Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[wishful thinker]

Alleluia 

small but significant difference 

[mike_lang]

The order of creation differs between the first creation story and the second, both found in Genesis. 

I know it's not relevant to the argument at hand, but thought I'd point it out anyway. 

The two stories CANNOT be reconciled. 

That could be a hint from God not to consider it science. 

You're right, they cannot be reconciled literally speaking.  I had it suggested to me that man was created last in one, as the pinnacle of God's creative powers; and first in the second, to show his role in life (prior to the Fall) as keeper of the earth and having dominion over its creatures.

[outstretchedarm]

Now we know that...

And this is a succinct stating of your position.

Exactly.  Now we "know." Tomorrow's findings may prove today's "knowledge" false.

I don't see the need to change one's interpretation of the Bible every time science makes a new finding. 

Don't people understand how limited our understanding of the universe is compared to God's?  We don't understand one percent of what he does. So why rearrange his report every time our science claims to have found the big answers.

There is so much more to be learned about the nature of the universe.  So scientists and theologians alike need to be humble before the vast body of "that which we do not know that we do not know."

Until this gap is narrowed, I'll believe God's report.

[maul]

Hard surfaced brain entrapment.

[outstretchedarm]

Hard surfaced brain entrapment.

your insults show how idiotic you are.

[outstretchedarm]

because some of you cant seem to hold a conversation without insulting your counterparts, I'll be withdrawing from this conversation, as I prefer to engage in respectful discussions.

I guess I've been spoiled by forums where people can keep it friendly.

Later y'all.

[prometheus]

That what we know now will be the building block of today's knowledge. It will not be rejected.


What god knows is irrelevant. You don't know anything and you claim you don't want to know anything. The comment that one should reject observation of the world around us because it will force us to interpret the bible in silly way if you are not going to reject it, is beyond many things I hav ever heard. Though I once I had a really amazing argument thrown against me.

It totally presupposed that the bible is always right and that we live in the wrong world. You may not reject 'gods word', but you do reject god's creation. And surely even in your mind you must be more convinced that this world is god's creation than that you are convinced of the fact that the bible is god's word. This world and the bible contradict unless you are going to bend the interpretation of the bible in a silly way every time science makes progess. You have to reject one of them.

I was in a discussion with lostinidlewonde. She/He supported creationism and I tried to explain evolution to her/him.
I had a hard time explaining to him that the current that no one claims humans evolved from apes but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. She/He claimed that she/he accepted that evolution did happen but that there was no sign of evolution in the devepment of human intelligence.

So I claimed that the fossil record clearly shows a dozen different kinds of humans, with gradually bigger brains as they are more recent, but in other respects very similar.

Then he reacted with this:

There is still the MISSING LINK. We have all these bones but none which point directly that we come from Apes, they just look similar. The Muslim Allah is similar to the Christian god so should I follow him? Also these bones ages are questionable and many scientists will agree that Carbon dating isnt a precise science, very theorised.

She/He thinks that because the fact that fossilized humans look a lot alike, one needs to believe in allah instead in god, ignoring the fact that they are the same. And thus it cannot be right since he doesn't want to believe in allah.

Not to mention he still thinks humans evoloved from apes, he still managed to read over it and since only creationist propagandists claim that scientists claim humans evolved from apes it shows how deep their propaganda was carved into him.
He claims scientists think that the fossils aren't dated with accuracy. And he thinks this is because it is 'theorised'. Which is all false and creationist propaganda.

I was just baffled.

If anyone wants to take a look: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,1528.msg101034.html#msg101034

It is amazing how far people can stretch their minds to bend it around obvious fact.


Of course you reject reason but you aren't able to 'reject' memminger's meaningless comments.
Instead you accuse me of doing the same because my arguments are very harsh to your arguments. That's totally your own fault. Get better arguments.

[outstretchedarm]

wow.  its amazing how insulting you are. 

its funny, for every 10 arguments you have that are "persuasive" for the case for atheism, you make one really effective one against it: the fact that you act like an a-hole on internet forums.

thanks for helping make up people's minds about atheists!

 

[prometheus]

I don't know why you think I am an ***. But that fact that I am, or not, doesn't tell you anything about the arguments I bring up. It doesn't tell you anything about atheism or reason or science. If you think my arguments are less strong because I am an *** then you are making a wrong judgement. The fallacy is called ad hominem and you are guilty of it.

