Saying something is either all true or none of it is true is not a very good rule to go by in trying to learn more about anything from any perspective, I think.

And the instrument or measuring tool you use for this is called.......?

I mean, if you say the room is too cold, and I say its too warm, we can check the thermometer.

If you say we are late, and I say we are early, we can check the chronometer.

If you say it will rain, and I say it will be clear, we can check the barometer.

So how do we check for the existance/nonexistance of god?
With a dei-ometer?

Indeed, that is what I was attempting to discern from your initial post;

And now with JMPD1's input, I think we both await your clarification.

link

Have fun trying to measure.

The dictionary def above states;
To determine or express the quantity of.
I will express the 'quantity' of Gods existence...eternal.
I will express the quantity of his knowlege...Omniscient
I will express the quantity of his power...Omnipotent.

Is he not quantifiable?

How long is "eternal"?
How wide is "omnicient"?
How heavy is "Omnipotent"?

They are expressions of quantity, what the definition requires.
But glad to see the magnitude of God has you baffled like everyone else.
How long is "eternal"?
How wide is "omnicient"?
How heavy is "Omnipotent"?

Two birds with one reply here.

Bella, did you actually read and understand all of the information in that link?
9.)So, if Corporeality actually exists within Incorporeality, as a condensate within the larger penultimate condensate of Incorporeality or Infinite Consciousness (God), then, as I've just said, we have a case of something (in this case, ANY and EVERYTHING, within the 'boundaries' or 'area' of Corporeality!) that DOES EXIST, at a specific point-location (actually myriad point-locations!) of time and space, WITHIN that condensate of Corporeality... and remember, what I am talking about here, is the 'absolutes' of POLARITY, i.e., Positive polarity versus Negative polarity... which does NOT EXIST WITHIN THE larger condensate, the condensate of Incorporeality or God! And yet, each and every point-location of Corporeality IS THE VERY SAME point-location of Incorporeality! And yet, from one Perspective, as to the condensate of Corporeality, such polarity absolutes DO EXIST, but from the larger Perspective, of the condensate of Incorporeality (God), IN WHICH that Corporeality condensate resides, AND within which (Incorporeality) time and space do NOT EXIST, so neither does the 'absolutes' of Polarity!


And that applies to Tag's quantifiable theory as well.

Quantum (Source for something being quantifiable)
A quantity or amount.
A specified portion.
Something that can be counted or measured.
Physics.
The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
This amount of energy regarded as a unit.

True that they are expressions of quantity, but without parameters.

I could easily state that "The staff meeting went on for an eternity, the main speakierwent on and on"

Those terms are catchalls without a measurable limitation. In and of themselves, they neither prove nor disprove gods existance.

Again, belief in god is subjective to the observer and is not a measurable quality


edited for typos and grammar.

Yeah? Well you might still feel those roasties in grammar hell if you take another lookie @ that thar edited, Mister! Expressions and quantity, being relative and all.

No one really knows for a FACT what God approves of and what he doesn't approve of..

Therefore since no one can really know, would it be safe to presume we can guess the answer by the outcome of our actions!?
Gods opinion seen in the instant payback! Imagine that. We make our own heaven or hell, by what we do by our own choice, and the consequences that result is either good or bad, heaven or hell. What if that was what concerned us in working on moment to moment, rather than imagining long term reward or karmic re-hash different scenario , all after the living of it physically matters!?

What if faith in heaven is just a distraction in this hell of our making?!

Thats all one can really do is guess try and imagine....

Me Too! We're perfect just the way we are!!! (like we have a choice to be otherwise!? )

Now I imagine if I was my own powerful creator I'd also be a minimalist. *looks around* Yep. Moment to moment taking me everywhere I go. With very little baggage.

Hey, that's kinda like one of those Zen riddles. "How do you see god in you!?" Oh lord.

Your concept of God is not the only one that people have....in fact there are far older concepts of God than the Abrahamic God that you follow.

Do a google search for "oldest God" and click "I'm feeling lucky" and see what you get.

