Was the universe created by God?

[REASON]

for the last question I believe God created all energies and anything these energies do was put in them with a purpose ..not that they are self aware.

 

Obviously, you can believe whatever you want. It's your ability to substantiate your beliefs that determines whether they are consistent with reality.

 

Unfortunately, you cannot substantiate that god is the creator of energy or anything else for that matter.

 

You can only choose to believe it.

[ldibart]

Obviously, you can believe whatever you want. It's your ability to substantiate your beliefs that determines whether they are consistent with reality.

 

Unfortunately, you cannot substantiate that god is the creator of energy or anything else for that matter.

 

You can only choose to believe it.

 

Hello Reason :phones:

 

Yes believing something and substantiating are definitely two different animals,yes?

 

I do not feel it unscientific to start with the assumption "that everything came from something" based on what we know in science and see in our reality, this seems to have been proven... correct? (unless I am missing out on same data, for real)

 

Now, building off of this assumption, since I see a certain amount of intelligence here, I can think that maybe the "something" was intelligent there,

 

Still seems to be nothing wrong with this assumption either.(unless, again I am missing some data)

 

Now,I can follow the evidence just like anyone else and know we have a self running system and all physical effects should be explained with physical results.

 

So even if my statement may not agree with everyone, my approach does not seem to be unscientific, since I am using the data I know of ,formulating a start of things and working my way to the here and now.

 

Sorry, if I offend anyone, I was not wanting to do that, so this will be my last reply on this.. I am on here to work out a theory I have, that was all.

[kcl0341]

I do believe the universe to have been created by "GOD" an example is the photon this carries information in it to bring to our minds (through our eyes) and our minds decodes it so we have sight.."and the darkness comprehended it not"

 

so darkness is lack of information.

Dear Idibart,

 

Thank you for reading my article.

 

I think the photon is a carrier or medium of energy which was created by "God" or "Nature". Only the DNA carries the codes. If the photon does not exist, then life would not be able to exist. Our mind is a reflection of our brain. Even there is no light, man will adapt themselves to think but in different ways and the full picture of this world will be different from what it is when we can see.

 

King Lee

[GAHD]

Minor correction of note:

 

I have attempted to argue that the universe was not created by God and I have tried not to be biased to be against God while writing this essay....I do respect religions but wars raised by religions should not be happened and the passion for seeking knowledge and truth should not be affected by religions.

"should not HAVE happened" or "should not be happenING" would fix that minor bit of grammar.

 

Looooong essay too, you may wish to provide a synopsis at the beginning and/or end rearguing main points between sections to make it a little more reader friendly.

[Eclipse Now]

How many atheists killed how many people last century? ;-)

 

EG: How does Marxism stack up in the "death for cause" ratio? Pol Pot? Hitler? Stalin? Suicide as a result of the "meaningless universe" that the atheists would have us inhabit?

 

Religion is not the only killer, but I do cringe and am sorry for those times people have "killed in the name of Christ". My own reading of the unfolding story in the bible tells me that is absolutely incompatible with the aims and objectives of Jesus, despite various events in the Old Testament. We must remember that it is an unfolding story, and those events in the OT, as bizarre and horrible an un-PC as they sound today, were an important part of the "big picture" of the Christian worldview, but are absolutely NOT to be applied in the same way today by people living today.

 

So, as far as the actual opening post goes.... short answer. Science can tell us roughly some of the details of HOW God made the universe, and the bible tells us WHY. And hard-corps creationists embarrass me no end with their lack of understanding of the literature in the ancient world. Genesis 1 is a clear re-write of the Babylonian Creation myth the Enuma Elish, and the author was deliberately turning the theology of the ancient world upside down!

 

The Enuma Elish was a cross between the Babylonian's "National Anthem" and creation myth... like Anzac Day and Christmas rolled into one. Everyone knew it, and Genesis 1 absolutely subverts it.

 

It's almost like hearing the Australian National anthem re-written.

