Just A Question

[Pendragon]

Just A Question

There was this third planet from a minor star,
Just hanging out there in the vast void of space.
Green and blue, a spheroid somehow hanging there—
A species that called itself “Man” the Master Race.
It was a world of wondrous beauty; at least it was at first,
Fresh water flowing down the purple mountains to the woodlands;
And the great forests that supported life, and supplied the air for which we thirst;
The land was fertile and the crops were raised to feed the roving bands.
But man is never satisfied with a simple life, he must grow beyond his means;
If it causes wars or destroys the planet, it’s a risk he’s willing to bequeath.
In the last 100 years we’ve gone from the horse and buggy to beyond all human dreams—
Ruining miles of old growth forest, and how many species are now extinct?
And people always are blaming God, but tell me, what would you do—
If everyone one decided to no longer believe in you?

Pendragon
© 3/23/07

http://smilies.vidahost.com/games/ultima/MON13.GIF

[Matrim Cuathon]

but we didnt stop believing in god :)
we started believing in god.
you have it backwards.

[Pendragon]

My dear M.C. the current arguments on the Evolution VS Creationism thread which I stopped visiting because people on both sides of the issue couldn't refrain from name-calling is a reason to question if anyone believes in The Creator anymore. We have ruined this world, Stephen Hawking has stated we had better start looking for other places to colonize as we are running out of resources. People who claim Christianity seem ashamed of Christ, for the life and actions of Christ were to love God and love your neighbor, defined by Him as "anyone who needs you." People war in the name of religion, hardly surprising, since Jesus said "The time will come when he who kills you will believe he does the will of God." Atheistism is on the rise mainly because of the way church people act, not just from scientific viewpoints. We began by believing in God, yes, then if you recall, there was the flood, for man forgot God to the point that “Every imagination of man’s heart was continually evil towards God.” Now where are we? “The Nation that forgets God shall be turned into hell.” Well, this will probably lock up quickly as well, but I really believe mankind for the most part has forgotten God, and the sad part is God will never forget man. But as long as man thinks he can handle things without God, “nothing that man puts forth his hand to do will be withheld from him.”, even if he destroys himself in the process.

God bless.

[billyjack]

every man is god. that is what has been forgotten. once forgotten, the monotheistic god was created. the only forgetting of god that has happened in the universe is man forgetting who he is.

[hyperborean]

every man is god. that is what has been forgotten. once forgotten, the monotheistic god was created. the only forgetting of god that has happened in the universe is man forgetting who he is.

fantastic way of summarizing it!

Pendragon, I thought it was going to be moving speech about how man is damaging the earth. Instead it turned into some christian cult speech.

[Pendragon]

fantastic way of summarizing it!

Pendragon, I thought it was going to be moving speech about how man is damaging the earth. Instead it turned into some christian cult speech.

Hyperboren, mon ami

You get out of anything what you wish to get out of it. You look for a reason to call me a "Christian Cultist" you will find one. You look for someone who really believes we are destroying our planet ourselves; you will find that as well. You quote anyone you like; I will quote whom I wish. It may surprise you to learn that Christian churches kicked me out-- that hardly prevents me from saying Jesus was correct in His statements. Did not even Friedrich Nietzsche say "The only true Christian died on Calvary?" or words to that effect? Christian I may perhaps claim only by grace; cult I am not.

This poem was intended to bring attention to the point that while we fight over how the world came to be, it is going to hell in a hand basket around us as we continue to waste recourses on selfish nothings. Greed is making the gap between the haves and have-nots grow. Wars rage in places not over atrocities, but over what is most profitable. People starve, are mistreated, are murdered, genocides take place and no one cares. But if a profitable recourse is in danger, that's different. That is bad for the world from any standpoint, and don't anyone try to tell me it's pleasing to God.

If I say, God Bless, does that offend? Shall I curse you instead? What witness of any humanity is that, even if we should disagree?

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

every man is god. that is what has been forgotten. once forgotten, the monotheistic god was created. the only forgetting of god that has happened in the universe is man forgetting who he is.


Well, since society seems to be heading in the general direction of former Satanic Chruch leader Anton Levay's dictum of "Do what thou wilt" - I'd say we're well on our way to making ourselves our own gods. What evidence does society provide that this is a good thing?

[billyjack]

Well, since society seems to be heading in the general direction of former Satanic Chruch leader Anton Levay's dictum of "Do what thou wilt" - I'd say we're well on our way to making ourselves our own gods. What evidence does society provide that this is a good thing?

"do what thou wilt" is not what i mean when i talk of man as god. you mistake the god i speak of for the western ideal of god: consciously controlling, all knowing, judging, condemning, with supernatural powers to do anything "he wilt". nah, that god i speak of that man is would be the one that controls without having to think about it, the one who knows that wisdom lies in knowing less, the one who judges not and condemns not, and the one not with supernatural powers, but natural powers to do what comes about naturally.

its man trying to become the god of monotheism that is leading to what Anton Levy preaches.

[Redzeppelin]

"do what thou wilt" is not what i mean when i talk of man as god. you mistake the god i speak of for the western ideal of god: consciously controlling, all knowing, judging, condemning, with supernatural powers to do anything "he wilt". nah, that god i speak of that man is would be the one that controls without having to think about it, the one who knows that wisdom lies in knowing less, the one who judges not and condemns not, and the one not with supernatural powers, but natural powers to do what comes about naturally.

its man trying to become the god of monotheism that is leading to what Anton Levy preaches.

Your description of God leaves much to be desired. Have you even read the New Testament? God "controls" nothing - He gave you freewill to chose whateer path in life you wish. The "judging" and "condeming" are not His primary job - that would be extending Grace and Forgiveness to us (including you). That there will ultimately be a judgment is proof that God is just - because this world is full of evil, wrong and injustice. A God of love must be just - and without a final judgment, God cannot be just.

Second, I have a really hard time following what you say. I'm probably just slow or something - but much of what you say sounds like some sort of New Age stuff presented with such vague terminology that I really can't understand what you're talking about. The "god" you describe doesn't sound like a "god" - it just sounds like an ordinary human being.

[billyjack]

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;348255]Your description of God leaves much to be desired. Have you even read the New Testament? God "controls" nothing - He gave you freewill to chose whateer path in life you wish. The "judging" and "condeming" are not His primary job - that would be extending Grace and Forgiveness to us (including you). That there will ultimately be a judgment is proof that God is just - because this world is full of evil, wrong and injustice. A God of love must be just - and without a final judgment, God cannot be just.

this god created( if you buy into creation) bad, wrong, injustice and evil. he also created good, right, and justice. the former is god's left hand. the latter is his right hand. are you saying god is righty and he condemns lefties? cause i'd put my money on god being ambidextrious.