My results: I'm feeling lucky

Or alternatively, we may find out there is no God, and the Atheists were correct. But the point is much the same, regardless

Does God exist, yes or no? We all have beliefs on the matter, but ultimately, only one answer can be correct!

But that won't stop people trying

Really? THen why is the world such a crappy place? War, poverty, disease, selfishness, evil, hate, anger...... Oh, there is good in the world, I am not denying that. But if life were perfect, would not this be paradise? Just thinking out loud...

Regards, PA

Without any zeros to work with using the word eternity to descibe an incedibly long amount of time is likely as good as it could get when they got started, and words have a way of living on that numbers do not.

Because: Some see the world as a crappy place. War poverty disease selfishness evil hate anger. and good, later in the list.

Some see: Peace, selflessness, goodness, love, happiness and positive potential in the making.

See, faith is out there, somewhere in our mind. We believe and so it is, some believing so much so as to sacrifice living life to reach for what it promises after. Martyrs and such.
However one thing we hold in common is every one of us lives as we believe. Our life is the faithful practice day to day, of continually creating the world we are led to believe we are responsible for.

I said we are perfect just the way we are, because we must be since we are so, regardless of the opinion behind being there.

However, I never said we weren't stubborn, in repeating ourselves in differing generations, imagining selfishness is wrong, while living selfishly together under the banner of one belief and against all others, because someone once told someone else there is only one way to see infinity.

I see it like this; Love yourself.( As you love god.) And I/me/you/us/ we, shall see heaven, just as soon as we choose to no longer see devils in one another.


*word fix. Selflessness.*

Maybe the miscommuniation is in the word perfect itself.
To me perfect means complete with no more room to grow or improve, something that does not exist in the material world.

I respect that.
To me perfect denotes a completeness possessed of all it's parts to be exactly as it is meant to be. Which in the context of my post is a reference to the spirit/energies/soul that invigorates everything, which in this personal context I call; me.
And we are perfectly capable , we know if we've paid any attention to where we are in this moment and where we came from in the process, of making what we will of our life. If you can weep, you can smile. If you can gripe, you can give praise. This world is polar balance. Dark/light. Were it not for the darkness one would be unaware of the light. The matters of "good" or "evil" are subjective opinions that then render a form of thought to that which was previously objective. So then one can say the devil did it and it is the power of the darkness at work in conflict with the god of the light, and see it that way. And when they do they live the myth of their own making.

The simple physics of it all, without faithful imaginings, is this world is give and take, light and dark, predator and prey, greater than and less than. All that. And one can choose to give reason to what they see as hell, to the will of the unseen, while they choose to live subservient to that notion it's all then out of their hands. Or they can choose to give reason to wanting more for themselves, because they are worth the effort to be victorious rather than victim to the mind, inside this reality.
We all have room to grow. However that we have the room in this mortal form and see it that way, is at least evidence something gives cause/life to the journey we imagine we are living. Therefore if we must grow to be here, that which makes it possible must already be well past that. Thus, it's perfect in the spirit of our being here.
(By the way, this thread is personal. So there is no need for proof for others, outside of one's own understanding that works for them self. )

Back to the original question. Maybe xians are told not to question, but Jewish people are taught to question everything from early childhood.

Orthodox Jews.

And a Jew who questions and comes to a different conclusion is no longer a Jew, according to your reasoning. Gideon, Christians are also encouraged to question (most of them, anyway).

Regards, PA

but pear-annoyed,

you say often that christians are to question, but isn't it more accurate to say they are to ask questions within the framework of the religion itself, and not to question its actual foundations?

Remember how many christians have questioned things over the past 2000 years, only to be branded heretics and be tortured and killed?

It depends on how its used. If its used for the benefit of mankind to help and provide, then its fine as long as God gets the glory.
But its used to pervert the everyday living of each man and woman, then no he does not approve.

For example: How does knowledge of gravity help us? It shows us that if we jump off a cliff, we will fall and probably die. Satan tried the same trick on Jesus. He said, "The Father's got your back! He'll send angels to catch you if you jump." Jesus rebuked him by saying, "Thou shalt not tempt the LORD thy God." So, yes knowledge of gravity is beneficial to anyone naive enough to think God will just catch him because He loves him.

