How can you reconcile your faith, with the deductive reasoning that we programmers use in our work?

I do have a believe system. I respect all life ( I am a vegetarian ), but I also believe in recognizing the darker sides of human nature. As long as we don't hurt anyone in the process then I believe it is best to indulge ourselves rather that to repress any urges we may have.

When I am dead I believe I will experience nothing at all, but going on the regularity of my 'sinning' most of you would believe I am heading towards hell.

Sorry if I have ranted but I'd like to hear your opinions on the subject. I'll read and consider all your replies, and if I am swayed by the argument I will consider changing my lifestyle!

Thanks for reading.

Will

[This message has been edited by Will (edited May 03, 2001).]

Thanks for joining the discussions and I appreciate your honesty and cander. I also understand your beliefs as I used to share them.

As you pointed out, programming is mostly logic based...so you can imagine that my "searching" lead a logical path. I started out by reading everything I could on all the various religions and non-religions out there. There aren't many religions I haven't studied. Also, as a programmer, I not only studied but compared...disected, if you will each and found common parts and so on.

I avoided Christianity like the plague, and actually argued against it with a lot of people. I found that most Christians had faith but no education as to why they have that faith. In other words, I found a bunch of folks who had blind faith...it's what their parents and grandparents believed, so they just figured they should too. Well, this attitude made me realize that I was arguing against something that I too was ignorant of. I was raised in a pseudo-Catholic family (we basically went to church on Easter and that's it) and went to a Seventh-Day Adventist school...so I'd heard the teaching, but I didn't listen.

Finally after looking at a bunch of religions, belief systems, etc. I said that I needed to study Bible too...again with that programmer mentality. My feeling was that I couldn't fairly dismiss anything without first studying.

I always believed there was a God because as I look around the world I find things are too spectacular to have come from a goop of slime billions of years ago. However, instead of thinking of God as a supreme being, I found I created God in MY image...this is something that a lot of us do to justify our behavior. In other words I figured "If I'm just the best person I can be than I'll be okay in the afterlife."

After thinking long and hard about it I found that God wasn't like me because if He was, He'd have smooshed me like a bug by now. I also found, by reading the Bible, that God was amazingly merciful to people even though they didn't deserve it.

So...realizing the fact that I belive that God is perfect and not a sinner, I came to the following conclusion:

ALMOST ALL religions that believe in God as a perfect being rely on their own good works to be sufficient in the eyes of God to allow entry into heaven. I asked the questions: "If God is perfect, can he dwell with inperfection?" I think no. "If I work REALLY hard, can I be perfect?" Again, nope. So where does this leave 99% of the religions out there? In my opinion, it leaves them working REALLY hard for no significant gain. No matter what they do, they will not be perfect and thus they will not be with God. I know that sounds harsh and I certainly didn't want to hear it...but it's the only logical conclusion I could come to.

Okay, but what about Jesus? He shows up to fulfill the law that God set forth for man to keep, and to explain what God is really like. At least according to the Bible. Okay, okay, but a lot of people say that Jesus was just a really cool prophet and nothing more. Logically, this doesn't hold water because of the following:

Prophets don't raise themselves from the dead after 3 days.

How do we know that really happened? Well, obviously we can't run back in time and see it, but we can look at how the Apostles acted. Before Jesus was arrested, the Apostles saw him do a bunch of miraculous things: heal people, walk on water, raise others from the dead, etc. They KNEW he was the son of God. BUT...even they were like "Nope, didn't know the man!" when he was arrested. Why did they do that? Because they didn't want to get killed with him. After his crucifixion, the Apostles were bent on getting outta town and getting their lives back to what they were.

But then something happened. According to the Bible, Jesus arose from the dead and presented himself to the Apostles. Here's where we get to the "how do we know that happened part". Immediately after this event, the Apostles marched right back into town and started preaching. They no longer denied their association with Jesus. And not only that, but when Peter was arrested and told he was going to be crucified, he replied that he wanted to be crucified upside down because he wasn't worthy to die like Christ. Now, from what I've read, crucifixion is painful enough right-side up...upside down is supposedly even worse.

So, what event other than seeing a dead-man walking could make all of these Apostles, who were wanting to run, suddenly turn and be willing to face death for Christ? I can't believe they just said "hey, I know we've been thinking of going back to our old lives...but what say, just for fun, that instead we all get together and run around preaching too? Yeah we'll all be killed in horrendous ways, but it could be fun!" I just don't see it.

This post is waaaaaaay to long. Bottom line from my point of view is that 11 men went to their deaths in horrible ways after a single event in history that made them more concerned about preaching about Jesus than about their own lives...logically, this event hinged on these men seeing Christ risen from the dead...thus logically--to me--showing that there is an all-powerful God and that Christ is part of that God. Also, that Christ was necessary as a sacrifice for all of us.

Real quick: Why a sacrifice? If God is just, then he MUST require atonement for sins committed. If you murder someone, society will make you "pay" for that crime. Well, similarly, God requires that we pay for our crimes against Him. However, God also knows that we can't possibly grasp His mind any more than a 2 year old can grasp yours or mine. So, knowing this, He does the following:

1) God is just...He requires payment for crimes against Him.
2) God is merciful...He knows that we cannot pay for our crimes.
3) God is savior...He gives His own Son to pay for crimes He didn't commit.

Anyways, I'll stop now. I believe that it takes a strong logic to build arguments for/against religions and beliefs. So I find that the programming mentality is VERY applicable to this field of study, as it requires you to logically study and make sense of things. So, as a programmer, I challenge you to study a bunch of religions and see what conclusion you come up with.

Thanks for stopping by...sorry for the huge post!

-Krylar

------------------

[This message has been edited by Krylar (edited May 03, 2001).]

------------------
A person's faith is not judged by what he says about it, but by what he does about it. - Unknown
All men need a faith that will not shrink when washed in the waters of affliction and adversity. - Unknown
He who dies with the most toys.......still dies - Faithbomb
Say NO to Religion, say YES to God!

