The Religious Discussion of 2012

[johnnyrodgers20]

The reason it is called faith is because it is something that can not be proven. You have no proof that there isn't a God either. It is your faith in the secular world that makes you an unbeliever but it is faith nonetheless. We are just at an impasse, your faith vs mine and we shall not know the outcome until we are both gone. :wasted

This. No one is more right...no one is more wrong. However, there is a difference between proclaiming that it's this way or the highway and trying to point out the flaws with that process

I think most people get annoyed by overzealous Christians that have great intentions. No one wants to see another person make a huge mistake (living eternity in hell away from God). Some feel the need to try to save you from yourself and by doing so they tend to alienate people. Kind of like some parents who tell their children not to do something and then freak out when they do it. The parent that can use that circumstance as a learning and enlightening experience usually has the better outcome. They must know that it is always the child's decision and that child must pay the consequences for his actions.

So I think to force Christianity onto people is actually doing more harm than good. You can proclaim the word of God but it is for the person who hears it to determine if he accepts God and our Lord and Savior, no one else can do that for them. :restore2

 

[Sub-Husker]

The reason it is called faith is because it is something that can not be proven. You have no proof that there isn't a God either. It is your faith in the secular world that makes you an unbeliever but it is faith nonetheless. We are just at an impass, your faith vs mine and we shall not know the outcome until we are both gone.

Maybe it can be proven in the future or has been proven in the past, but scientific proof is not available to us at the present.

While a god (supernatural being) has neither been proven nor disproven, as is with dark matter, the existance of one or more does make logical sense. The fact that science follows a series of rigid laws could mean that they were intelligently designed into out universe. Or that they came about at random, and our particular universe out of a near infinite number had the right set of scientific laws for life to come into being. But the creation of our universe required energy and a catalyst for the big bang to occur, which does point to a supernatural intelligence.

 

[knapplc]

The four forces are not "energy," they are the consequences of the existence of particles.

 

[Sub-Husker]

No one is more right...no one is more wrong. However, there is a difference between proclaiming that it's this way or the highway and trying to point out the flaws with that process.

There are some belief systems that really defy logic.

And some of these say that their way is the only correct way and nonbelievers are going to hell.

In my opinion, they are more wrong than others because they impose their rules on others without proof, and damns them to a hell of their own creation.

 

[The Dude]

The reason it is called faith is because it is something that can not be proven. You have no proof that there isn't a God either. It is your faith in the secular world that makes you an unbeliever but it is faith nonetheless. We are just at an impasse, your faith vs mine and we shall not know the outcome until we are both gone. :wasted

This. No one is more right...no one is more wrong. However, there is a difference between proclaiming that it's this way or the highway and trying to point out the flaws with that process

I have no proof there isn't a Tooth Fairy, either. Does that mean people who believe in such a thing are just as right as people who don't?

 

[knapplc]

I have no proof there isn't a Tooth Fairy, either. Does that mean people who believe in such a thing are just as right as people who don't?

Pagan. <_<

 

[Husker_x]

The reason it is called faith is because it is something that can not be proven. You have no proof that there isn't a God either. It is your faith in the secular world that makes you an unbeliever but it is faith nonetheless. We are just at an impass, your faith vs mine and we shall not know the outcome until we are both gone.

I didn't set out to prove there is no God, either, so I'm not required to present arguments that demonstrate it. That is not the position I hold.

The 'secular world'--however you define that--does not require faith to believe it because it can be demonstrated to exist. To establish moral systems you have to present reasons. Take the first and second commandments, for example. Our modern conception of freedom of religion is far superior to the outdated biblical model of state sponsored theocracy which permits no one to question or even express interest in worshipping other gods, or have no gods at all. Our model has led to a more harmonious society where a vast majority of the time people with very different religious views can coexist. Thank God (pardon the pun) we abandoned the lunacy God instructs in the bible.

 

[Sub-Husker]

There are the five traditional metaphysical elements of air, earth, fire and water. Some traditions add fifth elements, such as wood, metal or spirit. While I don't buy into metaphysical elements, I do buy into the four traditional forms of energy that have been recorded in four dimensional space/time... EMR, weak molecular, strong molecular and gravity. My studies in physics and spirituality lead me to believe that the universe is not limited to four dimensions, and that there are other dimensions out there that we had not yet been ablle to observe but have been predicted by psysicists and philosophers.

The four forces are not "energy," they are the consequences of the existence of particles.

Physics describes both matter and energy (or forces) as quantum bundles, either as waves or as subatomic particles.

Particle existance is frequently changing, absorbing and releasing energy. And that is just in observable four dimensional space/time.

Gravity is still the oddball, defined by 'spin'.

 

[Hoosker]

The reason it is called faith is because it is something that can not be proven. You have no proof that there isn't a God either. It is your faith in the secular world that makes you an unbeliever but it is faith nonetheless. We are just at an impass, your faith vs mine and we shall not know the outcome until we are both gone.

I didn't set out to prove there is no God, either, so I'm not required to present arguments that demonstrate it. That is not the position I hold.

The 'secular world'--however you define that--does not require faith to believe it because it can be demonstrated to exist. To establish moral systems you have to present reasons. Take the first and second commandments, for example. Our modern conception of freedom of religion is far superior to the outdated biblical model of state sponsored theocracy which permits no one to question or even express interest in worshipping other gods, or have no gods at all. Our model has led evolved into a more harmonious society where a vast majority of the time people with very different religious views can coexist. Thank God (pardon the pun) we abandoned the lunacy God instructs in the bible.