 

"Australian's all let us rejoice, for we are greedy pigs..." and you know what is coming is completely new and shocking. That's how abruptly and directly the Genesis author was taking on the Enuma Elish. It was always originally meant to be a theological response to the EE, not a scientific mantra about how we got here.

 

Check out a few similarities I noted, in my own layman's perspective (I'm not claiming to be a historian here and may have missed some of the subtleties in the Babylonian myth. If I find my mate's more expert commentary on the EE/Genesis link I'll post that, but for now can't find it.)

Eclipse Now: Genesis re-writes Enuma!

 

So I'm completely convinced there is no conflict between science and Christianity. Science analyses the material universe, Christianity discusses what lies beyond this universe. By definition science cannot tell us about matters in other realities / dimensions / the spiritual, and we must turn to other disciplines, like history and philosophy to glimpse the probabilities of other, "non-material" realities. (Language falls down here).

[Moontanman]

How many atheists killed how many people last century? ;-)

 

EG: How does Marxism stack up in the "death for cause" ratio? Pol Pot? Hitler? Stalin? Suicide as a result of the "meaningless universe" that the atheists would have us inhabit?

 

That is rather disingenuous, Hitler wasn't an atheist, Marxism didn't kill people due to their religion, it killed people for political purposes. Pol Pot killed people for political purposes not religious or lack there of. Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't mean you can label them as atheist.

 

Religion is not the only killer, but I do cringe and am sorry for those times people have "killed in the name of Christ". My own reading of the unfolding story in the bible tells me that is absolutely incompatible with the aims and objectives of Jesus, despite various events in the Old Testament. We must remember that it is an unfolding story, and those events in the OT, as bizarre and horrible an un-PC as they sound today, were an important part of the "big picture" of the Christian worldview, but are absolutely NOT to be applied in the same way today by people living today.

 

Then why do the religious insist on applying the rules of the OT to modern problems?

 

So, as far as the actual opening post goes.... short answer. Science can tell us roughly some of the details of HOW God made the universe, and the bible tells us WHY.

 

No, I see no why's in the bible, and science is far more than rough in it's discription of the universe.

 

And hard-corps creationists embarrass me no end with their lack of understanding of the literature in the ancient world.

 

As embarassing as it might be to you they take their BB quite seriously.

 

 

Genesis 1 is a clear re-write of the Babylonian Creation myth the Enuma Elish, and the author was deliberately turning the theology of the ancient world upside down!

 

The Enuma Elish was a cross between the Babylonian's "National Anthem" and creation myth... like Anzac Day and Christmas rolled into one. Everyone knew it, and Genesis 1 absolutely subverts it.

 

It's nice to know someone in religion knows these things but, at least in the USA, the most powerful and disturbing of the religious quite simply would damn you to hell for suggesting such a thing.

 

It's almost like hearing the Australian National anthem re-written.

 

"Australian's all let us rejoice, for we are greedy pigs..." and you know what is coming is completely new and shocking. That's how abruptly and directly the Genesis author was taking on the Enuma Elish. It was always originally meant to be a theological response to the EE, not a scientific mantra about how we got here.

 

Check out a few similarities I noted, in my own layman's perspective (I'm not claiming to be a historian here and may have missed some of the subtleties in the Babylonian myth. If I find my mate's more expert commentary on the EE/Genesis link I'll post that, but for now can't find it.)

Eclipse Now: Genesis re-writes Enuma!

 

So I'm completely convinced there is no conflict between science and Christianity. Science analyses the material universe, Christianity discusses what lies beyond this universe. By definition science cannot tell us about matters in other realities / dimensions / the spiritual, and we must turn to other disciplines, like history and philosophy to glimpse the probabilities of other, "non-material" realities. (Language falls down here).

 

I applaud you for being so tolerant, to bad you cannot convince the fundamentalists of the error of their ways.

[Eclipse Now]

That is rather disingenuous, Hitler wasn't an atheist, Marxism didn't kill people due to their religion, it killed people for political purposes. Pol Pot killed people for political purposes not religious or lack there of. Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't mean you can label them as atheist.

