I cut out the rest of your quote just to save room, not decrease the argument (used in the scientific sense).

I really liked Samael's response to your post but I'll add one more thing:

For the most part this thread is not on the existence of God, per se, but the thought process behind those who believe in the existence or not. Had this been a thread on existence it would have degenerated into something less savoury many posts ago. However, as a thread on thought process, and therefore psychology, it does highlight personal thought. For example, in a previous post that Samael did suggested Blind Faith is the only faith - I'm interested in what kind of person would believe that considering I believe that is a stunting, or lessening, of any person - irrespective of the belief that God exists or not.

Awesome post! And, to be honest, I had not considered it from that angle. I was more from the point that Blind Faith excludes rational thought from the direction of the institution, rather than blind faith as believing in the unproveable.

Too used to arguing against religion as an edifice rather than seeing the personal aspect. Thanks!

So, when do we start the swearing and personnel insults? This thread is very unusual.... :)

Irrantional though can come from anywhere, outside influences, or inside your head. I suppose, ultimately, they all come from inside. We all lie to ourselves constantly, pretending to be the person we want to be :)

A couple of passages from Carl Jung...

"My life is a story of the self-realisation of the unconscious. Everything in the unconscious seeks outward manifestation, and the personality too desires to evolve out of its unconscious condition. I cannot employ the language of science to trace this process of growth in myself, for I cannot experience myself as a scientific problem.

What we are to our inward vision, and what man appears to be sub specie aeternitatis, can only be expressed by way of myth. Myth is more individual and expresses life more precisely than does science. Science works with concepts of averages which are far too general to do justice to the subjective variety of individual life." - Memories, Dreams, Reflections

"The religious person enjoys a great advantage when it comes to answering the crucial question that hangs over our time like a threat: he has a clear idea of the way his subjective existence is grounded in his relation to "God". I put the word "God" in quotes in order to indicate that we are dealing with an anthropomorphic idea whose dynamism and symbolism are filtered through the medium of the unconscious psyche. Anyone who wants to can at least draw near to the source of such experiences, no matter whether he believes in God or not." - The Undiscovered Self

That's what the religions teach and not necessarily what God wants. IMO, it's possible to make a rational argument for God and to maintain a rational relationship with Him. Suffice it to say that the rational argument is contained within string theory, multiple dimensions and is supported by evolution.


I have a personal goddess which I cannot prove either :P

Mmmmm, psychoanalysis.

I don't really have any beef with people not believing in God. I'd like it if they did, because I have concern for their eternity, but I accept their choice.

I don't like it when people try to prove ( or disprove ) God's existance. It's silly and from a Christian perspective, unbiblical. The Apostles all met the risen Christ and He told them that those who believed without seeing were far greater blessed. Why is this? Although there are some clues, I think it's a mystery.

I like that whether God exists or not isn't provable, because to me that feels like it's free from man's touch. We can't sit back, self-satisfied, "Well boys, we've figured it out."

I think people choose faith because they need it. They need it to live the type of life they want to live and I think God is happy to meet that need.

Religion can be too restrictive and can impede relationship with God as much as it can encourage it. However I think some level of doctrine is important, because otherwise it's not God, it's just you.

This definition works only if the unknown is unknowable. IMO, we will eventually know but that has nothing to do with faith/belief in God but realisation that man continues to develop and learn more about the universe.

Lightspeed, aside from the other content on this particular thread - and mainly because you're a Christian who's willing to talk rationally:

What do you think of this recent re-discovery of the Gospel of Judas? I've only had a brief look into its providence rather than its content and so far all experts who have examined it have agreed that it is in roughly the same timeframe of the Big 4 (i.e. it's not a forgery or late medieval apologist's bedtime novel).

I'd be interested to know your personal thoughts on it - just so you know I'm not trying to blindside you into a linguistic trap or anything sinister.. I'm wondering what you personally think and if the Holy powers-that-be said "It is a lost book of the Bible returned" would you agree with that? Boiled down, I'm interested to know if what *you* think would take precedence over what the Church told/asked you to believe.

Feel free to answer or not, as it's really a subject I'm interested in rather that *NEED* to know, if you understand what I mean.

I trust in God that regardless of what Constantine and his cronies were up to, the Bible was constructed as God meant it to be. At this point I don't consider the writings of Judas to be scripture. I may reconsider at some point, as I am not certain that new material can't be added to the bible, if it is confirmed to be written by an apostle. Still, Paul surely wrote more than what is in the bible, yet it is not scripture.

For me there are no "Holy powers-that-be". As an orthydox (Protestant) Christian the only authority I must submit to is that of God's. There are church leaders and if I choose to be part of those specific churches then I have to obey there rules as I would any club I choose to be a member of, but I don't have to be a member.

I hope that answers your question.

I only expressed opinion, not an argument :)

I read this thread and I'm still left with "Yeah, and?". It's faith have's versus faith have-nots and as per usual both sides of the argument think they're right and cannot understand whats going on in the head of their opposite (for want of a better term though in uttering it I realise it isn't accurate therefore not intended to be construed as literal).