I have spent considerable time thinking about this very issue. And my deductive reasoning left me little choice but to keep my faith. Here's my thoughts:

There are two possibilities: God exists or he doesn't. Suppose God does not exist, and that there is only the natural universe, no afterlife, etc. Deductive reasoning would make us conclude that all aspects of the universe, including "life" (however you would define it), can be explained by, and is subject to, the laws of physics and chemistry (which is really just physics on a small scale). For example, any "live" creature could be thought of as simply a complex collection of molecules (subject to the laws of physics and chemistry) that make up cells, that make up organs, that make up the creature. Yes, very complex, but still just a collection of chemical compounds undergoing chemical processes nevertheless.

Even things like "thought", "emotion", "sense of morality", "need", "choice", "pain/pleasure", etc. could then simply be understood as originating from chemical reactions: our brains are organic, and even though we do not fully understand how the brain works, without the existence of God it can be nothing more than a complex collection of molecules, subject to chemistry and molecular physics. We would "love" simply because of the certain chemicals in a certaint part of the brain undergoing a certain reaction. Deductive reasoning would make us conclude that we are nothing more than organic computers, and our programming is based solely on our molecules following laws of chemistry and physics - you wouldn't even *really* be able to "choose" - any "choices" would be predetermined by the current condition (location and movement) of the collection of molecules that make up your body and the environment around you.

"Morality" and "choice" would really be illusions. Consider a simple chemical reaction: is mixing Sodium and Chloride, releasing the energy stored in any particular compound by burning it, or even having electrons change their orbit under various conditions, "good" or "bad" - or what choice do the chemicals have? Neither - simple chemical reactions are amoral and only subject to the laws of chemistry. So can morality or choice really exist in more complex chemical reactions, such as our brains, when the only difference between the chemical compounds would be one of magnitude and complexity?

Let's make it more personal. You say you "respect all life" and you inicate that you believe that it is wrong to hurt anyone. Why? What deductive reasoning could possibly lead you to these conclusions if God does not exist?

If, on the other hand, morality *truly* exists, it cannot be the product of chemistry and physics - it must come from something outside the natural universe and it's laws. It could only be instilled in us if we were created to receive it. And we could only be created to receive this morality if there was a God to create us and it.

Without God or morality, cuddling a baby or sticking a baby in the oven would simply be the results of chemical reactions in our brains, of which we have no control, causing certain nerves to fire causing certain muscles to contract resulting in certain actions. There is no "right" or "wrong" anymore, no "choice", "guilt", or any of these non-tangible attributes we all, even athiests, cling to - they would all be illusions. Deductive reasoning would force us to conclude that we are no longer responsible for our actions anymore than we are responsible for carbon joining with oxygen to form CO2. It would not matter whether you were Mother Theresa or Ted Bundy, whether you helped people or hurt people, or even whether you lived or died (even "life" and "death" would be illusions - just our chemical makeup undergoing different reactions, one being a set of reactions that results in maintaining the chemical processes, the other being a set of reactions that results in decomposition).

But still I realize that all that does not prove God exists, we still have the the two possibilities I mentioned at the top of this resonse. Either God exists, or he doesn't - but using my deductive reasoning, I have concluded two very important things: 1. that I could either believe God exists or believe that myself and everything around me is completely void of meaning, and 2. if God doesn't exist, then choice doesn't really exist (for the reasons explained above), and I would be believing in God not because I "chose" to, but because the laws of physics and chemistry forced me to (which in itself is a logical paradox if God doesn't exist). I guess my position is sort of "Pascal's Wager" on steroids.

That's how I believe deductive reasoning leads me to remain in my Christian faith. What I don't understand is how athiesm or agnosticism make any sense if you follow it to it's logical conclusion.

Later,
Brian Tegart

First off, I wondered if God really existed. Well, i look around me, and i see much complexity in nature. Science says that we evolved. but all i see is a slow degeneration of things, not evolving. It a natural thing that reasorces deplete over time, not build up.... Therefore, how could a cell become more complex, when all around us things are getting less complex? This borut me to a crossroads. If evolution is not correct, shown clearly by the constant degeneration of the world, what does that leave? If it did not just happen, then it must have been planed, created. This idea grew stronger, looking at the buety, and complexity of nature. delicatly balenced eco systems, complex systems in the body, physical laws, the very aspect that we have air on our planet, when space is all around us... To me, very conclusive.

So i belive in a God. But there are many views on God... Who is right? I belive christianity is the only true one for several reasons.
1. It's based on love. God loved us, and saved us not for anything we did, or could ever do, but just cause he wanted to be with his creation.
2. If Jesus death and resurection had not happened, then why do our years Progress from that day? Would 70 some different people, some of the roman soldirs, lie in reports about seeing Jesus after he was raised from the dead? Jesus life, death, and resurection is all documented by the romans, who definitly did not belive. To me, if it has lasted 2000 some years, it must be important.
3. I belive there is life after death. There is no way i can prove it, but there are tousands of people who have claimed to die, and be revived, and claim to see heaven. But it could be a lie. Like i said, theres no proof, it's a belief tho.

Thats how i came to my beliefs. people could probably pick apart my arguments, but to me, there is an assurance deep inside of me. In my heart I Know that there is a God, that he created this universe, and one day i'll be with him.

-Veritech

I haven't studied religions as you have. My upbringing wasn't particularly religious, but I was taught about God at school. In fact, due to the absence of teaching to the contrary I believed in god in my early childhood.

What eventually swayed me was that I could rationalize plenty of explanations as to why people would invent a god - Fear of death, control in society etc but there seemed no rationalization of 'God' that could not be refuted with logic.

You mention that you have rejected evolution. Fair enough, I myself believe in evolution as a potential explanation for the diversity of life. But how can not believing in one theory lead you to the conclusion that there is a god?

It seems to me that people believe in god because it is the explanation they prefer. In fact Christianity, and a lot of other religions, require you to have 'Faith'. You cant get to God without faith. You literally have to make a 'leap of faith' to be a Christian. But I cant do that because living in a cold dark universe, that has no purpose doesn't bother me.