Also, I have not insulted anyone. You have. This means you haven't learned one of Jesus's most important lesson. This means that you aren't just rejecting god, because you reject reality, you also reject Jesus by rejecting his lesson about the hypocrite.


Also, I am not even talking about atheism at all. I couldn't care less if someone is an atheist or not.

[le_poete_mourant]

your insults show how idiotic you are.

wow. its amazing how insulting you are.
[...] you act like an a-hole on internet forums.

Um... look up the word "hypocrisy" in the dictionary. 

[maul]

Indeed Prometheus. What ever happened to loving your "enemies" as you would a friend. You are going to hell stretchedarm... better start asking for forgiveness. No biggie.

[johnny-boy]

“Uuh, no one thinks the bible evolved, all think it was written. So your analogy about finding an old music manuscript goes wrong” – Promey

The analogy was between the creation of a manuscript and the creation of man. I didn’t even mention the Bible. Promey, you have a difficult time in the comprehension arena, don’t you?

Because I like you Promey, here’s a little suggestion:

Read – Comprehend – Think – Answer, oh, and don’t assume or change the context of someone's posting to suit your answers.  Again, say it out loud Promey; Read – Comprehend – Think – Answer! 

And don't go crazy with all that googling. It destroys brain cells.

Now don't make me have this little talk with you again.

Maybe you could make a copy of this and keep it by your computer Promey.

Best, John

[prometheus]

That is because the discussion at that point was about the bible and the bible is the only basis for creationism.


As for why we don't think music evolved. This is because we don't look at how beautiful we find something to deduce if something is created or not. This is because the beauty of something tells nothing about how it was created.


You can create music through random deviration and selection.

One would do this. One would generate a random file to start from where a piano hits random keys for random duration. Then we chance it 20 different ways. We cut the music into segments have we have people listen to the music and rate every segment. We throw away all the music that has too low a rating.

Then we change the music on 20 different points again. We have people rate sole segments and then we only select the upper few.

If we keep this going long enough the music will slowly become nearer to what people find beautiful. Problem is that it takes a lot of time. It takes as many listenings as it takes individuals in evolution.


In the end you cannot recognise the difference.

[johnny-boy]

I have difficulty accepting the Bible; however I do believe in a Creator.

Again, my analogy was between the creation of music and the creation of man. Just because we can't comprehend the creation of man doesn't by any means rules out a Creator is responsible for the creation of man, in much the same way a composer (creator of music) is responsible for a music manuscript.

My point being; a music manuscript doesn’t just come into existence without a knowledgeable composer, and accordingly, man doesn’t come into existence without the “all” knowledgeable Creator.

I don’t think this is an unreasonable perspective.

My most bewildering question is; where did the Creator come from. I can’t begin to comprehend such an existence.

John

[prometheus]

I have difficulty accepting the Bible; however I do believe in a Creator.

That's kind of strange to me since the bible is the only think that supports a creator.

Again, my analogy was between the creation of music and the creation of man. Just because we can't comprehend the creation of man doesn't by any means rules out a Creator...

We can comprehend the 'creation' of man to a certain extent. And again, the fact that something isn't ruled out by itself is totally meaningless. Something needs to be probable. There are many things no one can rule out their neither of us would spend a single thought on.
 

My point being; a music manuscript doesn’t just come into existence without a knowledgeable composer,

This is non sequitur. The fact that all music is created by a composer doesn't mean music can only be created by a composer. One does not follow from the other. Actually, already not all music is created by a composer. Music is already being created through algorithms. Of course the algorithms have been designed. Ask Ted, look at Ligeti.

But it is very well possible to create music using darwinistic processes, like I described above. I would be willing to try it if we could have a 2000 turns or something like that of enough people, I really don't know how many maybe 15 will do, listening to 20 random mutations and selecting the best.

That would mean 2000*15*20 times of listening to a piece of music that needs to be organised before we can try the experiment, which is 600,000. And the numbers may be too small. Maybe not. Hard to tell because humans can't imagine these numbers.

If this is somehow possible I would be very interested in finding out the result. Given enough time and the right selection it can create very poweful results.

