#264 A low-budget 1993 film which attempted to capitalize on the success of JP was called "Carnosaur" -- Ironically, it starred Larua Dern's mother, Diane Ladd. (From: jurassiraptor) Prev - Next
"How a liberal Catholic priest inspired religous right politics." On 1/1/2011 at 9:09:10 PM, Colin started the thread: Link.
This is an interesting article/book review about Bob Drinan, this Roman Catholic priest that made a big run as a Democratic politician in his fight against things like the Vietnam war and fighting for civil rights. Honestly, when you read the Bible, this kind of religious politics from Christians makes a lot more sense (to me, anyway), so to see how his sudden departure from politics seemed to fuel the religious right in a very short amount of time is very interesting and ultimately devastating, particularly as a Christian who rebels strongly against those individuals representing me and my fellow believers.
I found it simply to be an interesting story worth sharing and for potential discussion.
Msg #7: On 1/3/2011 at 5:36:44 PM, Colin replied, saying: Also, I'm curious as to how some people here have had their perceptions of Christians shaped by the religious right wing movement. Replies: 8, 9
Msg #8: On 1/4/2011 at 4:04:34 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #7, saying: How do you mean?
Msg #9: On 1/15/2011 at 3:52:12 AM, Grizzle replied to Msg #7, saying: I could easily see that. The religious ring-wing movement is the most outspoken, so naturally you hear more about them than the more... what's the word? "Passive" comes to mind but I don't mean it in a degrading way. Anyway, the religious ring-wing movement is more outspoken that the more passive left-wing religious movement.
You hear more about the crazy right-wing christian who bombed an abortion clinic, or about the right-winger who protests about gay marriage. Rarely do we hear anything about left-wing religious folks. Naturally we form our opinion on what we see.
Msg #11: On 1/17/2011 at 7:12:23 PM, Colin replied, saying: It's not even that the right wing movement is more outspoken. It's just that Pat Robertson saying something about Haiti making a deal with the devil is more news-worthy than Shane Claiborne saying "we actually need to go out and help the poor like Christ teaches."
The large amount of Christian Rescue Missions across the country don't get the attention that the Anti-Gay Marriage Christian protests do.
And yeah, I definitely wouldn't use the word "passive." The Christian movement that is actually about following Christ is certainly not passive, although, if they are paying close attention to the teachings of Christ, they won't be going around town broadcasting everything they are doing.
And the last killing involved with religion and abortion was the George Tiller murder. The last thing that was closest to a bombing was an unidentified person who set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia in 2007.
Msg #12: On 1/19/2011 at 7:40:22 AM, Grizzle replied to Msg #10, saying: Uh, when's the last time you've heard of an abortion bombing?
That's my exact point. Ignorant people think that the religious right is a bunch of abortion-clinic bombers (among other things) but when's the last time anyone heard of it happening in recent memory?
Msg #13: On 1/21/2011 at 4:07:21 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #9, saying: There is no left-wing religious movement.
To play devil's advocate: perhaps you hear about certain things over others because the news sources you use are biased and you have a passive attitude toward information gathering? Replies: 14
Msg #14: On 1/23/2011 at 5:21:58 PM, Monkipzzle replied to Msg #13, saying: You right, QC. There is no left-wing religious movement because the left and religion, at least Christianity, are essentially antithetical...
D
Msg #15: On 1/26/2011 at 7:45:33 PM, Colin replied, saying: There is a leftist Christian movement, it just doesn't get as much coverage. Ever heard of Jim Wallis? Donald Miller? Shane Claiborne? Rob Bell? Now I wouldn't necessarily call them leftist movement, just a shave the fat off, back to basic Jesus following, but the right Christian movement would certainly label them as such.
The left is definitely not antithetical to Christianity. Perhaps a large sect of cultural Christianity, but definitely not when it comes to the Bible. I dunno if you were being facetious or sarcastic so forgive me if I wasn't able to detect it through your text.
