Why you believe what you believe I

[Rían]

(since you're on right now, there's also a pending question from post 929 - "Would you prefer that there is no God? Why or why not?")

And for question #1, don't worry about life-changing - just some things that were important that happened, if you can think of any.

For #2 - come on, those are the worst things you've done??! How about things like being really glad when something bad happened to a person you don't like? How about bullying someone weaker than yourself (and this doesn't mean only physically - one can do some awesome bullying with only a look). Doing drugs is not such a big deal to me as, for example, stealing someone else's drugs so you could do them yourself. I'm talking about malicious intent type of things. (and again, you don't have to share them, but I'd like you to think about them - I really can't believe that the worst things you've done are wrecking your dad's car and taking drugs and being thoughtless!)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(since you're on right now, there's also a pending question from post 929 - "Would you prefer that there is no God? Why or why not?")

i thought i answered... i don't really care one way or another... whether god exists or not, i will not have to deal with him till after i die

And for question #1, don't worry about life-changing - just some things that were important that happened, if you can think of any.

not sure if i follow you... but having kids was pretty cool

For #2 - come on, those are the worst things you've done??! How about things like being really glad when something bad happened to a person you don't like?

not in my personality

How about bullying someone weaker than yourself (and this doesn't mean only physically - one can do some awesome bullying with only a look).

i'm not a very good bully either

Doing drugs is not such a big deal to me as, for example, stealing someone else's drugs so you could do them yourself. I'm talking about malicious intent type of things. (and again, you don't have to share them, but I'd like you to think about them - I really can't believe that the worst things you've done are wrecking your dad's car and taking drugs and being thoughtless!)

i never did much in the way of stealing... other than music downloads... i never really bought or took drugs by myself either... just when they were offered... i've downloaded music, which is stealing... i've certainly lied my way out of situations many times before too... is that good enough?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownie

everyone's different, and i really try not to lump people into one category or another... i.e. christian/non-christian scientist

Well, but you just did, when you said, "the view that i'd think most scientists hold today who are believers...". I was responding to that.

Wow! If the worst additional thing you can come up with is that you've lied and downloaded some music, then I must say you're about the closest to perfect that I've ever heard of. I must also say that I just don't believe those are the worst things you've done! Perhaps you have a bad memory? Or perhaps ... well, more later because I gtg pick up the kids - will check out your post 928 later

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, but you just did, when you said, "the view that i'd think most scientists hold today who are believers...". I was responding to that.

i said try... no one's perfect

Wow! If the worst additional thing you can come up with is that you've lied and downloaded some music, then I must say you're about the closest to perfect that I've ever heard of. I must also say that I just don't believe those are the worst things you've done! Perhaps you have a bad memory? Or perhaps ... well, more later because I gtg pick up the kids - will check out your post 928 later

lying and abusing myself isn't exactly perfect

i'm not quite sure what you are looking for... i've never killed anyone or taken pleasure in someone else's pain that i can remember... not 'cause i'm perfect... it just doesn't do it for me *shrug*

it sounds cheesy (and maybe is), but seeing other people happy is what makes me happy

as i've said, i have done things that have hurt other people, sometimes even knowing that it would

[The Gaffer]

Hello BJ

From one left-leaning (in relation to Dubya anyway) Mooter to another, I'd like to ask you about how you see your political beliefs fitting in with the world at large.

I get the impression that you believe that one of the functions of government should be ensuring the welfare of its citizens. However, in each of our countries, we see an ongoing erosion of collective welfare, a widening of the gaps between rich and poor and widespread cynicism and apathy towards political means of social change.

In general, the Right are at the steering wheel and have their feet flat to the floor.

Given that the resounding theme is away from such collectivism (though some may disagree with that premise), where do you see progress coming from?

[brownjenkins]

big question gaff... good one though, will address when i can put the proper amount of time into it

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Nice to see you, Gwai! I miss you. How are things in Russia?

Well enough, thank you. You probably got my email about my upcoming confirmation; I'm very excited about that. Unfortunately, I sent it to most people whom I know to keep them updated, and one individual, (who believes I am not a Christian) has decided to use it to attack me about Catholicism; I am definitely not in a place where I want to argue about religion. Discussion, and civil, courteous debate are what tickle my ears; after a couple months in yahoo groups, I'm fed up with mudfests!