The "god" you describe doesn't sound like a "god" - it just sounds like an ordinary human being (SAID BY RED ZEPPELIN)

exactly. that is what i was trying to say. no need to make up miraculous attributes to describe what god should be. just describe what man is!

[Pendragon]

NOTICE

If you gentlemen insist on fighting, please do it on some other thread. Vitriol is one of the most destructive acids, and tongues appear to drip with it. I would have this as a discussion of the way man has destroyed the world and forgotten God in the process. What can now be done, from a realistic standpoint, to try to clean up the mess we have made? Can we continue on this pathway without it leading directly to doomsday, with the Earth ending in fire indeed, atomic fire of man's creation exploding the crust and releasing the ring of fire below, the volcanic reaction destroying everything else?


Oh, and BTW, Anton Levay borrowed that quote from Alestair Crowley, the self-proclaimed Wickedest Man in the World.

[quasimodo1]

definition of vitriolic: adj. acerbic, acid, *****y, biting, bitter, caustic, destructrive, envenomed, malicious, sardonic, scathing, venomous, vicious, virulent, withering. Perhaps my comments might fall under this weight. Would prefer sardonic. As mentioned in previous comments; I'm neutral unless advised religiously. Can well understand your exception Pendragon. RJS

[miss tenderness]

If everyone one decided to no longer believe in you?



I must say that you summarized the whole story in few lines,what a talented person you are,Pen:thumbs_up .

just a question, what does the "you" in this line refer to? God or human?

[ktd222]

just a question, what does the "you" in this line refer to? God or human?

It's probably a mortal "you". You would capitalize the "y" if it was referring to a higher power.

[miss tenderness]

and yes,this is what the meaning suggests as well. Pen?

[Wintermute]

I'd flood the planet. Drown everyone, including innocent childeren, old folks, and animals. The sad part is, being omnicient, I should have known this was going to happen...

[Redzeppelin]

NOTICE

If you gentlemen insist on fighting, please do it on some other thread. Vitriol is one of the most destructive acids, and tongues appear to drip with it. I would have this as a discussion of the way man has destroyed the world and forgotten God in the process.

My apologies. I assumed threads were open to participation by all and that all comments were open to discussion. Sorry if my questioning has created unwanted controversy.

[billyjack]

NOTICE

If you gentlemen insist on fighting, please do it on some other thread. Vitriol is one of the most destructive acids, and tongues appear to drip with it. I would have this as a discussion of the way man has destroyed the world and forgotten God in the process. What can now be done, from a realistic standpoint, to try to clean up the mess we have made? Can we continue on this pathway without it leading directly to doomsday, with the Earth ending in fire indeed, atomic fire of man's creation exploding the crust and releasing the ring of fire below, the volcanic reaction destroying everything else?


Oh, and BTW, Anton Levay borrowed that quote from Alestair Crowley, the self-proclaimed Wickedest Man in the World.

i think we were discussing your original point. to get down to the nitty gritty of your question, we first have to know who this god is. and secondly, finding this out, we might be able to shed light on why the earth is being destroyed by man.

if what god is is a given, then i didnt get gave.

[Pendragon]

I must say that you summarized the whole story in few lines,what a talented person you are,Pen:thumbs_up .

just a question, what does the "you" in this line refer to? God or human?
The question is asked to a human of course, but hypothetically is asking the human to put him or herself in the place of a devine being... what do you do when everyone decides you are not worth believeing in anymore? Does God have feelings like one of us would? Take the Wright Brothers for example. The three things they discovered about flight from a homemande wind tunnel: pitch, roll, and yawl are still the basics of flight. But few believed in them, which is why there is no USA Wright Brothers Airplane Factory. Angry, they turned to England.

Say we were a being like God, capable of making a perfect world, and someone wrecks it for us, and denighs our very existance. How would we feel?
That we are destroying this world is a fact. So is the fact that most people no longer believe in God. I don't believe in coincidence. That's all.

[Pendragon]

My apologies. I assumed threads were open to participation by all and that all comments were open to discussion. Sorry if my questioning has created unwanted controversy. Red you know very well that all threads are open to everyone, and so does Billyjack. Discussion is fine, and even welcome. Fighting is what I asked you not to do. That includes sarcastic comments directed at other members. I speak to you as to a fellow Christian. How does making cutting remarks show the life of Christ to anyone? Can you not turn the other cheek? I have been slapped down, and yet call people friend, brother, and anything I can do for them, I will. You have a problem with me, I publiclly apologize, and Billyjack, to you as well, and to any others offended. PM me and I will answer to anything you wish. I just want no fighting here, let us be gentlemen.

God bless you all.

Pen.

[Pendragon]

i think we were discussing your original point. to get down to the nitty gritty of your question, we first have to know who this god is. and secondly, finding this out, we might be able to shed light on why the earth is being destroyed by man.

if what god is is a given, then i didnt get gave. OK, that is a fair enough question. To myself, it would be the God that created this universe, call that God by what name you will, for I am not going to be trapped into premoting one religion over another. I believe what I believe and am content.

Many believe in no God at all, or that that God left long ago. This gives a starting point anyway.

[Bookworm4Him]

but we didnt stop believing in god :)
we started believing in god.
you have it backwards.

I'm not sure I agree with that. During the Bible times, when the world had just started, almost everyone knew and believed in God. There was sin, yes, but at least they acknowledged the fact. Time went on... and the whole time, everything still revolved around religion. Wars were fought because of it, that was the subject that every great author wrote about, it was taught in schools, etc. Even Hitler's war was based by which religion you were of, partly, at least. (Not that I'm saying that that was good, mind you, I'm just saying that God was the center point.) America was founded upon it. The biggest controversy during the founding times was what denomination you were. Somewhere along the lines, though, things began to revolve less and less around God, and more and more about man. People believe in God nowadays, yes, but not nearly as much as we used to.


