THE AMERICAN ATHEIST CENTERCranford, NJ. 07016908-276-7300 SPECIAL VOLUNTEERS NEEDED The American Atheist Center is looking for volunteers with special skills and experience. * Clerical: We need a reliable volunteer to help out several hours a week when possible on clerical tasks. They include: order fulfillment, assembling membership information packets and related projects. * Library: The Center is looking for anyone with library and/or book store skills. Tasks including sorting, shelving, alphabetizing. * Home/office remodeling/carpentry: These tasks include work to remodel the ceiling (hanging) in our new conference area, working with crown molding and painting. These are volunteer positions but we do have a good, steady supply of pizza, soda, and occasional trips to the nearby diner to keep you going! You must have your own transportation. For further information, contact us during business hours at 908-276-7300 (or leave message). Ask for Conrad. E-mail — cgastbook@aol.com
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O’Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
Dan
I like the movie. I’m a big fan of Jodie Foster and Matthew McConnaughey (drool). It was interesting and on point about how the belief in god was used to advance one candidate and vilify another. I didn’t see the part where Foster’s character meets ups with her dead dad as god-related. To me, it was just science fiction conveying one person’s fantasy of ETs.
The bit about the missing time which was hidden by the govt. agency seemed conspiracy theory relative to area 51 type stuff.
I enjoy it every time I watch the movie, but am always a bit disappointed in the atheist character’s resolve at the end.
Sagan was a great mind and I highly respected him. Loved watching Cosmos, but haven’t read much of Sagan. He always made me feel grateful for his layman-friendly approach. I haven’t had the ability to stay focused on books much since I had ECT treatments the last time.
What is your take on the book/movie and Carl?
Karen:
The man fascinates me.
He devoted his entire life to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The book/film Contact was an expression of what he hoped for, as you know. I think the man was a gifted scientist, a brilliant thinker and one who had a deep-rooted, passionate hope.
I don?t agree with everything he said or believed, but I do think Contact reveals a great deal more than he intended it to.
In the film, Jodi Foster?s character is obsessed with finding intelligent life beyond earth, as you know. She is ridiculed for her quest throughout the film, perhaps paralleling some of what Sagan experienced during his lifetime with his involvement in the SETI program, (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence).
Sagan, too was no friend of religion, as I?m sure you?re aware. He was opposed to it and was either agnostic or atheistic as much as I can tell.
What is remarkable about Contact for me anyway, is the unintentional parallels I believe it shares with the Christian hope. Whenever I?ve watched it, I can see that while Sagan is no respecter of religion, specifically the Catholic church (as evidenced in the portrayal of the priest), he nevertheless seems to hold out for a hope similar to that of the Christian one. Foster’s character even enduring ridicule reminds me of the types of scorn I’ve received from people who don’t believe in God or the Bible. I can empathize with Sagan there. People thought SETI was a waste of time and money.
Foster?s character puts her life on the line to demonstrate what she believes is true, however, despite the ridicule, much in the same way Sagan?s entire life was devoted to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He believed it was out there. He wanted it to be out there.
If it was, he wanted to prove it.
Sagan wrote, “The significance of finding that there are other beings that share this universe with us would be absolutely phenomenal, it would be an epochal event in human history.”
He?s right. It would. And he believed it to be so. So would I.
Sagan also once asked, “Are we an exceptionally unlikely accident or is the universe brimming over with intelligence? (It’s) a vital question for understanding ourselves and our history?”
The scene in the film where the first signals are being received always gives me pause. I can sense the excitement, the awe, the wonder. Wow. Something, or someone, is trying to contact us. To think of that momentarily always excites a sense of breathtaking suspense. Who? What? What would we do?
Another form of intelligent life. Is it benevolent or malevolent? (And what actually is good or bad?) Should we venture to make contact with extraterrestrial life? How do we know they?d have our best interest at heart?
What astounds me to no end is to consider for just a moment that an avowed agnostic/atheist such as Sagan who had a passionate contempt for organized religion would nonetheless posit the existence of a perhaps ?superior? intelligence out there in the universe somewhere.
Why else would he have devoted his entire life to finding it? I like his question, ?Are we an exceptionally unlikely accident??? It is, he suggests, ?exceptional and unlikely? that we or any form of intelligence could be accidental. It is curious to see this hope in such a one as Sagan. I watched Cosmos as a kid with my Dad. It?s what got me interested in space and science. I still stare in wonder at the stars, especially out here in Texas.
