of God is immoral for ending or even allowing the ending of suffering or not supporting the ending of suffering in the only feasible fashion available to us.
-
Johnin Spain
- Student
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:40 pm
- Location: Spain
End world suffering?
Post #13You made some assumptions in your very long reply, I thank you for investing what must have been considerable time in responding.
I'm not an American, I was born in the UK, was a citizen of the world, became a citizen of the Kingdom of God and currently reside in Spain.
Bible teaches us that MANY will seek to find the way to God but FEW will find it and even FEWER will enter in.
Most of Christianity are actually following a religion of Churchianity, they have found the way 'in' but will not or cannot enter 'in'. A true believer will have placed all authority in their lives with Christ alone. I say Christ alone because until the end of this world, God has given ALL authority to Christ. Therefore individuals who attempt to reach God EXCEPT through Christ are seeking in a way that cannot find the way 'in'.
Imagine a mountain, on top of the mountain God resides, all around the mountain are pathways that lead to God, but they are ALL blocked, impassable to anyone.
God in His mercy has sent His Son to open ONE pathway to reach God, and Christ stands at that pass keeping it open for all who will find that 'narrow door' to pass though and reach relationship with God for eternity.
Any who find the path, but will not or cannot leave the things of this world behind cannot enter in.
Those climbing the other paths cannot break through the barriers that block them, the labor in vain, always seeking more ingenious ways to break through, but those other paths have been blocked by God and there is NO WAY to unblock them.
At the foot of the pathways God has place people who will say, "This is the wrong path to take" but MOST will ignore them, still seeking their OWN WAYS to God.
Mankind cannot end world suffering, we are the cause of it, not the salvation from it. In time this world will become a hopeless case and God will again call TIME on the world. The ONLY pathway will be shut off and those who have declined to find it will be destroyed to suffer the existance they created for all eternity, seperated from God and existing for eternity in a Godless environment.
That must be HELL.
So, sorry, good intentions do not do it, clever scientists do not do it, there is ONLY one way and that is what makes all the efforts of humanity to solve their own problems futile.
Jesus said
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Did you see that?
"Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
So your murmuring about the sufferings of the world will not do it.
Each individual must first save themselves and to do that you need to make that choice.
Choose Christ or choose man made religions that lead up the wrong pathways.
Blessings,
John
I'm not an American, I was born in the UK, was a citizen of the world, became a citizen of the Kingdom of God and currently reside in Spain.
Bible teaches us that MANY will seek to find the way to God but FEW will find it and even FEWER will enter in.
Most of Christianity are actually following a religion of Churchianity, they have found the way 'in' but will not or cannot enter 'in'. A true believer will have placed all authority in their lives with Christ alone. I say Christ alone because until the end of this world, God has given ALL authority to Christ. Therefore individuals who attempt to reach God EXCEPT through Christ are seeking in a way that cannot find the way 'in'.
Imagine a mountain, on top of the mountain God resides, all around the mountain are pathways that lead to God, but they are ALL blocked, impassable to anyone.
God in His mercy has sent His Son to open ONE pathway to reach God, and Christ stands at that pass keeping it open for all who will find that 'narrow door' to pass though and reach relationship with God for eternity.
Any who find the path, but will not or cannot leave the things of this world behind cannot enter in.
Those climbing the other paths cannot break through the barriers that block them, the labor in vain, always seeking more ingenious ways to break through, but those other paths have been blocked by God and there is NO WAY to unblock them.
At the foot of the pathways God has place people who will say, "This is the wrong path to take" but MOST will ignore them, still seeking their OWN WAYS to God.
Mankind cannot end world suffering, we are the cause of it, not the salvation from it. In time this world will become a hopeless case and God will again call TIME on the world. The ONLY pathway will be shut off and those who have declined to find it will be destroyed to suffer the existance they created for all eternity, seperated from God and existing for eternity in a Godless environment.
That must be HELL.
So, sorry, good intentions do not do it, clever scientists do not do it, there is ONLY one way and that is what makes all the efforts of humanity to solve their own problems futile.
Jesus said
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Did you see that?
"Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
So your murmuring about the sufferings of the world will not do it.