You mentioned the Bible a few times and I can see it forms a large part of your beliefs. But without faith the Bible is reduced to book. A book written by many authors over many years and translated from its original language. How can I give its message more credit than any other religious text, or book?

Thanks again for indulging me...

Will

I really follow your reasoning - up to a point . How can we be merely a product of chemicals, physics etc as we are so much more than that?! We think, we have emotion we make choices. I myself believe in the sanctity of life - a belief that has little rational basis. Animals eat each other all the time, why shouldn't we? We are all more than the sum of our parts. But I cant discount the fact that we may just be deterministic machines. Free thought may be an illusion - I can see that being scary but its still plausible.

If you were to copy everything in this universe perfectly, would those two universes behave differently? What could possibly make then different? As I understand it, God is omniscient - he knows everything. He gave us free will, but he knows exactly what we will do with it. And if someone, even God, knows what will happen for the rest of eternity then there can only be one possible destiny for all of us. We are back to being machines again. Sorry to disagree so bluntly, but if God exists then choice doesn't really exist.

However science does suggest that there is a possibility of randomness in the universe. Apparently the decay of sub-nuclear particles may be entirely random, and randomness at this level has huge consequences for the rest of the universe. (Don't quiz me about this - theoretical physics is not my strong point .

I don't belive that 'Morality' is a potential indicator of Gods existence, as it is entirely subjective. Everyone has a different take on morality, some completely conflicting. And even animal societies have rules that allow them to live together..

Thanks for replying, it was much appreciated!

Will

Thanks for your reply. I'm going to have a bash at picking apart your arguments. Nothing personal

I think you are correct that degradation is a natural progression of nature. I couldn't refute that. But, nothing is ever truly destroyed. When a rock is worn away by the tides we have less rock, but more sand.

Nature is finely balanced and seemingly too perfect to have come about by chance. But it is also fragile. Us evolutionists belive that ecosystems have been created and destroyed time and time again over millions of years. Will we be here in a million years?

You mentioned that some 70 people reported seeing the resurrected Jesus Christ. I could point out that many more people have seen the resurrected Elvis Presley.

I should apologize, I don't mean to make light of anyones beliefs. And regarding my other posts I would like to let the people in this forum know that I respect their beliefs! Its such a passionate subject and the last thing I want to do is offend..

Thanks again..

Will

I believe that God gave us freewill so that we can change our own destinies, otherwise why bother giving us freewill/consciousness/morality to begin with.

For me there is no conflict between having a logical/enquiring mind and having Faith in God. Science can not answer everything in life, which is why many scientist also have Faith.

Hope you continue your journey into religion.

Monkeyx

Your responses are fairly typical of the opposition I get when I first explain my thoughts, so let me continue...

quote:

---

How can we be merely a product of chemicals, physics etc as we are so much more than that?! We think, we have emotion we make choices., I myself believe in the sanctity of life - a belief that has little rational basis. Animals eat each other all the time, why shouldn't we? We are all more than the sum of our parts.

---

But how can we be more than the sum of our parts, if only the natural universe exists? I often get this response, but no one is ever able to explain HOW. I find it ironic that they simply have "FAITH" that this is the case. Thought, emotion, choice - what are they and what how are they created if we are only biochemical?

quote:

---

As I understand it, God is omniscient - he knows everything. He gave us free will, but he knows exactly what we will do with it. And if someone, even God, knows what will happen for the rest of eternity then there can only be one possible destiny for all of us. We are back to being machines again. Sorry to disagree so bluntly, but if God exists then choice doesn't really exist.

---

Ah, but there is one flaw in this reasoning - it assumes God is limited to and subject to time. I don't believe God "knows the future" in the sense that he is only in the present and is able to know future events. Instead, God is outside of time. Time is a property of the natural unverse, bound together with space - even athiest physicists and astronomers believe this. If God created the universe, God also created time - time is subject to God, not the other way around. There is not only one pre-known destiny for us, as God being outside of time would already be at all possible destinies we could choose. It's a bit of a mind-bending concept, but trying to understand the "eternal" from within the framework of "time" always is.

quote:

---

However science does suggest that there is a possibility of randomness in the universe. Apparently the decay of sub-nuclear particles may be entirely random, and randomness at this level has huge consequences for the rest of the universe. (Don't quiz me about this - theoretical physics is not my strong point .

---

It's not mine either, but I'm learning. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is also related to this. I admit that these things make my thoughts of a deterministic universe without God more complicated, but I think the overall priciple still holds. I don't see how the lack of morality involved in the randomness or uncertainty of subatomic particles somehow creates morality just because you add more molecules. As far as I understand it, the randomness and uncertainty attributes *only* affect the ability to *predict* the future, not the creation of things like morality.

quote:

---

I don't belive that 'Morality' is a potential indicator of Gods existence, as it is entirely subjective. Everyone has a different take on morality, some completely conflicting. And even animal societies have rules that allow them to live together..

---

Two thoughts:

1. what creates your morality, what is it's low-level (to use a programming analogy) source? Without God, where does it come from?

2. what makes anyone's subjective morality "good" or "bad" if there is no absolute standard? If there is only individual, subjective (and sometimes conflicting) morality, consider: Joe's subjective morality has him believing that hurting other people is bad. Frank's subjective morality has him believing that hurting other people is good. Frank chops off Joe's fingers, just for fun. Now according to Joe, bad has been done. According to Frank, good has been done. Here we have two subjective, conflicting moralities - which is "right" and which is "wrong"? What makes Frank's action "right" or "wrong"? If you say Frank is "wrong", consider that you would only come to this conclusion based on your own individual subjective morality - which is no more authoritative than Frank's! Without a higher-than-us, absolute standard of morality, any talk of "morality" is meaningless.

Later,
Brian

Good questions, Will

Firstly, I would have to agree that belief in God requires faith. But belief in evolution requires the same leap of faith. Neither has been proven, which is why we have "Creation theory" and the "Theory of Evolution". Neither is called the "Fact of ...". So, belief in a cold-dark universe that doesn't have a purpose requires the same level of faith as a belief in God. So granted that there is likely no way to present God in an unrefutable way, but I would argue that is the same for evolution. There are a number of books on Evolution being no more than a faith-based system also: "Darwin on Trial", by Phillip E. Johnson, "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", by A.E. Wilder-Smith, and "Darwin's Black Box", by Michael J. Behe...to name a few.