In the film, however, Foster?s character puts her life on the line to enter the gizmo and transport herself through the space/time wormhole. She appears on the ?other side?, floating in the embryonic/fetal position, resting. In other words, she’s willing to lay down her life to prove what she believes is true. That’s the ultimate test of anyone’s belief, laying down one’s life. Not saying that’s proof necessarily that the belief is true, but it does demonstrate the passion, anyway.
The scene she sees is one she drew from childhood. She feels safe, secure and is in wonder and awe.
And then she sees someone coming toward her.
It turns out to be a highly advanced form of life which, for the sake of Foster?s limitations as a human being, appears to her in human form.
As her father.
Now, to me, that?s remarkable. Highly intelligent life taking on human form, benevolent intelligent life taking on human form, mind you, in the person of a father. I find Sagan?s own contempt for religion contrasted with this fantasy portrayal of what he believed was ?out there? to be amazing.
For me, while it certainly doesn?t prove God exists by any means, it does at least, I think, demonstrate that man hopes, at least Sagan did, for the possibility of benevolent super-intelligence that would come and assist man in an otherwise abysmally, infinitesimally small existence in a wasteland of endless, impersonal matter.
God in the flesh coming down to our level and sacrificing Himself for our sin so that we may live eternally. That’s the hope I have Karen. I believe we’re all created in God’s image and in each of us He’s planted this hope, try as we might to root it out of ourselves, it’s what we long for. Hope. Hope in something. Hope that what we have is not all there is. Hope that we’re not alone, that someone’s looking out for us, taking care of us.
Anyhow, I know we have our differences in this area. Just wondering what you’d thought about it.
Oh, and as far as Jesus “bringing a sword” it meant the Word, the sword from His mouth, the Word of God. Jesus is the incarnate Word, the Word made flesh. The “sword” is Scripture. It sets people apart, believer from non-believer. It unites believers, but it separates us from the “world”.
That’s the long and short of the Scriptural interpretation of that as far as I understand it to be.
I’m off. Hope you had a great day. Chat again tomorrow, perhaps.
Dan Ray
Dan
Maybe. Or maybe you’re seeing what you want to see, because you can’t come to grips with the idea that some people really don’t need gods in their lives? I’ve heard the movie strayed from the book. I’d like to read the book to see how different it is, but it would take me forever.
Yeah, join the club. You should see what it’s like on the other end of the spectrum, with what the believers dish out toward atheists. There’s none of that famous Christian love happening. I’ve even been called subhuman. Not to mention the “not entitled to be citizens” thing, or the threats of hell- not that the concept is worrisome, but that those who believe in it take relish in imagining us there, while they laugh from “above”.
Exactly-what IS good or bad. But why would or should they have OUR best interests at heart? I would assume they had their own interests at heart, just as we do. We explore space to the extent that we CAN, and don’t worry that we might be disturbing what life there may be where we explore. We only care that we find out more about our universe. Why should we expect other intelligent life to be more conscientious than we?
It may be vital, if it turns out this planet was seeded by some other intelligent life. But it may be that there is other IL out there and we are still an “exceptionally unlikely accident” because that other IL had nothing to do with what happened on this little blue dot.
I don’t find that astounding at all. To posit superior intelligent life does not in any way refer to supernatural deities. It’s just another more highly evolved species. Which could be possible, given the vastness of the universe and our relatively short experience at examining it.
I think it’s more than being willing to die for one’s beliefs. I think at the heart of it is an insatiable quest for knowledge. Instead of being afraid of what’s outside the safety of the fire circle, we now can’t wait to go beyond it and find out what’s there. It’s not a hope for some nurturing figure; it’s virulent curiosity. Like a baby who sticks everything picked up into her mouth, we want to experience more and more. And it is exciting to think there may be other intelligent life out there with whom we might communicate and from whom we could possibly gather incredible knowledge, if they’re amenable.
Meh. Not so remarkable. In the story, Foster’s father was her hero, her buddy, her secure foundation. Her mother was out of the picture. She had warm, fond memories of her dad, so the entity accessed that to appear to her in a purely non-aggressive manner. So she would be receptive to it’s communication with her. If her mother had been the one who’d fostered (HA!) her interest in space, and had been there for all those years, instead of her dad, that’s the image that would have been used. I wouldn’t go reading any patriarchal religious metaphor into it. OTOH, maybe Sagan had father issues, or this was a tribute to his own father-I don’t know that much about him. The writers could have as easily used the McConnaughey character as the conduit, but that would have muddied the theistic lines too much. And besides, Foster’s character didn’t have as much trust in him as she did her dad. As it was, the dad conduit sludged things up a bit for me, because I was at first thinking, “Oh great. They’re ruining this by spinning off into some afterlife scenario.”