Msg #16: On 1/27/2011 at 6:03:01 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying: I was absolutely being serious. I don't doubt that a lefty could believe they are Christians, as the core teachings reflect an attitude of equality and acceptance. This of course as I understand it is similar to what a true lefty liberal believes in, that everyone should be accepted and that only the "right" are wrong. Everyone is entitled to their lifestyle...
If they would read the bible completely and not just focus on the parts that fit their agenda they would find that several of the ideals, such as equality in marriage for homosexuals, are not in accordance with the teachings of Christianity, and in fact are an abomination to God.
Given, I'm no theological scholar, but it doesn't take a degree to understand that the bible is clear on right and wrong, and their is no intermediate area as far as God is concerned. As far as I'm aware, there are only two sins that will not be forgiven: blasphemy and suicide. Beyond that, all sins are equal, and thus any one of them could condemn one's soul if forgiveness is not sought from Jesus Christ.
So, in my belief, there is no such thing as a true liberal who practices true Christianity. There can be an amalgamation of the two, but these individuals will inherently find a dichotomy in the two schools of thought if they look for it...
That was the most accurate thing you said in that post.
There are areas in the Bible that "true lefty liberals" will have to pick and choose to complete their agenda, but this is the exact same case for "true righty conservatives."
Jesus was actually quite the liberal for his time and compared to some of the more zealous conservative Republicans, he'd probably be considered a liberal today as well. I mean-- How many conservative pundits do you hear saying that you should sell your possessions, give the money to the poor and invite strangers into your home?
Jesus showed up and all the religious scholars hated him and his ideas because they were new, seemingly blasphemous and counter to what they had been adhering to and practicing vigilantly all their lives.
He called them out for their hypocrisy and instead of spending time with them, he chose to spend time with prostitutes, beggars and lowly people-- Detested and judged by the religious scholars (the pharisees) at the time.
Also, the Bible never states anywhere that suicide will send you to hell. It only says that blasphemy is the unforgivable sin-- Blasphemy, in the context noted in the Bible, is an unbelief, a rejection of God. And as far as homosexuality, Jesus Himself never actually mentions it and references to homosexuality aren't as abundant in the Bible as Jerry Falwell would lead you to believe. Sins that are stressed much more are hatred, judging, obsessing about money and general sexual promiscuity. Christianity, in the Bible, isn't so much about what you don't do-- It's about what you do.
Essentially, at the end of the day, there is no leftist Christian movement and there is no right Christian movement. There is only a Christian movement. There can be Christians that happen to be Republicans or Democrats, but it is taught that you cannot serve two masters (usually attributed to the two masters being God and money), but in true Christianity, the love and teachings of Christ come before your politics. Too many people on both sides of the aisle try to shape Christianity to fit their political agenda. Replies: 18, 19
Msg #18: On 1/27/2011 at 10:53:21 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #17, saying: I mean-- How many conservative pundits do you hear saying that you should sell your possessions, give the money to the poor and invite strangers into your home?
About as many as there are liberal pundits saying you should. It's a pretty bad idea though, and completely awful advice.
Msg #19: On 1/28/2011 at 1:03:03 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #17, saying: Essentially, at the end of the day, there is no leftist Christian movement and there is no right Christian movement. There is only a Christian movement. There can be Christians that happen to be Republicans or Democrats, but it is taught that you cannot serve two masters (usually attributed to the two masters being God and money), but in true Christianity, the love and teachings of Christ come before your politics. Too many people on both sides of the aisle try to shape Christianity to fit their political agenda.
Hit the nail on the head. Well said.
Msg #20: On 1/28/2011 at 7:13:09 PM, Colin replied, saying: "About as many as there are liberal pundits saying you should. It's a pretty bad idea though, and completely awful advice."
True Christianity seems crazy because it involves putting yourself completely out there for people other than yourselves and somehow being OK as if there is some unseen force watching out for you.