Each individual must first save themselves and to do that you need to make that choice.
Choose Christ or choose man made religions that lead up the wrong pathways.
Blessings,
John
-
Gangstawombatninja
- Student
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:34 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Post #14
Well, I didn't think you were American but that doesn't matter and has nothing to do with anything.
John, that mountain metaphor was nice but you've made a few assumptions. Like Jesus being the ONLY "clearer" of paths. Who says Buddha isn't another clearer sent by God... Well, as long as we're on the subject of paths let me give you my belief:
Everyone one is essentially different. We are all living our own lives: walking our own path. I define spirituality as walking your own path and religion as conforming to anothers, which, although it may have worked for another person, might not necessarily work for you.
Like how I'm sure the rebirth following death metaphor at the heart of Christianity, of the resurrection, conjure great awe and wonder within you and you identify with its theme. Different people identify with the works of certain poets. But you may not identify with the favorite poet of another person because you're not really impressed by the metaphors and philosophy proposed by that poet. But another person gets totally charged up and excited about those metaphors. Everyone being essentially different, responds to different things emotionally.
Like you with Christ's resurrection. Well, I don't find nearly as much awe in as you do, that's because it conjures much more emotional awe in you than it does me. Probably my favorite metaphor in the Bible is that God created the rainbow after the flood as promise for never sending another (world) flood and that the rainbow is a symbol of hope. The rainbow being a symbol of hope, I really like that and it gets me excited. Like how we are all essentially stardust and all life comes from the water and that combining the births of life we get light, illumination, enlightenment, diversity, hope, joy... On and on, I LOVE that metaphor. I love it. I love the ideas and symbols presented in it.
But the point is, I don't identify and find as much awe in the Christ metaphor as I do the rainbow metaphor. But the simple fact is a lot of people would say they find so much more wonder and awe in the Christ symbol (using the tangible to express the intangible (sp), using fact to express truth).
But neither one of us is right or wrong. It is simply our emotional response to understanding those themes. Look at it this way. A person has quote unquote perfect memory, simply imperfect recall. Quote unquote referring to that fact that alcohol and other things can of course kill brain cells. But even so, we remember albeit not consciously most everything that has ever happened to us. As a child our foundation for beliefs are put upon us, by society, parent, w/e. Our memory cells remain with us, remembered subconsiously. As an adult that foundation what we continue to draw upon as adults. It's very hard to make changes to that foundation. But getting back to the point, a thought is essentially, when we witness an event or do something that is similar to something else we have done before, and we remember that thing and all these different memory are brought to consciousness in an original configuration and we have a new idea composed by the specific arrangement of those memory cells.
The point is we all have a different set of memory cell because we all have been shaped by a different set of experiences and have been raised in a different way. So everyone responds slightly differently to a situation or an idea because they have different brains and memory cells that dictate how they respond to that situation or idea.
Like what I said before, don't for one second confuse the conviction of the faith of Hindus, Moslems, wiccan, etc. as being any less strong than yours. But a person chooses which religion conjures up the greatest amount of awe within them; which religon they identify with; which religion whose ideas are similar to that foundation (of memory cells) that we all draw upon. Fact is substantiated by physical evidence. But truth/falsenss has only logic, reason, emotion, etc. to substantiate it. So a large part of a person determination of truth is emotion. Becuase you aren't truly aware of God, faith being belief without proof. Your spirit is an aspect of your God, God's prescence within you but only your subconscious is aware of your spirit prescence (sp), if your belief in the spirit, which I don't happen to. But your conscious perception of that spirit isn't "pure"; your consciou thoughts are an amalgam of different memory cells in an eternally different configuration (a thought is a snowflake... what a nice thought...).
So the only way you can substantiate the existence of God is by feeling Him/Her/It, whatever your anthorpomorphized respresntation of that transcendent spritual mystery is. But different people respond different ideas and themes with greater degrees of awe and wonder. Awe and wonder being positive and enjoyable emotions a person chooses whatever ideology conjures up greates emotional awe and wonder. And some say that the feeling of awe is the prescence of God; or, our perception of God, rather. But what religion a person chooses is based upon how they respond to ideas and metaphors in that ideology and how similar that is to their individual foundation .
