A Dialogue with a Friend

[GIDEON MAGE]

Aren't you the one who consistently claims that Christians are barbaric in their focus on End Times. And yet here you are suggesting it is "wonderful" that destruction is being caused......

Yes, I understand you were attempting to make a point. I just wonder whether your hatred of Christianity got in the way in this instance....

"But this is silliness indeed!"

my point was

What if all these are just fragments of the True Reality?

I don't hate anything or anyone. I "believe" that the "True Reality" is much more beautiful than anyone (including myself) can imagine! I "believe" that Ragnarok, the Apocolypse, etc., are purely symbolic representations to help us cope from an apparent distance with the real thing. Enlightenment is the goal, whichever path leads you there. If you understood the "real message" that Jesus was teaching, you would not be a Christian. I wonder if your close-mindedness got in your way of understanding my post in this instance... I think there is something in every religion to learn.

[JGirl]

While I agree that literal interpretation is not an accurate way to read the Bible, I must ask, are you saying that believing the Bible to be true is fundamental?

when using the term fundamental turboturtle is referring to fundamentalist practices. if you are confused about what that means here is a definition

fundamentalism - A belief in the infallibility, and literal interpretation, of a particular religions doctrine or holy books. When applied in Abrahamic sects, it can lead to extreme prejudice and violence due to the nature of the Bible. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch-burning were due to fundamentalist ideals.

Edited March 14, 2011 by JGirl

[BiffSplitkins]

Sure, and Zeus throws lightning bolts.

Natural selection and mutation.

No, I think the only logical solution to this whole question could be answered by only one power... and that power would be Charlie Sheen. He seems to be winning at everything lately.

Leave Biff alone ..lol

Thank you... you deserve a muppet hug for that!

[FlyingAngel]

In post 12 - you were addressing this --> However,

Everything exists around us, but why does that mean God created it?

- Why can it not be something else?

'Everything' means everything, including the Big Bang, the origin of the universe, the first source of existence. You can't say evolution is behind those things.

"Evolution created Big Bang, etc..." => No.

It's something or nothing. And what's the name of that 'something', if exists?

[Beckys_Mom]

'Everything' means everything, including the Big Bang, the origin of the universe, the first source of existence. You can't say evolution is behind those things.

"Evolution created Big Bang, etc..." => No.

It's something or nothing. And what's the name of that 'something', if exists?

I didn't suggest Evolution created the big bang.. I pointed out Evolution and all living things.. which is what the guy in the OP was speaking of - living things ...things that exist around us...

No one knows what caused the big bang...all you will get are theories...

You cannot state for a fact that god did it all... you can however beleive god did

[Beckys_Mom]

Thank you... you deserve a muppet hug for that!

Wockka Wokkaa ( Fozzie bear) cheers luvie

[FlyingAngel]

I didn't suggest Evolution created the big bang.. I pointed out Evolution and all living things.. which is what the guy in the OP was speaking of - living things ...things that exist around us...

No one knows what caused the big bang...all you will get are theories...

You cannot state for a fact that god did it all... you can however beleive god did

Ok, I agree with you about the evolution part, but still I don't know where you got the word 'living' from. All I see is he talk about 'everything around'.

Of course no one state for a fact that God did it all, but since we don't have much choice: it's either the world is created by nothing or by something. If it's the 2nd case, you need to give that 'something' a name.

[Beckys_Mom]

Ok, I agree with you about the evolution part, but still I don't know where you got the word 'living' from. All I see is he talk about 'everything around'.

If you read the OP conversation he is talking to a religious person

When a religious person says - god created everything that exists around us... of course it means all that is living... it doesn't mean the trains, planes and automobiles!!............Evolution of the universe explains theearth - rocks, mountian ect.....

Of course no one state for a fact that God did it all, but since we don't have much choice: it's either the world is created by nothing or by something. If it's the 2nd case, you need to give that 'something' a name.