Dialectic materialism = communism will win, there is no god, we can do what we want because it is inevitable that communism will win and therefore because there is no god we can use whatever strategy we like. The end justifies the means. That to me sounds like a political system highly influenced by the philosophical platform undergirding the movement.

Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Then why do the religious insist on applying the rules of the OT to modern problems?

Sad isn't it? From various NT texts we also know that the Judaizers wanted to implement their antiquated circumcision laws on the people of the NT church, so this trend is not that new. All sorts of misunderstandings and trouble and poor teaching is challenged in by the NT authors, so it seems bad teaching was quite common 2000 years ago. As a Christian I guess I can only reply that we're not perfect, just forgiven. Terrible old cliche' but I don't have time to think up something better.

 

No, I see no why's in the bible, and science is far more than rough in it's discription of the universe.

I see plenty of "Why's" such as to serve God and love him forever. I see ancient world theological relationships turned on their heads. The ancients believed that the stars were gods worthy of our worship and servants, but Genesis 1 comes along and says no, the stars are OUR servants, they are are time-pieces and calendars! To the ancient Babylonian that's kind of...

As embarassing as it might be to you they take their BB quite seriously.

Again, sad isn't it?

 

It's nice to know someone in religion knows these things but, at least in the USA, the most powerful and disturbing of the religious quite simply would damn you to hell for suggesting such a thing.

I've met quite a few of these guys online and dang but they scare me! (Especially when climate-sceptic George W was in charge of the USA! Half the Christians over there are climate sceptics because "God made the world right and wouldn't let this happen" and the other half seem to be in the "God is coming back in 7 years so it doesn't even matter even if it is true" category. Theological half-truths read the wrong way so that no-one has to change!) You might find the following an interesting read. It seems Darwin had quite a few conservative Christian friends promoting his scientific discourse.

 

The History of Creationism and what it can tell us about science and faith

 

Historically some of the most conservative Christians did not react to Darwin or evolution like today’s creationists. In 1855, four years before Origin of the Species was published, Charles Darwin was assiduously refining his arguments and collecting data in support of his theory. Darwin's key idea was that all life was descended from a common ancestor. Natural selection was the means by which life descended into its multiplicity of forms. In gathering his evidence, Darwin sought the assistance of Harvard University's professor of botany, Asa Gray. Gray is now regarded as America's foremost botanist of the nineteenth century. Few people were granted a preview of Darwin's explosive (and secretive) theory prior to publication. So it is a measure of Darwin's respect for Gray that he sent him an abstract in 1857.

 

Gray was born in upstate New York and raised in a Christian home. However in early adulthood his spiritual outlook had drifted into an agnostic rationalism then popular among north-easterners. But when Gray moved to Harvard in 1842 he chose not to join the spiritualistic, unorthodox Unitarian chapel services which most of his colleagues attended. Instead, Gray transferred his membership to an evangelical Congregational church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His return to an evangelical faith was steadfast. Gray became a leading defender of Darwinism in America. He corresponded with Darwin at length, often turning to a Congregational minister, G.F. Wright (also an advocate for evolution) for theological expertise when dealing with Darwin's agnosticism.

 

Despite his best efforts Gray never resolved Darwin's doubts. But this did not cause Gray himself to waver on either the scientific case for Darwinism, or its compatibility with orthodox Christianity. Gray was not a lone voice. Others including Princeton theologian James McCosh, James Iverach and Audrey Moore defended Darwinism in Britain as well as America. Indeed by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians.

 

Historically some of the most conservative Christians did not react to Darwin or evolution like today’s creationists

 

Beyond conservative Christianity, Darwin found other supporters in the liberal wings of the church. The Anglican clergyman Frederick Temple (b. 1821) accepted evolution and revised doctrine in its light. The liberal Congregationalist Henry Ward Beecher (b. 1818) extolled evolution and made it a core principle of his theology. A little later the French Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (b. 1881) went further, re-casting all theology in combination with evolution.