God understands (figuratively, I think this, of course, me being a theo-philic atheist (loving the metaphor and philosophy in other words)) this, that everyone is different and responds to diffents ideas differently. And there is beauty is this diversity because monotomy is, of course, boring.
God is omnipresent. God is everywhere and within all things. Even bad things, according to Isaiah 45:7. But God is present is all things. God is everything. God is the Union of Everything. God isn't one idea or one path, God is all paths. God is the Convergence.There are an infinite number of paths to God because we are all walking different paths and we all have the potential to reach God (attain our emotional holy grail, whatever that is for the individual).
John. All you did was regurgitate what you already believe (Not trying to be disrespectful, but all you did was present what you already believe). BUT YOU DIDN'T DISCUSS ANY ASPECT OF THE VALIDITY OF MY PROPOSAL. Why can't that gland end the sufferering of humanity. I use logic to exeplify how it could. But you didn't bring up once why that was unrealistic. Tell me why that gland which makes everyone more concerned with everyone else's happiness and not their own won't usher in utopia.
Not once did you bring up how my proposal was unrealistic. Don't tell me that it won't work because only Christianity will. Explain to me why my proposal of the application GM won't end humanity's sufferings. I have given my belief of how to end suffering in the world. Don't just say it doesn't work because I believe the only way is this. Refute my proposal and explain why it isn't realistic.
John, that mountain metaphor was nice but you've made a few assumptions. Like Jesus being the ONLY "clearer" of paths. Who says Buddha isn't another clearer sent by God... Well, as long as we're on the subject of paths let me give you my belief:
Everyone one is essentially different. We are all living our own lives: walking our own path. I define spirituality as walking your own path and religion as conforming to anothers, which, although it may have worked for another person, might not necessarily work for you.
Like how I'm sure the rebirth following death metaphor at the heart of Christianity, of the resurrection, conjure great awe and wonder within you and you identify with its theme. Different people identify with the works of certain poets. But you may not identify with the favorite poet of another person because you're not really impressed by the metaphors and philosophy proposed by that poet. But another person gets totally charged up and excited about those metaphors. Everyone being essentially different, responds to different things emotionally.
Like you with Christ's resurrection. Well, I don't find nearly as much awe in as you do, that's because it conjures much more emotional awe in you than it does me. Probably my favorite metaphor in the Bible is that God created the rainbow after the flood as promise for never sending another (world) flood and that the rainbow is a symbol of hope. The rainbow being a symbol of hope, I really like that and it gets me excited. Like how we are all essentially stardust and all life comes from the water and that combining the births of life we get light, illumination, enlightenment, diversity, hope, joy... On and on, I LOVE that metaphor. I love it. I love the ideas and symbols presented in it.
But the point is, I don't identify and find as much awe in the Christ metaphor as I do the rainbow metaphor. But the simple fact is a lot of people would say they find so much more wonder and awe in the Christ symbol (using the tangible to express the intangible (sp), using fact to express truth).
But neither one of us is right or wrong. It is simply our emotional response to understanding those themes. Look at it this way. A person has quote unquote perfect memory, simply imperfect recall. Quote unquote referring to that fact that alcohol and other things can of course kill brain cells. But even so, we remember albeit not consciously most everything that has ever happened to us. As a child our foundation for beliefs are put upon us, by society, parent, w/e. Our memory cells remain with us, remembered subconsiously. As an adult that foundation what we continue to draw upon as adults. It's very hard to make changes to that foundation. But getting back to the point, a thought is essentially, when we witness an event or do something that is similar to something else we have done before, and we remember that thing and all these different memory are brought to consciousness in an original configuration and we have a new idea composed by the specific arrangement of those memory cells.
The point is we all have a different set of memory cell because we all have been shaped by a different set of experiences and have been raised in a different way. So everyone responds slightly differently to a situation or an idea because they have different brains and memory cells that dictate how they respond to that situation or idea.