Jesus said that would happen. So there was no fighting the issue. People hate whats really truly good for them, thus they chase it away. The Roman Cathoic Church of those days can't all together be counted as a true Church of Christ for they followed traditionally the doctrine of men and perverted the interpretations of the Scriptures. They also knew the truth, but resisted. These people are those that have no reason to be called Christians for they did not confide in Christ but in the doctrines of men. The did not live by the love of Christ but of the love of the wicked.

Right on the money hyper!

So many christians I have come across claim they ask questions about their own religon yet almost none of them actually question the foundation of christianity!! The hypocracy runs so deep........

A questioning challenge to christians. Examine the process by how the bible and its core ideologies were formed. Examine and question the people in power that watched over and instigated that process. Do a thourough reading from multiple sources from many deiffernet perspectives, christian and non-christian on the history surrounding the process. Attempt to take the most objective and unbiased view point. Temporarily suspend your beliefs and ASSUME the opposing view is correct. Try to understand things from a different perspective.

This is what I did, and eventually I left christianity.

Ill even give you a head start.
Start here with reincarnation.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-pope.htm

Hah, how many Atheists do you know who won't make a comment when someone gives them a link to a christian based website? Not many I'd believe.

Likewsie with self-promoting atheist websites. How many christians would fail to make a comment??????

Hence you read both sources. And anything you can find in-between.

Excellent suggestion Venom i was just telling my 8 year old this today , research everything everyside every way to look at something then make a decision, How doews one make desions with nothing to decide from?????

Curious observation.....is it just me or do a lot of people who profess to be non-religious (not just on UM but everywhere) work really hard at trying to disparage those who choose to be? And I'm sure the opposite happens also, but my experience is to the former.

Funny, I've seen a lot of that on this site.

A person posts a link, and 3 people jump up pointing, and saying "Christian Apologetics!!!!".

Then a non christian posts a link and 3 believers jump up and say "NB propaganda!!!!"

I've always felt that there are 3 sides to every story: your side, the other guys side, and somewhere in between, is the truth.

If, as a christian, ALL you read are christian slanted reports, then you are not getting an unbiased opinion.
By the same token, if a non believer only reads factual atheistic reports, then they are not getting the unbiased version either.

But to be honest, I've seen more NB's read religious links than I have the opposite.

just my opinion of course

Been there, done that, and I got the T-shirt

What helps when I read the Bible and I ask, "why is this in the Bible", I imagine the Bible without it in there, and then see how that affects my understanding. For Christians out there, try it some time - it's amazing what you can learn

Regards, PA

Been there, done that....I threw away the T-shirt!
I learned the truth when I did.

Why did you throw it away? It was 100% pure cotton

go to www.christianforums.com and look up some of the thread there, THEN come back tell me that christians don't ask questions about their own beliefs. The difference is that they don't sway by the world's logic. What would the world who rejects Jesus daily even know about Jesus? Your statement was a personal observation statement apparently and not a fact. What you and most critics don't do is read the Bible unless you are looking for something wrong. So, I'm under the impression that you don't know jacksquat about the early start of the Church. You know from where the Church went wrong all the way today, am I right. I'm doing what you do, assuming. I'm assuming that you derived your opinions solely based on the history of the Roman Catholic Church, which for the majority isn't really a Church in the eyes of God. And I'm assuming that because of your lack of the full knowledge of God's grace, you never really followed Christ. I'm know this because you wouldn't have turned your back on Christ. So if you ASSUME that what you did was right, I guess you'll find out after you die. Oh, and reincarnation isn't Biblically supported, which would lead me to believe that you never really knew the Bible well. Hmmm.