Although now that I'm thinking about it...I suppose the view point has always been on God, it's just that nowadays, man sees themselves as god...interesting thought... :idea:

[Bookworm4Him]

[QUOTE=Pendragon;348406]NOTICE
I would have this as a discussion of the way man has destroyed the world and forgotten God in the process. What can now be done, from a realistic standpoint, to try to clean up the mess we have made? Can we continue on this pathway without it leading directly to doomsday, with the Earth ending in fire indeed, atomic fire of man's creation exploding the crust and releasing the ring of fire below, the volcanic reaction destroying everything else?QUOTE]

ok, easily said but not done. The world is degenerating, because after the fall sin entered into the world, and ever since, it has been falling more and more into it [sin] What to do? Well, I've read the end of the story [Revelation], and nope the world's gonna end, and it's gonna be pretty bad. If you want to make it a better place in the meantime, then convert as many people as you can to Christians. This may sound stupid and pessemistic, but hey, the glass is going to be emptied, and then it won't really matter if it was half empty, half full, or twice as big as it needed to be. Tata for now!

[Bookworm4Him]

I'd flood the planet. Drown everyone, including innocent childeren, old folks, and animals. The sad part is, being omnicient, I should have known this was going to happen...

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Sounds pretty innocent to me. Being omnicient, God knew what everyone there would have grown up as, even the young children, and had to. If he didn't, then I'd hate to think what the world would be like today... I was going to post something else, but will refrain. Thx, Pendragon.

[Wintermute]

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Sounds pretty innocent to me. Being omnicient, God knew what everyone there would have grown up as, even the young children, and had to. If he didn't, then I'd hate to think what the world would be like today... I was going to post something else, but will refrain. Thx, Pendragon.

So all the babies were evil in their hearts? Doesn't sound innocent to me at all! It sounds absurd to be honest. And, it still does not come close to answering my question:

If you already know you're gonna be drowning the planet because things are not the way you want them, and you can do ANYTHING, why not do it right in the first place? Why put so many folks through so much pain and agony when you already know the outcome? Why not just snap your fingers and jump to the finale?

Hehe, and WHY am I the only one that seems to be disturbed by these kinds of questions? Am I that stoopid? What am I missing?

Please do not use the term 'free-will' if you can avoid it. That argument makes zero sense to me and always will. I appreciate the fact that many can rationalize the idea that God is omnicient yet they still have free-will. I can't.

Anyway, as in everything else I'm uncertain as to my status in this thread and the Forum as a whole. The Evolution vs. Creation thread was stopped and I'm not sure why. It seems kind of dictatorial to me. To be on the safe side, I'll stop posting (but continue to read) in these forums--and I apologize to anyone who I may have offended. Peace.

[billyjack]

So all the babies were evil in their hearts? Doesn't sound innocent to me at all! It sounds absurd to be honest. And, it still does not come close to answering my question:

If you already know you're gonna be drowning the planet because things are not the way you want them, and you can do ANYTHING, why not do it right in the first place? Why put so many folks through so much pain and agony when you already know the outcome? Why not just snap your fingers and jump to the finale?

Hehe, and WHY am I the only one that seems to be disturbed by these kinds of questions? Am I that stoopid? What am I missing?

Please do not use the term 'free-will' if you can avoid it. That argument makes zero sense to me and always will. I appreciate the fact that many can rationalize the idea that God is omnicient yet they still have free-will. I can't.

Anyway, as in everything else I'm uncertain as to my status in this thread and the Forum as a whole. The Evolution vs. Creation thread was stopped and I'm not sure why. It seems kind of dictatorial to me. To be on the safe side, I'll stop posting (but continue to read) in these forums--and I apologize to anyone who I may have offended. Peace.

you're question are right on. they're getting sidestepped. i'm disturbed as well.

NIETZCHE: "A DANGEROUS RESOLVE--the Christian resolve to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."

[Redzeppelin]

So all the babies were evil in their hearts? Doesn't sound innocent to me at all! It sounds absurd to be honest. And, it still does not come close to answering my question:

It does sound absurd; you're right. So the next question is this: if God is who He claims to be - a God of love, justice and mercy - then there must be some explanation, otherwise the description of Him is ridiculous. However - the existence of this troubling reality also works against the argument that the Bible was created by men and edited into meaninglessness by following generations. Seriously - who'd put this kind of bad press for God in and think that's it'd help His case any?


If you already know you're gonna be drowning the planet because things are not the way you want them, and you can do ANYTHING, why not do it right in the first place? Why put so many folks through so much pain and agony when you already know the outcome? Why not just snap your fingers and jump to the finale?

This statement presupposes that God "knows" the future. That, in and of itself is another thread here somewhere, but that may be where the issue lies: what does God know and how does He know it? I have heard it presented by one theologian this way:

God's knowledge of reality is exhaustive: He knows all there is to know. The future - because it does not yet exist, is not "there" to be known. That does not mean that God cannot predict with stunning accuracy the way the present will proceed. If human beings can do reasonable predictions of things like weather, we could assume that God - with His infinite knowledge - has a clear and precise idea as to what the future holds when it "gets here." In terms of individual decisions, however, God has given us freewill (sorry - had to use the word despite your prohibition), and as such, for that term to have any meaning, it must involve a legitimate choice between two valid options. The New Testament is replete with invocations from both Christ and Paul to make a choice as to whom we will serve - God or Satan. Although God knows the "arc" of the present to an astonishingly accurate degree, what He does not know is what our decisions will be because - until they are made, they do not "exist" to be known by God's exhaustive knowledge. Do we ever take God by surprise? Doubtful - He knows us inside-out, and as such, His comprehensive mind adjusts to whatever decision we make.

Now to the flood: God created beings (angelic and human) with freewill. For these beings to have such a thing, they had to have two choices - here, the choice to serve God or the choice to not serve God. Lucifer exercised his freewill by choosing to reject God's soveriegnty over him; 1/3 of the heavenly host exercised their free wills to follow Lucifer. Likewise with humanity: Adam and Eve had free wills and they chose to not serve God. The choice to have beings with free wills necessitated the possibility of evil; God's choice created the potential for evil, but for love to exist, there must be the option to not love. The problem? To not love God (the origin of all that is good) is to embrace evil.

This leads to the flood - which I don't have good answers for. The assumption you make is that all life ought to be preserved and that the loss of any life that can be stopped ought to be. Here I cannot speak for God - but I will assume that God made His decision based upon factors that He did not feel fit to go into detail about. If we assume that His exhaustive knowledge of people would allow Him to "know" what lives the children would largely live, perhaps His choice to destroy them as well is based on the reality that the evil of their parents would undoubtably be passed on. A life in rebellion to God can only end in sorrow and destruction. Some say that God's justice is merciful.

Bad answer, I know, but I tried. The only way to "get it right" from the beginning is to remove freewill from His created beings - and that removes love from the universe.


Anyway, as in everything else I'm uncertain as to my status in this thread and the Forum as a whole. The Evolution vs. Creation thread was stopped and I'm not sure why. It seems kind of dictatorial to me. To be on the safe side, I'll stop posting (but continue to read) in these forums--and I apologize to anyone who I may have offended. Peace.