Like what I said before, don't for one second confuse the conviction of the faith of Hindus, Moslems, wiccan, etc. as being any less strong than yours. But a person chooses which religion conjures up the greatest amount of awe within them; which religon they identify with; which religion whose ideas are similar to that foundation (of memory cells) that we all draw upon. Fact is substantiated by physical evidence. But truth/falsenss has only logic, reason, emotion, etc. to substantiate it. So a large part of a person determination of truth is emotion. Becuase you aren't truly aware of God, faith being belief without proof. Your spirit is an aspect of your God, God's prescence within you but only your subconscious is aware of your spirit prescence (sp), if your belief in the spirit, which I don't happen to. But your conscious perception of that spirit isn't "pure"; your consciou thoughts are an amalgam of different memory cells in an eternally different configuration (a thought is a snowflake... what a nice thought...).
So the only way you can substantiate the existence of God is by feeling Him/Her/It, whatever your anthorpomorphized respresntation of that transcendent spritual mystery is. But different people respond different ideas and themes with greater degrees of awe and wonder. Awe and wonder being positive and enjoyable emotions a person chooses whatever ideology conjures up greates emotional awe and wonder. And some say that the feeling of awe is the prescence of God; or, our perception of God, rather. But what religion a person chooses is based upon how they respond to ideas and metaphors in that ideology and how similar that is to their individual foundation .
God understands (figuratively, I think this, of course, me being a theo-philic atheist (loving the metaphor and philosophy in other words)) this, that everyone is different and responds to diffents ideas differently. And there is beauty is this diversity because monotomy is, of course, boring.
God is omnipresent. God is everywhere and within all things. Even bad things, according to Isaiah 45:7. But God is present is all things. God is everything. God is the Union of Everything. God isn't one idea or one path, God is all paths. God is the Convergence.There are an infinite number of paths to God because we are all walking different paths and we all have the potential to reach God (attain our emotional holy grail, whatever that is for the individual).
John. All you did was regurgitate what you already believe (Not trying to be disrespectful, but all you did was present what you already believe). BUT YOU DIDN'T DISCUSS ANY ASPECT OF THE VALIDITY OF MY PROPOSAL. Why can't that gland end the sufferering of humanity. I use logic to exeplify how it could. But you didn't bring up once why that was unrealistic. Tell me why that gland which makes everyone more concerned with everyone else's happiness and not their own won't usher in utopia.
Not once did you bring up how my proposal was unrealistic. Don't tell me that it won't work because only Christianity will. Explain to me why my proposal of the application GM won't end humanity's sufferings. I have given my belief of how to end suffering in the world. Don't just say it doesn't work because I believe the only way is this. Refute my proposal and explain why it isn't realistic.
-
Johnin Spain
- Student
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:40 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #15
'John, that mountain metaphor was nice but you've made a few assumptions. Like Jesus being the ONLY "clearer" of paths.
Who says Buddha isn't another clearer sent by God... '
Err... actually Christ does!
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
It's this definitive statement that makes any further debate irrelevant if someone refuses to accept it as true.
Jesus, in stating this, leaves one only three assumptions to choose between.
1. Christ was a liar.
2. Christ was mentally insane.
3. Christ is the Son of God.
You choose which is truth, for me the proof of the fact that Christ is the Son of God has been evidenced in my life since I met Him.
So please forgive me for not arguing against your beliefs, but unfortunately no arguement will ever persuade you unless you can first answer the one important question:
Who do you say Christ is?
If your answer is in 1 or 2, then we will never reach a conclusion you would be happy with, and if your answer is number 3, you would realise that your spiritual condition is more important than playing god with GM in some vain attempt to save a lost world.
Blessings,
John
Who says Buddha isn't another clearer sent by God... '
Err... actually Christ does!
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
It's this definitive statement that makes any further debate irrelevant if someone refuses to accept it as true.
Jesus, in stating this, leaves one only three assumptions to choose between.
1. Christ was a liar.
2. Christ was mentally insane.
3. Christ is the Son of God.
You choose which is truth, for me the proof of the fact that Christ is the Son of God has been evidenced in my life since I met Him.
So please forgive me for not arguing against your beliefs, but unfortunately no arguement will ever persuade you unless you can first answer the one important question:
Who do you say Christ is?
