Topic: Do you believe in God or evolution?

Whoa whoa, i meant no offense, i was just trying to point out the problems with that philosophy. No where did i say false belief tho....

Anywho, the essay is like 5 pages...too long to post on here? anyone think i should do something different?

I dunno. Maybe you could make an outline, then we can do the topics one at a time. Or just ask to read the ones we are wondering about. Too hard. Sorry.

Just do whatever. at least if you do post it here, everyone else will be too busy reading it to post for a while! :D

Kaboom.

(I posted the unreviewed version, please excuse any typos or screw ups. I recieved an A on this paper. There is an aggressive stance in this paper, which isnt really how pasionate I am on the subject, i have my reservations. However my professor advised me to do so for the paper.)

24 November 2008
                                 Evolution or Creationism? The Debate for How the World Began
A question that has plagued humanity since time began has been how it began. The most followed views today, ones that originated thousands of years ago, often have an all-knowing entity as a creator of the universe. One of the most prominent of these religious views is that of Christianity, which has no more fault than any other religion. However, it is a prime example to use in shedding light on the shocking errors found within the religion itself. These errors, based on fact, not speculation or theory, have originated from archeological and historical finds. They provide real evidence to show the inconsistency in Christianity and other major religions. When so many discrepancies are found in a religion, its creation myth should definitely be called into question
Many people are reluctant to even consider evolution as being the beginning of mankind. However, they can not be blamed, these are the people who grew up learning about God and the story of Adam and Eve. They also grew up worshipping God along with their families and friends. It is because of this that some of those people who are just now beginning to see the truth in evolution are also beginning to see how evolution and religion can coexist (Evans 1). In an article published in the magazine The American Biology Teacher, the author Ronald Johnson explains how many college students are beginning to display this coexistence. Although they first were solely dedicated to creationism, they began to get older and understand how evolution is possible (Johnson1).
The arguments that were presented to these students were no doubt the reason why they began to believe in evolution. For many years, creationism believers discredited the possibilty of evolution by saying that no credible evidence existed. They claimed that archeological findings were not concrete enough to be acceptable. These arguments are perfectly within reason. However, a recent zooilogical finding provides incredible evidence to support it. A certain species of Finches were recorded as changing in body size and beak shape that lived on another remote island. These finches were displaying different characteristics because they had different conditions on the island than normal finches did on the mainland. From 1972 to 2001, several body changes and beak variations were recorded. This is modern, real, fresh evidence that these birds evolved. (Grant 1)
This particular example has to be expounded upon to see how it relates to the mainstream idea of evolution. Over a course of only 29 years, these birds displayed evolution. This shows that it is perfectly possible that over billions of years, primates could have evolved into humans. Putting the visual evidence aside, meaning actually seeing the physical similarities between primates and humans, this actual example of evolution in action shows how humans most likely evolved from primates. This evolution chain goes down all the way to one celled organisms.
Although evolution can be proved many times and in many ways, this is always never enough to convice creationism believers. Sometimes, one must disprove religion as well. This can be done by pointing out the the discreptancies in religion. Christianity, although a tense subject, displays some of these interesting points that bring into question the whole religion. The existence of Jesus Christ, whom the religion is based upon, can be called into question. It is a challenge for some to put faith into something that has very little proof. The ‘proof’ of Jesus’ existence is solely in the Holy Bible, and why wouldn’t he be in the book of his religion? The bible, although inspiring and a true testament to good in humanity, is biased. Other sources should be examined. For example, no credible historians of Jesus’s era even mention his existence. Someone who did such amazing miracles across Europe and Asia would definitely be noticed. (Zeitgeist 1)
    In the book I Believe in the Historical Jesus, the author Howard Marshall had this to say about the multitude of writings centered around Jesus:
A writer in a secular journal commented recently that so many books about Jesus are appearing at the present time hat it would take a full-time reviewer simply to keep track of them without looking at books on other subjects. According to one estimate, the forty years between 1910 and 1950 saw the publication of some 350 lives of Jesus in the English language alone. Since that time the amount of writing about Jesus has swollen to fantastic proportions; even simply to read surveys of books about Jesus would keep a man busy for some time. It is not only the Christians – of every theological hue – who have written about Jesus. A sizable proportion of recent studies have come from the pens of Jews and Communists, each of whom have their own reasons for being interested in Jesus (Marshall 11).
This quote shows the obvious interest in the holy figure. However, bring into consideration how each one of those writers who wrote about Jesus could have or might have written something fabricated. The first writing about Jesus is from the Bible, if anything, that book would be the most accurate and truthful. However, there are many other people, from different religions even, who are writing books about Jesus’ life that may be wrong entirely. That’s years of doubt and fabrication that could mean that Jesus never existed in the first place. Having such doubt in the main figure of a religion can make some disregard the religions claim for the beginning of existence.
    All this information is not to say that the creationism believers have nothing but God to support them. There are many creationism believers that have good evidence to support their point. The point that many creationism believers make is that the evolution believers have little to no evidence to support evolution. They claim that there is no debate at all. A notable point they bring up is that evolution insists that at one point, life just sprang into existence. The creationists make the claim that this is impossible due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This Law contradicts the evolutionists’ point that over time, simple one celled organisms or simple atoms evolved into complex beings because the Law explains that time is the enemy of complexity. This means that time actually hinders the development of organisms (All About Creation1).
    This point would seem undeniable, yet there are flaws with this as well. It would seem that no matter how much time passed, inorganic could not develop into a complex organic being. Yet there is the possibility that the creationists took the Second law of Thermodynamics out of context. It is perfectly plausible for life to develop over many, many years. A good example would be how weeds develop in an empty plot of land after water and sunlight get to it. If the resources are there, like water which is the major building block of life, then life finds a way to use the resources to develop.
    Another notable point the creationists bring up are the discrepancies with the Big Bang theory, which is the theory of universe that most evolutionists believe is the most probably explanation. In an article put on ‘allaboutevolution.com’ the author says:
“In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc.”
This is another good point against evolutionists and their beliefs. Yet, this is once again another instance in which creationists took the First law of Thermodynamics out of context. This first law is one that is used for current life that has already began. Before the Big Bang or the creation of the universe, things were very different. It is perfectly possible that the universe sprung forth from one, central energy or entity. It is probably much more complex than that, however creationists choose to believe the default and cut corners by just saying that God or a mystical entity is the source for creation. The mention of “voids” and “clumps’ also being unexplained is just wrong entirely. The Big Bang accounts for these astrological anomalies because the voids and clumps are other things that sprung forth, just like planets and stars.
    Both sides have their discrepancies and problems. Yet, the theory of evolution just seems the most probable. Creationism insists that one spiritual or mystical being is what began life, yet that is the easy way out. It is the easily understood and explainable reason. Life is much more complex than that. Creation was an idea thought up by people thousands of years ago who didn’t know any better, people who couldn’t explain why the sun burned or why water quenched their thirst. Now that civilization is more advanced, their ideas on creation should also be more advanced.