 

There were, besides these, many Christian critics of Darwinism as well. The Roman Catholic church was initially hostile towards Darwinism, not revising its official position until the 1960’s at Vatican II. It is worth noting however that these critics, unlike today’s creationists, frequently responded to Darwinism with mainstream scientific arguments. For example, Anglican clergyman George Henslow wrote scientific works critiquing Darwinism such as The Origin of Floral Structures (1888) and The Origin of Plant Structures (1895).

 

I applaud you for being so tolerant, to bad you cannot convince the fundamentalists of the error of their ways.

There's a bunch of us trying, honestly, but the sheer emotion tied up in their rather hysterical position is unconquerable. Once you are indoctrinated that the bible teaches HOW the world was fashioned, the bible is suddenly "disproved" by evolution. How are you going to convince them otherwise when their very existence beyond death and confidence in God are all called into question by their own poor presuppositions? I've argued with FB in the global warming thread, and become a bit cranky at times... but that is nothing compared with the acidic vitriol I've experienced at the hands of my own Christian brothers and sisters pushing creationism on the web. It's a very sad story. And here's the thing: I believe the bible! I believe it is ALL God's word! I'm extremely conservative theologically... it's just I don't believe it teaches what they want it to teach in that 1 or 2 chapters! Can you believe they'd go to war with one of their own in such a manner over 1 or 2 chapters, when we basically agree pretty much on everything else? :confused::eek_big:

 

They also seem very concerned about the sheer amount of time involved in creation, as if it makes humanity appear a strange accidental afterthought. Pfffft!

 

The whole Christian story is one of a God that dies for us. That He might choose to inhabit a human body that He saw fit to "evolve" from a monkey is hardly less demeaning than being executed naked on a cross. It's entirely consistent. The Christian mind is not necessarily troubled by the vastness of our universe and the tiny mote of dust which we call our home, nor should we be troubled by the immense age of the universe. According to the analogy that compares the history of our universe with a 24 hour day, then human beings only arrived in the last second of the last minute before midnight. Why is that troubling to the Christian? If anything, it just illustrates the vastness and immortality and patience of our God. The opening scenes in the bible are so clearly a "creative history", with number symbology etc, that we would be doing the bible a disservice to read it "literally".

 

Or, as a literary critic friend of mine puts it: That is, to not read the literary devices in the passage is to throw out the literary disciplines and read it literally when we shouldn't. Reading it literally is not reading it literally, if you follow.

[Moontanman]

Dialectic materialism = communism will win, there is no god, we can do what we want because it is inevitable that communism will win and therefore because there is no god we can use whatever strategy we like. The end justifies the means. That to me sounds like a political system highly influenced by the philosophical platform undergirding the movement.

Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I read your link and I saw no mention of "there is no god and we can do what ever we want" While communism was atheistic the will to do what ever they wanted wasn't rooted in atheism any more than it was with Hitler. The religious have often shown complete disregard of human life when it suited them. Especially for the humans outside their political or religious chosen few. I honestly do not see how you can blame the deaths of humans under the thumb of communism on anything but the people who governed. To say an atheist is more likely to kill or is some how morally impaired is simply not true and is not supported by the evidence.

[pamela]

from Eclipse Now

Religion is not the only killer, but I do cringe and am sorry for those times people have "killed in the name of Christ".

religion doesnt kill people- people kill people

from Moontanman

The religious have often shown complete disregard of human life when it suited them.

People disregard, religion does not have the monopoly on this

from Moon

Then why do the religious insist on applying the rules of the OT to modern problems?

very vague here, what religion? He was referring to Christianity, what are you referring to? and what example?

From Moon

To say an atheist is more likely to kill or is some how morally impaired is simply not true and is not supported by the evidence.

No one stated this, by what do you base this statement upon?

[Eclipse Now]

I read your link and I saw no mention of "there is no god and we can do what ever we want" While communism was atheistic the will to do what ever they wanted wasn't rooted in atheism any more than it was with Hitler. The religious have often shown complete disregard of human life when it suited them. Especially for the humans outside their political or religious chosen few. I honestly do not see how you can blame the deaths of humans under the thumb of communism on anything but the people who governed. To say an atheist is more likely to kill or is some how morally impaired is simply not true and is not supported by the evidence.