I've seen many people put these teachings into practice and God has taken care of them and now they see life through a more important, divine lens of giving. Replies: 22
Msg #21: On 1/28/2011 at 9:18:23 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying: Altogether, Colin, I must say that your argument was sound, and that I couldn't agree more on most points. However, there were a few things that we diverge on:
Concerning homosexuality:
Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
To sum up biblical homosexuality, I think the above makes it clear. Jesus may not have specifically mentioned homosexuality, but he was clear on his appreciation for and the sanctity of man-woman relationships. Furthermore, as he fully supports and advocates the law of God, he is inherently amenable to those doctrines made clear in Leviticus. One last note: God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for a reason, and the name Sodom is the root word for sodomy, which is defined as “the act of ‘unnatural’ sex, which … can consist of oral sex, anal sex, or any non-genital to genital congress, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or with human or animal.” Of course, sodomy is widespread today in heterosexuals also, yet this does not make it right. Only a man and woman can have sex in a natural way; everything else, as the definition states, is unnatural and unholy, and thus clearly a sin…
Concerning suicide:
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.
1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].
To sum up this part, suicide is most certainly is a sin, and any sin can send you to hell if you do not repent it. How is one to repent if they are dead already, especially at their own hand? From what the above scripture says, it would be analogous to driving someone else’s car into a tree, destroying it. It would be wrong for one to destroy something that is not theirs, especially if they had no reason too (in reference to 1 Corinthians 10:13, which clearly states that God will not allow you to be in a situation that you cannot handle…it may be physically and morally taxing, but you have the strength within you to handle it).
“Christianity, in the Bible, isn't so much about what you don't do-- It's about what you do.”
Right. I agree, but you are missing the point with your own statement. One can be an exceptional human being, a great philanthropist, a wonderful husband and father, and even an upstanding member of their church, but if they do not honestly and fully give their heart to God and repent for their sins, they will not see heaven…
John 14:6-7 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
D
Msg #22: On 1/28/2011 at 9:53:25 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #20, saying: True Christianity seems crazy because it involves putting yourself completely out there for people other than yourselves and somehow being OK as if there is some unseen force watching out for you.
No, it seems crazy because if everyone were to give up everything they have to those who haven't earned it, civilization would literally crumble.
Msg #23: On 1/28/2011 at 11:10:31 PM, raptor2000 replied, saying: "God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for a reason, and the name Sodom is the root word for sodomy, which is defined as “the act of ‘unnatural’ sex, which … can consist of oral sex, anal sex, or any non-genital to genital congress, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or with human or animal.” Of course, sodomy is widespread today in heterosexuals also, yet this does not make it right. Only a man and woman can have sex in a natural way; everything else, as the definition states, is unnatural and unholy, and thus clearly a sin…"
D
Msg #25: On 1/28/2011 at 11:22:00 PM, raptor2000 replied, saying: The fact of the matter is that the Bible, while a good tool for Christians, is a book written and re-written many times over by men. I highly doubt everyone who masturbates or gets a handjob/blowjob from their wife is going to burn in hell, and if they do then hell can't be such a bad place because nearly everyone who has ever lived will be there. As for suicide, the same thing applies. Not everyone deserves to burn in hell for killing themselves. What about people that are mentally unstable? My brother's best friend, for example, who committed suicide just last month. I'm sure you all remember the thread. The kid clearly had mental problems including severe depression, among other things. You can't tell me that God will doom a person like that to burn in hell for them killing themselves due to a mental illness that one would say He bestowed upon them.
I am a Christian and I do believe in God and Jesus, but I am also aware of the fact that the Bible quite simply cannot be taken literally on all counts. God and Jesus did not physically write the Bible themselves and even if they did guide the hands that originally wrote the Bible, it has been rewritten and retranslated countless times.
As I said before, if every single person who has ever comitted a so-called sin as according to the Bible is going to hell, then Heaven is going to be a pretty lonely place.