The reason why one would assume a manuscipt of music is composed is because most are composed.



A non sequitur argument may give totally accurate results in some cases, but it is obviously wrong in others. It is a tricky fallacy. But it is a logical fallacy. Therefore your usage is incorrect. So in that respect I don't think it is reasonable.

My most bewildering question is; where did the Creator come from. I can’t begin to comprehend such an existence.

I can't comprehend where the laws of nature come from or why the universe exists. And I don't have any answers either.
If you want to put God in that gap, then fine with me. It may not be probable but at this moment of time it does not contradict science. Creationism does.

But the problem with 'god of the gaps' is clear. One day the gap may be filled by science and then you have to find a new gap. But actually, I think you can put your God in that gap and be safe for a long long time.

[johnny-boy]

“That's kind of strange to me since the bible is the only think that supports a creator”- Promey
Apparently not.

“We can comprehend the 'creation' of man to a certain extent. And again, the fact that something isn't ruled out by itself is totally meaningless. Something needs to be probably” – Promey

I think it is probable. Man exists; therefore he had to be created by some means. I think accepting a Creator (though not understanding the concept of "Creator") is reasonable.

“But it is very well possible to create music using darwinistic processes. I would be willing to try it if we could have a 2000 turns or something like that of enough people, I really don't know how many maybe 15 will do, listening to 20 random mutations and selecting the best” Promey

Exactly, you need people (creators), the manuscript won’t create itself. What you’re suggesting is just a variation of composing by multiple creators.

“But the problem with 'god of the gaps' is clear. One day the gap may be filled by science and then you have to find a new gap” – Promey

I doubt it. I don't think the human pea brain will ever "fill the gap" - at least not here on Earth. The answers lie well beyond Earth's resources.

John

[prometheus]

I think it is probable. Man exists; therefore he had to be created by some means. I think accepting a Creator (though not understanding the concept of "Creator") is reasonable.

You think humans were created but you do not know what that means?

Sure, man exists. So he had to come into being somehow. But that doesn't mean humans were designed by a creating entity.

Exactly, you need people (creators),

But here the people don't create anything. They merely select randomness. Nature selects in an 'intelligent' way as well. This is how evolution works. If you think this is creation in the same sense as 'your creator' creates then surely you recognise that both have the same potential to be the cause of the existence of humans. Fact is that the processes of evolution have been observed. I am not so sure about your creator, whoever it is.

I doubt it. I don't think the human pea brain will ever "fill the gap" - at least not here on Earth. The answers lie well beyond Earth's resources.

Like I said, when it comes to these things I am probably just as doubtful.

[johnny-boy]

Thanks for the civilized conversation Promey. Maybe we'll continue this at another time.

It's time to put the veggie burgers on. I'm hungry. And no, I'm not going to eat any of God's creatures.

Best, John

[prometheus]

You know I am a vegetarian also, right?


Yes, I think this way we are actually going somewhere. You can believe as much in god as you want. As long as you don't misrepresent the darwinistic theory of evolution.

It is actually very hard to actually learn how the theory of evolution works in high school, or similar. I didn't. Actually, I was a total non-believer that assumed that evolution was being challenged and probably wrong because of creationists spreading lies about it. I mean, I didn't believe in creation of any kind. I just though scientists had real doubts and that they had to come up with a scientific alternative. What did I know?

So what I did was inform myself by reading books. That way I learned what the theory actually says. I must say I wasn't really happy when I learned that I had been influenced by creationist lies.

Ok, I will probably eat a veggie burger as well since I haven't had lunch yet. I don't want to support the disruption of the natural life of any creature.

[berceuse]

lol. Is everyone in this discussion a vegetarian? (I am as well ) At least we have something in common now.

Veggie burgers for everyone!!!!

[mike_lang]

Why is it so hard to fathom that a God Who is outside of time, the One Who created time and space, could create the evolutionary process?  Is it ruled out somewhere that that is part of creation?

Best,
Michael

[pianojam]

lol. Is everyone in this discussion a vegetarian? (I am as well ) At least we have something in common now.

Veggie burgers for everyone!!!!

i didnt realise there were so many vegetarians on this forum
im a vegetarian too 

we should start a club!

[johnny-boy]

Welcome veggie burger lovers!