 

[Hoosker]

The reason it is called faith is because it is something that can not be proven. You have no proof that there isn't a God either. It is your faith in the secular world that makes you an unbeliever but it is faith nonetheless. We are just at an impasse, your faith vs mine and we shall not know the outcome until we are both gone. :wasted

This. No one is more right...no one is more wrong. However, there is a difference between proclaiming that it's this way or the highway and trying to point out the flaws with that process

I think most people get annoyed by overzealous Christians that have great intentions. No one wants to see another person make a huge mistake (living eternity in hell away from God). Some feel the need to try to save you from yourself and by doing so they tend to alienate people. Kind of like some parents who tell their children not to do something and then freak out when they do it. The parent that can use that circumstance as a learning and enlightening experience usually has the better outcome. They must know that it is always the child's decision and that child must pay the consequences for his actions.

So I think to force Christianity onto people is actually doing more harm than good. You can proclaim the word of God but it is for the person who hears it to determine if he accepts God and our Lord and Savior, no one else can do that for them. :restore2

I definitely agree with you that forcing Christianity on people does more harm than good. I can't stand it when someone comes up to my door and ask if they can talk to me about the word of God or if I'm walking down the street and someone stops me and wants to talk about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I don't want that stuff shoved in my face. It makes me question the morals and advice being taught by that particular religion in the first place if they successfully pissed me off by thinking that "I know what's good for you better than you do". As if I weren't capable of living a happy life without "God's children doing His work by recruiting more and more followers"

 

[CornHOLIO]

It's a really touchy subject, and the last thing I wanna do is have this thread turn into the pro-choice vs pro-life debate, so I'll leave my comments at that.

Agreed.

But you do need to realize that abortion does not meet the legal definition of murder in the United States, and Jesus was silent about the issue during his time.

If religious people gather together in a majority and get the law changed regarding fetal personhood, then abortion can be classified as murder.

But if religious groups do that, then whose teachings are they following?

Though a large part of our three part government system with checks and balances is to keep the majority from running roughshod over the minority, We have too many situations in our history already where a vocal, organized minority imposed thier 'values' on the majority, or in which a minority was denied rights by a majority.

Is this about the abolishment of Porn in the Shed?

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

The reason it is called faith is because it is something that can not be proven. You have no proof that there isn't a God either. It is your faith in the secular world that makes you an unbeliever but it is faith nonetheless. We are just at an impass, your faith vs mine and we shall not know the outcome until we are both gone.

Maybe it can be proven in the future or has been proven in the past, but scientific proof is not available to us at the present.

While a god (supernatural being) has neither been proven nor disproven, as is with dark matter, the existance of one or more does make logical sense. The fact that science follows a series of rigid laws could mean that they were intelligently designed into out universe. Or that they came about at random, and our particular universe out of a near infinite number had the right set of scientific laws for life to come into being. But the creation of our universe required energy and a catalyst for the big bang to occur, which does point to a supernatural intelligence.

I have said in a previous thread that Matter had to come from somewhere. You can't have an absence of matter and then suddenly have it just appear (where did it come from) and we know we need matter for the big bang theory. So now the question becomes who made matter? chuckleshuffle

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

The reason it is called faith is because it is something that can not be proven. You have no proof that there isn't a God either. It is your faith in the secular world that makes you an unbeliever but it is faith nonetheless. We are just at an impasse, your faith vs mine and we shall not know the outcome until we are both gone. :wasted

This. No one is more right...no one is more wrong. However, there is a difference between proclaiming that it's this way or the highway and trying to point out the flaws with that process

I think most people get annoyed by overzealous Christians that have great intentions. No one wants to see another person make a huge mistake (living eternity in hell away from God). Some feel the need to try to save you from yourself and by doing so they tend to alienate people. Kind of like some parents who tell their children not to do something and then freak out when they do it. The parent that can use that circumstance as a learning and enlightening experience usually has the better outcome. They must know that it is always the child's decision and that child must pay the consequences for his actions.

So I think to force Christianity onto people is actually doing more harm than good. You can proclaim the word of God but it is for the person who hears it to determine if he accepts God and our Lord and Savior, no one else can do that for them. :restore2

I definitely agree with you that forcing Christianity on people does more harm than good. I can't stand it when someone comes up to my door and ask if they can talk to me about the word of God or if I'm walking down the street and someone stops me and wants to talk about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I don't want that stuff shoved in my face. It makes me question the morals and advice being taught by that particular religion in the first place if they successfully pissed me off by thinking that "I know what's good for you better than you do". As if I weren't capable of living a happy life without "God's children doing His work by recruiting more and more followers"

And the same can be said about the nanny state too. I do not want someone else taking my money and using it for a purpose that is against my moral values. :thumbs

 

[carlfense]

And the same can be said about the nanny state too. I do not want someone else taking my money and using it for a purpose that is against my moral values. :thumbs

How do you feel about tax dollars supporting the military?

 

[Sub-Husker]

While a god (supernatural being) has neither been proven nor disproven, as is with dark matter, the existance of one or more does make logical sense. The fact that science follows a series of rigid laws could mean that they were intelligently designed into out universe. Or that they came about at random, and our particular universe out of a near infinite number had the right set of scientific laws for life to come into being. But the creation of our universe required energy and a catalyst for the big bang to occur, which does point to a supernatural intelligence.

I have said in a previous thread that Matter had to come from somewhere. You can't have an absence of matter and then suddenly have it just appear (where did it come from) and we know we need matter for the big bang theory. So now the question becomes who made matter?

Matter and anti-matter can cancel each other out. However to the best of our knowledge there is a net positive amount of energy in the universe.