Works Cited
Evans, Margaret. "Cognitive and Contextual Factors in the Emergence of Diverse Belief Systems: Creation versus Evolution." 4 May 2000. Science Direct. 27 Nov. 2008 <http://http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=articleurl&_udi=b6wcr-458w1yp-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=c000050221&_version=1&_urlversion=0&_userid=10&md5=97c6a72369fb0c2d52aaff3ae11cf955>.
"Evolution Vs Creation  - A Contentious Debate." 1 Dec. 2008 <http://http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evolution-vs-creation.htm>.
Grant, Peter R., and Rosemary Grant. "Unpredictable Evolution in a 30-Year Study of Darwin's Finches." 26 Apr. 2002. Science AAAS. 27 Nov. 2008 <http://http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5568/707>.
Johnson, Ronald L., and Edward Peeples. "The Role of Scientific Understanding in College." 1987. JSTOR. 27 Nov. 2008 <http://http://www.jstor.org/pss/4448445>.
Marshall, Howard. "The Rediscovery of Jesus." 2001. Google Book Search. 27 Nov. 2008 <http://http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w0gvdsmkkrmc&oi=fnd&pg=pa11&dq=doubting+jesus&ots=blg-8e6hq0&sig=gn2itj67zpt0p8zua3ximvjrzei#ppa11,m1>.
Zeitgeist, The Movie. Dir. Peter Joseph. Zeitgeistmovie.com. 18 June 2007. The ZeitGeist Movement. 7 Apr. 2007 <http://http://zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm>.