In the past I made my own veggie burgers from scratch (usually from black beans). However since I started using Morning Star's veggie cheddar burgers, I stopped making my own. I think these cheddar burgers are the best tasting burgers I've eaten so far.

Morning Star's veggie hot dogs are great too. I'd stay away from their veggie sausage though.

Has anyone else tried Morning Star’s products?   https://www.morningstarfarms.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/product.pl?product=4410&company=23

Best, John

[maul]

"God" and evolution are one. To deny science is to deny "God".

Barrier against human potential. Barrier in the mind. Barrier... which needs to be destroyed.

[prometheus]

Memminger, you aren't making any useful contribution at all.

[maul]

The fury of the next generation multi-point modulation node.

[aliena]

have you met thalbergmad, yet?  or ingagroznya?  just a few.  our famous koji found a voodoo woman.  so many people you think are normal.  it's just not true.  alistair hinton has sorabjiitis.  lau goes around in a bathrobe.  well, these are a few of our friends here.  oh, i almost forgot ramseytheii and his mozart cadenzas.  those make me go mad looking at them.  and, well,m1469has been missing for some time.  i think it's all Bob's fault.  everything seems to be his fault when she's angry. 

Hi Pianistimo.

Yes I had the (mis)fortune to meet Thal the other night in the chat room - said he (?) didn't want to talk to me but I threatened to start breaking fingers and so he changed his mind - seems a wonderfully weird character and fits in nicely with my plan for world domination..  Lau was a little dry - perhaps it was his/her bathrobe - anyway, I always enjoy people who present themselves as a challenge.

m1469 may be right - who knows?  It may all be bobs fault after all.. and the Voodoo woman sounds most interesting - I cant wait to meet her!

Apologies if I have sexed anyone incorrectly.. but it's only a virtual guess anyway..  enjoy!

[aliena]

Grazie a lei, cara 

Flattery will get you everywhere 

Tinks..

Grazie a te caro.. we have known each other far too long to be formal now.. and I don't need flattery to get me anywhere.. I use my broomstick.  What say you of all the wonderful characters here?  Are we in agreement they are fine specimens for the spaceship?

Grazie mille Tinks.. ti voglio bene amico mio. 

[maul]

Cerebrum. Sucked through tube into stinking vat of coagulated ignorance.

[pianistimo]

speak for yourself.

if God made everything 'good' at the beginning - why would it need to evolve.  i'm thinking it's been devolving.  anyone agree?

take organic seed producing fruits.  can you find very many in the store?  there are mutations everywhere.  people are trying to mutate human genes with animal genes to get bigger organs so they can transplant them once grown in the dish they're in.

[timothy42b]

if God made everything 'good' at the beginning - why would it need to evolve.  i'm thinking it's been devolving.  anyone agree?

Good insight, pianistimo, and quite right.

If you don't mind, let me educate you on one small point?

Evolution doesn't have a direction.  It doesn't make progress, it doesn't have some goal or ideal in mind.  It simply responds to the conditions around it.  The aim of evolution was not to produce smarter and smarter animals until we got a human.  There was no aim.

Unless of course you believe in theistic evolution.  This is the idea that God guided evolution through natural processes, knowing what he wanted in the end. 

[leahcim]

Evolution doesn't have a direction.  It doesn't make progress, it doesn't have some goal or ideal in mind.  It simply responds to the conditions around it.  The aim of evolution was not to produce smarter and smarter animals until we got a human.  There was no aim.

That's probably the best justification you've given for why you believe in God despite thinking about it so far

[lostinidlewonder]

I was in a discussion with lostinidlewonde. She/He supported creationism and I tried to explain evolution to her/him.

So I claimed that the fossil record clearly shows a dozen different kinds of humans, with gradually bigger brains as they are more recent, but in other respects very similar.

She/He thinks that because the fact that fossilized humans look a lot alike, one needs to believe in allah instead in god, ignoring the fact that they are the same. And thus it cannot be right since he doesn't want to believe in allah.

Not to mention he still thinks humans evoloved from apes, he still managed to read over it and since only creationist propagandists claim that scientists claim humans evolved from apes it shows how deep their propaganda was carved into him.
He claims scientists think that the fossils aren't dated with accuracy. And he thinks this is because it is 'theorised'. Which is all false and creationist propaganda.