What? An otherwise abysmally, infinitesimally small existence in a wasteland of endless, impersonal matter?
Benevolent super-intelligent assistance?
What happened to your rose-colored lenses? See, I think this is you hoping that atheists, deep down, really need and want God, and they’re just in denial. Sagan hoped there was life beyond Earth. Intelligent life. Not “saving grace” life, just intelligence, with which to interact and learn, and just to discover.
Of course we all hope that whatever life we find will be benevolent, or at least not hostile. Which do you suppose other life might judge us to be? Anyway, a hostile encounter at that point in the film would have been a plot twist that would have required too much more time to wrap up. The entity had to be friendly, so that Foster’s character could come back alive and report on it.
Well, according to the Bible, you’ve already got that, as long as you believe it’s true. Are you saying you still hope for it?
As for living eternally, no thanks. I don’t see the point. The thing that makes life so special is that it’s finite. Now, if I could stick around and do some serious haunting, that would be different. But that would get old after a while. No forever for me-especially not that cloying vision of heaven I was brought up with.
There it is again. You just can’t imagine that we are just fine without that. You have to believe that we don’t really not believe what you do. I remember that feeling. That “filled with the Holy Spirit” and can’t understand why someone wouldn’t want it. I was 13, and it didn’t last long, but I remember.
I have hope in and for a lot of things. But not what you’ve just described. What we have is amazingly fantastic! We have life, and the ability and awareness to appreciate it. It would be exciting to find out that we’re not alone-that there is other intelligent life somewhere. But it wouldn’t be terrible to find we’re the only ones. As for hoping for someone to be watching over and taking care of us, ewww. That’s just creepy. Being a pawn in someone’s chess set is not my idea of a rewarding life.
One thing neither of us brought up from the film is the reclusive billionaire who sets Foster up for her turn at the machine, and seems to have his fingers in all sorts of classified pie. Who does he represent to you? The Devil?
Hope I wasn’t hard on you. I’m posting this without re-reading. I want to watch The Mentalist. I missed House from being absorbed in the conversation here.
See ya tomorrow?
Hello Karen:
I’m sorry you missed House. Did you know the actor who plays House really has a British accent? I didn’t know that until a while ago. I don’t watch the show, but I think the premise is clever. I genius doctor who thinks outside of the box. I like to think of myself as a teacher who does that. I don’t have a British accent, though. I can make one up, but it’s not “native”.
No, you weren’t hard on me, not at all. We’re tossing around some pretty hefty stuff – meaning, purpose, “aliens” perhaps, Hollywood, God, we’ve all got our worldviews about those things.
When I say I have hope as I mentioned above, in a theological sense, my hope is both in the “here and now” and the “not yet”.
And I did not mean to intend you had necessarily a “Christian” hope, but that all humans had this thing called “hope”, that’s all.
My hope, for example, is both a “now” and a “not yet”. It’s sort of like an acorn. My hope is present with me now, like the acorn in the the “now” and will, if nurtured properly, become an oak tree, the “not yet” or my future, final redemption. I believe Christ has redeemed me from sin “now” and I am currently the acorn. Living as I am now, as you probably know already from your upbringing, is the process theologians call sanctification, daily learning to be more like Christ. And I have a LONG way to go in that department.
The “not yet” is final redemption, when Christ returns once again in visible form, where I will be united with Him in a new body, my “oak tree” if you will.
I suppose the seeming irony in Christianity is that in death we find life, new life.
This comes from John chapter 12 – It is Jesus speaking.
?Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.?He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.?If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.”
Karen you mentioned something about squashing my reason in order to be a Christian. And I certainly grant you that Christians, not necessarily Christianity, have given a bad name to the “intellectual” aspects of life. Yes. But there have been brilliant thinkers who were great believers. Jonathan Edwards, for example. I admire him tremendously. I wanted to at least point out to you in one simple sense how I “reason” there is, at the very least, the possibility of God.
Permit me to go back to the acorn for just a moment.
If man created that, we’d call it technology.