Disregarding evolution didn't lead me to believing in God though. I admit that *originally* the powers of deduction lead me to think that there's either a God that does care or there's complete nothingness and I don't *want* to believe in the nothingness. Then I started thinking things like "why do I have a conscience?" Not consiousness, mind you, but rather why do I see things as right and wrong? Why are there thoughts of good and bad? Sure there are societal reasons for this such as preservance of the human race, but what about personal things? Why do people feel guilty about things they do that only they know about?

I then thought about the fact that accepting God means that I needed some type of controlling force in my life, but Christianity is not about rules and regulations, it's simply about believing that Christ fulfilled the law, died and raised three days later..thus overcoming death.

I then thought about the fact that accepting evolution--or not accepting God, as the case may be--is a great way for me to do anything I want, at any expense to others, and it wouldn't matter--other than societal consequences--because there's nothing out there that cares anyway.

So, I can either do what I want and consider that freedom, or I can do what I believe God wants and consider that bondage. But there's the rub. I found that doing what I want has always lead me to the bondage side. I get in debt, I could lose my job, I can lose my marriage, lose my trust, my friends...all because I'm doing what *I* want to do. Then when I begin doing the things that God wants me to do (according to the Bible) I began having a great marriage, finances started working out for the first time ever, my friendships are stronger and I have a sense of trust and peace in people that I never had prior to that.

As for the Bible being reduced to just a book. Man I used to argue that incessantly and very few people can argue that point on the side of the Bible. But when you take into account that 60+ authors not only stayed on topic, but showed fulfillments of prophecy over the course of the Bible (to date anyway)...especially over the looooooong period of time in which the Bible was written. Additionally, I have heard PLENTY of great speakers in the past, but Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul, etc. are either the wisest people the planet has ever seen or there is some devine intervention in what they're talking about. It's just too good and accurate to be by chance, in my opinion. There are an extraordinary number of archeaological finds that give credence to Biblical events as well. I subscribe to a magazine called "Biblical Archeaology" for this very reason and they're always uncovering cool stuff.

Thanks again for starting this topic, Will, it really helps to have such discussions with folks and to see the varied beliefs and opinions.

-Krylar

------------------

quote:

---

...but going on the regularity of my 'sinning' most of you would believe I am heading towards hell.

---

Just wanted to point out that believing in Christ doesn't mean I no longer sin. I do...a lot, actually. But what it does mean is that when I stand before God on the day of judgement that God will see His Son's sacrafice and my acceptance and will thus wash away my sins. Methaphorically speaking, it's as if I walk in front of God, Jesus walks in front of me and God see's Jesus within me...not just me trying to be good all my life and goofing it up. I can't win the "trying to be good" game.

This one got me thinking (thanks!):

quote:

---

...but I also believe in recognizing the darker sides of human nature. As long as we don't hurt anyone in the process then I believe it is best to indulge ourselves rather that to repress any urges we may have.

---

I'm trying to imagine what sinful urges I could pursue that wouldn't hurt others?

If, for example, in the privacy of my own home I look at porn...that should be cool, right? It's not like I'm involving my wife, kids, or anything. Well, what about the person I'm looking at? Maybe that person is being forced to do this and I'm supporting it. Or maybe they're willing do it in order to keep up a drug habit that I'm supporting. Either way, I'm giving money (whether directly via $ or indirectly via Ad Impressions) that allow the proliferation of this medium to extend to others that may be damaged by it. Also, what does that do to how I view sexual activity? Would this potentially damage my marital intimacy? etc.

That's just one example, but I have been unable to come up with a sinful activity that doesn't hurt others in some direct or indirect way. Can anyone think of any that work without hurting others (and, no, I'm not looking for a cool new way to sin without consequence )?

I think this is the most times I've posted in 3 months! hehehe.

-Krylar

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krylar:
Firstly, I would have to agree that belief in God requires faith. But belief in evolution requires the same leap of faith. Neither has been proven, which is why we have "Creation theory" and the "Theory of Evolution". Neither is called the "Fact of ...". So, belief in a cold-dark universe that doesn't have a purpose requires the same level of faith as a belief in God. So granted that there is likely no way to present God in an unrefutable way, but I would argue that is the same for evolution. There are a number of books on Evolution being no more than a faith-based system also: "Darwin on Trial", by Phillip E. Johnson, "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", by A.E. Wilder-Smith, and "Darwin's Black Box", by Michael J. Behe...to name a few.

---

I don't think belief in evolution requires the "same leap of faith" as believing in God. I think it requires more "faith" to believe in evolution, if you get what I mean.

I think that it is possible to present God in an irefutable way. How do you think C.S. Lewis became a Christian? It's something to think about.

Be careful that you don't make it sound like Christianity is equal to evolution. If you do, then we're no different from other religions. I'm certain that's not at all what you're saying Krylar. That's just how it was starting to sound to me.

†Caleb†

And a hearty welcome to Will. No matter what, God loves you!

Tim

------------------
Demo of first game is available at Jarod Journey's Web site. Second game is in storyboard stage.

quote:

---

But how can we be more than the sum of our parts, if only the natural universe exists? I often get this response, but no one is ever able to explain HOW. I find it ironic that they simply have "FAITH" that this is the case. Thought, emotion, choice - what are they and what how are they created if we are only biochemical?

---

We are are more than the sum of our parts in that no molecule in our body is 'alive'. But assembled together we are something greater. I think we are biochemical machines, I have no problem with that. Sure, we have little understanding of where consciousness comes from - but this lack of knowledge does not lead me to belive there are ghosts in the biochemical machine.

quote:

---

Ah, but there is one flaw in this reasoning - it assumes God is limited to and subject to time. I don't believe God "knows the future" in the sense that he is only in the present and is able to know future events. Instead, God is outside of time. Time is a property of the natural universe, bound together with space - even atheist physicists and astronomers believe this. If God created the universe, God also created time - time is subject to God, not the other way around. There is not only one pre-known destiny for us, as God being outside of time would already be at all possible destinies we could choose. It's a bit of a mind-bending concept, but trying to understand the "eternal" from within the framework of time" always is.