Because atheists believe there is liberty in not believing in religion. As Americans for the most part, they feel it is their duty to spread that liberty to others who they think are 'in the dark' about their human rights. The truth is that the atheists are offended by a moral standard that is set up by a higher power that they can't see. They want humans who turn their backs on them and manipulate them to set up a 'rational' moral and social system. They trust in the most insufficient authority in all the universe, the human. Humans don't have all the answers, but I bet they think they will. The justification to that is evolution. If we won't find out soon, evolution will take us there in the next million years.
I'm not really concerned about the moral system that God set up, I'm concerned with His love for me, for I know he is the only one that can save me. Christians, feel an obligation to spread their message of freedom from sin, but not from responsibility and that pisses some people off. Christians, as a whole, also don't have an obligation to keep pushing it with their beliefs. They dust their feet off and the NB's call them cowards. The true coward refuses the responsibility of their actions, thus they refuse the words of the Bible as truth and look for all they can find that would SEEM TO THEM 'irrational' and 'unsupported by any other reference.' They are often blind to the fact that the Bible is a collection of books throughout history. Thus they forget that the Bible isn't just one book. Ya want other references, well that would be the Bible.

In the end, most of what we believe is all a story.

God bless

So Bluefinger, what happens when a christian finds something, questionsit, and comes up with an answer that is in contradiction to the christian teachings?

blue,

you have quite the distorted view of people.

newsflash: morality does not come from a god, nor a book.

Lets see,
person one, has morals because he believes in himself, others, and the world.
person two has morals because something threatens him with punishment otherwise.

which one really has these "morals" you cherish so much?
It would be person one.

the contradiction according to who or what concerning Christianity? According to the Church, Christian leaders, your own understanding? The Bible speaks for itself and never contradicts itself. If you knew the books of the Bible, then the Bible would speak for itself. So ask for guidance by God instead of relying on others to help you out or trusting in your own logic. Its a spiritual thing.



Can you prove that?

what kind of proof do you want?

chimps function in just social groups without gods.
humans function in just social groups without gods currently.
anthropology shows how man formed social groups before he would have formed religion.

the abrahamics have given us the dark ages (in both senses of the term).

religions are just a paradigm for creating order within a society.
it can appeal to gods, or to dragons, or to cats, or anything so long as it granted some form of authority to those that made the rules. A classic fallacy is the appeal to authority. This is exactly what all the religions have done to ease the setting of "laws". However, the natural order enabled humans to form social groups, it was the desire for control, for dominance, that bred the constructs of "higher powers". Religion, and all their gods are all very much human creations.

Thats great a few christians ask questions on 'christian' forums where they get answers from christians! Tell me thats unbiased............. Get a christian to go to an atheist website and ask questions, or vice.versa or a site that is the middle ground like UM.(which dosent ahve any self proclaimed point of view to push officialy at least, i call it the in-between. ) I UM.



Is the worlds logic so bad? Is logic bad? I really dotn appreciate how you term all non-believers 'the world' and by implication say that christians are NOT 'the world'. The thing is yes you are part of the world, everyoen is, we all live together on this planet. A perfect planet supposedly created by your perfect God and now you condem it!!!!



Here your assumption went terrribly wrong. I used to be a christian for the first 18 years of my life. I read the bible, more so than any other christian i knew of the same age. The bible interested me greatly and it still does. I defended the christian perspective vigourously for a long time, and got into many debates with mormons, atheists and jehova witness's. Just LOOK UP some of my very first few posts here on UM and you will see me being a proponent of the christian faith. I was in your shoes not too long ago, I know what its like.





I know tons about the early church from many different perspectives. Seems you need to research your history a bit. The bible and the gospels and everything you know aobut God's Grace was DETERMINED by the people who eventually the roman catholic church. Therefore everything you know about Jesus and all core christian ideologies were determined not by Jesus and his imediate followers but by the councils.

Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen6.html



Oh I understand quite well modern christianity and I also understood what beliefs of fallacy I was leaving behind after doing countless hours of research into seeing how these beliefs were first formed and thereafter handed down. In fact it is my belief I follow what christ originally taught, NOT the ROMAN edited version that most modern christians have. You statment aobut finding out after death, I can turn on you also, and say "boy ull be in for a surprise!"