OK, let's make a conclusion: Somebody believe in God and someone in evolution. We can believe in what we want. But we can't know which is right until we die. Or may not even then...

The Bible NEVER said ANYTHING about Jesus going to Europe OR Asia! All in all, that was extremely biased. But like I said, you can't not be biased one way or the other, unless your last sentence ends with a question mark. And to answer that question mark, you have to assume your own view is right.

P.S. I proved evolution by putting a bunch of metal and junk in a box and shaking it around for a million years. I now have a very nice watch that tells time, day, month, and year! LOL

The Bible has also had multiple rewrites (in fact like over 1,000), so there is probably some lost content.

You always say that, but the King James Version was translated directly. Only the word in italics were changed to clarify their meaning. And those are usually words like "it", "no", "if", and words like that. It was those Catholics that went crazy with translations, and the church of England that fought so fiercely against an English translation of the Bible.

There is no such thing as translated directly. There are certain words in every language that just cant be translated correctly to english, so things are lost.

Well, if one person made a mistake thousands of years ago, then that same mistake would keep showing up again and again, but no one would ever realise it. We don't know about what might've been secretly removed "for our own good" way back when.

Incorrect. Not even the King James version is translated directly, though it is assumed to be the most accurate to older sources. And changing those italics can change the entire meaning of a sentence.

Or secretly put in for that matter. A good example is Christmas. Christmas began as a pagan holliday where servants were treated to dinner and luxuries by their masters and everyone got piss drunk and had a great time. It caught on so much that the church incorporated it into the religion to decrease the appeal to pagan religions and increase the appeal to christianity.

God and Evolution.
I do not care for the idea that you either believe one or the other and I definitely don't care for the idea that if I don't believe in the Bible to the letter I have no chance of heaven.
That said I don't particularly like the idea of doing good cos you're gonna get a reward (heaven) for it. People should be doing good for the sake of doing good. Our duty as human beings to other human beings as it were.

I tend to follow that philosophy as well.

As do I. I try to be kind to everyone I meet not because I want to garuntee a ticket to Heaven, but because I know what its like to be miserable from cruel people. Make love, not war. Plus, theres so much bad stuff going on in the world. The economy is in the crapper everywhere, people are dying in war, from disease, from genocide. I want to try and provide a small spark of happy in the gloom.

Just clearing this up.  Your "ticket to heaven" as defined by the Christian faith is not based on your actions.  It is based on the person having a relationship with Christ.  And when trying to emulate Him, as we are taught, the good actions should come automatically.  Be sure you have studied the faith before posting. 

And another question.  Have any of you saying how the Bible has been lost in translation studied textual criticism?  Or are you just saying what would seem logical to you?

I know full well all the intricacies of the Christian faith.
And yes, arguably to have a good relationship with Christ you need to listen to what he says and does in the Gospels and emulate him, as you say.

I tried a few times to say something relevant here but I just end up ranting about the hypocrisy of some Christians I had once hoped to call friends. And while it raises a valuable point it becomes a long story and can be expressed in many different ways, perhaps two or three of which will express it in a better way than others.

The point of it was some so-called Christians have treated me worse than people from virtually any other religious or atheistic point of view. And that makes me sad really, they should know better.
Just like the priest who walked past the injured man on the other side of the road.*

Unfortunately being a massive hypocrite is one of my pet peeves. People ought to practice what they preach or not preach at all.

*Luke 11:31

It's so hard for me not to just give up on you peoples and just say "I tried. Tell me what Heck's like." But I'm not going to leave you to you're fate! I'm here to help, not force my Religion on you. Remeber, the Lord is the prince of peace!

Are you talking to all believers in Evolution including those who believe in God as well or just those who believe in Evolution and not God?