---

Ok, so god is present in an infinite number of alternate universes. That would allow for free will and an omniscient being!

quote:

---

Two thoughts:
1. what creates your morality, what is it's low-level (to use a programming analogy) source? Without God, where does it come from?

---

Morality is an adaption that allows us to live together without killing each other. It is not some natural constant.

quote:

---

2. what makes anyone's subjective morality "good" or "bad" if there is no absolute standard? If there is only individual, subjective (and sometimes conflicting) morality, consider: Joe's subjective morality has him believing that hurting other people is bad. Frank's subjective morality has him believing that hurting other people is good. Frank chops off Joe's fingers, just for fun. Now according to Joe, bad has been done. According to Frank, good has been done. Here we have two subjective, conflicting moralities - which is "right" and which is "wrong"? What makes Frank's action "right" or "wrong"? If you say Frank is "wrong", consider that you would only come to this conclusion based on your own individual subjective morality - which is no more authoritative than Frank's! Without a higher-than-us, absolute standard of morality, any talk of "morality" is meaningless.

---

That's just it. There is no absolute standard, or we'd have ANSI morality! ( Although Microsoft would probably have their own version )
Frank and Joes actions are immoral / moral depending on what the observer concludes. Morals are flaunted and change in context. Even the Christian faith can not agree on a standard. Debates have been raging for centuries with no conclusion. Thow shalt not kill. But what if one death would save two lives?

Thanks for keeping the discussion going. Most people, Christians and atheist don't actually think about this stuff..
Will

quote:

---

Firstly, I would have to agree that belief in God requires faith. But belief in evolution requires the same leap of faith. Neither has been proven, which is why we have "Creation theory" and the "Theory of Evolution". Neither is called the "Fact of ...". So, belief in a cold-dark universe that doesn't have a purpose requires the same level of faith as a belief in God. So granted that there is likely no way to present God in an unrefutable way, but I would argue that is the same for evolution. There are a number of books on Evolution being no more than a faith-based system also: "Darwin on Trial", by Phillip E. Johnson, "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", by A.E. Wilder-Smith, and "Darwin's Black Box", by Michael J. Behe...to name a few.

---

quote:

---

Disregarding evolution didn't lead me to believing in God though. I admit that *originally* the powers of deduction lead me to think that there's either a God that does care or there's complete nothingness and I don't *want* to believe in the nothingness. Then I started thinking things like "why do I have a conscience?" Not consciousness, mind you, but rather why do I see things as right and wrong? Why are there thoughts of good and bad? Sure there are societal reasons for this such as preservance of the human race, but what about personal things? Why do people feel guilty about things they do that only they know about?

---

quote:

---

So, I can either do what I want and consider that freedom, or I can do what I believe God wants and consider that bondage. But there's the rub. I found that doing what I want has always lead me to the bondage side. I get in debt, I could lose my job, I can lose my marriage, lose my trust, my friends...all because I'm doing what *I* want to do. Then when I begin doing the things that God wants me to do (according to the Bible) I began having a great marriage, finances started working out for the first time ever, my friendships are stronger and I have a sense of trust and peace in people that I never had prior to that.

---

quote:

---

As for the Bible being reduced to just a book. Man I used to argue that incessantly and very few people can argue that point on the side of the Bible. But when you take into account that 60+ authors not only stayed on topic, but showed fulfillment of prophecy over the course of the Bible (to date anyway)...especially over the looooooong period of time in which the Bible was written. Additionally, I have heard PLENTY of great speakers in the past, but Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul, etc. are either the wisest people the planet has ever seen or there is some devine intervention in what they're talking about. It's just too good and accurate to be by chance, in my opinion. There are an extraordinary number of archeaological finds that give credence to Biblical events as well. I subscribe to a magazine called "Biblical Archeaology" for this very reason and they're always uncovering cool stuff.

---

quote:

---

Thanks again for starting this topic, Will, it really helps to have such discussions with folks and to see the varied beliefs and opinions.

---

quote:

---

There is no absolute standard, or we'd have ANSI morality!
(Although Microsoft would probably have their own version)

---

LOL! That would be bad bad bad. Do something wrong, reboot. Do something wrong, reboot. Do something wrong, freeze.

I do believe that there is an absolute standard, as there are absolutes all over the place in varying fields. It's absolutely true that 2 + 2 = 4, for example. This is not subjective, it's fact. I can see where one person's moral standards are not equaled to anothers, but that doesn't mean that there is no standard.

However, in fairness, I can also see how society plays a role in creating that standard. But even then one has to take that to the next level, one society/culture's standards vs. another. Do we have the right to say that another's standard is wrong simply because it's not the same as ours?

If standards weren't different, we wouldn't have wars. Hitler would have been allowed to go on killing, etc. Again, subjective as to what good and bad is.

But even you said:

quote:

---

As long as we don't hurt anyone in the process then I believe it is best to indulge ourselves rather that to repress any urges we may have.

---

Why is that an acceptable standard? Maybe in my moral code it's okay to hurt others.

I think if you ask most anyone you'll get a response of "as long as it doesn't hurt others"...and anyone who says that it's okay to hurt others, you'll consider immoral. And still I haven't thought of anything that I can do that doesn't affect others :/ I guess maybe I'm hesitant to say that all morals are based on man-made standards. Man is far too fallable, in my opinion, to have decent standards. I know I am.

CALEB:

How's about sharing the short version of C.S. Lewis' story just for perspective?

Thanks!

-Krylar

------------------

Let me try a different approach.

If God does not exist, what does it ultimately matter what we do (good or bad), what happens to us or others, or whether we live or die?

