Luke - Thank you for that, good information and good points from a Christian perspective. I think when you boil it down the A/B choice is right no the money.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

and re the anecdote http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm

Edited by WilliamC3 on 03/21/2012 10:00:47 MDT.

Thank you, William! Per the article, Einstein said:

1. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

2. "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."


I cannot agree more with #1. Bravo to common sense!! Life without either is lame to me. Life with both is balanced. NOT contradictory, but balanced.

As for #2, for me, I would change just one word -- from "childish" to "adolescent"!

A child is just a wide-eyed creature. An adolescent is one who is absolutely sure that the world is either right or wrong -- with no middle ground. If the teacher said so, then it must be so. If the textbook (or bible) said so, then it must be so. Black vs. white.

Edited by ben2world on 03/21/2012 10:30:44 MDT.

Edited by FamilyGuy on 03/21/2012 10:42:48 MDT.

Good one. For local example see Global Warming Thread.

Hey, that's TPA @ the Backpacker forum!!

Let's see...

Basic premise is that man himself is defective; he is evil. He is born with Original Sin.

Then he is commanded to practice “good,” which is defined as impossible to achieve.

It requires his first proof of virtue is that he must accept that he is a defective creature without proof.

It commands that he start his life not a with standard of value, but with a standard of evil -- himself; which he must use to define what “good” is -- a good that he is not.

Ludicrous.

edited for spelling.

Edited by ngatel on 03/21/2012 12:37:48 MDT.

Nick:

Life starts with a standard of evil? That's not any brand of Christianity I know.

For me, I think life starts with imperfections. An exhortation to do good is not necessarily ludicrous. What can be, is how that exhortation is delivered.

I am a Christian who believe that the biblical creation story is a fable -- and a BRILLIANT one! Kudos to the writer (or writers / editors) who summed up our human psyche in just a few pages!!

Notice how God didn't tell us not to jump off a cliff (something with obviously unpleasant consequences). God said, simply, don't eat the fruits of this tree. No obvious harm, basically, no reason, except "because I said so".

So right there, the author laid a scene that exposed our human nature to the core! EVERY parent knows what happens when you tell a kid not to do something, just because you said so!!

And in that fable, God said to himself... now that humans have tasted the tree of knowledge, they will want the tree of life. AGAIN, an exposure to another of our basic human traits!! We want knowledge, yes, and immortality too, and we want to be our own masters (for better and for worse)!! Think about it... now that we are at the cusp of stem cell research, for example, do you think we could really stop our research and say "hey, could be dangerous, let's leave that one alone"? No way. That's just not how we humans are wired.

So, reading this fable and teasing out the messages, I am truly impressed with whoever came up with this wonderfully simple story -- as a means of pointing out our human nature oh so incisively. Like Buddhist scriptures, SO MUCH of our sorrows -- what we do to others and what we do to ourselves -- stem from our insatiable wants!

How can a person who can be so nice also be so evil? The author(s) wrote a short, simple fable to describe our basic goodness -- and how we sometimes override that with our limitless desires -- and create troubles for ourselves and others. And that was done 3 or 4 thousand years ago!!

Edited by ben2world on 03/21/2012 13:55:17 MDT.

Whew, this caused a lot of posts! So my thoughts will be but a dust particle in this instant mass of words. Back to the OP. My thoughts are Christian biased. These are not facts but what I see and feel. I don’t get into Chaff too often but this looked fun.

I know what Ty is saying. In the OT I read:
Isaiah 45:22-23 “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”
And in the NT:
Phillip 2:10-11 “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

But how can that be when billions of people have lived on this Earth and not even heard about Christ?
I saw what ShortBus saw; I read 1 Peter 3:18-20… and then 1 Peter 4:6. Wow; Peter teaches some deep stuff here.

So it appears from the time that Christ “gave up the ghost” on the cross to the time of his Sunday resurrection, He started something in the after life (called ‘prison’ in the King James translation). It appears something is going on there; and we have little privilege of seeing that. And thus maybe our God is all loving and still allows a way for the people (His children) who never had a chance to hear or make a choice of Christ will indeed have that chance. And then it makes more sense that there is not just one good place to end up.

I then read what Jesus said “In my father’s house are many mansions. I go to prepare a way for you” (John 14:2). And this makes sense why Paul saw several ‘Heavens’ (2 COR 12:2). It appears our journey on this Earth is for a master purpose to make us better; and we can return to our Father who created us. No matter what the path we’re born in, everyone will have a chance to know Christ. Amazing.

I’m just thinking and pondering what I read in the Bible.

Good campfire topic.

-Barry

Barry, I have a friend who posits this as well. When I asked him what about the peoples
the tribes of Israel wiped out. Where did they end up? His reply was that God just put
them in "time out" since they were so off track and they too will get a chance to choose
at some point.