As far as I see it as long as I trust that God could have created the World exactly as he did, word for word, in the Bible, surely it matters not that I think he chose an alternative way of creating the World? At the end of the day, I don't believe for a second it really matters which you accept as to whether God accepts you into Heaven or not.

We all assume he'll let us in, despite eating pork after all.

But if I am interfering with your views then by all means carry on, I apologise.

I think God will let "compromisers" into heaven, but I think he'll be disapointed. After all if a Christian can't believe Genesis, then can he believe the rest of the Bible?

Somehow, I doubt the people who wrote all this in the first place meant all of it to be taken seriously. As far as I can tell, its generally a bunch of stories telling us how we should, and shouldn't behave. Case in point, sexism. Or, the world only being several thousand years old.... Not to mention, we know that not only are we not the center of the universe, we rotate around the sun, which rotates around the galaxy which, well, I guess just goes where ever it goes. But Gallileo get in huge trouble with the church for proving this.

He sure did!! Separation of Church and State is a good thing!

I'll say it is! Look what happened to the Roman Empire! But they took it out of context in the US. It was meant to protect the church from the government. And it wasn't a law or anything, it was just in a letter. But you're right, it preserves both the church and the state. It just doesn't work when the government tries to run the church, or vice-versa.

I'm certain a Christian can quite easily believe that, say, the first four books of the Bible can be interpreted as symbols, while still believing the rest of the Bible.

Yes they can, but they are also easily interpreted as history. I haven't heard a theory that works evolution into Genesis yet. The Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory have been proved unreasonable, and if they're just symbols, then what do they mean?

As in what does the book of Genesis mean if its a symbol?
I suppose some examples are as followed:
-Well, presumably that God created everything. (Creation)
-Humans were put on this Earth to be caretakers of it. (Creation)
-Humans are prone to temptation and sin. (Adam and Eve)
-If God is displeased with you, don't take it out on those he is pleased with./If things aren't going your way, don't take it out on those for which it is. (Cain and Abel)
-With God's help anyone can overcome anything (Noah's ark)
-God's promises are fulfilled (Noah's ark/Abraham)
-Rape is wrong (Sodom and Gomorrah)
-Tests will come, they will be harsh, don't lose faith. (Abraham and Isaac)

But then again, interpreting a book as a symbol can lead to ignoring parts and one always has to worry as to whether they are ignoring important parts or ignoring parts that were meant to be ignored. That's probably the biggest problem with taking it as symbolism.

Well, first off, nothing in the Bible was meant to be ignored! But if Genesis is all symbolism, then why would God create a world in which Death, Pain, Disease, and Suffering are present. That would be a terrible god who would make us go through all that evil from nothing!

Indeed. Which is why the symbolic point of view has a problem as it is hard to  make everything into a symbol. That said however If someone cannot accept a book no matter what, is it not better to take what they can from the book rather than ignore it completely. Obviously you disagree with the whole idea of not accepting a book no matter what, so I suppose my suggestion is void in advance.

He didn't, He created a world with good in it which by default had to include a deficiency of good in it. A deficiency in good is bad.

Allow me to provide an example. How would you know you were happy if you had never been "not" happy?
Surely you would just consider happy to be "normal" if you hadn't experienced an alternative that was not as good as happy.

A metaphorical reference to this is "How would you know you were alive if no one died?" If there is no other option to consider it is just considered "normal"

Likewise God cannot create a good world without bad. How would we be able to know when what is good is good if there is never any bad to compare it to.

The classic comeback to what you have said is why would God have created man if he knew he would sin? Why did he not create man so he did not sin, then there would not be death, pain, disease and suffering? Better yet why did he create the forbidden tree? These are similar questions. Surely if God created a world in which there was temptation to take fruit from the tree then God created a little bit of bad in there. It depends whether you consider temptation bad.

At the end of the day, I don't think any of these questions matter. You can take one of two responses to this

The first I call the Ivan way (after Ivan Karamazov from The Brothers Karamazov)
There is evil in the world. This evil can be against people who by human standards are innocent and undeserving. Therefore I reject God, God is unfair, unjust and does not deserve worship.