One seed about the size of the tip of my thumb weighing a great deal less than an ounce has the potential to yield a fifty to sixty foot tree weighing several tons, with the ability to provide enough lumber to build several pieces of furniture or frame a small house.
I reason that little thing we call an acorn is God’s technology. That’s all. To me, that’s design.
Perhaps my argument only proves a possibility, sure. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say the acorn was an intentional creation, any more than it would be to say it was the product of mere time and chance.
Andy might take me to task on the logic behind that statement, and that’s ok. As I told him, it does in fact boil down to a matter of what one believes.
Karen, you wrote:
“I think this is you hoping that atheists, deep down, really need and want God, and they’re just in denial.”
You got me. But I will have to amend that and say that actually no one seeks after God, not even me. So no, I don’t think atheists or anyone really wants God. Because of sin, we’ve all been separated from Him and like Adam and Eve and everyone else since, we hide from Him. I still do that! I’m not going to sit here and try to convince you that I’ve got a halo over my head. I’m a magnificent ruin, capable of great good and of tremendous folly. I’ve got Jesus blood, but not a halo. I think the Bible is clear in telling us that man knows God’s there but we don’t seek or honor Him as God.
I take this from Romans 1:18-21, and include myself in it.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
Also, Romans 3:10 and 11 say this:
“as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God…”
All that to say Karen is that not even I as a Christian rightly seek after or desire God. So while I think every human heart hopes in something, all of us have misdirected hopes in things or people who will ultimately disappoint us.
You say:
“We have life, and the ability and awareness to appreciate it. It would be exciting to find out that we’re not alone-that there is other intelligent life somewhere. But it wouldn’t be terrible to find we’re the only ones. As for hoping for someone to be watching over and taking care of us, ewww. That’s just creepy. Being a pawn in someone’s chess set is not my idea of a rewarding life.”
No matter what your perspective on the matter, Karen, it doesn’t change what actually is “out there”. As I tried mentioning to Andy imperfectly, what we perceive and what actually is can be two different things. I am prone to error. Scripture says in Proverbs that there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end it leads to death.
I stake my life on the truth of Scripture. You stake your life on something entirely different. You’re right, we have “life” and the ability to appreciate it.
Philosophers I’ve read have always dealt with the question of “Why something rather than nothing?” In other words, how’d stuff and life in general come to be?
I tried telling Andy this, but failed. I said I believe that
1. Matter (all the stuff that comprises the universe, life, rocks, trees, animals, oceans, etc.) either has a beginning or it is infinite and perhaps eternal. In other words:
2. Matter having no beginning means it’s always been here, self-generating somehow. It’s what Sagan believed. Or:
3. Matter had a beginning, in which case, something caused matter to exist, an uncaused causer, an unmoved mover, if you will. Which, I think, implies intention, design.
Andy suggested that perhaps God arose from matter. Well, if He did, he wouldn’t be supreme for matter “created” him, rather than He being the creator of matter. God would thus be dependent upon matter for His existence, and according to Scripture, God is not bound by His creation at all.
Anyhow, you’ve been kind. No problems there. I just don’t want you to get mad at me for making you miss your favorite T.V. shows! School’s starting here in a bit. I’ll chat with you later! Have a great day.
Dan Ray
Karen:
By the way, I didn’t want to seem as though I was avoiding your comment about treatment you received by other Christians.
I would question their “Christianity” if that in fact was the case. I’m sorry that happened, really.
I’m still learning to live right and love right.
Also, you mentioned,
“Exactly-what IS good or bad…”
Just curious as to perhaps how you might answer that, what you think about it.
Dan Ray
Karen,
House and The Mentalist are both viewable online.
NotSoFast
Thanks. I figured House was available online, but didn’t even think about The Mentalist in that capacity, since it’s brand new. I like to watch In Treatment online, but that’s mostly because I started watching it in the middle and needed to catch up on the story lines.
DRay
Addressing your shorter post first:
Ah. The NoTrueScotsman raises its head! Actually there are hardly any cases in which I would not question the “Christianity” of the “Christian”.
That old “not perfect, just forgiven” rule of thumb seems to move the goalposts continuously.
How will you know when you’ve achieved “right”? Is there a “RightOMeter” that dings when you’re done? Some of the people who have directed personal slurs at me simply because of my atheism absolutely thought they were in the right to do so. One even had the ridiculous notion that he was on the path to becoming Christ!
