I'm not sure one should dismiss God anymore

[Elok]

I don't even consider the process of the formation of the universe to be a fundamentally religious question, btw. It is others who think it is the interesting question with respect to religion.

JM

As the primary purpose of the Christian religion, at least, concerns our own conduct and attendant salvation--and as the way the earth was formed is irrelevant to that purpose--I'd say that attitude is entirely proper.

[Jon Miller]

You think the speed of light changes throughout history???

I assume you also don't buy into Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics, yes?

I never said that I thought so. I said that it was being considered.

See, for example, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0305/0305099v2.pdf

JM

[MikeH]

Sin is about more than what you do, it is about what you want to do, who you are. Not just your actions. "Laws" can never provide a solution to it.

Being cruel to someone is a sin, there is no law about it and should be no law about it.

JM

We have empathy and compassion. We learn how it feels when someone is cruel to us, and we understand that and, some of us, don't do it. Others of us are unbelievably cruel to other people. And whether someone is cruel or not is completely unrelated to whether they have a religious background.

[Jon Miller]

We have empathy and compassion. We learn how it feels when someone is cruel to us, and we understand that and, some of us, don't do it. Others of us are unbelievably cruel to other people. And whether someone is cruel or not is completely unrelated to whether they have a religious background.

In Christianity, there is the idea that all (both those with religious background (at the time, Jewish background) and those without feel that they should do what is right. Empathy and compassion are right there.

I have met atheists who are better people than many Christians. They were still sinners though.

As are Christians.

JM

[MikeH]

So what is the point of sin? Just to make you feel bad for being human.

[Jon Miller]

No, it is not loving people and God. In word, thought, and action.

In essence, it is being far from God, because if you were aligned with Him you would love.

JM

[MikeH]

would love what?

If you love God you'd love him? That's just circular logic.

[Jon Miller]

No, I was saying that God's nature is to love. If we are aligned with God, then we will love. Probably the most relevant 'what' is people.

Christians aren't necessarily aligned with God (unfortunately, none are completely, and in general Christians are not particularly aligned with God. I think this is one of the biggest arguments against Christianity, is that so many Christians don't demonstrate God's love). The idea of Christianity is that one is aligning oneself with God. It is a process. I know that I have more love for those around me, and for God, as I have tried to follow Him.

The biggest arguments for Christianity is that it better identifies the problem and solution then other religions, that and the transforming which will happen if you follow God. So many Christians not changing for the better is just a result of many Christians not following God.

JM

[MikeH]

but it's patently obvious that some people without god can and do love other people and some people 'with god' don't.

Personally I think that you would have just as much love for those around you without God.

[Jon Miller]

Not all Christians are 'with God'. Also, I think that some people are farther from God to begin with then others... a Christian might be a much better person than they were but still not as good as some atheist for example. Wouldn't mean that God hadn't been transforming them.

Loving one person does not mean that you love other people. I don't know anyone who is great at loving all other people. The best of people are great at loving just a couple of people.

Just because an atheist, or a Christian, loves some other people doesn't mean that they love other people.

Often times, those who try to preach love without God, end up harming others. Which isn't from love, but is rather is prideful+selfish.

JM

[Heraclitus]

So your racism was caused by falling out with God?

I'm not racist, at least not in its commn use (a belief in the superiority of one's own people or hatered towards other races). I do accept the label racialist (one who believes in racial differences).

If you are broaching the topic of human biodiversity, I'm not (yet) at the point of denying evolution. However as I try to figure out how I can live with a God in my spirutal life again the idea of heaven/hell and a immortal soul make any earthly dysgenic trend or human extinction of secondary concern. (since I accept there are backups in the form of souls and there is a creator who can presumably create a new universe should this one be a dud).


However yes my tendency towards obsessions is probably partly a function of my (former?) atheism.

[MikeH]

being religious or not has nothing to do with obsessiveness.

[Boris Godunov]

How could the universe be like it is now, yet not appear to be 14 billion years old?

JM

Why would it need to appear 14 billion years old? Why not 10? Or 5?

Why would the planet need to appear ~4 billion years old? Why not 1 or 2 billion? Why the need to plant a false fossil record? Why even bother having canyons that could only be formed over hundreds of millions of years, or super-tall mountains? The only reason to want to the earth to appear a certain age it wasn't is to try and fool people into thinking it's older than it is, which is lying.

As the primary purpose of the Christian religion, at least, concerns our own conduct and attendant salvation--and as the way the earth was formed is irrelevant to that purpose--I'd say that attitude is entirely proper.