Actually, that's not really true. In the past few thousand years, the Bible hasn't changed a bit; we have many of the original manuscripts. Replies: 28
Msg #27: On 1/29/2011 at 10:20:35 AM, Monkipzzle replied, saying: Absolutely right, TW. I personally am fond of the King James Version, which is over 400 years old, but there are still some of the original manuscripts and even older English translations than the KJV. In any case, my opinions on the nature of masturbation, oral & anal sex, and suicide are my own; I was only giving my opinion, and how I came to that opinion based on scripture. My wife is actually quite liberal and she and I disagree on a lot of the points (that's way makes our marriage so great; we are nearly complete opposites and it works for us). She also believes that suicide is justified sometimes; I cannot agree, sorry. My opinion of suicide due to mental illness and or depression are also my own, and to maintain civility here I will not go into what I believe. In any case, I hope that your friend is in a better place.
God & Jesus did not physically write the Bible, but I do believe in divine inspiration whereby those who DID write the Bible did so through God speaking to them or from Jesus' own words. This is why I generally try to acknowledge the Bible in a more literal tone, though there are instances (such as Revelations) where some imagination is needed to justify such prophesies in reality...
" As I said before, if every single person who has ever comitted a so-called sin as according to the Bible, then Heaven is going to be a pretty lonely place."
As long as an individual repents and truly means it, they will be forgiven of their sins...
D
Msg #28: On 1/29/2011 at 12:16:14 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #26, saying: That doesn't change the rest of what I said. Replies: 29
Msg #29: On 1/29/2011 at 12:47:57 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #28, saying: If you're really a Christian, it should change your entire outlook on your religion. Replies: 30
Msg #30: On 1/29/2011 at 3:13:25 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #29, saying: Well, it doesn't. I may be a Christian but I'm not falling under any predetermined "classifcation" for what I should and should not believe in, which is why I don't go to church. Some people believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally, others like myself believe that alot of it is metaphoric and some of it is meant to not be taken literally, such as the example I listed above wherein not everyone who does something considered a sin by the Bible is doomed to burn in hell. I interpret Christianity in the way that I feel makes the most sense to me, and if that means I'm not a true Christian then so be it...it just happens to be the religion I was raised under and the one my beliefs most closely allign with.
That being said, I'm not going to be lectured about what I should or should not believe in as a Christian by someone who is not one. Replies: 31
Msg #31: On 1/29/2011 at 4:42:49 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #30, saying: Wow, way to get an attitude when confronted with only logic and dispassion. Raptor, take a few deep breaths.
Ok, now that we're calm: no, you don't fit the definition of a "true" Christian in my book; yes, the Bible is open to interpretation, but if you're going to follow it, you MUST take it as a whole, not just cherrypick those sections you wish to follow.
Also, whether or not I'm a Christian anymore has nothing to do with facts.= Replies: 32
Msg #32: On 1/29/2011 at 6:11:38 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #31, saying: I'm not getting an attitude, I'm just saying you aren't really in any position to criticize or even give advice on how I should view my religion. I don't go through the Bible and pick and choose the parts I want to believe or not believe, but I also don't believe it was all meant to be taken literally. For example, the Bible says the earth was made in 7 days, but that's been proven not to be true by science. Instead of it flat out not being true, though, I choose to believe that time doesn't meant the same thing to God as it does to us. 7 days for Him could be 7 billion years to the rest of us. And, as I said before, I don't believe everyone who commits a sin, especially something as minor as jerking off or getting a blowjob from his wife, who doesn't pray for forgiveness for it is going to burn in hell. If God didn't mean for humans to be able to pleasure themselves without actual sexual intercourse, He would not have given us the means to do so.
Believe what you want to believe, and I will do the same.
And with that, I'm out.