Ok, I think there is something we have to get straight right away. WHen you talk about spirituality you cannot say you are right or wrong since there is no right and wrong. God is perfect and he is able to exist in any form in any situation in any one, so there is no one right way about doing things, especially in how we worship God.

There is a generalisation however that we can use, things like Love, respect, honor, understanding what is sin, how we deal with it. The doctrines of Christianity in itself is impossible to say is wrong and bad. The teachings itself are good, but it is how people INTERPRET it and the arguments that stem from it and JUDGEMENT people impose on one another criticising this and that which is the spirit of evil confusing our progress.

Humans think we are very clever, in fact if you go back 200 years you will see we still lived in the dark ages knowing very very little, it is only now that we have this spike in information. We live in a very exciting and dangerous time, the Information age. In this age it is humans that have began to believe in their own superiority. We grow in confidence to explain away the universe. We start to not believe in a God, we push aside spirituality and explain death with only living now blocking out all our senses with materialism and greed so that we forget about death.

Still after all these years, even with our technology now we have no answer for death, there is nothing a human can create to make us feel HAPPY and COMFORTABLE about death. THe answer has been God since the dawn of time, God is the only one who gives an answer to death and more importantly our life as we live it now and after.

To say any religion is the Plague of the mind is in itself something that will infest your own mind. The REAL plague of the mind is a humans beliefe that they are God. This means that they believe that they create their life, that they control everything in their life. What a rude shock they are in for when they get slapped in the face with death.

Death can plague the mind, most of you are  young on this server and havent experienced death in your immediate family. Many of you havent lost your life long partner through injustice or accident. WHen it does happen you will realise there is this enormous force called Death, a cold horrible and painful power which we have no protection against. Religion is the cure to the plague of the mind death creates.

It is because we live in this advanced technological age that we believe we can answer and protect ourselves from everything. Look how afraid people are when they hear the word CANCER or TUMOR or TERMINAL ILLNESS. A chrisitan will be also afraid like everyone else but they will know how to control it, where to vent the immessurable stress fear of death can cause. People listen here!! We cannot answer everything! We cannot protect ourselves from everything, people are trying to cryogenically freeze their dead body because they believe technology will bring them back to life one day!!!

They believe in life after death but believe it with technology!!!! Tell me atheists, do you believe that technology will bring the death back to life? This is a billion times more far fetched than Christ raising up, where we have all this circumstantial evidence which PROVES it did happen!

[aliena]

Amen!

[rimv2]

Ok, I think there is something we have to get straight right away. WHen you talk about spirituality you cannot say you are right or wrong since there is no right and wrong. God is perfect and he is able to exist in any form in any situation in any one, so there is no one right way about doing things, especially in how we worship God.

There is a generalisation however that we can use, things like Love, respect, honor, understanding what is sin, how we deal with it. The doctrines of Christianity in itself is impossible to say is wrong and bad. The teachings itself are good, but it is how people INTERPRET it and the arguments that stem from it and JUDGEMENT people impose on one another criticising this and that which is the spirit of evil confusing our progress.

Humans think we are very cleaver, in fact if you go back 200 years you will see we still lived in the dark ages knowing very very little, it is only now that we have this spike in information. We live in a very exciting and dangerous time, the Information age. In this age it is humans that have began to believe in their own superiority. We grow in confidence to explain away the universe. We start to not believe in a God, we push aside spirituality and explain death with only living now blocking out all our senses with materialism and greed so that we forget about death.

Still after all these years, even with our technology now we have no answer for death, there is nothing a human can create to make us feel HAPPY and COMFORTABLE about death. THe answer has been God since the dawn of time, God is the only one who gives an answer to death and more importantly our life as we live it now and after.

To say any religion is the Plague of the mind is in itself something that will infest your own mind. The REAL plague of the mind is a humans beliefe that they are God. This means that they believe that they create their life, that they control everything in their life. What a rude shock they are in for when they get slapped in the face with death.

Death can plague the mind, most of you are  young on this server and havent experienced death in your immediate family. Many of you havent lost your life long partner through injustice or accident. WHen it does happen you will realise there is this enormous force called Death, a cold horrible and painful power which we have no protection against. Religion is the cure to the plague of the mind death creates.