PM me if you want an explanation about the Creation vs. Evolution thread's temporary lock.

[Redzeppelin]

NIETZCHE: "A DANGEROUS RESOLVE--the Christian resolve to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."

An interesting thought, but really - the world needed no help in being "ugly" - Christianity simply tells us that there is a reason for the ugliness. We have pointed to the ugliness that exists whether we point it out or not and tried to offer an explanation as to why the world is in the sad shape it's in. You cannot "make" reality different than what it is. Perception has its limits.

[Pendragon]

you're question are right on. they're getting sidestepped. i'm disturbed as well.

NIETZCHE: "A DANGEROUS RESOLVE--the Christian resolve to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."

I have said myself that whatever you are looking for you will find. If you seek for a bad and ugly world, it is certainly there. But the question I have, and I respect Nietzche's opinion even if he was going insane—for many of his "attacks" on Christianity were more "if you are going to preach this, at least live it."—why is it always Christians who are ruining things? It is not Christianity that is destroying the planet by using up our resources, killing the rainforests, making species go extinct, burning holes in the ozone , etc. It is not Christianity creating more and more weapons of mass destruction, just waiting for the wrong person to press the wrong button and blow us all away. It is not Christianity coming up with lethal biological warfare with anthrax and other germs. Enough sermon.

God bless

[Redzeppelin]

It is not Christianity that is destroying the planet by using up our resources, killing the rainforests, making species go extinct, burning holes in the ozone , etc. It is not Christianity creating more and more weapons of mass destruction, just waiting for the wrong person to press the wrong button and blow us all away. It is not Christianity coming up with lethal biological warfare with anthrax and other germs. Enough sermon.


Fair questions, all. My issue with the allusion to Nietzsche is the suggestion that Christianity has altered what was naturally "good" into something "bad" - that if Christianity didn't exist, then the world would be different than it is. Because the world is full of people, it would be in the sorry shape it's in whether Christianity existed or not. Organized Christianity has much to atone for, yes - but we can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Wintermute]

It does sound absurd; you're right. So the next question is this: if God is who He claims to be - a God of love, justice and mercy - then there must be some explanation, otherwise the description of Him is ridiculous. However - the existence of this troubling reality also works against the argument that the Bible was created by men and edited into meaninglessness by following generations. Seriously - who'd put this kind of bad press for God in and think that's it'd help His case any?



This statement presupposes that God "knows" the future. That, in and of itself is another thread here somewhere, but that may be where the issue lies: what does God know and how does He know it? I have heard it presented by one theologian this way:

God's knowledge of reality is exhaustive: He knows all there is to know. The future - because it does not yet exist, is not "there" to be known. That does not mean that God cannot predict with stunning accuracy the way the present will proceed. If human beings can do reasonable predictions of things like weather, we could assume that God - with His infinite knowledge - has a clear and precise idea as to what the future holds when it "gets here." In terms of individual decisions, however, God has given us freewill (sorry - had to use the word despite your prohibition), and as such, for that term to have any meaning, it must involve a legitimate choice between two valid options. The New Testament is replete with invocations from both Christ and Paul to make a choice as to whom we will serve - God or Satan. Although God knows the "arc" of the present to an astonishingly accurate degree, what He does not know is what our decisions will be because - until they are made, they do not "exist" to be known by God's exhaustive knowledge. Do we ever take God by surprise? Doubtful - He knows us inside-out, and as such, His comprehensive mind adjusts to whatever decision we make.

Now to the flood: God created beings (angelic and human) with freewill. For these beings to have such a thing, they had to have two choices - here, the choice to serve God or the choice to not serve God. Lucifer exercised his freewill by choosing to reject God's soveriegnty over him; 1/3 of the heavenly host exercised their free wills to follow Lucifer. Likewise with humanity: Adam and Eve had free wills and they chose to not serve God. The choice to have beings with free wills necessitated the possibility of evil; God's choice created the potential for evil, but for love to exist, there must be the option to not love. The problem? To not love God (the origin of all that is good) is to embrace evil.

This leads to the flood - which I don't have good answers for. The assumption you make is that all life ought to be preserved and that the loss of any life that can be stopped ought to be. Here I cannot speak for God - but I will assume that God made His decision based upon factors that He did not feel fit to go into detail about. If we assume that His exhaustive knowledge of people would allow Him to "know" what lives the children would largely live, perhaps His choice to destroy them as well is based on the reality that the evil of their parents would undoubtably be passed on. A life in rebellion to God can only end in sorrow and destruction. Some say that God's justice is merciful.

Bad answer, I know, but I tried. The only way to "get it right" from the beginning is to remove freewill from His created beings - and that removes love from the universe.



PM me if you want an explanation about the Creation vs. Evolution thread's temporary lock.

Hi Red,

Well, I'm violating my decision not to post in this forum any more, hehe. But such an well written answer to my query deserves a thank you. So thanks.

My main problem, I guess, is twofold--loving an entity that I'm uncertain even exists--and, direct observations of folks of other religions (or no religion) that I deem to be non-evil.

I have a very good friend. Her father, an atheist, is dieing of cancer. He is among of the most gentle, kindest, people it's been my pleasure to know. To say that he is evil because he doesn't believe in a god is just wrong--he is most definately not evil.

My fater-in-law, a Japanese-American, was raised Shinto, and still abides by some of their practices. During world war 2 he was put in a concentration camp in Wyoming, in the process loosing his status of senior at UCLA dental school. After the war he moved to the east-coast and hacked his way through dental school (again) starting as a freshman. He is an amazingly happy, gentle man. He has done more for society in his 90+ years, incuding free dental work to those less fortunate, than most of us. His love for life, the planet, and his family is absolute and genuine. To say that he is evil and doomed to an eternity in hell because he doesn't accept that Christ died for his sins bothers me--a lot. His love is real and beautiful, yet he has no specific, omnipresent god.

And this is one of the main reasons why I'm unable to find faith in such a God. It seems so...mean.

Anyway, thanks again for your response. I do see your point of view and respect it. Here's hoping that we all eventully meet the truth.