I told you previlously - Charles Darwin already gave it a name - Evolution ( for the living)

As for the big bang.. no one can say what caused it for sure...

Edited March 14, 2011 by Beckys_Mom

[+Link of Hyrule]

"But this is silliness indeed!"

my point was

If you understood the "real message" that Jesus was teaching, you would not be a Christian. I wonder if your close-mindedness got in your way of understanding my post in this instance... I think there is something in every religion to learn.

I understood exactly why you posted what you did. I just found it strange that you used the words 'wonderful' and 'apocalypse' in the same sentence. I certainly would never describe any apocalypse in such a manner.

edit: Oh, and thanks for your opinion about understanding the "real message" of Jesus, but I think I know Jesus' message quite well enough as is. Best wishes,

Edited March 14, 2011 by Guybrush Threepwood

[FlyingAngel]

If you read the OP conversation he is talking to a religious person

When a religious person says - god created everything that exists around us... of course it means all that is living... it doesn't mean the trains, planes and automobiles!!............Evolution of the universe explains theearth - rocks, mountian ect.....

Well that's kinda prejudice, why would it be only limited to livings things when a person talk about it?

Edited March 14, 2011 by FlyingAngel

[Beckys_Mom]

Well that's kinda prejudice, why would it be only limited to livings things when a person talk about it?

I don't think you understand me..........I said usually when a religious person does they mean all that is living that includes the plants, flowers tree's ect.. that is what we see when we look around us... Evolution explains the living - But Evolution of the universe explains it all even the things that are not living..

Edited March 15, 2011 by Beckys_Mom

[Athans]

Turbo,

I am coming into this kind of late but you mentioned Philosophy. Do you study it or are you looking at studying it? What are you familiar with?

Thomas Aquinas is something good to read up on but I would also check out Platos Euthyphro Dilemma, which talks about the problems with Divine Command Theory.

I would also suggest checking out Eight Theories of Religion and Introducing Religions by Daniel L. Pals. His books talk about the origins or religions.

These are just a few of the places I would start if you are interested in philosophy and want to form your own ideas on it.

Oh and also you should check out Bertand Russell and "Russell's Tea Pot."

Edited March 15, 2011 by Athans

[Drayno]

It is good to see the discussion is up in running. I'll try to reply to all of you the best I can.

@ Virus: Could you please elaborate? I am interested in what you have to say.

@ Red: A man will interpret many things in his life time. 'Truth' can only really be defined as what happened - down to the finite detail - regardless of anyone's arguments or belief. I do not believe what I said was correct; indeed, I have much to learn. Would it be appropriate to say, some truth is relative? As in when a person would exaggerate, the truth loses its quality; by quality I mean what actually happened - from a supposed objective view. I meant that we should bother with these things to search for an understanding. An understanding, even if no complete, is better than no understand at all.

Believing the Bible to be true constituting fundamentalism - now that my friend, is a very good question. We can say that literally interpreting every line of the Bible constitutes fundamentalism, but perhaps believing the spiritual message is different? If one was to believe in the Bible's message, instead of the word of law - perhaps that is the difference?

Cultures themselves are relative to each other - so I find there to be a degree of accuracy to that statement. We encompass the cultures, so my transitive property we should encompass that relativity to other folk in other cultures.

And yes, it does make sense.

@ Ozner: No, but I expect folk to believe in what their heart tells them; by whatever force - whether a God or their individual mind.

@ FlyingAngel: Perhaps they would; humans have shown us through their devotion that they want to belief in a higher force. To their end or another - that remains ambiguous. I cannot say what the universe has been created by - no one man can. We can label a deity and claim that it is the origin, that it is the father, but the truth is we do not know. We exist within the universe - and we often refer to accounts of men to attempt to understand the development of our minds. Perhaps in our development as sentient beings, in our perception of our reality, can we find an idea to be comprehended?

