<p>haha Newt I think you think I'm agnostic or atheist. I'm Christian and have no problems with the divinity of Christ. I still don't accept that salvation is dependant on conscious acceptance of Christ.</p>
<p>Haha, sorry about that. I didn't read the whole thread :p.</p>
<p>Well that changes things then. Why don't you feel that way? What do you believe it is on? </p>
<p>Maybe you already posted this stuff... I'm going to go read the thread :)</p>
<p>lol no worries. I haven't actually said anything on that specifically yet. </p>
<p>Anyway, I don't believe that someone would be sentenced to hell simply because they weren't Christian and didn't "accept Jesus". I believe in a baptism of desire (even unconscious) for those who live good lives, even though they may not believe in Christ or his teachings. If Mother Teresa had not been Christian, it is simply unfathomable that she would not be in heaven right now.
And even though the Bible is not my only source of religious guidance and truth, there is nothing in it that says otherwise.</p>
<p>--Anyway, I don't believe that someone would be sentenced to hell simply because they weren't Christian and didn't "accept Jesus"
that's hard to dispute, but the idea is that the afterlife you get is the afterlife you envision...those who believe there is no God get an afterlife where there really is no God, and those who believe that thought can outweigh faith get an afterlife where you can think, but you can't have faith
(I know, it sounds a lot like the contrapasso of the Inferno)</p>
<p>so let me get this straight, icarus...you are willing to find your own theology, but you just go with the masses in science?</p>
<p>let's think about what we call science for a while...
how many times are meteorologists correct?
how many times has evolution been revised?
how long ago was it that chemistry was really alchemy?
and yet we call all those things "science"
yet the Bible, which has not been (significantly) revised in nearly 2000 years, AND which has many incidents/prophecies that check out with history, is not "science" but "coincidence"
it's a double standard...people are willing to forgive errors in evolution, but not in creation, simply because evolution is a tribute to human thought, while creation is an acknowledgement of human limits</p>
<p>believing in creationism is a big shot to the human ego...</p>
<p>--If Mother Teresa had not been Christian, it is simply unfathomable that she would not be in heaven right now.
The fact of the matter is, she was a Christian, and nothing in this world will change that.
It's important not to dwell too much on "what if's" because they didn't, so they are not worth troubling over...you can't change the past, ever...not with "science", anyway</p>
<p>You (plural) say that my saying that God would or would not do something is stepping out of line; well, what about your saying that God can or cannot do something?</p>
<p>Buddhism, while a good lifestyle, has some issues as well...remember, the whole point of Buddhism is to cease to exist, and we do that by removing all emotion, including brotherly love...since everything is transient, there is no need to help others...Buddhism basically started as a means of justifying why some people are rich and some people are poor by assigning them past lives...</p>
<p>Another agnostic here.</p>
<p>tanonev:
"Buddhism, while a good lifestyle, has some issues as well...remember, the whole point of Buddhism is to cease to exist, and we do that by removing all emotion, including brotherly love...since everything is transient, there is no need to help others...Buddhism basically started as a means of justifying why some people are rich and some people are poor by assigning them past lives..."</p>
<p>Umm... I think you're a little off in your understanding of Buddhism.
It is essentially a self-improving religion. Have you ever read Dante's Divine Comedy? Buddhists are those who attempt to climb up the mountain of virtue by their own power. Is this a mistake? No. Will it get them there? It sure as hell will get them closer to heaven while living than anyone else, but I don't know about the afterlife.
The loss of the self in Buddhism is one of those greatly misunderstood things. All sins can be said to come down to pride. The loss of focus on the self removes pride, the removal of the ego from the situation allows for greater understanding, awareness and empathy - this is without going into the mystical side, which I don't know much about (and others can probably explain the whole loss of self better than I can). You've also conveniently ignored the virtues preached in Buddhism. You've also ignored its origins -you're probably thinking of Hinduism.</p>
<p>--Umm... I think you're a little off in your understanding of Buddhism.</p>
<p>Which is why I'm going into Comp Sci, not Theology/Sociology/etc. lol</p>
<p>If you are obviously unsure about your theological knowledge of other religions, don't attempt to speak with such authority on them.</p>
<p>what do you mean, find my own theology? While religion is certainly there to guide us, I do indeed think that to a certain extent, each person must find his or her own "theology" (if you must use that word). As for science, I do not simply "go with the masses" simply for the sake of - however, since I know that you mean " people who believe in evolution" when you say "masses, then the answer to your question is... yes, because they are correct.</p>
<p>Just because what was scientific "truth" a long time ago is no longer accepted today does not disprove all scientific evidence or theory we have now. Again, your statements are non sequiturs.