If your answer is in 1 or 2, then we will never reach a conclusion you would be happy with, and if your answer is number 3, you would realise that your spiritual condition is more important than playing god with GM in some vain attempt to save a lost world.
Blessings,
John
-
Gangstawombatninja
- Student
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:34 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Post #16
John, I respect you and stuff but I feel like crap. It feels like you didn't read any of what I said because you didn't acknowledge much less try to refute anything I said. Like what I said about different people finding awe in different religions and responding emotionally with different degrees of awes and that feeling being the only way to substantiate that which cannot be validated by fact--faith. I took the time to read what you'd said about Christianity and to respond to that but it feels like you don't even want to consider what I have to say. I really understand what you're saying and I find awe in Christ too--metaphorically.
But John I'm not anti-Christian. Largely, I'm anti hell. I mean, all anti hell, just that most of my dislike of Christianity is entirely based around this belief. Added to this is the literal and even radical interpretations many have drawn from a guide. Like I said before, the spiritual is incomprehensible to humans. So, you could say that God wrote the Bible, (entheal designates divine inspiration, I believe), but that even though the stories weren't literal (like Noah's flood--Egyptian history alone contradicts this blatantly) He was merely using the most apt metaphors to give us a feeling some idea of the intangible that we cannot understand and giving us poetry and philosophy to find awe in. This is analogous to how I regard Jesus. I don't think his teachings were literal but I also don't think they're lies. I mean, trying to define metaphysical poetry, or even regular poetry, as being factual or non factual, it just doesn't work. I talked about this before and I'd hoped you would have understood. Truth is very different than fact. I find much truth in what Jesus. Simply no fact because philosphy has to do with truth not fact.
Furthermore, just because Jesus says so it doesn't mean he's the only way to God. This is chronic circular logic. "God wrote the Bible, God is infallible, the Bible is infallible." Just because Jesus said he way the only way to God that doens't mean it's true. I could say the same thing, or Tom, Dick or Sally but that doesn't make it true--and it isn't, of course.
And another thing. About alternate clearers of paths. Who says Buddha wasn't Christ reborn in another body at another time? A different avatar of the same God? The apocolypse? Well, as Jesus himself said, in the gospel of Thomas I believe, but maybe one of the canon, "Heaven and hell are on earth but we cannot see it," or something like that. And the kingdom of God lying within, that's in the canon, I think. Heaven is within us, not in the sky on a cloud. God is within us. The path to God is the path to our spirits. Christianity does not directly adress how to reach your spirit. Buddhism does as does Hinduism, with Brahman and atman ("power", "self", God, soul, respectively) and how to reach God. Now, what I'm saying is that all the religions have something to offer. Like with the Renaissance when Europeans started to look to Greek mythology for [/i]wisdom . Not for a literal belief, but to disect the metaphors of Greek myth. and find the meaning in them. All myths hold some sort of wisdom. None of them are literal (or, from your perspective, one is) but they all hold truth as opposed to fact. Truth is the path to God because the path to God is faith not fact. All the mythologies and religions of the world hold some sort of truth. Don't limit yourself finding truth exclusively in Christianity because you're only limiting your scope of wisdom.
Lol. Faith is based around believing in something without proof. There is no proof for the resurrection of Jesus--it's purely a matter of faith. I adressed this in an earlier post. Did you even read it? Or, more importantly, open your mind just a smidgen to understand it, even if you don't believe it. Like the image of God (a sphere of spiritual energies) is alive in me, without me believing it to be factual or literal--but it's true.
So please forgive me for not arguing against your beliefs, but unfortunately no arguement will ever persuade you unless you can first answer the one important question:
Who do you say Christ is?