The second is the Job way (after Job in the Biblical Book: Job)
There is evil in the world. This evil can be against people who by human standards are innocent and undeserving. However I am not God, I do not know what God knows, all I have is faith that God is good. Therefore I trust God is doing right and worship him as a result of this trust.

So some big things to consider there. Once again I'm not trying to cross any lines here, I respect your beliefs. I just enjoy philosophical and therefore theological discussion.

Sorry, I find that to be complete bullshit. God intended to make the world happy, but because of people like Lucifer, evil was allowed to exist in order to balance out things. Or, if you ask me, I prefer the Greek explanation, the tale of Pandora's Box.

Good. Bad. OK, if you know your Bible(which I am very happy to talk to someone who knows what they're talking about), then you know that there was no good or bad. It was a perfect world before sin. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they realized that they were naked. That was when bad came into the world. The tree was called The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There was no good, or bad. There was no such thing as a conscience.

These arguments tend to become circular after a while so I have stayed away from posting but I have been following along.

I read the Bible a great deal, everyday. I am not a christian because I fall waaaay too short of the grace of God and I don't want to be a hypocrite.

What I did want to throw in, however, is the very, very old idea that if God created all and everything, if God knows all and everything, if God is everywhere and everything...you get the point, any discussion about God, BY HUMANS, is going to lack an essential frame a reference. If one admits that there is anything at all that is beyond God's control then, by default, it's not God. You can't have it both ways. It's like the myth of free will... if God knows everything that has been, is and will be he also knows all of the decisions of each and every person zillions of years before they are even born. In many ways I think Muslims have this part of the story right. I think the Muslim understanding of God is much more reverent. All and everything, love-hate, good-evil, play-doh, hamsters, etc. is created by an omnipotent God who decides all and everything.

Long-story-short...when we talk about God and evolution it is necessary to talk in absolutes. These are either/or propositions. As humans I think we lack the perspective to understand the world if we see it in absolute terms. This especially applies to the old testament. God flat out kills or causes to be killed thousands of people just because they didn't play according to his rules.  (Read the old testament and see how many times he kills off a few thousand people at-a-time as the jews make their way to the promised land.)

I think a more subtle understanding of theology is necessary if we are going to answer the big questions in life.

Hehe.  Predestination vs. Free will.  Another debate for another entirely different time.  Good points you raise.

Um, I won't get mad. But I am offended a bit. I'm Free Will Baptist.

Pandora's box, as in evil is released but not without hope?

I'm sorry I didn't make it clear, but I was trying to put forward an opinion or reasoned argument that some would put forward. Although, I don't particularly see what the distinction between "God created good so there must be bad" and "Evil was allowed to exist in order to balance things"
Unless I am mistaken, that's what I meant.

I do know my Bible.
You misunderstand me. The opinions I was putting forward were if "Genesis" and the "Adam and Eve version of events" are not accepted. i.e. Where evil came from if it didn't come from eating the apple in the garden of eden.
What you are saying is true according to Genesis, but I we are talking cross-purposes unfortunately.

I think we're BOTH messed up! LOL! I meant that I'm glad that you DO know your Bible! I think we're probably on the same page, but yeah...:)

Yes indeed. One of the main problems with internet chatting unfortunately.

If you don't mind me saying so, I find that idea that you are not a Christian because you don't want to be a hypocrite really quite fascinating. In a good way.

Yes. I understand all of what you say and there is this idea that God knows all and therefore we cannot have free will, our choices, our actions, everything is predetermined and understood by God. God is not temporal, that is, he is not "in" space and time, therefore he cannot "know something before it happened" because for God there is no "before" or "after" as there is no time. Following on from that, we are all predestined to go to Heaven or predestined to go to Hell.

Now, in my mind, whether you believe and accept that idea as truth, one must act as if one does have free will, as if one can change the future and as one can get oneself to heaven. As while God may know which of us goes, we don't, so from our point of view in temporal existence we still have a choice.

And yes, in relation to your second point on talking about God and I realise this is a slight tangent to what you were saying. Some people have said it is pointless and foolhardy to speak of religion or God because neither can be verified and we cannot possible hope to understand either should they exist. I don't agree with that view as I enjoy talking about it, I enjoy hearing of people's views, thoughts and feelings on God and to an extent that gives my own faith strength.