Nuh-uh-uh!You’re already way behind in answering my questions. YOU go first. And do you mean it now in a general sense, or just pertaining to alien life we might encounter?
karen
Seems to me there’s a better chance of getting a newer show than an older one. I’m guessing the older, popular shows like Without a Trace or the Law and Order shows must have long-term contracts that don’t allow them to be posted online.
Dan
Now for the longer post.
No worries about House. I can catch the rerun or watch it online, as NotSoFast mentioned. I’d much rather have a discussion with someone.
Yep. Hugh Laurie does an amazing American accent. He also was part of a comedy duo that did Pythonesque routines on Brit TV. I’ve watched many of his skits on YouTube.
I agree that most humans have some sort of hope. Otherwise, life would be unbearable at times. Or, do some people simply accept life as it is? Take a mother in the Sudan, for instance. Grew up starving, and now has her own starving child. She’s never known anything different. Does she hope that one day things will get better, or is this just what life is to her, and she doesn’t question it?
Acorn, eh? So you admit to being a nut?
Nice, warm and fuzzy. But there is no evidence that Christ was even here a first time, or that the Christ of the Bible was divine.
And why, if one is redeemed, does one need a “final” redemption? The original was only temporary and the ink doesn’t dry till you die or the second coming happens? I understand about the “being with one in Christ” part and going on to eternal life. But it seems to me redemption either is or isn’t; it’s not in stages.
Irony->death->new life. So you believe. It’s never been shown to actually happen. Meanwhile, what does Christianity get you in this life, apart from promises? Prayers aren’t really answered by any source outside one’s own head. As I brought up before, life in general, or specifically isn’t any better for believers as opposed to non. So basically, you have a feel-good story to comfort yourself with. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I’m ready to review it.
Not familiar with Jonathan Edwards, off the top of my head, but name does sound familiar. No doubt there have been highly intellectual people who have been/are believers. That doesn’t mean that they don’t compartmentalize their reasoning side when they consider the emotional leap of belief. MRI studies show that questions about belief and religion highlight in areas of the brain geared for emotion.
There is a “very least” possibility of a god. That it’s the god of the Bible is as likely as my growing that third arm. But, I’ll tell you what-you sit down in a room with me and godless sodomite (aka alex), and you pray specifically to your god that alex’s amputated leg regrows and his diabetes simultaneously disappears for good, and it happens,- then and there,- then I’ll believe in your god.
And a fertilized egg too small to see will grow to somewhere between 5-6 1/2 ft. tall (on average, I’m guessing),with even more amazing capabilities. That doesn’t mean s/he was designed to be able to design houses and furniture and cut down oak trees to build them. Beavers also cut down trees and utilize them for their own purpose.
What you are suggesting is that some intelligence intentionally designed every tree, every man, every beaver, every of existence to seamlessly interact and balance. But, because the man used his designed mind in a way that displeased the intelligence, said intelligence introduced monkey wrenches into the system to screw it all up. And this is more reasonable to you than slow change over time? Even when there is documented proof of life that has evolved?
It also boils down to on what does one BASE one’s beliefs.
First, thanks for owning up. Next, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told the reason I can’t find god is because I don’t seek him: “You just have to open your heart and ask him to come in.” Your line of interpretation directly contradicts that of soooooo many others. No True Scotsman again? And if your interpretationis right, then what’s the difference if I, or anyone else, is an atheist? Why are we so reviled, if god has simply not sought us out? And again, the “original sin” thing comes up too.
The Romans 1:18-21 verses are an implication that we all should be innately aware of god, and not have to seek him. And that by not recognizing him in everything, we are denying the obvious. Yet Christians are not born, they are taught. Maybe you weren’t, but most are. Allow a few generations of the un-indoctrinated, and we’ll see how innate this knowledge is.
As for this “wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,” can you give an example? Is ther no one who is righteous enough to escape god’s wrath when he aims at the unrighteous and ungodly and hits a really wide swath? How righteous does one have to be to have the F5 tornado leave a single home standing in the midst of a mile-wide rubble? And how does He miss so many ungodly folks? Just what is this wrath?
So again, what does believing get you in THIS life? The one you KNOW for sure you get? Why do you hold respect and awe and…love for something that would treat you this way when you’re doing the best you can? When it accepts no less than perfection from someone who cannot attain perfection, yet tries his best?
My irony meter just broke.