[billyjack]

An interesting thought, but really - the world needed no help in being "ugly" - Christianity simply tells us that there is a reason for the ugliness. We have pointed to the ugliness that exists whether we point it out or not and tried to offer an explanation as to why the world is in the sad shape it's in. You cannot "make" reality different than what it is. Perception has its limits.


to quote N again: "the true world and the (real) world--that means, the mendaciously invented world and reality, (respectively)."

the reason for the ugliness lies in dialectics, or the true world (world of ideals). whereas within the real world (world existing regardless of ideals), the ugliness isnt ugliness, its the ally of beauty.

so, the statement that "you can't make reality different than what it is," is true--from the perspective of ideals and tradition. but if ideals are set aside for the moment, it would also be found that this "reality of good and bad" can be made different from what it idealy seems (as in it no longer exist, since without the ideas, there is no more ideal). perception has its limits within an idealized world, or N's true world, but within N's reality, limits to perception exist not (perspectivism).


I have said myself that whatever you are looking for you will find. If you seek for a bad and ugly world, it is certainly there. But the question I have, and I respect Nietzche's opinion even if he was going insane—for many of his "attacks" on Christianity were more "if you are going to preach this, at least live it."—why is it always Christians who are ruining things? It is not Christianity that is destroying the planet by using up our resources, killing the rainforests, making species go extinct, burning holes in the ozone , etc. It is not Christianity creating more and more weapons of mass destruction, just waiting for the wrong person to press the wrong button and blow us all away. It is not Christianity coming up with lethal biological warfare with anthrax and other germs. Enough sermon.

God bless

okay. nietzche had finished all his works before he went insane. so the roundabout ad hominon falliciousness doesn't logically discredit nietzche. but eneogh of that, you said you respect him and i respect that.

is it not a christian (gwb) that is presiding over our use of resources, rainforrest destruction, and ozone annihilation? is it not a christian that is seeing it fit to produce weapons of mass destruction and the means to biological warfare. a recent poll showed that 75 percent of american desire a president with strong religious beliefs (i came across this skimming through a sam harris book). so by electing our current president, didnt we affirm him as a christian (or at least 75 percent of people affirmed him as christian). so then, whatever action he's taken, are christian ones. seperation of church and state is an idea. its not real. the two are one. i recently asked some israeli's if they seperate their religion from government. they laughed at me chuckling, "of course not, neither do you".

[Redzeppelin]

Hi Red,

Well, I'm violating my decision not to post in this forum any more, hehe. But such an well written answer to my query deserves a thank you. So thanks.

My main problem, I guess, is twofold--loving an entity that I'm uncertain even exists--and, direct observations of folks of other religions (or no religion) that I deem to be non-evil.

I have a very good friend. Her father, an atheist, is dieing of cancer. He is among of the most gentle, kindest, people it's been my pleasure to know. To say that he is evil because he doesn't believe in a god is just wrong--he is most definately not evil.

My fater-in-law, a Japanese-American, was raised Shinto, and still abides by some of their practices. During world war 2 he was put in a concentration camp in Wyoming, in the process loosing his status of senior at UCLA dental school. After the war he moved to the east-coast and hacked his way through dental school (again) starting as a freshman. He is an amazingly happy, gentle man. He has done more for society in his 90+ years, incuding free dental work to those less fortunate, than most of us. His love for life, the planet, and his family is absolute and genuine. To say that he is evil and doomed to an eternity in hell because he doesn't accept that Christ died for his sins bothers me--a lot. His love is real and beautiful, yet he has no specific, omnipresent god.

And this is one of the main reasons why I'm unable to find faith in such a God. It seems so...mean.

Anyway, thanks again for your response. I do see your point of view and respect it. Here's hoping that we all eventully meet the truth.

You bring up good points, my friend. This is where the position of the Christian becomes slippery: how do I speak for God? I cannot. I do not believe that the rejection of God automatically makes one "evil." C.S. Lewis once put it this way (and I'll paraphrase because I have many of his books and lose track of where certain things are): how does one deal with the issue that John (an atheist) is a generally good and kind man and Sam (the Christian) has a sort of nasty temper that shows up on occasion? Lewis's response was that the issue is not how people are, but how they could be and might be. In reference to John, Lewis says "True - John may very well be 'good' and 'kind.' What might he be if he had God working inside of him? What potential is he not meeting?" In reference to Sam, Lewis would say "Yes - Sam indeed has some difficulties in character: one has to wonder how much worse he might be without the influence of Christianity in his life."

I've paraphrased badly, but Lewis's contention is that who we are is less important than who we have the capability to be (whether in a positive or negative way). As well, in The Last Battle (the 7th and final book in the Chronicles of Narnia), Lewis also posits the idea that there will be people in heaven who did not consciously follow Christ but did so unconciously. I cannot answer your question - but I believe God is fair and just and that I'm glad He's in charge and not I.

[Redzeppelin]

to quote N again: "the true world and the (real) world--that means, the mendaciously invented world and reality, (respectively)."

the reason for the ugliness lies in dialectics, or the true world (world of ideals). whereas within the real world (world existing regardless of ideals), the ugliness isnt ugliness, its the ally of beauty.

so, the statement that "you can't make reality different than what it is," is true--from the perspective of ideals and tradition. but if ideals are set aside for the moment, it would also be found that this "reality of good and bad" can be made different from what it idealy seems (as in it no longer exist, since without the ideas, there is no more ideal). perception has its limits within an idealized world, or N's true world, but within N's reality, limits to perception exist not (perspectivism).

Again: philosophy has built into it the risk of disappearing into a metaphysical cloud where we abstract meaning into concepts that may or may not play out in any meaningful way in the real world. I may be reading you wrong, and correct me if I am - but you cannot simply dismiss things into mere conventions of language and ideas and say that they have no real existence. The world is an ugly place: war, torture, rape, manipulation, theft, lying, abuse, suffering, malnutrition, corruption - on and on and on. Christianity did not create those things - they existed for centuries before Christ was born. Your splitting of the "ideal" world and the "real" world sounds suspiciously Platonic - but I don't buy it. What you're talking about is a sort of solipsistic pondering that occurs inside the individual but really carries no weight in terms of what is "real." No matter how you try to abstract the realities into ideas, I stand on my point: Christianity did not decide how the world is viewed (especially since early persecutions made it clear that society didn't particularly "buy" the Christian philosophy) - it simply said "The world is in the regretable shape it's in because of this and this."

[Logos]

PM me if you want an explanation about the Creation vs. Evolution thread's temporary lock.

Maybe you forgot that this area of the forums is yes, *heavily* moderated due to the fact that there have been so many problems in the past? There's nothing to explain unless you or Wintermute have a problem with the decision? or are reading between the lines? or don't understand the rules? in which case you can take it up with Scheherazade via private message.