Msg #33: On 1/29/2011 at 7:01:04 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying: It was never my intent to criticize the beliefs of you or anyone else, just to explain why I believe what I believe. I have no authority to make someone believe my views; I only have the power to show them why I believe the way I do and I am always welcome to alternate points of view that may help me in my walk with God. I may not be right, but I believe I am because I can justify it through the Bible, through God's words. These views are what I'm comfortable with, though I was not always this way. If you are comfortable, by all means continue along your path because perhaps just as I did, you'll find the truth when the time is right.
I do agree with TW that we should not cherry-pick our beliefs from the Bible. It says what it says for a reason...
So as far as the Bible changing-- It hasn't been changed. We have multiple early complete manuscripts (none of the original) and about 20,000 incomplete from all over the world and the material matches up.
Also, Monki-- The Bible never specifies that sodomy is non-natural sex (as in oral and anal). That is the english definition of the WORD sodomy. There isn't any actual reference to "sodomy" in the Bible, it's just that people IN Sodom were extremely promiscuous in all sorts of ways. And besides-- The law of the old testament doesn't bind us anymore. Jesus fulfilled it and is the new law. It wasn't about homosexuality or heterosexuality, it was about immorality on the whole (no pun intended).
And yes, homosexuality is a sin-- It's just not a bigger sin than others.
In regard to suicide, Monkipzzle, none of those verses in Corinthians entail a revocation of grace. Thus suicide does not send you to hell.
"One can be an exceptional human being, a great philanthropist, a wonderful husband and father, and even an upstanding member of their church, but if they do not honestly and fully give their heart to God and repent for their sins, they will not see heaven…"
I completely agree. And that is something you DO. You must submit to Christ.
"I don't go through the Bible and pick and choose the parts I want to believe or not believe"
" I interpret Christianity in the way that I feel makes the most sense to me"
Do you see how these two statements contradict each other?
The point of following Christ is to deny yourself, to go against the natural human desires of selfishness to love others as you would have them do to you. The Bible is a challening book, but if you are looking to interpret it to fit what you want it to say, you are missing the entire point. You leave yourself to being able to rationalize literally anything.
Msg #35: On 1/29/2011 at 8:45:29 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying: Again, Colin, well put. I agree that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin, and I fully agree on several other points you made. I don't necessarily agree that Jesus revoked the old testament laws, except for the one about animal sacrifice, but I digress...
I'm still up in the air about the whole suicide thing, but I appreciate everyone's input on the subject...
"The point of following Christ is to deny yourself, to go against the natural human desires of selfishness to love others as you would have them do to you."
Again, I couldn't agree more, Colin. We as a species are full of instincts and desires. It is a testament to our faith when we can overcome those urges and transcend the flesh; to become closer to God.
D
Msg #36: On 1/29/2011 at 9:04:48 PM, Colin replied, saying: "I don't necessarily agree that Jesus revoked the old testament laws, except for the one about animal sacrifice, but I digress..."
Well, he says in the NT that he fulfilled the old law and that he is the new law. To fulfill means to bring to completion. So I dunno-- It's kind of a toughie. Regardless, I'm not going to worry about getting head from my wife or getting a haircut. Hah.
Msg #37: On 1/29/2011 at 10:12:20 PM, Monkipzzle replied, saying: You make a good point, but old habits die hard. I was raised to abide the new and old testament as a pentecostal. I'm now a baptist, and while many of my denomination do go along with your view, I have a hard time letting go of that which I was taught. I have to pray about it. Good point, though...
D
Msg #38: On 1/29/2011 at 11:25:19 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying: Raptor, what I find most bizarre about your posts (besides the obvious contradiction that Colin explained in more detail) is that you say that, as a Christian, the trustworthiness of your source document doesn't matter in the slightest. You say that you don't really care whether the Bible was translated and re-translated and re-re-translated through the ages as opposed to us having the source manuscripts from antiquity (thus verifying the age of much of the Bible)?
Do you understand how utterly bizarre of a position that is to take?