No one gets out of here alive. Makes no difference what’s “out there”. Hedging you bets on Pascal’s Wager won’t change a thing, either. What is it you think I stake my life on? You mean my next life? What was life like before you were born? That’s what it’ll most likely be like after you die. Same for me. Nothing.
My suggestion is that God came from man. If man didn’t exist, neither would the concept of god(s).
Where matter came from, or if it is eternal does not worry me. It would be an exciting discovery if we could find out, and perhaps someday we will. Till then, it is enough that we are here.
If the rational world ever breaks down into warring camps of “whence matter?” and those on any side start to try to tell me how to live my life, or what I may or not do with my body, or what I should believe or teach my children, or damn me and mine for not being on one side or the other…THEN I will worry about matter. More specifically, I will worry what matter caused the rational to become irrational. And hope that I’m not alone.
Karen:
You?re questions are excellent and more easily posed than answered. I?m familiar with most of them, as I had them in myself.
As far as your friend Alex goes, I know there?s nothing I can say which would make things any easier for you or Alex. My aunt passed away last month. She was diabetic, so in a limited sense, I?m familiar with the condition. I know the difficulties of which you speak.
I?m not, however, a ?name-it-and-claim-it? Christian, Karen. I know many who are, though. I say this in relation to prayer. Scripture speaks of us praying for God?s will to be done, ?on earth as it is in heaven.? God has not always answered my prayers they way I?d hoped and I conclude it simply wasn?t His will certain petitions of mine were answered.
I have a prominent string of depression on the male side of my family, going back a few generations. When I became a Christian, it didn?t go away. I?m still living with it, despite the well-intending promises of people who?ve told me God was going to heal me, despite the prayers which have seemed to gone ?unanswered.?
I believe God is able to heal me, but I leave that decision in His hands. Healing was something He did and does.
But sometimes He doesn?t. He didn?t heal my aunt, either. Why?
I don?t know why Karen. If I did I?d tell you. ?Living? with depression, though has helped me relate to others who suffer with it. Perhaps that?s what God wants me to do. You?re talking to a 40-year-old, no-religious-upbringing, single guy still in the process of learning about God and the Bible. I don?t have all the answers. I hope I haven?t come across to you, however, as unsympathetic to your concerns. I know they are real. I don?t mean to minimize the difficulties and the questions you pose with pat answers.
I cannot claim that everything I share with you is sufficiently convincing, either. I know that. I also know your life, if it?s anything like mine, isn?t easy and probably sucks sometimes.
The hope I have is that God is with me in the ?sucks?. Can I empirically ?prove? this? No. But I ask, can anyone prove everything they believe? Of course not.
I trust God is with me, no matter what, no matter where, and no matter what I may think, feel or believe from time to time as my emotions and circumstances fluctuate.
Karen, earlier you suggested ?God? only sent a ?doppelganger? to hang on the cross and didn?t Himself suffer.
According to Scripture, that simply isn?t true. God Himself did in fact suffer. The opening of John?s Gospel equates the Creator God of Genesis with the Incarnate Word of Jesus.
?In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.?
And a few verses later, in John 1:14, it tells us that this ?Word became flesh and dwelt among us.?
And in the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah spoke of this coming Messiah. Isaiah 53:1-3.
Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
So from a Scriptural perspective, Karen, I am not at all taken aback by your ?not believing?. I didn?t believe myself for most of my life. I wasn?t seeking to believe. I don?t know how or why God singled me out, ?chose? me. I don?t. But this passage above says it plainly, ?we hid?. And ?we did not esteem Him.?
It ties back into that passage in Romans I quoted.
Jesus says later in John?s Gospel ?You did not chose Me, but I chose you and appointed you?? Why? I don?t know. That?s what He does.
You mentioned tornados. I lived in Tennessee for several years. We had some big ones blow through, and F4 went right through downtown Clarksville in 1999. No one died. A tornado went ?skipping? through my mother?s neighborhood. It literally ?jumped? over houses, including my mom?s. It ripped massive limbs & tree tops off of some rather large maple and oak trees as it went, swirled crap all over the place, took shingles off roofs, knocked out power but left the houses.
And then there?s the devastation of an F5. Karen, again, I have no idea how or why those things happen. You?re asking me to explain why one person?s left and others are not. I can?t. Why didn?t my mom?s house get nailed? It should have. You should?ve seen the path. My goodness. A carpenter I once knew told me about how he?d lost his sister and his brother-in-law in a tornado. An F5 shredded their doublewide to absolutely nothing. The only thing was left was the slab. Their bodies were found five or six miles away, their hands together.