[billyjack]

Again: philosophy has built into it the risk of disappearing into a metaphysical cloud where we abstract meaning into concepts that may or may not play out in any meaningful way in the real world. I may be reading you wrong, and correct me if I am - but you cannot simply dismiss things into mere conventions of language and ideas and say that they have no real existence. The world is an ugly place: war, torture, rape, manipulation, theft, lying, abuse, suffering, malnutrition, corruption - on and on and on. Christianity did not create those things - they existed for centuries before Christ was born. Your splitting of the "ideal" world and the "real" world sounds suspiciously Platonic - but I don't buy it. What you're talking about is a sort of solipsistic pondering that occurs inside the individual but really carries no weight in terms of what is "real." No matter how you try to abstract the realities into ideas, I stand on my point: Christianity did not decide how the world is viewed (especially since early persecutions made it clear that society didn't particularly "buy" the Christian philosophy) - it simply said "The world is in the regretable shape it's in because of this and this."


if mistaking must happen, mistake my opinions for aplatonic cause him and i affirm the opposites. him: the ideal, me: reality.

calling the world an ugly place is your relative opinion. not an absolute. war, torture, stealing, all of it has its place. without war--all jews would be dead via hitler. without torture, we might have never beaten hitler. the person who steals doesnt see himself as bad. he sees himself as surviving and society as bad for forcing him to steal (and maybe he wasnt forced, i'll give yuo that, but from his perspective, stealing is neccessary...right!)

the question, what is real and what is not real? doesnt exist without humans. the earth didnt ponder realness before humans came to be. it just was. and human questions come from individuals. so saying that what is real is independent of individuals is a contradiction...since individuals created the whole idea of "real" in the first place. it would be like baking a loaf of bread and then dismissing opinions on how it taste. individuals created it, individuals are neccessary to experience it.

maybe this idea of an objective reality, independent from subjective opinions, is synonymous with god or truth. but if god's is the neo of the real world, then we ought be able to step back and look at these absolutes (god and truth) from a differing persepctive than the norm. just as we can't get a feel for how our hometown really is till we leave it and return to it, so goes with perspectives.

anyways, if its an unchanging absolute, truth and god that is, stepping away for a little bit for a new look shouldnt hurt anything. it will still be there when one returns--unless the journey away from home makes the old hometown not so homey anymore.

the christians did not decide how the world is viewed? (to quote red zep.) they installed the idea of what is right and what is wrong (they didnt invent right and wrong, they simply changed the meaning behind the words)
and once they installed their new meanings, the changed the median through which their followers viewed the world. yes, people still sensed like they always have. but the immediate thought to accompany senses changed with the christian value system. the CHristian value system then plays the role of a new prescription for glasses to view the world through. whether or not this prescription was correct is up to the individual. but christianity created the new lens

[Pendragon]

Hi Red,

Well, I'm violating my decision not to post in this forum any more, hehe. But such an well written answer to my query deserves a thank you. So thanks.

My main problem, I guess, is twofold--loving an entity that I'm uncertain even exists--and, direct observations of folks of other religions (or no religion) that I deem to be non-evil.

I have a very good friend. Her father, an atheist, is dieing of cancer. He is among of the most gentle, kindest, people it's been my pleasure to know. To say that he is evil because he doesn't believe in a god is just wrong--he is most definately not evil.

My fater-in-law, a Japanese-American, was raised Shinto, and still abides by some of their practices. During world war 2 he was put in a concentration camp in Wyoming, in the process loosing his status of senior at UCLA dental school. After the war he moved to the east-coast and hacked his way through dental school (again) starting as a freshman. He is an amazingly happy, gentle man. He has done more for society in his 90+ years, incuding free dental work to those less fortunate, than most of us. His love for life, the planet, and his family is absolute and genuine. To say that he is evil and doomed to an eternity in hell because he doesn't accept that Christ died for his sins bothers me--a lot. His love is real and beautiful, yet he has no specific, omnipresent god.

And this is one of the main reasons why I'm unable to find faith in such a God. It seems so...mean.

Anyway, thanks again for your response. I do see your point of view and respect it. Here's hoping that we all eventully meet the truth.Hi Wintermute:

Maybe this won't help, maybe it will. Jesus gave a parable in St, Matthew 21:28-31. Two sons are asked to work in the vineyard of their father. One says he isn't going to do it, yet he does. The other says, "I go, Sir!", and did nothing. When Jesus asked which did the Father's will, all said the one who went. Jesus said that sinners would go to heaven before they would. Why is this? Many that profess religion do not live what they profess and many that profess nothing live better lives, and have more love for their neighbor. When it comes down to it, Jesus said love is the key.

God bless

[Pendragon]

to quote N again: "the true world and the (real) world--that means, the mendaciously invented world and reality, (respectively)."

the reason for the ugliness lies in dialectics, or the true world (world of ideals). whereas within the real world (world existing regardless of ideals), the ugliness isnt ugliness, its the ally of beauty.

so, the statement that "you can't make reality different than what it is," is true--from the perspective of ideals and tradition. but if ideals are set aside for the moment, it would also be found that this "reality of good and bad" can be made different from what it idealy seems (as in it no longer exist, since without the ideas, there is no more ideal). perception has its limits within an idealized world, or N's true world, but within N's reality, limits to perception exist not (perspectivism).



okay. nietzche had finished all his works before he went insane. so the roundabout ad hominon falliciousness doesn't logically discredit nietzche. but eneogh of that, you said you respect him and i respect that.

is it not a christian (gwb) that is presiding over our use of resources, rainforrest destruction, and ozone annihilation? is it not a christian that is seeing it fit to produce weapons of mass destruction and the means to biological warfare. a recent poll showed that 75 percent of american desire a president with strong religious beliefs (i came across this skimming through a sam harris book). so by electing our current president, didnt we affirm him as a christian (or at least 75 percent of people affirmed him as christian). so then, whatever action he's taken, are christian ones. seperation of church and state is an idea. its not real. the two are one. i recently asked some israeli's if they seperate their religion from government. they laughed at me chuckling, "of course not, neither do you".I am supossed to stay off politics by forum rules, not my own. I will only say this:

Abraham Lincoln was walking along the road, when a friend stopped his buggy and gave the young Lawyer a ride. They passed a field of sheep whose tails had yet to be "docked". Lincoln pointed:

"How many legs do those sheep have?"

"Four each, of course" his friend replied.

"Say we call that tail a leg. Now how many do they have?"

"Five each."

Lincoln looked at his friend and grinned. "No. They still only have four each. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

Having the name of "Christian" attached to you doesn't make you one either...