It is because we live in this advanced technological age that we believe we can answer and protect ourselves from everything. Look how afraid people are when they hear the word CANCER or TUMOR or TERMINAL ILLNESS. A chrisitan will be also afraid like everyone else but they will know how to control it, where to vent the immessurable stress fear of death can cause. People listen here!! We cannot answer everything! We cannot protect ourselves from everything, people are trying to cryogenically freeze their dead body because they believe technology will bring them back to life one day!!!

They believe in life after death but believe it with technology!!!! Tell me atheists, do you believe that technology will bring the death back to life? This is a billion times more far fetched than Christ raising up, where we have all this circumstantial evidence which PROVES it did happen!

Amen!

Why are you all even given a response to such a ridiculous topic.


5 PAGES

Of useless arguing

You can't prove a person wrong no matter how wrong a person is.

Even if a billion people's minds are swayed, if but one person thinks otherwise, that one person is not wrong.

There are no definite meanings in this world. ( a strange comment in itself)

[lostinidlewonder]

Why are you all even given a response to such a ridiculous topic.
.....
You can't prove a person wrong no matter how wrong a person is.

Even if a billion people's minds are swayed, if but one person thinks otherwise, that one person is not wrong.

There are no definite meanings in this world. ( a strange comment in itself)

It is important to talk and discuss issues where people stand in different opinion. Religion, God, Jesus Christ there is definatly a split in this world, those that believe that those that do not. As a Christian I am not here trying to convince anyone but listen to what other have to say, what other people ideas are and try to see if those ideas affect my judgement in this world. When I am dead I will be happy to face God and say, I tried by best, I looked into everything as much as I could, I didn't close my eyes to the world, I didn't close my eyes to the wisdom that floats through this world from the mouths of those I agree with and those I do not!

Foolish people, when will we stop making fun of other peoples opinions! We should think differently but at the same time we should be together as one, investigators into impossible questions this world has for us.

[prometheus]

Ok, I think there is something we have to get straight right away. WHen you talk about spirituality you cannot say you are right or wrong since there is no right and wrong.

I would never do such a think. I know very well what can be said about science and what can be said about ethics or about spirituality. Note that to me spirituality doesn't equal religion. I don't think all ways of practicing religion or spiritual per definition. I also view myself as a spiritual person. I have a very hard time explaining to people why I fast once a year, for example.

Still after all these years, even with our technology now we have no answer for death,

But science doesn't equal technology. I don't like technology at all. I like science. Science has learned me a lot about death. I know everyone will die and and that at some point in time everything about our civilisation will be totally lost. Entropy will increase and all energy and matter will expand into nothingness.

To say any religion is the Plague of the mind is in itself something that will infest your own mind.

How can you infest your own mind. Are you sure you have understood what was meant?

The REAL plague of the mind is a humans beliefe that they are God.

Christians believe they are godly.

Death can plague the mind,
[...]
Religion is the cure to the plague of the mind death creates.

So reality is a plague of the mind that needs to be cured by religion?

Tell me atheists, do you believe that technology will bring the death back to life?

To me those people that freeze their bodies after death through cryonics are silly. I think the chance that they will ever be alive again is very very small.

I think that if people in the future at some point do develop the techonology to recover the information stored in the freezed brains they will be wise enough to leave them dead. Why should they want to turn them back alive?

Also, I find it strange how these people want to cling to life. I may want to live a very healthy 90 years or so. I probably wouldn't reject 120. But after all that time I think I should die. I don't really care about the lenght. But I would like to stay young all the years I live.

Those that claim they want to me immortal do not know what they wish for. Humans are build to die. Just accept it. Otherwise you will need religion to delude yourself.

[timothy42b]

To say any religion is the Plague of the mind is in itself something that will infest your own mind. The REAL plague of the mind is a humans beliefe that they are God.

Obviously you have read the writings of the early Christian church very selectively.

A substantial portion of them believed we were not to become like Christ, but were to become Christ.  

You must not assume that the theology you heard from the pulpit last week bears any resemblance to what is in the actual gospels, canonical and noncanonical.  

[johnny-boy]

Those that claim they want to me immortal do not know what they wish for. Humans are build to die. Just accept it. - Promey

Very good Promey!