Now what my faith is....that's another story.

nah, i think the idea of predestination (in the sense of you are either going to heaven or hell) is moronic.

My earlier post brings to mind another reason I can't consider myself a christian...."only the Sith deal in absolutes." I have a hard time seeing the world in black-and-white terms and that's what a question like, "do you believe in evolution or creation" forces people to do, not on this list but I mean in a more general way. These kinds of debates are starting to break apart society and the world. No matter how you put it, if you consider yourself a born-again christian, everyone that is not is going to hell, and that is not something anyone wants to hear.

What I am saying is that modern christianity can be off-putting if the delivery is not handled in a delicate way.

I hope God is there but I can't be positive so I am not going to commit to something without being convinced.

Sometimes I feel unsure about fate and free will. A lot of the time, I feel we all make our choices, and nothing is predetirmined. But, then I see the future (no this is not some BS I really do see the future in my dreams....nothing special though. Just tests, or eating out. There are more signifigant [game realated] dreams though) and then I wonder if there really is free will.

Hmmm you see the future...please dream that my parents will take me to a Japanese grill on Sunday = ) Pleeeze?

But as for free will,  agree with you, and you too Humorbot. I think like you CCDF, in the part about free will. We make our own choices. But I think that God knows what choices we will make. And as for you HB5, good job on expressing how God is not bound by time. Saves me some for not having to write all that. :lol:

look, this topic has no point, you can throw facts at each other all day long but nobody is going to change their beliefs because of what was said on a star wars forum, no one.

i say drop it, close it, and agree to disagree

this is going no where

It's FUN! JK! That's a good idea. But it'll probably never stop. Evolutionists and Christians are some of the two most hard-headed people around! But you know regimas, Fettism, which you profess to believe, is not without it's problems...LOL!

I tend to agree.

Indeed, indeed, indeed.
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Hard-line atheists think it's one or the other.
Hard-line Christians/Religious believers think it's one or the other.
And I, like you, don't agree with it.

Others clearly do and I tend to think they need that. I don't think they can have it up for discussion, everything must be black and white if not for any other reason than they need the security that comes with that approach.

I don't doubt that, I have the same.
I think it is important to act as if we have free will whether we do or not. Not to think "ah well, there's nothing I can do to fight it so I'll act as I've always acted, it's gone fine so far" or "I know I'm gonna end up doing this, so I better do it" if it's something you have realised is immoral.
I think people should always fight immorality whether they do indeed end up doing it in the end due to pressures beyond their control or not.
I tend to reckon whether we truly have free will or not isn't something we should consider, we should assume we do and act accordingly.
I personally think if you believe everything you do to be determined you end up more immoral than if you consider at least some choices to be free, probably because you're more likely to be lazy about changing yourself or not if you feel you are determined to act a certain way.
But yes, I have very recently studied Free will and determinism so that remains fresh in my mind.

Thank you

Certainly you have misunderstood the reason I am speaking here sir, but I cannot necessarily speak for anyone else.
I post on this particular thread for discussion (as I have said), to hear other people's views, thoughts and ideas and consider them.
I have several passions and one of them just so happens to be philosophy, so that explains that/
I have no intention of changing anyone's views, I realise fully people need the opinions they express here. To "poo-poo" them would be downright satanic of me or anyone else in my opinion, but to hear them is to help them understand their views.
Honestly I find there is no better way to understand one's own thoughts and feelings on their own beliefs than to tell them to someone else.
And although I haven't specifically said "Tell me what you believe", by saying what I have said I reckon I have gotten some of the people here to express their views and ideas here that they may not have expressed to anyone recently or at all.
Alternatively perhaps the people here tell their views to all who are willing to listen. Those people I believe enjoy telling anyone their views. I suppose it's hard to understand but there are many people who are just satisfied to know that they have expressed their views.
And similarly I believe I am much more providing someone who will listen, respond and discuss than someone who argues with them because he disagrees.
Obviously when I am putting forward views I favour I have been less to point out the pit falls in the argument, but certainly some views I favour that I have put forward I have poked holes in.