God bless

[RobinHood3000]

~shrug~ I dunno about all the debate, but I, for one, liked the poem. Those oblivious to Earth's problems won't appreciate it and those who recognize them have heard a lot about them already, but at least Pen understands the simple truth that society just isn't what it used to be. I'm not sure about the implication that atheism is part of the overall decadence of humanity, but I know Pen well enough to know that he never means disrespect to my beliefs.

[Pendragon]

Hi Robin, welcome back! And that is correct-- all the poem says is basucally "Why sit back and blame God when you don't believe in Him in the first place?" I hear people say if God exists why does all this happen? It happens because people exist, and people make notoriously bad choices. We want God to clean up our mess. Even if we believe in God, there comes a time when we need to do things for ourselves. Love thy neighbor...

God bless

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[Triskele]

every man is god. that is what has been forgotten. once forgotten, the monotheistic god was created. the only forgetting of god that has happened in the universe is man forgetting who he is.

here is a nice little monistic sunbeam in a storm cloud of religious die hards

[JGL57]

here is a nice little monistic sunbeam in a storm cloud of religious die hards

- The expression of which is usually interpreted by your "religious die hards" as an utterance of sheer narcissism. Which is ironic, doncha think?

[Triskele]

- The expression of which is usually interpreted by your "religious die hards" as an utterance of sheer narcissism. Which is ironic, doncha think?

yeah, actually so ironic that it almost supercedes irony etirely. i think that my remarks could however be interprited as derogotory, therefor i suggest that before anyone take offence at my remarks, they should read "fear and trembling" which is what i just read, to me this book, however poorly i think it is written, does show the idiocy of a single, unwavering religious philosophy.

[Pendragon]

Do I have to bring up the rules again? You don't see posts by me being derogatory towards science, evolution, Atheists, or whatever. Yet the continued use of some form of the word “ignorance” prevails in posts against Christianity. You do not have a stranglehold on intelligence just because you decide to be free from religion. Nor does religion or the practice thereof indicate deficiency of brain matter. Science and religion should be separate. I make no bones about that.

My poem simply states that man doesn’t require any help ruining the Earth. He is doing a fine job on his own, and if not checked, will ultimately, as Stephen Hawkings has already stated, have to look for another place to live. But the cry of the Atheist, “If God exists, why doesn’t he stop this?” is answered by me as “But nobody, (well, hardly anybody), believes in God.” So the real question is: When will we wake up and clean up our own mess—and will it be before we destroy ourselves in the process?

[motherhubbard]

Pen, I loved your poem. For me taking care of our resources is moral. I think we should be good stewards and keep and tend our planet.

It’s funny, I just read the whole thread and realized something. I believe in the one true and living God and that means I have the responsibility to live in accordance with His will. That gives me the responsibility to act and improve, and not just the responsibility, but the desire and the honor to act as a servant of the Lord. Many do not believe in any kind of God beyond themselves, but choose to blame God and His people and avoid responsibility. It makes me think of Christ on the cross. Someone said if you are truly the son of God then get down, but that would not have convinced them anymore than healing the sick, or feeding the multitudes, or calming the sea, or raising the dead…..

Also, there are so many good people in the world of every imaginable faith, no one can deny that. There are also rotten people of every faith. I know how I will be judged because it is written very plainly in the Bible, but I would never say that another adult was hell or heaven bound. I believe that all children go to Heaven (Mt 18:3, Mt 19:14, Lu 18:16). Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Php 2:12), but knowing the truth will set you free (Joh 8:32). God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Sure God could do it all for us, but He wants us to do it. I could go clean my kids bedroom, but that wouldn’t bean that they deserved any reward for having a clean room. Apples and oranges I know, but you can see what I mean. And as far as the innocent children that died in the great flood, I think God is more concerned with the eternity of the afterlife than with the few breaths of life on earth. I don’t believe that those children are happy in Heaven. That’s just my opinion.

[Pendragon]

Pen, I loved your poem. For me taking care of our resources is moral. I think we should be good stewards and keep and tend our planet.

It’s funny, I just read the whole thread and realized something. I believe in the one true and living God and that means I have the responsibility to live in accordance with His will. That gives me the responsibility to act and improve, and not just the responsibility, but the desire and the honor to act as a servant of the Lord. Many do not believe in any kind of God beyond themselves, but choose to blame God and His people and avoid responsibility. It makes me think of Christ on the cross. Someone said if you are truly the son of God then get down, but that would not have convinced them anymore than healing the sick, or feeding the multitudes, or calming the sea, or raising the dead…..

And that is quite correct. In the parable of the Rich Man and the Begger, he told the Rich Man that if his brother's wouldn't believe Moses and the Prophets, i.e., what was already given, they wouldn't believe if a man raised from the dead and told them either.


Also, there are so many good people in the world of every imaginable faith, no one can deny that. There are also rotten people of every faith. I know how I will be judged because it is written very plainly in the Bible, but I would never say that another adult was hell or heaven bound.

A point I have tried to point out again and again. I am no man's judge, so I refuse to run anyone down. The things I believe, they are the points for which I will answer. Others must face their own destiny.



I believe that all children go to Heaven (Mt 18:3, Mt 19:14, Lu 18:16). Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Php 2:12), but knowing the truth will set you free (Joh 8:32). God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Sure God could do it all for us, but He wants us to do it. I could go clean my kids bedroom, but that wouldn’t bean that they deserved any reward for having a clean room. Apples and oranges I know, but you can see what I mean. And as far as the innocent children that died in the great flood, I think God is more concerned with the eternity of the afterlife than with the few breaths of life on earth. I don’t believe that those children are happy in Heaven. That’s just my opinion.

Well, God takes no joy in the death of sinners, Ezekiel 18. If not one sparrow falls without Him taking notice, I'm sure He knows every time a soul departs. But, yes, He doesn't guarantee anyone a free ride. "Work while it's day for the night is coming in which no man can work."

God Bless.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[Visionary3]

At least come to know
That someone untied your camel last night
For I hear its gentle voice Calling for God in the desert.
At least come to know
That Hafiz will always hold a lantern
With galaxies blooming inside
And that
I will always guide your soul to
The divine wamth and exhilaration
Of our Beloved's
Tent.

[Dark Star]

I'm not exactly sure how one can claim that 'we quit believing in God' when there were religions polytheistic and monotheistic (Hinduism is the oldest one with known writings if I recall) that came out before Judaism and the invention of Yahweh. I also really hope that wasn't a reference to the world flood being a literal event rather than a moral parable.

[Redzeppelin]

I also really hope that wasn't a reference to the world flood being a literal event rather than a moral parable.