Msg #39: On 1/30/2011 at 9:44:01 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: I'm starting to believe that the validity of Jesus Christ doesn't matter in the long run, but his teachings do. If you believe in the teachings, you believe in Him, I guess would be what I'm getting at.
I mean, seriously. If you met Jesus on the day of Judgment, what do you think he's going to care about? You think he's going to care that that you had 100 percent faith of His existence? Or do you think he's going to care that you respected, followed, and inspired others to follow his teachings?
Msg #40: On 1/31/2011 at 6:08:33 PM, Dark Element replied, saying: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." — Mark Twain
Sorry. Had to be that guy.
Msg #41: On 1/31/2011 at 10:56:44 PM, Colin replied, saying: I can understand that perspective from a mature, atheistic standpoint. At the same time, I think it's kind of an irrelevant point. Many secularists make the mistake of thinking Christianity is all about sitting around and waiting for the next life. It's not. God gave us this life for a reason-- And it is beautiful and fragile which is why He wants us to commit to caring after others and lead a virtuous, purposeful life.
Leading a nice, long life and then meeting the prospective non-existence of death with a shrug of the shoulders doesn't sound too bad to me either, but personally, there are other people out there who lead completely torturous lives and though there isn't any logical reason (only emotionally appealing) to believe that they WOULD get justice in the next life, the quote from Mark Twain is merely sentimental, without logic, as well. So while I understand and appreciate your expression of sentiment (via Twain), I prefer another.
I do love Mark Twain, though. Replies: 42
Msg #42: On 2/1/2011 at 11:08:35 PM, Dark Element replied to Msg #41, saying: " I think it's kind of an irrelevant point. Many secularists make the mistake of thinking Christianity is all about sitting around and waiting for the next life. It's not. God gave us this life for a reason-- And it is beautiful and fragile which is why He wants us to commit to caring after others and lead a virtuous, purposeful life."
I don't think it's irrelevant. I think it speaks to much more than that. I take from the quote the feeling that if we do have consciousness in un-existance, it clearly isn't important enough for us to remember. I don't think Twain was speaking to morality in any way. It's an observation that a lot of people either never discover themselves, or choose to ignore. There is no consciousness before human existence. Where has my consciousness been for the last few billion years if there is an existence outside of the only one we know?
"Leading a nice, long life and then meeting the prospective non-existence of death with a shrug of the shoulders doesn't sound too bad to me either, but personally, there are other people out there who lead completely torturous lives and though there isn't any logical reason (only emotionally appealing) to believe that they WOULD get justice in the next life, the quote from Mark Twain is merely sentimental, without logic, as well. So while I understand and appreciate your expression of sentiment (via Twain), I prefer another."
I am hoping you will further explain your conclusion, because i don't quite follow. Are you saying that because Twain does not accept the idea of a poetic justice for a well-lived (or poorly lived) life, he is then sentimental and without logic? If that is the case, I'm not sure if I understand your logic. Replies: 43
Msg #43: On 2/2/2011 at 3:20:28 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #42, saying: I admit that while I disagree with many of your posts, DE, I like that Mark Twain quote. It's both hilarious and though provoking, which is hard to find these days.
Msg #44: On 2/2/2011 at 9:40:13 PM, Colin replied, saying: Well, for me, there isn't really any reason to believe I've existed prior to my earthly being (aside from God's mind, that is). There isn't any Biblical reference to God having pre-created us before earth. God at one point says he knew a man(I think Jeremiah) before he was in his mother's womb, but considering the New and Old Testament don't address a pre-existence, I would read that God merely meant that he is all-knowing and knew Jeremiah before he even existed.