John, whose making assumptions now? I don't believe either of those to be true. I think Jesus believed everything he said. Jesus was awesome guy. An anti Roman activist who made many temple reforms. Like sabath for the sake of sabath (sabath made for man not man for the sabath, so man can break the sabath because he has power over the sabath not the other way around--hmm... kind of analogous to the Bible, it was made for us not us for it...) Jesus was also incredibly liberal for his day, having just as many woman followers as man in his inner circle. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm . This alone puts Jesus in the plus column in my book. And then there's the wonderful pre Ghandi turning the other cheek rather than an eye for an eye and loving thy enemy and brotherly love. I discussed this earlier and I wish you would have responded as I have taken the time to understand and explain how your belief compares to mine and why mine is more logical (logic, again, being the only thing to substantiate faith and truth). Probably my major beef with Christianity and Jesus' teachings was the belief in hell.Jesus, in stating this, leaves one only three assumptions to choose between.
1. Christ was a liar.
2. Christ was mentally insane.
3. Christ is the Son of God.
But John I'm not anti-Christian. Largely, I'm anti hell. I mean, all anti hell, just that most of my dislike of Christianity is entirely based around this belief. Added to this is the literal and even radical interpretations many have drawn from a guide. Like I said before, the spiritual is incomprehensible to humans. So, you could say that God wrote the Bible, (entheal designates divine inspiration, I believe), but that even though the stories weren't literal (like Noah's flood--Egyptian history alone contradicts this blatantly) He was merely using the most apt metaphors to give us a feeling some idea of the intangible that we cannot understand and giving us poetry and philosophy to find awe in. This is analogous to how I regard Jesus. I don't think his teachings were literal but I also don't think they're lies. I mean, trying to define metaphysical poetry, or even regular poetry, as being factual or non factual, it just doesn't work. I talked about this before and I'd hoped you would have understood. Truth is very different than fact. I find much truth in what Jesus. Simply no fact because philosphy has to do with truth not fact.
John, first of all, this is written by the apostles of Jesus forty (I believe it's forty, correct me if I'm wrong) years after the crusifixion (-fixion, fiction, jk, just messin' with ya) because as Jesus says in Mark 13, the apocolypse would occur "before this generation has passed away". From what I understand, it was common dogma at that time that the end of days was immanent (is that the right word?). The apostles didn't get around to actually writing the gospels before several decades had passed at which point they went "Uh-oh, we need to get going on those books we were supposed to write." You understand I'm being facetious but, yeah, they were all written long after Jesus' death and not even by Jesus himself. Those apostles must have all been in their late fifties if not sixties when they wrote those. At that time that was ancient . That was incredibly old. Without even bring mental competentcy into question, memory isn't crystal clear after 40 freakin' years.Who says Buddha isn't another clearer sent by God... '
Err... actually Christ does!
Furthermore, just because Jesus says so it doesn't mean he's the only way to God. This is chronic circular logic. "God wrote the Bible, God is infallible, the Bible is infallible." Just because Jesus said he way the only way to God that doens't mean it's true. I could say the same thing, or Tom, Dick or Sally but that doesn't make it true--and it isn't, of course.
And another thing. About alternate clearers of paths. Who says Buddha wasn't Christ reborn in another body at another time? A different avatar of the same God? The apocolypse? Well, as Jesus himself said, in the gospel of Thomas I believe, but maybe one of the canon, "Heaven and hell are on earth but we cannot see it," or something like that. And the kingdom of God lying within, that's in the canon, I think. Heaven is within us, not in the sky on a cloud. God is within us. The path to God is the path to our spirits. Christianity does not directly adress how to reach your spirit. Buddhism does as does Hinduism, with Brahman and atman ("power", "self", God, soul, respectively) and how to reach God. Now, what I'm saying is that all the religions have something to offer. Like with the Renaissance when Europeans started to look to Greek mythology for [/i]wisdom . Not for a literal belief, but to disect the metaphors of Greek myth. and find the meaning in them. All myths hold some sort of wisdom. None of them are literal (or, from your perspective, one is) but they all hold truth as opposed to fact. Truth is the path to God because the path to God is faith not fact. All the mythologies and religions of the world hold some sort of truth. Don't limit yourself finding truth exclusively in Christianity because you're only limiting your scope of wisdom.
You choose which is truth, for me the proof of the fact that Christ is the Son of God has been evidenced in my life since I met Him.