John

[lostinidlewonder]

How can you infest your own mind. Are you sure you have understood what was meant?

It is funny how when people do not agree they think you do not understand. How else does ones mind become corrupt without the person letting it happen to themselves?

Christians believe they are godly.

That is a joke right? How on earth do you come up with that conclusion?

So reality is a plague of the mind that needs to be cured by religion?

I never talked about a plague of the mind, in fact it is a stupid name to this topic. It is like saying water will burn your house down. Yes it is peoples opinion to say it, but there is no evidence to support such a claim. A simple logic is, more people are saved with Christianity than those who go insane and mad with a plagued mind.

To me those people that freeze their bodies after death through cryonics are silly. I think the chance that they will ever be alive again is very very small.

I was using this to highlight the fact that there are people in this world who place more faith in science than they do in god. They trust humans will be able to control life/death instead of accepting life after death and through God.

Those that claim they want to me immortal do not know what they wish for. Humans are build to die. Just accept it. Otherwise you will need religion to delude yourself.

This is true, but Christ said, even a seed in the ground must decay and die before it sprouts into a tree. This is how humans are, we are seeds, we must die so that we become our spiritual selfs. A seed in the ground may live only a short period before it dies, but the tree it produces will live for ages.

Obviously you have read the writings of the early Christian church very selectively.

A substantial portion of them believed we were not to become like Christ, but were to become Christ. 

You must not assume that the theology you heard from the pulpit last week bears any resemblance to what is in the actual gospels, canonical and noncanonical. 

Well the Roman Catholics are not christian in my view, but that is another big topic and I am pretty amused you think you know what I assume with theology, I don't even go to church.

To become Christ does not mean to pretend to BE christ or god or have any sense of arrogance to this fact. It states clearly in the bible that faith is not something we have inside ourselves, it is given to us. So to be like christ is not a choice it is something given to us and it means for us to let our old life die on the cross with him. You must study this fact to understand it.

[pianistimo]

agreed with lostinidlewonder on everything except that Christians DO share a godliness of mind when they accept Christ.  i think lostinidlewonder makes that point later on.  phil. 2:1-12 excerpted 'if therefore there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit (the same spirit given to all), if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being OF THE SAME MIND, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.  do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.  have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.  and being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.  so then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling...that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ (when He returns) I may have cause to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.'

this last part is from paul - admonishing the christians to stick to the faith once delivered and not change the gospel from the gospel of Christ to the gospel of any man.  so, as i see it, we have to conform to the mind of Christ to be godly.  this means giving up many things.

[berceuse]

Has anyone in here ever read any works by theologian Søren Kierkegaard? He is my favorite philosopher and I strongly recommend him to both Christians and non-Christians. He tackles many topics that have been discussed on this board. He attacks "Christendom" as in the political entity ,but delves deep into Christian love and what it means to be a true Christian (he himself being a devout Christian). Books you should pick up: Works of Love, Fear and Trembling, The Sickness Unto Death, Either/Or.

[mike_lang]

He attacks "Christendom" as in the political entity ,

What political entity?

[ramseytheii]

Well the Roman Catholics are not christian in my view, but that is another big topic and I am pretty amused you think you know what I assume with theology, I don't even go to church.

That's a sweeping statement!  I am actually curious for you to back that up.  What is your criteria?  I thought it was written in the Acts, that to be a Christian one must only "confess in their hearts" that Christ was killed for their sins, and then risen from the dead.

Walter Ramsey

EDIT: The passage is Romans 10:9 - "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

[berceuse]

What political entity?

Here are his main attacks on Christiendom:
Church congregations are meaningless: The idea of congregations keeps individuals as children since Christians are disinclined from taking the initiative to take responsibility for their own relation to God. Kierkegaard stresses that "Christianity is the individual, here, the single individual."

Christendom had become secularized and political: Since the Church was controlled by the State, Kierkegaard believed the State's bureaucratic mission was to increase membership and oversee the welfare of its members. More members would mean more power for the clergymen: a corrupt ideal. This mission would seem at odds with Christianity's true doctrine, which is to stress the importance of the individual, not the whole.