But yes. (Very long post, I apologise) I had already agreed to disagree about beliefs before I posted in this thread, I had not however necessarily agreed to disagree on the idea that this topic has no point. I believe it does and I believe I have put forward the reasons why it has a point clearly and informatively.

That said, at this point I will agree to disagree with you should you still feel this thread has no point.
Thank you for reading any/all/none (delete as applicable) of this.

You know...there is another aspect to all of this that we may all be missing...
Maybe the Hindus are right and we are all doomed to go around-and-and around in the endless cycle of samsara until we finally reach enlightenment.

I'm not really sure about that either...but as I was saying above, I think it is pretty foolish to think you have it all figured out just because what you believe is written in a book. I mean, after all, there's the book of Mormon, The Koran, the Bagavad gita, The writtings of Baha Ula, even Dianetics...

I tend, personally, to take Homer Simpsons' view on religion...I worship God in my own way and I am sure that God being God understands that...if he doesn't then he wouldn't be God.

There is a lot of psychology, philosophy and metaphysics behind this kind of discussion but it really comes down to is something one of my professors said when I was at university...

"You should never "believe" anything, you should be convinced"  and if you are that should be enough.

I find that the people who bark the loudest, on both sides of the debate, are those who's convictions are most at question.

As Yoda says, "you will know when you are at peace, calm."

Who's "Homer Simpson"? God's plan of salvation is so simple that even a mature three year old could understand it! A-B-C. Ask. Believe. Confess. If you have any grasp on God at all, you'll know that He is VERY real.

Yes. I am very sure that for some God is real and he has a plan buuuut...

There is no one on Earth who can convince me that God is real other than myself. And, this is true for everything for everybody almost all of the time.

Again, as I said above, people on both sides of the argument tend to see things in absolutist terms.  I believe this helps no one and creates divisions among the world's people.

I think it is great that people can find comfort, guidance and security in religion. I studied anthropology in grad. school and I have a pretty solid grasp of the cultural patterns of religions.  I enjoy studying about religion a great deal. However, all of my studies have left me with only two conclusion.

1.) Everyone, everywhere, thinks their way of living life, especially religion, is the correct, true way to do so.
(So what gives one religion the right to claim dominance over any other?)
2.) There are far more similarities between most of the major religions in the world than differences. (For many great discussions on this topic I recommend reading Joseph Campbell's MASKS OF GOD  series.)

Long-story-short: Just because you love Vishnu does not mean you hate God and are going to Hell. I feel very confident that God will make his own decisions about who goes where, and everything else as well.  Being self-righteous doesn't help anybody and it can be very derisive.

P.S. Homer Simpson, ya know yellow cartoon character, you never saw that episode I guess?

whoa humorbot,

take it easy, you make good point

See, that really doesn't make sense--it disagrees most major religions today. You can't have more than one true religion. That is what give people the reason to say that their religion is the only way.

You can't expect your version of god to accept you simply because you believe that he exists, especially if you don't even know what god you're "worshiping". Thats just making up your own god. You can't tailor a god to your own desires. If you don't know what god you worship, how can you follow the laws he's laid down? How can you follow him?

Its one thing to follow a religion, another to make your own up.

This is why I've not gotten involved in this. I knew It'd end badly. Sorry for coming across antagonistic, but it makes no sense no matter what direction your coming from.

Islam has the right to dominate all other religions, because the Koran says to. Similarities? Isn't it possible then that religion is just a copy of an original? What is that original? "Well it coulden't be...Christianity!"

You are kind of making my point for me here...I don't believe in organized religion on any level because it is, in the end, all arbitrary! People believe whatever it is they want to believe. There are people who consider themselves christians who follow rules and dogma that are not even in the Bible.

But more importantly, what I was trying to say was
1.) that people shouldn't judge others' religious views.
2.) No one should be a slave to ideology. ( and I will never, ever believe there is only one true religion, I think that is ethnocentric, self-centered and myopic!)
3.) People should have a sense of humor, I am sure God does.

God (if you believe in him, her , or it) would have to have a sense of humor how else could we as mortals have a concept of humor?