Lol. Faith is based around believing in something without proof. There is no proof for the resurrection of Jesus--it's purely a matter of faith. I adressed this in an earlier post. Did you even read it? Or, more importantly, open your mind just a smidgen to understand it, even if you don't believe it. Like the image of God (a sphere of spiritual energies) is alive in me, without me believing it to be factual or literal--but it's true.
So please forgive me for not arguing against your beliefs, but unfortunately no arguement will ever persuade you unless you can first answer the one important question:
Who do you say Christ is?
If your answer is in 1 or 2, then we will never reach a conclusion you would be happy with, and if your answer is number 3, you would realise that your spiritual condition is more important than playing god with GM in some vain attempt to save a lost world.
Christ, meaning the Annointed One, is the deified appelation of Yeshua bin Miria, an anti Roman activist of the 1st century BC who many temple reforms. A liberal with a fresh interpretation of the Bible including an astounding tolerance for woman and those of different faiths (enemies). Brotherly love, forgiveness, tolerance and charity were the pillars of his proposed philosophy and the intended foundation of religion he started as a result of the strength of convictions even in the face of martyred torture and death.Jesus was a righteous dude with some awesome ideas.
I forgive you for not arguing. If you don't want to that's your choice. But the true test of one's convictions is to stand up for them by challenging opposing philosophy. But it's cool if you don't want to argue. The world would be a lot better off if we all just lived and let live.
playing god with GM in some vain attempt to save a lost world
I really don't think you read my posts. I adressed all these issues, particularly how GM isn't "playing God" and how it would not be vain and how our world is not lost.
My answer is answer 4. I understand and love the spiritual and find it to be truthful--simply not factual or literal. You need to understand that there are even more than four answers and, more importantly, and infinitely varying degrees to which each of those are true.
-
Gangstawombatninja
- Student
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:34 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
-
Johnin Spain
- Student
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:40 pm
- Location: Spain
Truth or logic
Post #18You are right that I do not read ALL of your (long) replys, family and other commitments do not allow that, and also when I recognise where you are leading it becomes superfluous to continue reading.
I am 54 and have been a believer in Christ for only 13 years, prior to that I held views not dissimilar to yours. I was searching for the truth and found it to my satisfaction and benefit.
You still have many years of searching before you will have searched as long as I did, in theory. I say in theory because Matthew 24 (which I call the 'daily news') is coming into vision very quickly, so you may have much less time available to you.
You quote many widely held positions on the veracity of scripture and I will not be bothered to refute each one because they have previously been refuted many times elsewhere.
You have an aversion to the existance of Hell, well scripture clearly defines that Hell is a reality and that MOST of humanity will spend eternity in Hell.
It's an unpleasant reality, but so was the probability of a tsunami occuring, yet it has, and those people who have died in that great wave of destruction also believed it could not happen to them, sitting on a golden beach expecting nothing more than a suntan.
If you take logic (your god?) then IF God exists and is all powerful, just and righteous, then He would need to create a place for those who failed to meet His requirements to spending eternity with.
That place is Hell, if for no other reason than the fact that God will not be present in that place - and that is Hell.
I am not closed minded, but I did reach what I have experience to be the truth, so although I daily need to confirm that truth, I no longer need to seek further, because that truth is daily reasserted.
I wish you well in your searching, but have no time to debate issues which I dealt with before you started kindergarden. (no offense meant)
Right now we are at that point in time when 'ALL these' is coming to pass, and at no other time in history has the template matched for the return of Christ.
Matthew 24:4-31 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
So search for the truth, but do not let logic lure you into deception.
Blessings,
John
www.apostasynow.com
I am 54 and have been a believer in Christ for only 13 years, prior to that I held views not dissimilar to yours. I was searching for the truth and found it to my satisfaction and benefit.
You still have many years of searching before you will have searched as long as I did, in theory. I say in theory because Matthew 24 (which I call the 'daily news') is coming into vision very quickly, so you may have much less time available to you.
You quote many widely held positions on the veracity of scripture and I will not be bothered to refute each one because they have previously been refuted many times elsewhere.
You have an aversion to the existance of Hell, well scripture clearly defines that Hell is a reality and that MOST of humanity will spend eternity in Hell.