Karen, I don?t claim to have the mind of God, only God?s Word, which is sufficient, but not exhaustive knowledge of God?s nature and will. Like Job, I must ?put my hand to my mouth? because there are a multitude of things I don?t know about God and what He does ?in this life?. I like this verse for it really reminds me of me. It?s from Job 9:11-14
?If He goes by me, I do not see Him;
If He moves past, I do not perceive Him;
If He takes away, who can hinder Him?
Who can say to Him, ?What are You doing??
God will not withdraw His anger,
The allies of the proud lie prostrate beneath Him.
?How then can I answer Him,
And choose my words to reason with Him?
Also, Job 40:1-8
Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said:
?Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him?
He who rebukes God, let him answer it.?
Then Job answered the LORD and said:
?Behold, I am vile;
What shall I answer You?
I lay my hand over my mouth.
Once I have spoken, but I will not answer;
Yes, twice, but I will proceed no further.?
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:
?Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me:
?Would you indeed annul My judgment?
Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?
You?ve asked me a few times what does this benefit me ?in this life?? To answer I must say it gives me a place to stand amidst the swirling postmodern (or hyper-modern) cultural foray of relativism, where the prevailing notion seems to be that there is no definitive interpretation or knowledge of our existence, only words which are subject to flux and change and so we?re sort of left to ourselves to survive this chess game of semantics and etymology.
As I mentioned to Andy, it?s an arduous task to try and sort out and define ?meaning? in an otherwise meaningless universe, especially when the very words you use are deemed ambiguous and open to interpretation. You?re never going to arrive at any sort concrete notion of who or what you are in that sort of scenario.
Whereas I believe Scripture gives me something concrete about who I am and what is. Something definitive has occurred in our space and time and changed the course of civilization. You believe it was just a ?doppelganger? hanging on the cross while I believe it was the God of the Universe. No matter what you believe about it though, the implications for accepting it as true or rejecting it as false will have significant consequences for man and society.
Scripture gives me something by which I?m able to work through issues of ?right? and ?wrong?. I?m not suggesting that?s easy, it?s just that I have a starting point, an unchanging foundation, for truth. Jesus says, ?I am the way, the truth and the life?? All truth is God?s truth. I look through and to Jesus in examining others thoughts and perspectives.
I?m not one to sit here and tell you Karen it gives me ?peace?. It doesn?t. Not in the sense many evangelicals claim, this sort of this-world affluent, circumstantial peace. No way. That?s not what it?s about. Scripture troubles me. Not in the sense that I wish to reject it, but precisely because of what?s required. It?s easy to say one is a believer or assert the truth of Scripture, but it?s impossible, on my own, to believe or live the way Jesus demands.
Scripture addresses this. Jesus says, ?Not everyone that says to me ?Lord, Lord? will enter into the kingdom of heaven.? There are and have been a great deal of counterfeit ?believers? out there. I?ve thought at times I might be in this category. You?ve met a few, it sounds like. So when I say Scripture ?troubles? me, it?s because of what it demands. It?s a tremendous calling and responsibility that I cannot do.
Jesus tells His disciples, ?With man it is impossible. But with God, all things are possible.?
Whereas, I think many people often assert truth without any sort of critical examination of their foundations or sources, if they have one at all. They often go by feeling, what the crowd says, what society says, what their parents say, etc. They are, as the apostle Paul says to Timothy, ?tossed about by every wind of doctrine.?
I share your ideal for self-examination. I can tell you?ve thought about a lot of this. That?s admirable. But I don?t agree that simply because I rest upon Scripture as my foundational source for unchanging truths that this would make me any less intellectually credible. I?ve been accused of that, but it doesn?t mean the claim sticks.
You ask a great question about the ?not-yet? of redemption. Jesus ushered in the kingdom of heaven at His birth. He accomplished the full and complete redemption of man from sin through his life and ministry in the flesh. We are now reconciled to God through the death of Christ. That?s the ?now? of redemption. It?s like a down-payment, a promise that there is even more to come.
The ?more to come? means that at a future time, I will receive a new body, the one that will live forever.
Anyhow, that?s it for me today. I?ll chat with you perhaps tomorrow. Good questions. I don?t think my answers are much sufficient, but they?re the best I can offer.
Have a good day.
Dan Ray