I mean simply that we see things, we understand that it is physical or not. If it is a dream that we see, it is metaphysical. If we are awake and determining how fast to run on the ground - we understand that the ground is physical. What we see, perceive, think - interact with, this should constitute as our own personal reality. We are all very different, but nonetheless we are very similar in that we share the same reality. If we can perhaps understand what makes humans perceive reality - subjectively and on a level of consensus, we might find answers.

We say something created the universe, but would the universe exist without us seeing it?

Yes, on a physical and cosmic level it would exist.

But since we would not be sentient; hypothetically speaking in this scenario, we would perceive things quite differently.

Our reality would be quite different; it truly exists in a sense, as we see it with a mind capable of thought.

@ JGirl: We could assume this, yes.

@ Athans: I am still a fairly new student of it. I am familiar with Nietzsche, Russell, Aristotle, Plato, Schopenhauer, Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Camus, Kant, Emerson, and Thoreau - though I balance reading a variety of other folk as well.

I appreciate you recommendations, I will definitely check them out. Thank you.

@ Beckys Mom: Thank you for enthusiastically responding to this topic.

[Athans]

It is good to see the discussion is up in running. I'll try to reply to all of you the best I can.

@ Virus: Could you please elaborate? I am interested in what you have to say.

@ Red: A man will interpret many things in his life time. 'Truth' can only really be defined as what happened - down to the finite detail - regardless of anyone's arguments or belief. I do not believe what I said was correct; indeed, I have much to learn. Would it be appropriate to say, some truth is relative? As in when a person would exaggerate, the truth loses its quality; by quality I mean what actually happened - from a supposed objective view. I meant that we should bother with these things to search for an understanding. An understanding, even if no complete, is better than no understand at all.

Believing the Bible to be true constituting fundamentalism - now that my friend, is a very good question. We can say that literally interpreting every line of the Bible constitutes fundamentalism, but perhaps believing the spiritual message is different? If one was to believe in the Bible's message, instead of the word of law - perhaps that is the difference?

Cultures themselves are relative to each other - so I find there to be a degree of accuracy to that statement. We encompass the cultures, so my transitive property we should encompass that relativity to other folk in other cultures.

And yes, it does make sense.

@ Ozner: No, but I expect folk to believe in what their heart tells them; by whatever force - whether a God or their individual mind.

@ FlyingAngel: Perhaps they would; humans have shown us through their devotion that they want to belief in a higher force. To their end or another - that remains ambiguous. I cannot say what the universe has been created by - no one man can. We can label a deity and claim that it is the origin, that it is the father, but the truth is we do not know. We exist within the universe - and we often refer to accounts of men to attempt to understand the development of our minds. Perhaps in our development as sentient beings, in our perception of our reality, can we find an idea to be comprehended?

I mean simply that we see things, we understand that it is physical or not. If it is a dream that we see, it is metaphysical. If we are awake and determining how fast to run on the ground - we understand that the ground is physical. What we see, perceive, think - interact with, this should constitute as our own personal reality. We are all very different, but nonetheless we are very similar in that we share the same reality. If we can perhaps understand what makes humans perceive reality - subjectively and on a level of consensus, we might find answers.

We say something created the universe, but would the universe exist without us seeing it?

Yes, on a physical and cosmic level it would exist.

But since we would not be sentient; hypothetically speaking in this scenario, we would perceive things quite differently.

Our reality would be quite different; it truly exists in a sense, as we see it with a mind capable of thought.

@ JGirl: We could assume this, yes.

@ Athans: I am still a fairly new student of it. I am familiar with Nietzsche, Russell, Aristotle, Plato, Schopenhauer, Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Camus, Kant, Emerson, and Thoreau - though I balance reading a variety of other folk as well.

I appreciate you recommendations, I will definitely check them out. Thank you.

@ Beckys Mom: Thank you for enthusiastically responding to this topic.

Thomas Paine might be a person of intrests too.

[Drayno]

Thomas Paine might be a person of intrests too.

I am large endorser of Thomas Paine.

The Age of Reason and Common Sense are two of my favorite works by him; soon I'll read Rights of Man.