It's an unpleasant reality, but so was the probability of a tsunami occuring, yet it has, and those people who have died in that great wave of destruction also believed it could not happen to them, sitting on a golden beach expecting nothing more than a suntan.
If you take logic (your god?) then IF God exists and is all powerful, just and righteous, then He would need to create a place for those who failed to meet His requirements to spending eternity with.
That place is Hell, if for no other reason than the fact that God will not be present in that place - and that is Hell.
I am not closed minded, but I did reach what I have experience to be the truth, so although I daily need to confirm that truth, I no longer need to seek further, because that truth is daily reasserted.
I wish you well in your searching, but have no time to debate issues which I dealt with before you started kindergarden. (no offense meant)
Right now we are at that point in time when 'ALL these' is coming to pass, and at no other time in history has the template matched for the return of Christ.
Matthew 24:4-31 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
So search for the truth, but do not let logic lure you into deception.
Blessings,
John
www.apostasynow.com
-
Gangstawombatninja
- Student
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:34 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Post #19
Ok. Hopefully by adressing this one issue specifically as shortly as possible you'll read the whole. I'm repeating myself but here it is.So search for the truth, but do not let logic lure you into deception.
(Thanx for implying my argument is logical whereas yours is illogical).
The search for truth should not deny logic. Logic and reason are the only things the substantiate faith. Faith is by nature without unverified--by fact, that is. Think of it this way: truth uses the internal (and sometimes the external) to prove itself; fact uses the external to verify itself. Faith is belief in truth, not fact. Truth can only be verified by the internal. The internal modes of rational are reason and logic. You might add feeling to this list but it isn't so much that as it is all perceptions passes through filters of feeling and emotion. Faith is validated by logic, it has nothing else unless you want to get into the semantics over reason and logic. Feeling is our response to a thought or an idea. As I said before all perception brings to the surface of consciousness memory cells that are similar or are linked in some way to that thing. What feelin you have is determined by your indivual experiences. People have different feeling because everyone has had a different life and set of experiences shape them. People believe differently because they have different emotional responses to different ideas and identify wiht different philosophies. Logic is the only way to arrive at unbiased truth perpetuated by hope--that's what faith is all about--hope. Goes back to when the Hebrews abandoned agriculture and ceased to see the hope (present in rebirth) of the physical (death fertilizing the earth) and so turned to the spiritual rebirth and spiritual life because they couldn't see the goodness and hope in the physical. But logic, althoughed still "tainted" by emotion, remains our only way to arrive at truth that is unbiased--meaning, sifting through what our zeitgeist ("time spirit", cultural atmosphere) and society have put upon us.
I don't understand why you're opposed to logic. I would have a big problem with you calling God illogical. Because, well, the energy that is within all things, as a basic principle of physics, cannot be created or destroyed. AN ETERNAL ENERGY THAT IS EVERYWHERE. This is God. Or, at least, this is our perceptions of God. You could say that God exists consciously on another plane of existence which we cannot percieve. Understand, that science simply means (*drum roll*) "study of the natural order of things". As Galileo said mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Science is mearly the other side of spirituality. Science is the study the physical aspect of God (Creation, and the omnipresent and eternal energy wihch is in all things) and how the mechanics of God's Creation operate whereas spiritual is the study of the aspect of God that we cannot percieve or even understand.
Don't deny logic because the universe is logical as is God. As is God's Creation.
And what is logic, really? You haven't even thought about it's actual definition, you've simply accepted your first emotional response to its connotations and for some reason attach to it negativity. Logic is simply the science of interpretation. Science being study of... and the scientific method being the gathering of observations and coming to conclusions, then testing and retesting those conclusion. So logic is simply observing, coming to conclusions and testing the conclusions.
It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. But we can observe the world around us. Base a spiritual belief upon a foundation that incorporates what we know of physical--then go from there--that's were it gets interesting. Don't deny logic. For the only way to truly eliminate all doubt of the unprovable is for confliction with other filters of perception (logic, reason) to be eliminated. Once you done that, accepted logic, you have a spiritual belief all the more strong because it is entirely bereft of doubt.
-
Johnin Spain
- Student
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:40 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #20
1 Corinthians 1:17-31 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, F3 lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