If it makes you happy and harms nobody else, then whatever. Think what you like about whatever you like, bully for you. People derive happiness from vastly different things and it's okay to be different. Thats what makes your life your own right? Let happiness prevail, peace love and mung beans.

And I realise this is not where the thread started, but this is NZG, and Situation Normal prevails once more!! :D

Yep it does. I'd just like to bring up one thing, and it's only because you mentioned it not because I want to pour sand in your pants; the apostles didn't write the big 4.

Other than that, thanks for answering.

Pimp, ole chum, so far in this pointless thread you've been able to misquote and get a jibe (lighthearted) in - "argument", you've managed to espouse your opinion, you've managed to make someone else think, and finally confirm a truism about this forum... pretty good day's work for a pointless thread. :D

The big four?

Matthew Mark Luke and John?


I'm only guessing.

Whats wrong with "just me" ? :(

Well, it's true that the authorship of those testimates aren't confirmed, however there was unanimous testimony in the early church as to who wrote each gospel. It's not terribly important to me, I trust in God.

I was walking back from lunch the other day with a workmate I had been working with for around 8 years. He is a christian and we had never talked about religion with each other before. I started the conversation to get an understanding on what he thought about Jesus Christ because I have an interest in the man now. He said he goes to church about every two weeks. I thought to myself shit this guy can really learn me about Jesus Christ. So I asked him, "If Jesus was here with you right now what do you think he would say" The answer I got from him was totally honest but unexpected by me. It was "I dunno".

So I told him, what Jesus would say.

Don't leave us hanging, motherfucker. What would jesus say?

^^ LOL _b

What I think he would say is. I am your brother.

and no I have not found religion and the verdict is still out for me as to if god exists. I think along Mabd's lines about god and religion. Over the last two thousand years religion has distorted in any way that suited its needs at the time a few simple truths that Jesus stood for.

Satan, heaven and hell in an after life are illogical to me but I will say this if you live your life to avoid going to heaven then you are living in hell.

double post

I think all the books or teachers in the world can only point the way, and at some point you have to live your life according to your own conscience - otherwise you're mistaking the map for the territory. Life doesn't have a script.

Talk about an anticlimax.


Sounds fair enough. But what if you live your life with an indifference to either?

Q4MFT.

Why on earth would he say "I am your brother". Sounds like you've been watching too much star wars to me.

If jesus was walking beside someone I would sincerely hope he had something more profound to say than that trite piece of crap.

You'd like to think it was something a bit more individualised.

Then again he was a big hippy.

He'd probably say "you fuckwits really screwed up. Didn't any of you listen to me? Fuck!!!! has noone heard of a metaphor?"

lol

This bothers me, but I am not sure why.

I don't really have any beef with people believing in God. I'd like it if they didn't, because I have concern for their the society we live in, but I accept their choice.

Hmmm. No, thats not it.

There is no dildo in the sex shop of life to satisfy every orifice.

Hmmmm... as a Christian I'd prefer not to have a conscience. Christian belief is that the conscience is God's law written on our hearts. As a Christian God's law has been fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ. To try and live by the law would be trying to add to that sacrifice, which is pride.

I choose to have compassion not because I feel compelled so, but because that's the type of person I want to be.

Of course, it's quite clear some Christians choose to be dicks, because I guess they wanna be dicks.

And I appareciate that the Christian understanding of conscience isn't the same as the world's.

Ain't that some truth. Preach it, brother!

I think that's pure crap.

As a non-Christian who nonetheless has a fairly thorough knowledge of bible teaching, I know the central teaching Christ had to give the world centred around the concept of "love one another as God has loved you". His sacrifice was to live as a man and demonstrate not simple compliance with God's will but to face the dilemma (played out in the Gospel's as the devil's temptation) of living for one's own self or serving God's will.

Therefore it follows that a Christian is *not* committing the sin of pride by having a conscience, by acting with compassion - they are trying to live as Christ lived. Now, God created man in his own image and therefore if man has a conscience that is what God wants for him. Being a soulless robot for Jesus is a pure copout. Being an arsehole and justifying it because you're good with the man above so everyone else can go to fuck is worse. You fret about your pride, but you claim to discern human qualities that your God shouldn't have included in His creation.

What supreme arrogance.

There was an interesting NS article awhile about written about a guy who seems to believe that self is as much of an illusion as some people think God is an illusion.

I'll hafta have a dig around for it.

I'd be interested to read it if it turns up!

That being said, isn't the existence of the soul quite central to Christian theology? If our entrance to heaven is based on the premise that there is a part of us that continues to exist regardless of physical death, isn't that directly contradicted by the notion that there isn't even a real inner being while we're alive?

Weirdly enough I believe in no god particularly (or all of them at the same time) but I do believe in a soul. Go figure that shit.

_b

You die, you rot, you're worm food. Why is this so hard for people to accept?

Arrogance. They think they are special enough for there to be an inherent meaning behind their life.

But I'm a beautiful and unique snowflake! I'm special!