In other news, I'm working on my college apps; Thomas Aquinas in Southern California is still looking like my main suspect. Fire up the oven!

[brownjenkins]

grats GW good to hear!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Shwanks.

[Rían]

No, I didn't get your email, Gwai - we changed to DSL and I've been too lazy to send out notes with our new addy! I'll get on that and send it to you

*turns the oven on*

So what's your favorite dinner? Let me know if you're comin'!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, I didn't get your email, Gwai - we changed to DSL and I've been too lazy to send out notes with our new addy! I'll get on that and send it to you

*turns the oven on*

So what's your favorite dinner? Let me know if you're comin'!

What do you make well? Surprise me.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

P. S. Three cheers for DSL! That was a real blessing in America. If we had it here, that would be great.

P. P. S. The email's in my profile.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

.....From one left-leaning (in relation to Dubya anyway) Mooter to another.....

there is another one
<
<
hint, hint

[The Gaffer]

Sorry, didn't want you to feel left out there, LCoU. Am assuming that BJ is in the hotseat here. Feel free to chip in, we need all the help we can get!

Just noticed your location: groovy.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i think he addresses an important point... "where do you place your god?"

as i stated earlier, there is quite a huge difference between holding the belief that god was the instigator for the big bang (or something similar) and then basically "let things happen"... the view that i'd think most scientists hold today who are believers... and holding the biblical account to be true (and not metaphor) that god actually created the planet we live on and all flora and fauna that inhabits it individually

the first view coexists pretty peacefully with science... whether "reality" or not, it doesn't really interfere, or effect in any way, what we call science

the second view makes god a "force", much like gravity or energy... a force which is limitless in it's power to effect the world around us... this throws a monkeywrench into any scientific research since one could claim, as many religious-minded do about something like fossils, that what we see has not developed from the past but is in fact "just the way god created it"

this second view could very well be true, i cannot prove for certain that god did not create the universe in it's current state 6000 years ago, or last week for that matter... but it is a pointless consideration, because it adds nothing to our ability to try to understand the past or predict the future

So, we have real faith in uniformitarianism. But, if you note CS Lewis argument about this in MIRACLES, the belief in God active in the creation is detectable by the consequences of the insertion of a cuase without antecedent - which is then subject to the same laws. It is not a genie or jinn behind every tulip. YOur conception is deistic with God as the clockmaker who then steps back and lets the clock run. It is an established view oft noted in the American Founding Fathers.

The Christian stance is clockmaker who makes adjustments but does not thereby disestablish the basic uniformity of the creation. Analogous to an artist working on the sculpture: an adjustment on the surface doesn't alter the basic structure physically. But it is only an anology and not perfect at that.

PS I wasn't "passing", just busy. By the way should we ban that term since in my youth it meant a light-skinned black person pretending to be a caucasion? That's a thought, eh?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Well enough, thank you. You probably got my email about my upcoming confirmation; I'm very excited about that. Unfortunately, I sent it to most people whom I know to keep them updated, and one individual, (who believes I am not a Christian) has decided to use it to attack me about Catholicism; I am definitely not in a place where I want to argue about religion. Discussion, and civil, courteous debate are what tickle my ears; after a couple months in yahoo groups, I'm fed up with mudfests!

In other news, I'm working on my college apps; Thomas Aquinas in Southern California is still looking like my main suspect. Fire up the oven!

I expect you already told me about this, but if so, I forgot . Congratulations, anyway!

I see Catholicism as another branch of Christianity, one more denomination, flawed in various ways like all the rest. It is COMPLETELY possible for people to be saved who are Catholics.

I'm still non-denominational . . . I disagree with too many people to be in a denomination . I'm glad your heart's desire is at last about to be fulfilled. Your experience with God I very much hope will be enhanced still further by your entering Catholicism.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

So, we have real faith in uniformitarianism. But, if you note CS Lewis argument about this in MIRACLES, the belief in God active in the creation is detectable by the consequences of the insertion of a cuase without antecedent - which is then subject to the same laws. It is not a genie or jinn behind every tulip. YOur conception is deistic with God as the clockmaker who then steps back and lets the clock run. It is an established view oft noted in the American Founding Fathers.