Really..........Of course there are logical political reasons why reincarnationw as taken out of the bible. :

"There was a logical reason why the Emperor was opposed to the concept that all of mankind originally came from God and was returing to God via the cycle of birth and death. Justinian had been convinced by high ranking cardinals that it was not in the interest of the empire to allow Origen's writings to continue to be copied and distributed. A powerful group of Cardinal’s and Bishop’s explained that if every soul had once pre-existed with God, then Christ wasn’t anything special to have come from God. These Cardinals convinced the Emperor that if people realized they were the children of God they might begin to believe they no longer needed an Emperor, or to pay taxes, or to obey the Holy Church. But since they reasoned that only Christ had come from God but God made brand new souls at the time of conception and only the Holy Church could bring these souls to God. Without the protection of the Empire or the guidance of the church, all people would be doomed to be forever cut off from God in Hell. This doctrine was very acceptabloe to the Emperor. Once Justinian understood the political danger inherent in Origen’s teachings, the rest was simply an Emperor doing what was in his best interest. "

Also if you really dont think reincarantion still exists in some form in the bible I suggest you check this out:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnati...ible-verses.htm

Funny, if you read the account of Abraham, he wasn't in a social standard. Him and his wife left everyone to a land they had never been to start a family that would turn into a nation. And that the statement that a classic fallacy is to appeal to authority is an assumption based on your opinion without any literal evidence. It just seems rational. You have no proof that laws and religion came from man. You have no proof, you have logical explanations, but what would your logic do against God's. Just so you are safe, you don't consider the thought of God, so you will always see things your way.

incorrect, my binary brained friend.

I have explored the history of the religions. Gods come from the human. Just because the gods are human creations does not mean there are things we are unaware of. It just is that experience is subjective, and faulty. Now don't forget the history of how the fables of the abrahamics came to be what it is. As with EVERYTHING, the result is the product of the unfolding of events before it. the abrahamics: created by men, and most importantly, adopted by powerful men who spread it while killing any competition.

They came with a Bible and their religion- stole our land, crushed our spirit... and now tell us we should be thankful to the 'Lord' for being saved.
-Chief Pontiac (d. 1769) American Indian Chieftain

hyper, are you confessing that gods and spirits might, just might, reflect a higher, unaproachable reality, best perceived in man-made symbols?

does god.....want you to question ideas/principles before adopting them as true?

No, he wants us to take them on faith. But obviously, a human mind cannot readily accept such claims at first read. This is why Christ told us the easiest way to enter his kingdom: have the faith of a child. Questioning brings doubt. Doubt brings confusion. Confusion brings chaos.

But hear me out: As a Christian man, I DO question the things of the Bible. Every day of every waking hour. Another VERY important thing to consider here is that God charged man with he task of ruling the planet. Now, if I don't question HOW or WHY the plant does what it does, I will never be able to gain any sort of dominion over it.

God wants us to first believe, so we are saved from damnation. But he also wants us to QUESTION, so we learn how the world works, and so we as a society can advance, be fruitful, and multiply.

more specifically does god approve of logic and reason in determining how something such as gravity works or make any theories reagrding physical phenomenon

Of course! God wants us to understand the physical aspect of our world, as well as the spiritual. God does, however, forbid us from persuing knowledge by certain means. These means are the Occult (Using corrupted angelic power to gain insight and knowledge about our universe), and psychedelic drugs.



basically: does god approve of scientific methods?

Yes! Of COURSE! He wants us to use the brains that he designed to our fullest potential. But, he does NOT want our persuit of knowledge to take the place of Him. God wants, neigh, demands that He comes first in our lives. Why? Because he loves us, and knows that our persuit of knowledge could end up getting us into trouble(high powered weapons, bombs, wars, ect.), unless we have his guiding wisdom of how to use our knowledge properly (Medicine, equal treatment under law, ect.)

If God truely is the creator of our universe, then it would stand to say that he knows more about it than we do. Would a Christian scientist pary to God asking Him for help in his reasearch and experiemnts? Yes! WOuld God grant him that help? Yes, but only if the Christian scientist does not plan to use said reasearch improperly.

No, the worlds logic isn't so bad. But its not fact, its just logic. So thus logic isn't a proper arguement against religion.