"So, reading this fable and teasing out the messages, I am truly impressed with whoever came up with this wonderfully simple story -- as a means of pointing out our human nature oh so incisively. Like Buddhist scriptures, SO MUCH of our sorrows -- what we do to others and what we do to ourselves -- stem from our insatiable wants!"

I've often wondered why God didn't do a better job in the first place and save all of us a whole lot of grief. Not to mention a very bad day for His only begotten son. I mean, it's not like He couldn't have done a better job, now is it? Anybody care to explain that one to me?

" I mean, it's not like He couldn't have done a better job, now is it? Anybody care to explain that one to me?"

Do you mean with his omnipotent knowledge he messed up by making man flawed? He should have known the outcome before he started?

;)

So how would you have done it, Tom? Create utopia from the get go? Countless before you have asked the same or similar. And ditto for the countless who will come after us. You're not the only one asking for explanations and why things couldn't have been designed better...

@ Nick -- so now, man isn't starting with 'evil' -- but just flawed? That's better. Much better, in fact. Don't ask me to prove how or why God made us the way he did... but I see us more as "non robotic".

Edited by ben2world on 03/21/2012 17:12:39 MDT.

"I've often wondered why God didn't do a better job in the first place and save all of us a whole lot of grief. Not to mention a very bad day for His only begotten son. "

I think this is how the conversation went:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls&feature=plcp&context=C42bc138VDvjVQa1PpcFMbhXFhOH2_DJ-fd99wafe1gcQ3oi7-7OU%3D

" so now, man isn't starting with 'evil' -- but just flawed? That's better. Much better, in fact."

Well that goes back to Tom's post on communication in the Nature=Church thread.

Is it flawed, evil, or not good?

To me, the anti-thesis of good would be evil, you know, good and evil.

Anyway, if man cannot get to heaven without going through Jesus, God, or whatever, then what is his purpose in life? How does he answer the question, Where am I? How does he know it? What should he do?

If he is flawed or evil to begin with, and he can never be "perfectly" good, then why would God do this? Are we trout and God is holding us with a fishing pole and playing with us?

Adding to Barry's post (sort of), many of the very early Gnostic texts (the traditional gospels touch on this as well) discuss the soul finding Christ after leaving this eartly realm and becoming spirit which, in theory, would give everyone a chance and not just 'man getting to heaven through Christ.' It's all about the soul and not the flawed physical self. Therefore, the math works.

Now go hiking you hopeless sinners.

Barry - Your words are not lost on me, I read your post and the quotes two or three times.

That goes for everyone posting, I have read every word in this thread, many of them several times to understand them better. I appreciate everyone that has posted and particularly I like that everyone has been discussing it with civility.

Thank you.

Most people are brought up in or converted to different religions through out the world. All the religions have holy books written or spoken words by man with stories that tell you how to live a good life or a bad life. This is what they know to be true in their heart all the way to the grave.

I believe their is not really only one true god only the concept of god of what's in different peoples mind they believe is true.
So if a person live a good life they may go to a so called heaven in their minds eye. Or their may not be anything after they die. But the last seconds before they die they know they lived a good life on their terms and their chosen belief system.

The problem with Christianity, people,governments they want to change your peoples belief system over the centuries. By peaceful means or force thinking they are saving that person from a eternal hell.

Instead of trying to understand their personal beliefs they become the thief's of those peoples beliefs,languages, property and way of life, For personal gain or power.

What they did is a sin in their Christian bible but because it's in the name of god it's alright in their mind because they are saving these people.

So if I their is compassionate god what would I think is a worse sin stealing a person ancient belief system by any means?

Or the person who lived a good peaceful life following their personal belief system?

Terry

I've been following this thread with interest.
I wouldn't class myself as an aethist or a believer. Is there a term for 'not relevant'?
When i meet folk who have spoken to 'god/jesus' i actually get nervous. I'm not being offensive, but these folk scare me.
If someone says Napoleon is speaking to them, they end up in hospital. If they say it is god speaking to them, some folk accept it.
Love and peace.

Mike, the word for "not relevant" is agnostic.

The issue with being an atheist is it is a form of faith, that from various evidence around, they've concluded a god does not exist. That itself is not valid, as the definition of God is creator of the universe. The universe includes all space and time so there isn't a "before the universe" from a human-perspective, so English language cannot describe. Maths cannot also describe, its a singularity. So god by definition can always exist no matter any argument to the contrary. That does not mean a god does exist but simply a total lack of evidence of god by itself cannot prove a god does not exist. One can prove that god is not something specifically by all the evidence around, can never prove that god does not exist. The absolute limit is one can prove that god is irrelevant / detached from specific evidence of events.

Agnostics arise from various personal histories. A child is born agnostic and then is indoctrinated into a belief structure and either continues to accept it or evolves past it. Hence agnostics can arise from either simply haven't thought about and don't care, which is much more common in the last 50 years, or having comes to that conclusion through careful analysis.