Later,
Brian

quote:

---

Do you take the bible literally word for word? Because as I understand it, taken literally, they Bible says that the universe is only a few thousand years old. But what about the fossil record, sedimentary rock, tectonic plates etc.?

---

I think anyone can admit to translations being done incorrectly. Just the consideration that the English language has a number of slang terms that incorporate different meanings via the same sound can show that words can be misinterpreted. So, word for word accuracy, meaning is each "the" supposed to be a "the", likely no. But contextual/story accuracy, I believe yes.

I have also seen many a website on Biblical inconsistancies, mostly written from the Muslim point of view, but not all. As I read through these "inconsistancies" I found that they were based on taking the Biblical text out of context. If you pick a single line from a story of 500 lines, you can pretty much make that line appear inconsistant when compared against another line in another story. However, taken in context that line is used as a descriptor only in that story and thus the argument as a comparison becomes irrelevant. I used to find inconsistancies all the time until I started reading in context of the chapter/story being told...then I grabbed the proper context.

For example, if you are angry and say to someone "I'll see you later" that can mean something totally different than if you are being amorous and you say the same thing. The first is threatening, the second is loving...yet they are the same line...it's only when taken in context that you can guage the meaning of what is being said.

I also find it interesting that as the Muslim community attacks Biblical aspects, yet their own Qur'an supports the Bible:

quote:

---

"...the revelation given to us...and Jesus...we make no difference between one and another of them." Sura Al-I-Imran 3:2-3 continues, "Allah...He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)...as a guide to mankind." Sura Nisaa 4:136 carries this farther by admonishing the Muslims to, "...Believe...and the scripture which He sent before him." In Sura Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52 we find a direct call to Christians to believe in their scriptures: "...We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel... Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein, if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel..." Again, in Sura Ma-ida 5:68 we find a similar call: "People of the Book!...Stand fast by the law, the Gospel, and all revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the revelation that has come to thee from THY LORD."

---

Now granted I'm violating that "snagging lines from the story" rule I talked about above, but if you read those stories in context, I believe you'll see the lines are supportabel without the story.

As for the fossil record, I full admit I'm not educated there. However, I did hear something interesting presented by the scientific community in regards to the moon and evolution. Firstly, it's stated that the Earth needed to have the moon orbiting it for millions of years in order for the tides to support the constant rushing required to keep the goop moving that created life. So, when we landed on the moon in the 60's, the ship carrying the astronauts was equiped with enormous feet because of the amount of dust expected to have gathered on the moon over that time. They expected ~60 feet of dust, and found ~60 inches. Scientist say that based on that, the moon can be no more than 5,000 years old...or that something knocked all of the dust off the moon and reset its orbit...which would not support the tidal, millions of years, goop creation method.

Also, I have been reading and reading and reading the Bible and I've never seen anything that says the age of the Earth. Man has referred to the Adam and Eve era as a determinating factor in the Earth's age...but I don't know that that's a fair guage of the Earth's age. I know that the Bible refers to the creation process happening in 6 days, but what is a day to God? I don't know...could be a million years from my viewpoint.

Anybody have text that supports the 5,000 years (or whatever the estimate is)?

Thanks!

-Krylar
------------------

[This message has been edited by Krylar (edited May 04, 2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will:
Sure, evolution is still debated. It is a theory and since we weren't around at the beginning of time we cant say much for certain. The uncertainty doesn't bother me. Its just that the Bible does claim to have all the facts. It actively discourages you from considering other theories, because then you would have lost 'faith'.

---

Well, I don't find any problem with researching other theories (or religions). But granted, the only reason I do so is to find the holes in them so I can show those who believe in it that they are wrong. Just to state it bluntly.

One reason I have faith in God is because I trust Him based on He's already proven. Kinda like what you said, it's still debated, but the uncertainty doesn't bother me. (Except I'm not uncertain. ) You still trust evolution based on what's already "proven". If I'm in a case where the things around me make it seem as if what I believe in is false, I trust God that He is right. The truth always comes out eventually, even if it takes many years.

I have felt God's touch, and it is beyond words.

Go ahead and continue considering other theories/religions, but be sure to use the same scale for Christianity as you use for evolution and all other religions. Double standards are no good for anyone.

quote:

---

I'm glad its working out for ya! But surely not everyone has the same experience. Bad things happen to Christians, just as they do to atheists. And there are many atheists that are content and happy in themselves.

---

Yep, bad things happen to perfectly good people. That's called life. But God gives comfort and help in all situations. So when bad things come your way, man, it's sure nice to have God on your side.

I'm sure many atheists seem very happy and content with themselves. But that in no way means they are. Let me ask you, are you happy and content with yourself?

quote:

---

Do you take the bible literally word for word? Because as I understand it, taken literally, they Bible says that the universe is only a few thousand years old. But what about the fossil record, sedimentary rock, tectonic plates etc.? And if the bible is not to be taken literally why did God choose to spread his message in metaphors? There are so many apparent contradictions (search the web for 'bible contradictions).

---

Just adding on to what Krylar said. You must keep in mind that the Bible made up of 66 different books. And the type of literature that each book is varies. Take Psalms for example. It has lots of songs in it. In fact, that's about all it is. And as such, not all of it is to be taken literally. But all of it is 100% truth when you read it in context. So, much of the Bible is to be taken literally, and some parts are not.

†Caleb†

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krylar:
Also, I have been reading and reading and reading the Bible and I've never seen anything that says the age of the Earth. Man has referred to the Adam and Eve era as a determinating factor in the Earth's age...but I don't know that that's a fair guage of the Earth's age. I know that the Bible refers to the creation process happening in 6 days, but what is a day to God? I don't know...could be a million years from my viewpoint.

Anybody have text that supports the 5,000 years (or whatever the estimate is)?

Thanks!

-Krylar

---

You know how the Bible has points where it lists all the names of these people throughout the generations? For many of them it tells how long they lived, how old they were when they had a kid, and sometimes other stuff. In fact, it lists every person that was in Jesus' line. It traces the ancestors of Jesus all the way back to Adam, who, of course, came into being at the very begining. Although the Bible doesn't list how long all of those ancestors lived, it does list many. And the ones we don't know we can make educated guesses of. Anyway, if you do the math on all this, you can get a pretty good estimation of how old the Earth is. That estimation is about 5,000 years. Neat huh?