Really? It seems like cognitive dissonance to me. After all, given the abundant evidence that human evolution occurred over millions and millions of years, there was no Adam and Eve nor a Garden of Eden. Without them, there's no eating the forbidden fruit and therefore no Original Sin. No Original Sin = Jesus was (if taken literally) full of crap. How far can we take the "it's symbolic language!" notion until it renders the whole thing meaningless due to subjective interpretation?

I don't see the point of believing in Revealed Religions if one is going to cherry-pick which revelations are true and accurate and which are just symbolism/poetry. Doesn't that render any supposed revelations suspect? While Fundamentalist Christianity/Judaism/Islam is certainly based on erroneous beliefs, at least those beliefs are more-or-less internally consistent. It seems to me that these hodge-podge attempts to shoe-horn the ancient, false fables of the Bible into established reality are the signs of ordinarily intelligent people rather desperately trying to avoid the obvious conclusions...

[Boris Godunov]

If you are broaching the topic of human biodiversity, I'm not (yet) at the point of denying evolution. However as I try to figure out how I can live with a God in my spirutal life again the idea of heaven/hell and a immortal soul make any earthly dysgenic trend or human extinction of secondary concern.

Being willing to abandon facts and reason because you're emotionally vulnerable due to your making some bad choices in life is just another bad choice. If you do get to the point that you have to deny something as well-established as evolution to substantiate your spiritual views, you'd only have built a life on a false foundation. Maybe that will work out for you, but I doubt it.

Of course, that's assuming this whole thing isn't a farce, like the Nazi Girlfriend thing.

[Jon Miller]

Why would it need to appear 14 billion years old? Why not 10? Or 5?

Why would the planet need to appear ~4 billion years old? Why not 1 or 2 billion? Why the need to plant a false fossil record? Why even bother having canyons that could only be formed over hundreds of millions of years, or super-tall mountains? The only reason to want to the earth to appear a certain age it wasn't is to try and fool people into thinking it's older than it is, which is lying.

The universe couldn't be the way it is now, and not have 14ish billion years of age behind it. Even slightly different constants, which would still require a 14ish billion years to be where we are now, wouldn't allow life (As it is now) to form. Other small changes wouldn't allow star formation.

The universe appears fine tuned. The easy wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

You aren't asking 'why it needs to appear ~14 billion years old?'. This isn't an independent question (if you believe in God) from 'why is life how it is, why do stars exist, etc'. You can't have one without the other.

All these things (fossil record, canyons, mountains, etc) are all required in order that life (As we know it now) exists.

Your question is false, your problems are false, you don't understand the way the universe works. It is like you are asking "why didn't God make 2+2 =5?".

Really? It seems like cognitive dissonance to me. After all, given the abundant evidence that human evolution occurred over millions and millions of years, there was no Adam and Eve nor a Garden of Eden. Without them, there's no eating the forbidden fruit and therefore no Original Sin. No Original Sin = Jesus was (if taken literally) full of crap. How far can we take the "it's symbolic language!" notion until it renders the whole thing meaningless due to subjective interpretation?

I don't see the point of believing in Revealed Religions if one is going to cherry-pick which revelations are true and accurate and which are just symbolism/poetry. Doesn't that render any supposed revelations suspect? While Fundamentalist Christianity/Judaism/Islam is certainly based on erroneous beliefs, at least those beliefs are more-or-less internally consistent. It seems to me that these hodge-podge attempts to shoe-horn the ancient, false fables of the Bible into established reality are the signs of ordinarily intelligent people rather desperately trying to avoid the obvious conclusions...

I don't think you understand Christianity. Christ was known for telling stories... it is only a few who claim that stories are evil and lies. Almost all Christians recognize that stories are powerful, the best means of communication. And that Christ told stories, not things he observed. Things that were true as stories and not literal occurrences.

And Adam and Eve is true as a story. If you think the focus of the story was on the literal fruit then you are being childlike. Literalness or non-literalness is a secondary issue. And not what the story is concerned about, what use would the actual literal description of creation (in whatever form that took) be to people 4000 years ago? What use would it be to people today?

This isn't cherry-picking. It is known that God, in the Christian tradition, uses symbolism and story to communicate with those He reveals Himself to. Because that is how we understand high and complicated subjects. It doesn't make the revelation any more suspect or less valuable. Or any less true.

I don't know where you get your expectations from? Have you read the Bible? Read the story of Daniel, of Moses, of Christ and the other stories?

And those who think that everything in the Bible is literal can't be internally consistent at all, because the Bible presents itself as being full of symbolism and stories. Which doesn't make it any less true, nor does it make it more suspect.

JM