Why? How would such a suggestion disturb your world-view?

[Orionsbelt]

I'll keep this brief. Sorry that you see so much dark. Look around the room for anything green? Anyway Taking that tale as an allegory ...... I think you could say that God represents all that is good. So taking you eyes off of God or forgetting about God may not mean physically doing so.... maybe it means forgetting all that is good. Perhaps in the daily rush as you have mentioned. Rather than a head long rush into heart of evil with blood dripping from the teeth. The flood..... the oncoming rush, the feeling of helplessness the overwhelming as it were. The nervous breakdown, All things are then lost in the flood. Once all is lost, on the boat, with lots of time, there is room for contemplation, readjustment, but when, but when, but when, renewal. Ahhh the dove. From the sound of the post maybe you should take a ride on the arc. (stay off the lower deck) When you were looking for green things did you see any yellow?

[NikolaiI]

Here's a quote from a chapter in Zarathustra:

"Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth.Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.
Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth..."

(The quote from here: http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche/nuber.html)

and..

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...

"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves."

...
it's all good, really.

Well, I agree with you that we have problems, Pen. The Earth will be here after we're gone, but how soon it becomes unlivable is up to us. We could leave a paradise for our grandchildren, but it is a paradox. I think we need a miracle. I think there are two main things need radically changing; the way we govern ourselves, and the way we use our resources. Personally, I am of the ascetic idealist category (Nietzsche didn't like that, either). I will not sin against the Earth a whole lot in this life. I will either live in a monastery or a commune or something like that.

Personally, I disagree with you about God and the Bible, but like you I would not presume to judge. I think we need to stop using cars to drive across town or into town from another one, we should stop flying planes with natural gas, and we should change our city structure so that we don't need to truck food in, again using lots of gas, but every city produces almost all of what it needs locally. And I think the power of the government should be vastly, vastly decreased. As well as the power of the Church. I was raised Presbyterian, so don't think I am hostile to Christians; however, a change in approach would probably be a good thing. We can't force people to live in the right way, be that in accordance with God or in a way where we're not destroying the earth; the only thing we can do is to live our lives as an example, etc. If we did that, the Earth could be a paradise for our grandchildren. Anything is possible, and there's no reason this scenario is not possible; though it might not be probable, it's at least worth trying.

[Dark Star]

Why? How would such a suggestion disturb your world-view?

In the sense of it shocking me that a person as intelligent as Pen would take something so completely unrealistic to be a literal truth rather than a metaphor as it clearly is....yes.

[Pendragon]

In the sense of it shocking me that a person as intelligent as Pen would take something so completely unrealistic to be a literal truth rather than a metaphor as it clearly is....yes.I thank you for complimenting me on my intelligence. The question asked was not about a flood or anything of the sort. It was why people aways start to blame God when things go wrong, whether it is a famine and children starve or genocide and innocents are murdered. Why didn't God stop that? Since He didn't, either He doesn't exist or He doesn't care.

Tell me this. When other nations send relief for famine victims and the rulers of their country make certain the people never get it, who does not care, God or hard-hearted, cruel men? When a dictator arises and gathers a group of idealists and begins the slaughter of innocents until the dead stack up like cordwood, who doesn't care, God or these merciless murderers? When the planet is constantly raped for her resources and left scarred and bare, is that God or man destroying it? Man if given time will destroy himself and the world with him in atomic fire...

God Bless

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[Redzeppelin]

In the sense of it shocking me that a person as intelligent as Pen would take something so completely unrealistic to be a literal truth rather than a metaphor as it clearly is....yes.

Your proof that the Genesis account is metaphoric rather than literal - besides the fact that it strikes you as impossible? If the flood is impossible, then the resurrection of Christ is more so, and then the entire Bible becomes a worthless document.

"Unrealistic" - that's an interesting word - one I often apply to things like the idea of matter being created ex nihilo, the odds of abiogenesis occuring randomly, the idea that morality is a social construct and that there is no such thing as objective truth, no such thing as "evil."

[NikolaiI]

I would say the ressurrection of Christ is more possible than the flood, since the flood requires massive amounts of water to come and go, by the hand of God presumably. My question is why would anyone think such a thing written in a book so long ago would be true? Just because so many people saw and agree upon it? It seems so clearly to be a mistake, a local thing taken for a global because the people viewing it didn't realize how big the world was.

I agree with Whitman that naturally people are good, but civilization corrupts them. I think morality comes from our parents, but also it is intrinsic to human nature. Shared suffering leads to compassion and love. Abraham Maslow did research in the 60's to find out if there were values that every person shared, and he found that there were. He called them Being Values, or B-Values, and he found about 16 of them. Very interesting research.

And as for objective truth, there is such a thing. It just is a higher thing than religion.

[Pendragon]

I would say the ressurrection of Christ is more possible than the flood, since the flood requires massive amounts of water to come and go, by the hand of God presumably. My question is why would anyone think such a thing written in a book so long ago would be true? Just because so many people saw and agree upon it? It seems so clearly to be a mistake, a local thing taken for a global because the people viewing it didn't realize how big the world was.

Now. I will not say if this point is the answer or not, for I do not know, but it does raise a good example. (I think we are on the wrong thread, this isn't the one About the flood, but:

Columbus believing the world to be round sailed West to go to India, and when he found land with natives of brown skin, called them "Indians." He was very wrong, but people didn't know the Americas existed. For all intents and purposes, Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica were the world. This raises the point of how widespead was the flood. For that matter, how widespead was man at the time?

God Bless

Pen

[weepingforloman]

I, too have considered this possibility. If we are to remain strictly fundamental, and trust the New International Version, this is false. It says that the flood killed "every living thing." However, I cannot remember off the top of my head whether this section is or is not poetical, and, if it is, that would let us off that hook. If it is not, well, I will resign the matter to God and continue to trust in Him.

[Redzeppelin]

However, I cannot remember off the top of my head whether this section is or is not poetical, and, if it is, that would let us off that hook. If it is not, well, I will resign the matter to God and continue to trust in Him.

I'm not so sure that the presence of poetic form automatically equates metaphoric/analogical narrative. Plenty of ancient peoples used poetic forms to "record" historical events - oral histories are easier to remember in poetic form and there's a good chance that much of what Moses used to construct the Genesis narratives was passed down from generation to generation.

[weepingforloman]

I don't mean that the entire story would be invalidated, only that the words may or may not be one hundred percent literal.

[Pendragon]

Well, as I say, this isn't the flood thread. But questions abound, indeed.