Now, about the day being a thousand years to God thing... let me show you this passage. It's taken from the New Living Translation, but I checked the NIV, and even the KJV (you have to think about it though), and it makes sence in those versions too.

Exodus 20:8-11
"(8) Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. (9) Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work, (10) but the seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to the LORD your God. On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you. (11) For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; then he rested on the seventh day. That is why the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy."

You'll notice that in verse 9 it says 6 days a week. I believe that means 24-hour days, right? I don't think you get days longer than that in a week. Then, in that same passage, it says that also in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them. I don't think it would go directly from saying a day is 24 hours to saying a day can be as much as a thousand years. Reading this passage in context you can easily see that seven days is seven days in this case. I hope this clears things up. Although I'm almost certain I've said this same kinda stuff in a previous post in another thread here. Oh well, a refresher is always nice.

†Caleb†

†Caleb†

Fossils etc:

This textbook also has some about fossils, too. It says that if the animals/dinosaurs had just died, and stayed there for years until they got covered by dust & rock and then became fossils, they would have rotted away first. They needed to have been covered by layers of mud, and compressed down at an enormous amount of pressure. Ditto plants & coal. All this is supplied correctly by the flood, which would have been exactly that.

I dont have time to fill in all the details now, but will do soon if you want. My bro wants the computer!

cy'all

MadProf

PS - Will: this is a brilliant discussion! thanks!

------------------
7 days without prayer makes one weak.

C.S. Lewis denied the deity of Christ for years. But he too, in intellectual honesty, submitted to Jesus as his God and Savior after studying the overwhelming evidence for his deity.

That's about it, no long huge testimony. Anyway, I have a question for Will here. Cave paintings made by ancient man show dinosaurs. How could they see them if evolutionists say we came millions of years after them? They certainly couldn't have dug up the bones like we did. They didn't even have the tools we have to do that. The only explanation is that dinosaurs lived among them.

†Caleb†

I was brought up in the Church of England, and man did I hate it! Hours of long drones and church music made me want to just get out of there. In effect for the next 13 years of my life I was a Sunday morning Christian. I think a lot of us know of and have been through this stage.

At the age of 14 I was considering ditching the whole idea of religion, but I couldn't help that there was someone watching over me. I denied God many times and gave up going to church. But by the age of 18 I knew I couldn't deny any longer and had to know just what Christianity was all about, after all I heard heard the word for 18 years and hadn't known what it truely meant.

Now, 4 years later, I have come to my own conclusion. Firstly there is a God, for only a God could have made the earth, the universe and everything as he did. He knew what would happen when he created life and he knows every possibility. Even when he created man he knew man would straddle away and try to depend on himself and do things that were forbidden, and that the consequence of that would be separation from God and man.

He also knew that since man learnt the difference between right and wrong that man would often screw things up for himself, and the punishment for that was death. So he set forth a few simple rules for us to live by which would make us and the people around us happy. Many of the rules and rituals he asked us to do were for our own good to prevent people getting hurt, diseased or killed. But still we struggled to keep by these rules and began to leave God behind, so he gave us an escape from punishment which was to sacrifice animals for each sin we committed and chose people to wander the earth to call his people back to him and warn them of dangers should they not listen, these were the prophets. They were only telling people to stop doing bad things for their own good, yet they were rebuked and slaughtered. It was all getting out of hand, but God knew this was to happen. It was becoming so bad that not even all the cattle in the world would prevent us from being punished. So instead he decided to come down as a man himself and set us an example on how we should live life in happiness and come back to God.

But like the prophets he was rebuked by many and slaughtered. But his death was planned because his death would be the ultimate sacrifice for every sin committed by people and for every sin to be committed in future generations. This meant that those who heard and believed this to be true would no longer live in fear of having screwed things up and being punished. And being God he would not let death defeat him and rose back from death itself.

So now we look back at all this and say "isn't that great! But what about back then when all those miracles were happening and people being healed and raised from the dead? Why is it not happening now?" True, many of us including myself could lose faith in the sense that I have never experienced or seen another person get healed or risen from the dead. The many excuses I've heard in some churches have made me just want to give up once again and consider the Bible as being just some fairy tale. But in the end I have come to my own conclusion, and that is that God does not interfere because he knows everything and if things are going to be alright in the end then there's no need for him to interfere. I may cry in pain at times with my hands in the air screaming "God, deliver me from this agony and rest your healing hands on me!" or "Deliver me from this situation please!" But for all I know situations could be caused by past events. Since God knows everything yet he gives us choice I could have taken a path that lead to that situation as a consequence. Had I chosen another path I could be in a totally different situation. If in the end things are going to be alright then God will not interfere. However if my actions would result in world destruction then I'm pretty sure he would stop me and put things right.

God only wants what's best for us in the end, it's how we chose to live which determines our future. But as long as we have faith and hope that things will be alright and try to follow Jesus' example then we can all be happy and feel rested inside in the knowledge that things are under control. Times may be difficult, but we need to make the best of them and learn from them. I have learnt much from my 22 years of suffering from many experiences and illnesses and I intend to pass this knowlegde onto my children and grandchildren and the many people I know that they may live a more happier life.

------------------
http://www.geekgirl101.org

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GIT/! d? s+:+ a-- C+++ UL P L++ E-- W++ N+ o? K- w-- O- !M PS+++ !PE Y? PGP- t+ 5++ X+ R+ tv+ b+ DI++ D- G e(*) h-(---) r+++ x+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

I've followed a path very similar to Krylars. I originally scorned christianity (the only religion I had been exposed to) seeing to many contradictions in it to believe it. But over time, I've studied alot of religion and come to a conclusion, christianity is but one face of the Truth. Christ was here to deliver a message, guide people along the right path. He understood the Truth better then those around him, and tried to "show them the light". Unfortunately, he was human and they where to. The only means he had to try to show them the truth was the language that they spoke (hebrew?). Humans are flawed and simple, and I don't truelly believe that Christ could have explained to his followers that which he understood completely, but he did the best job he could.