The Christian stance is clockmaker who makes adjustments but does not thereby disestablish the basic uniformity of the creation. Analogous to an artist working on the sculpture: an adjustment on the surface doesn't alter the basic structure physically. But it is only an anology and not perfect at that.

PS I wasn't "passing", just busy. By the way should we ban that term since in my youth it meant a light-skinned black person pretending to be a caucasion? That's a thought, eh?

i was just teasing, of course

do you see how this relates to my idea about god having no place in science, whether or not he exists?

there is no harm in labelling the unknown (i.e. pre-big bang) "god", at least until a good theory is proposed... but when you start down the road of say, "god instigated the big bang... let the universe go on it's merry way... and then at some point when this rock we call earth came along he 'made some adjustments' causing life to come about by individually creating all the life forms that populate the earth" (christianity in a nutshell, though some might say he created the universe at the same time and there was no big bang or expansion of the universe)

since we do not know the mind of god, taking this stance, one can only logically assume that at any given point, past or present, god could once again change all the rules (or some of them)... so the concept that you have stated is so important to science, some kind of universal laws, cease to exist... add to this all the 'flavors' of christianity, not to mention all the other religions and their own creation myths, and you have a mess

so, to practice real science, one must work under the assumption that god does not exist (or, at the very least, does not mess with stuff )... whether this assumption is correct or not... since, even if god does exist, his existance adds nothing to the theories science is trying to establish

[inked]

brownjenkins,

I think we agree that God's existence may be set aside in the task of science per se. And to avoid checking into how things work on the perhaps true, but non-explanatory, "God did it" is an aversion practiced in good literature and drama as well as science!

But the claim that to acknowledge the existence of God and the possibility of His acting in the world is to undermine science is not a correct statement, if I have your meaning correctly. If you say that to assert a God active in the world negates the uniformity; necessary for science to function, I disagree.
The uniformity exists to allow existence and is not a whim or "one night stand" on a cosmic scale, though not an eternal one.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

brownjenkins,

I think we agree that God's existence may be set aside in the task of science per se. And to avoid checking into how things work on the perhaps true, but non-explanatory, "God did it" is an aversion practiced in good literature and drama as well as science!

i agree

But the claim that to acknowledge the existence of God and the possibility of His acting in the world is to undermine science is not a correct statement, if I have your meaning correctly. If you say that to assert a God active in the world negates the uniformity; necessary for science to function, I disagree. The uniformity exists to allow existence and is not a whim or "one night stand" on a cosmic scale, though not an eternal one.

fair enough, in the end it is an unknown variable i prefer to leave out of the equation... but, as long as one realizes that it is an unknown variable, and they do not draw too many "scientific" conclusions based upon this variable, i guess it doesn't hurt that much

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I expect you already told me about this, but if so, I forgot . Congratulations, anyway!

I see Catholicism as another branch of Christianity, one more denomination, flawed in various ways like all the rest. It is COMPLETELY possible for people to be saved who are Catholics.

I'm still non-denominational . . . I disagree with too many people to be in a denomination . I'm glad your heart's desire is at last about to be fulfilled. Your experience with God I very much hope will be enhanced still further by your entering Catholicism.

Thanks for the congratulations. This fellow thinks that individual "Catholics" can be saved, but only if they reject Catholic teaching, apparently; orthodox Catholics are damned. He also says that the Catholic Church is not a Christian Church, and went so far as to say (IIRC, this are the correct words) "I'm going to talk to you like I would a rank pagan". And he wonders why I think discussion with him would be useless!

Thanks; I appreciate it. It can be so annoying; sometimes it gets to where I'm just on the defensive with most Protestants aside from my family. It's good to be reminded there are good ones out there. It's kind of funny your last sentence; this chap said that he would pray that the Holy Spirit would fill me with great discomfort and unease when I participate in the Eucharist so I could see what a blasphemy it was.