Christianity becomes an empty religion: Thus, the state church political structure is offensive and detrimental to individuals, since everyone can become "Christian" without knowing what it means to be Christian. It is also detrimental to the religion itself since it reduces Christianity to a mere fashionable tradition adhered to by unbelieving "believers", a "herd mentality" of the population, so to speak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kierkegaard#Kierkegaard_and_Christendom

This is directly from wikipedia but I strongly suggest reading his books. Again, you do not have to be Christian to appreciate them. Aside from his philosophical writings he also wrote devotion books that deal with a individual or more personal relationship with God.

I do go to Church every week (Catholic) and I do notice what is written in bold above, but I don't think you can say that about every Christian. I also feel one can attend church and still maintain a personal relationship with God, that's one a the few areas in which I disagree with him.

Other books that I recommend:
Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis
Screwtape Letters -C. S. Lewis
True Spirituality - Francis A. Schaeffer
Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, And the Splendor of Truth - Richard John Neuhaus

[ramseytheii]

What political entity?

I don't want to answer the question for berceuse, but can only comment on the way things are turning in Amerika at this time.  Amerika has always seemed to have a bipolar relationship with God: love in public , or love in private.  Right now it is as public as it comes, to the detriment and endless irritation of rationally minded people.  We are told repeatedly, in this election year, that there is a sinister conspiracy trying to take all religion (in Amerika, any politician complaining about people abusing religion only refers to Evangelical Christianity, no matter how much they try and "diversify" it) out of all aspects of public life.  We are told over and over again that Amerika was born a "Christian" nation, as if a nation could be such a thing.  Imagine baptizing the greater part of the North American continent by dipping it under the Pacific and Atlantic.  This is what I understand nowadays as a political entity; it masquerades as politically active Christians trying to impose their morality on a diverse society, thinking it is their moral duty, but is really just another way for gaining political power.

Tolstoy wrote of the difference between the Old and New Testaments as one of rules and laws, and one of ideals.  He said that their was no legislation in the New Testament, only an unreachable ideal, perfectly symbolized by the God and human Christ.  We are seeing in Amerika politicians using the fear factor to tell a huge group of voters (evangelical Christians) that their religion is under attack.  Sorry, but the CHristian religion has been under attack since day one.  In fact, that is part and parcel of the religion.  One can't have it without being attacked, and that is written clearly in the Scriptures.  To stop the attacks would be to impose morality, which is decidedly against the religion.  But that is the political entity as I see it, one of imposing a moral system in the name of religion.

Walter Ramsey

[timothy42b]

That's a sweeping statement!  I am actually curious for you to back that up.  What is your criteria?  I thought it was written in the Acts, that to be a Christian one must only "confess in their hearts" that Christ was killed for their sins, and then risen from the dead.

Walter Ramsey

It's not a sweeping statement, it's simply ignorance and bigotry.

Early Christians were able to accept Jew and Gentile into the fold, but modern ones think everyone outside their own narrow denomination, sometimes just their congregation, is linked to the Antichrist and destined for hell. 

[mike_lang]

Well the Roman Catholics are not christian in my view, but that is another big topic and I am pretty amused you think you know what I assume with theology, I don't even go to church.

How do you figure?  The Roman Catholic Church (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) is the original and fullest manifestation of the Christian Church.

[mike_lang]

It's not a sweeping statement, it's simply ignorance and bigotry.

Early Christians were able to accept Jew and Gentile into the fold, but modern ones think everyone outside their own narrow denomination, sometimes just their congregation, is linked to the Antichrist and destined for hell. 

Christians do not think anyone is destined for Hell.  It is not our business to try to guess where every's  eventual destination is.  Who is to say that the worst murderer or the worst rapist did not repent at the last moment, by the grace of God, and then be accepted into God's glory?

Besides that, one is blind to mentally condemn everyone outside a given denomination.  There are thousands of Protestant denominations - that would be absurd.  Anyone who is baptized in Christ is part of the Universal Church.

[mike_lang]

To stop the attacks would be to impose morality, which is decidedly against the religion.  But that is the political entity as I see it, one of imposing a moral system in the name of religion.

Walter Ramsey

Are the Law of God and the laws of nations diametrically opposed?  Wouldn't a perfect government protect God's law?  It is not an exaggeration to say that with the legalization of pornography, contraception, abortion, and gay marriage in one state, the government of the United States is unquestionably flouting God's law.