I've got alot more to say on the subject, but I don't think it polite to write a 5 page post regarding it. I'd be happy to discuss my beliefs with you or anyone else who's interested, if you'd like to get ahold of me.

quote:

---

Religion for the most part is beliefs without logic, where as programmers are people who's minds are bent towards logic.

---

<g> who says programmers have to be logical? just because programming is logical, and programmers are good at logic (well, supposedly), doesn't mean we have to be logical.

anyway, religion is often thought of as non-logical, and often people think of it as "blind trust" in unlogical-ideas, but really, they are logical, and often a lot more logical than secular ideas (eg, evolution vs. creation).

quote:

---

I think what you'll find amongst most of us is that we're not stead fast mainstream christians.

---

i dont quite understand what your saying here...

quote:

---

I describe myself as a Christian because I believe that Christ was a messanger from God.

---

that isn't, IMO, what being a christian means... and Jesus was a lot more than just a messenger, he is the son of God, who is also part of God. He came of his own free will, and died for our sins. You can't call yourself a Christian, just because you believe Jesus is a messanger from God.

Acording to what i think is in the Qu'ran, Muslims all (should) belive that Jesus is a messanger from God... that does not mean all Muslims are Christians..

quote:

---

I might also describe myself as a Hindu because I believe that all life is connected in ways we can't understand.

---

I dont really know much about Hinduism, but I dont think that is what they believe. I thought it was more complicated than that.

quote:

---

Probably also describe myself as a Muslim, because I believe that Christ wasn't the final messanger, but I'm a bad Muslim because I don't believe that Mohhamad was the last either.

---

ditto my thoughts above.

I'm not meaning to be antagonistic, but I really dont know what you are saying here... almost sounds as if your saying you belive the "all religions are one" sort of thing... just the way it sounds to me... please explain more.

MadProf

------------------
7 days without prayer makes one weak.

[This message has been edited by MadProf (edited May 08, 2001).]

quote:

---

anyway, religion is often thought of as non-logical, and often people think of it as "blind trust" in unlogical-ideas, but really, they are logical, and often a lot more logical than secular ideas (eg, evolution vs. creation).

---

I use the phrase non-logical for those without faith. To those who don't believe in God, the belief in such seems irrational and fool hearty. This is opposed to those who believe in God who see absolutely no problem with the situation. A good friend of mine described faith to me as something you have to experience to understand. This was before I had found a belief in God. I do believe she was right. Before I had any faith, it seemed mearly like believing in something for the sake of believing in it. Now understanding what it is, I realize it's alot more then that. It's like finding the missing piece to a puzzle. Except I've never heard anyone properly describe it, and I'm not going to try mself. So when I said unlogical in reference to religion, I meant it in the perspective of one who hasn't found religion yet.

The phrase about steadfast mainstream christians most definately wasn't the best phrasing I've ever come up with. In my mind I have a picture of someone who blindly follows their religion because it's all they've ever had. There is no doubt in their mind about their beliefs, and there is no contemplation about expanding their understanding beyond what the Church tells them.
If a person has the choice between this and no religion what so ever in their life, I believe this to be the better choice. But I myself haven't been able to follow that path. I've had to contemplate every aspect of my belief, to reconcile it against what I already believe I know.
What I had meant by the phrase "stead fast mainstream christians" was those who blindly follow 'The Faith'. What I had meant to say is that it'd, in my opinion, be a rare occasion to find one of those blind followers in this community; that I suspect the majority of people here are those who have contemplated their own beliefs.

quote:

---

that isn't, IMO, what being a christian means... and Jesus was a lot more than just a messenger, he is the son of God, who is also part of God. He came of his own free will, and died for our sins. You can't call yourself a Christian, just because you believe Jesus is a messanger from God.

---

To my mind, I believe a christian to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I suppose that this isn't true because the Muslims believe in his teachings, just not the role in the scheme of things the Catholics claim him to have. So when I say I'm a christian, I mean that I am one who tries to follow in the foot steps of Jesus Christ as best I can. But I want to clarify this a bit. The Catholic Church is the decendent of the teachings of Christ. But it's been in the hands and control of normal men for a long time now. I think the Catholic Church is the closest thing we have to the original teachings of Christ, but I think that they are very flawed.

quote:

---

I dont really know much about Hinduism, but I dont think that is what they believe. I thought it was more complicated than that.
[QUOTE]

No, your right, the Hindu's beliefs are alot more complicated then that, but I was trying to shorten a 5 paragraph explanation of Hinduism down to something I could use in a sentence to contrast against the beliefs of Christians and Muslims.

[QUOTE]
I'm not meaning to be antagonistic, but I really dont know what you are saying here... almost sounds as if your saying you belive the "all religions are one" sort of thing... just the way it sounds to me... please explain more.

---

<g> that's actually pretty close to the truth of my beliefs. I think that if God sends messangers to us, he's not going to limit himself to the people of Europe and the Middle East. Catholisism is the by-product of the messanger Jesus Christs comming to us. Muslim is what's resulted from Mohammed delivering his messages. I believe that the majority of religions (though not all) of the world have sprung from divine intervention. I also believe that time, culture, the requirements of people to survive, have all shaped these religions into what they are today, not to mention the corrupting influence of men ourselves. But I believe that most of them have their roots in God trying to deliver the Truth to us, and our own limited interpertations of that.

Once again, no problem explaining more, was just short for time earlier and didn't think I should lecture. Hope this makes my thoughts clearer.

------------------
Regards,
Nathan O'Brien
Freelance Thinker
"Reality is our perception of the Truth; the Truth unattainable, and our perception flawed"
"The only thing I can guarentee is that I'm wrong"

†Caleb†

------------------
Regards,
Nathan O'Brien
Freelance Thinker
"Reality is our perception of the Truth; the Truth unattainable, and our perception flawed"
"The only thing I can guarentee is that I'm wrong"