Religion must grow with society (and yes, science) if it is to survive. As I think I have said before, some denominations and religions have done this better than others.</p>
<p>--Religion must grow with society (and yes, science) if it is to survive.</p>
<p>Now you're getting into the belief that religion was man-made, not God-made...how can something made by God be destroyed by man, especially if man himself were made by God?</p>
<p>--If you are obviously unsure about your theological knowledge of other religions, don't attempt to speak with such authority on them.</p>
<p>I'm not speaking with authority, I'm just putting my two cents in...anyhow, I have studied Buddhism for a while (and I mean beyond Hesse's Siddhartha), since my dad's side of the family is Buddhist and when I go visit relatives, sometimes I read their books...but surely you don't expect me to put in term-paper research for a forum post, do you?</p>
<p>ah, yes...how does evolution explain the bat? I believe they said something about it evolving from a shrew of some sort. So what came first, the elongation of the forepaw bones, or the webbing between them? Either way, that's gotta be one awkward critter that's gonna be wiped out by natural selection in an instant...</p>
<p>anyhow, (I don't feel like scrolling back since I have dialup), I remember someone saying that if I discredited evolution because it was labeled a theory, I would also be discrediting gravity, the heliocentric system, and relativity.
(1) LAW of Universal Gravitation, not Theory (remember the power of words)
(2) Since the heliocentric universe stems from the Law of Universal Gravitation, it is a corollary, not a theory
(3) Relativity implies that the speed of light is an absolute barrier (because mass expansion becomes infinite), but see <a href="http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/4/7/8/1%5B/url%5D">http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/4/7/8/1</a> for evidence to the contrary. That's why the Theory of Relativity is just that--a theory. (A really really good one, I admit, but still just a theory).</p>
<p>see <a href="http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/%5B/url%5D">www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/</a> _PDFArchives/science/SC3W0601.pdf for more (yes, I know you're getting tired of these links, so you don't have to click if you don't want to...and yes, it has Hovind, the paranoid conspiracy guy...but just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean they don't have some good ideas...remember how crazy Newton got late in life [because of mercury], and how temperamental Beethoven was [that he threw some guy's luggage out the window because he missed a note in his music])</p>
<p>how about my question on why you take the bible so literally, tanonev?</p>
<p>Why not? Why try to look for a hidden meaning behind God? I mean, if we can't take God at face value, who can we? (And I believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word)</p>
<p>I know, Revelation is different, since it is a vision (like much of Ezekiel and others), but I take the rest of the Bible at face value</p>
<p>Don't answer my question with another question (well, three actually). What is your reasoning that tells you that the Bible ought to be taken literally?</p>
<p>God did not write the Bible, men did. And sure, while we believe that it is inspired by God, we must understand that the writings contained in the bible were not meant by their authors to be combined into a holy text. Most of the new testament were letters from various people to ancient churches, and I think we need to understand them in that context. Similarly with the old testament, we must understand it in reference to the time it was writen.
What I propose does not change nor detract from the meaning behind the words - in fact, I think it adds to them, because it opens a new level of understanding, not just, as Robin Williams put it... "God just went click ::imitates turning on a light switch::"</p>
<p>I'm agnostic.</p>
<p>I was raised with no religion and really wasn't even aware of religion for most of my young life. I do however find religion and philosophy very interesting, which is the major reason why I think I'll major in philosophy. I've read some about both Spinoza and Voltaire and found their perspectives regarding religion/god(s) very interesting.</p>
<p>I don't know about other agnostics/atheists/other alternative beliefs but I hope to find more people in college that share similar views. My high school and area seems to be pretty religious, and I've found very few people with similar beliefs.</p>
<p>The night our neigbors found out that my family was agnostic, they burned a question mark on our front lawn.</p>
<p>haha. your neighbors are psychos. anyway, i agree with Icarus on his last post. i was watching bill maher once and he said something along these lines..."the bible was written by men, not god, forty years after jesus died to recruit people to christianity." dont know if thats completely true, but i dont think the bible should be taken literally or as gods word. its a book written by men. most of it isnt even plausible. but whatever...</p>
<p>i think religion was made by man to comfort the uncertainty of whether we are alone in this world and why we're here. think about it, why are there so many religions. in the past, people were fickle when it came to beliving something. even hermits could make up their own religion (Martin Luther and Lutheranism)...</p>
<p>but that doesnt mean that there isnt the possibility of a higher being. who knows?</p>
<p>
[quote]
but that doesnt mean that there isnt the possibility of a higher being. who knows?
[/quote]
I wonder where he/she/they/it went to college.</p>
<p>I'm an athiest, and ppl tend to get freaked out by that. I have no idea why. But then again, even my own parents will faint if they find out if I'm an athiest so.... -_-</p>
<p>I believe in humanity and free will. Whether or not free will is under the jurisdiction of a higher power or a force on its own, it's what I believe in. Let others debate the higher levels--I'm comfortable where I stand. </p>
<p>I also believe in the power of chocolate, but that's another story altogether.</p>
<p>lol amen tebro!</p>
<p>Err not amen. I'm actually athiest... can I still say amen? Guwaaaaa.</p>
<p>"amen" is like "bless you". </p>
<p>people say it everywhere when someone sneezes. southern ladies use it as a modifier for their uncharitable comments towards others ("her hat looks something her cat dragged in, bless her"). it's become vernacular.</p>