No, Christians are not part of the world. The world by nature is against God in all they do, knowing and unknowingly. Christians live IN the world but are not OF the world, see John 17:14-19. Just as Christians do not belong to that which perishes(the world and all its works) but belong to the everlasting (God and his kingdom).

Yes the knowledge of the teachings of Christ are from Christ and his apostles. Yes the early Church did canonize it, when they were still fighting for the true doctrine. Take into account that Bible was canonized before the Papacy rose to power with false doctrine. Athanasius in 367 made the list for the canonization of books which we today know as the new testament. The Old Testament wasn't in question for that had been before the Christian era. However, Gnostics were writing supposed 'truths' about God's natures and then putting an apostle's name on it to give it credibility. So this canon, which the Catholic Church uses as well as all Churches, were the right books and not tampered. It was only 150 somewhat years after Jesus resurrection had happened that Athanasius had to battle out the unscriptural doctrines that people were trying to propose. This also happened before the Roman Empire fell at the hands of the barbarian tribes. Thus it was not under Papal influence that the Bible was written and can be trusted outside of their influence.

Also the Bible is against the concept of going back to heaven right after you die. Time after time it states that death is a sleep. Plus the Cardinals had no understanding of the concept of the resurrection apparently. The resurrection makes going to heaven right after you die pointless and painful. A God who is a merciful God would not have it that a man die and go to heave just to watch his family suffer the world. Now, as far as reincarnation, the Bible is against that to. In Isaiah 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. Thus not supporting the idea of reincarnation since we are all formed in the womb. Even Genesis doesn't support reincarnation for it was God the breathed life into the man and took it away at his death. So if their is a resurrection of the dead that sleep, then there is no reincarnation, thus that must be a gnostic influence among the Roman Catholic Church that passed by Scripture. Thus covering that the Bible we have now was canonized before the corruption of the Church, we know that the doctrine of new souls was not old. You may be able to throw daggers at the NT, but the OT is beyond those attacks because of its historical relevance.

And in a simple modern explanatioin of hell, its the grave. Its the place where the sinner (according to the line of Adam) goes for his disobedience to God. Hades is the grave. Thats where you go until the great resurrection. The lake of fire is seperate from that, its what happens at the very end in which the wicked will be resurrected, judged, proven wrong about their accusations against God, and destroyed permanently. The Bible is self explanatory about this also. You can tell the Roman Catholic Church did not pervert these writings solely because much of their practices were unscriptural and against God's commands. Much of what the apostles preached were ignored and justified by the Papacy, thus is our proof that the Bible wasn't tampered.

The Roman Catholic Church didn't practice what they preached and thus confirms what Paul iwrote in Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. it is also written in Matthew 7:21-22 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?


Ya see, the Papacy was unaware of what was written because they were more concerned with their own doctrines. There were words were taken over the apostles, and sometimes twisted to fit their desires, but were in truth witnesses of papal corruption.

Its really hard to determine which books were originally Christs teachings and which were edited, but the easiest way is to let the OT do the judging. If it is sound with the OT then it is 'logical' as some would say to consider it original Christian teaching. And like I said, you can see that the Bible stands against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church especially of the early days. So why would the Roman Catholic Church edit the Bible to stand against them. We can see it today, so how edited is it? And what is your proof that it was edited? Are you sure that the books you read weren't Gnostic books. As I showed you, the canon was formed while Christianity was battling both the Roman persecution and the heresies that were surrounding them. So yes, the Bible we have is the best translation, because it is the accurate translation. If you feel it unlogical to think so, please present credible proof to think otherwise.

God bless

there are many things beyond our perception, gideon.

while all the human constructs are just constructs, that does not mean that there are not things beyond our perception that we have not found (by some method).

"absense of evidence ....".

we know so little. I prefer to admit to what we don't know than cloud thought with fantasy, thats all.

I will take that a yes answer, especially since my question said "might".

yes, the answer is yes.

it can be said that when you become enlightened, all the constructs will fall by the side. THe believer and the non-believer would both have the same understanding, and see how each holds a part of understanding. That there are no "gods", that everything is bound and defined through is connections and interactions.

blah blah blah...

now back to your usual "unrevealed" hyperactive programming.