Aside from my personal interpretation and views, I think that's a very unimaginative and limited way of looking at it (and considering I find Twain to be one of the greatest writers, that's saying something). Considering how finite and temperamental the human consciousness is, I think the sentiment of "well, I don't remember it, that means it didn't happen" is a pretty narrow scope to look through. Nobody remembers being an eight month old or being born or being a sperm that's swimming through semen against other sperm to get to the egg. Now, granted, we have physical evidence of those things happening, but no memory. Our discussion, however, is about the possibility of consciousness before birth. If pre-birth consciousness was physically provable, then that's one thing, it'd be another to know where to even begin searching for the properties of such a phenomenon.
All I'm saying is a lack of memory of a potential "pre-consciousness," I think, is a pretty weak argument that there was nothing before and there will be nothing after. And this is coming from somebody who doesn't even have any reason to believe in a pre-consciousness. Replies: 46
Msg #45: On 2/2/2011 at 9:43:21 PM, Colin replied, saying: "it clearly isn't important enough for us to remember."
I also reject the idea that memory dictates importance. Our birth is the most vital occurance of our existence, yet we have no recollection of it.
"I am hoping you will further explain your conclusion, because i don't quite follow. Are you saying that because Twain does not accept the idea of a poetic justice for a well-lived (or poorly lived) life, he is then sentimental and without logic? If that is the case, I'm not sure if I understand your logic. "
My response is hard to conceptualize after a full day of work and baseball practice after...but here it goes.
If God determined that this life is important enough for all of us to either go to bliss for all of eternity, or be punished in horrifying pain for all of eternity, why wouldn't we have any consciousness before life?
We have consciousness after (six?), we are told to base the entirety of our existence and consciousness on a book written thousands of years before us, handed down after years of spoken word by people that were probably illiterate. And if we don't believe this book...we...
I dont know. It's too much of a logical stretch for me. If it was so important for every person to believe and understand in God, I'd think he would make a more direct and distinct presence in every humans life.
And don't follow it with "you're not looking or listening", because I have been. I was a christian up until a few years ago, and as far as I can understand, there is no God. There are events people choose to relate to as involving a all powerful being, but it's just coincidence.
I wish I wasn't so tired, and that could have been said with a little more poetically...but, well, there it is...
Msg #47: On 2/4/2011 at 2:36:33 AM, Monkipzzle replied, saying: God is only as direct as we allow him to be, but an important thing to remember is that he wants everyone to believe in him on faith. If proof were forthcoming, why would faith be necessary? I'm not saying that God is deliberately hiding himself, but rather that people can only see what they are willing to see...
That's my position on it. I was a believer, then an atheist, and now I am again and forevermore a believer in the power of God and Christ. I've seen and experienced both sides of the coin. It is never too late to come full-circle, DE...
"If God determined that this life is important enough for all of us to either go to bliss for all of eternity, or be punished in horrifying pain for all of eternity, why wouldn't we have any consciousness before life? "
That's all understandable. I see that we've moved onto deeper issues such as the validity of faith, but I'm happy to indulge.
"If it was so important for every person to believe and understand in God, I'd think he would make a more direct and distinct presence in every humans life. "
I hear this a lot and I would say it's valid gripe, but the whole idea of Jesus' teachings are to make the individual not care about themselves so much and start caring about other people. I think we, as society, are at a stage where we are taking everything for granted-- We have warm beds, immediate access to water and we can still go outside any time and catch a beautiful sunset.
I think life is staggeringly beautiful and we've just allowed ourselves to have gotten used to it. So my question would be-- How much does God need to do?
Personally, the best answer I've ever gotten was when I was still questioning, but started practicing literal teachings of Jesus and in the Bible he says: "You will know the truth by my teachings and the truth will set you free."
Even though a lot of my worldly cynicism and ingratitude has crept back in, it's irreversible what God's done to me.
I think God speaks to us the most when we are turning off the world, being silent and caring after others more than ourselves.
I'm not saying that you haven't done that, DE, but that's how God has revealed himself in my life and many other people's I know.
Msg #49: On 2/16/2011 at 4:14:42 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying: I have nothing profound or compelling to add.