 

Sorry, my sloppy writing. I definitely didn't want to give the impression I was saying anything of the sort in your last line!

 

Also, I should probably go back and edit my writing and say I know some very nice creationists that are far less cranky than I am. ;-)

 

However, what does the "materialism" in dialectic materialism mean? The link I provided was for the background information on the movement, but what is the materialism part? Perhaps it is not Politically Correct to equate one's underlying worldview with certain actual practical outcomes, but I'm still researching the actual philosophical foundations of Soviet styled persecution.

 

EG:

The Soviet State and terror

 

Main article: Communist terrorism

 

The Red Army was ideologically oriented and indoctrinated from its first founding[1] in 1918 to defend the new communist Soviet regime during the Russian Civil War. Leon Trotsky, creater of the Red Army, used propaganda, indoctrination and terror as a weapon to fight the White Army.[2]

 

The first official announcement, published in Izvestiya, "Appeal to the Working Class" on September 3, 1918 called for the workers to "crush the hydra of counterrevolution with massive terror". This was followed by the decree "On Red Terror", issued September 5, 1918 by the Cheka. The use of terror was seen by the Soviet Government and by both Lenin and Stalin, as a legitimate weapon to use in the consolidation of communism — both internally and externally. For Soviet citizens, punishment by the state could include summary executions, torture, sending innocent people to Gulag, involunatry settlement, and stripping of citizen's rights. Under the Soviet legal system, not only the accused — but all members of the family, including children, were punished simultaneously as "traitor of Motherland family members". During Lenin's and Stalins' reign, these repressions were conducted by Cheka, OGPU and NKVD in several consecutive waves known as the Red Terror, Collectivisation, Great Purge, Doctor's Plot, and others. The Red Terror, implemented by Dzerzhinsky on September 5, 1918, was vividly described by the Red Army journal Krasnaya Gazeta:

 

Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands, let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky … let there be floods of blood of the bourgeoisie – more blood, as much as possible…[3]

 

The Soviet Union did not recognize Imperial Russia's signing of the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) as binding and refused to agree to it until 1955.[4] This situation exacerbated the existing culture of terror and human rights abuse by Soviet armed forces.

Soviet war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Where did such a casual disregard for human suffering come from, especially when considering that it was not just a 'bunch of thugs' but organised by the State as the founding political philosophy?

 

I've just not looked at links for this recently... and pretty much thought society new it was part of the "dialectic materialism". I'm genuinely puzzled at having to work at proving this, but ... maybe I grew up with a certain bias? It's always good to question one's own assumptions I guess... but it's so inconvenient and so much work!

 

See, the converse side of this argument is to ask something along the lines of "How many of the crusades were actually religious in nature?" From my own very casual reading of it, Peter the Hermit's crusade may have been religious, but then the 2nd crusade (King Richard's) became more of a political quest and power grab for him and his greedy Lords, and the 3rd crusade was a debacle where a former part of "Christendom" actually ends up getting ransacked... it was just a gold hunt.

[Eclipse Now]

I think I've found a better definition of the dialectic materialism and the logical outworkings in the kind of Stalinism we see above.

 

The theory basically argues that the particular manifestation of "materialist universe" (no-god) we find ourselves in means the inevitable evolution of social systems.... evolution = survival of the fittest = why not do anything to achieve the inevitable communist paradise faster? (Not put so crudely below, but I like to get to the point).

 

A theory of nature formalized from the work of Engels in particular by Soviet ideologists, dialectical materialism supposes that all phenomena consist of matter in motion. Motion itself is the result of the contradictions inherent among the elements in all objects. Moreover, arguing that they are putting Hegel on a materialist basis, dialectical materialists assert that nature itself has a history governed by determinate laws such as quantity into quality, interpenetration of opposites, and the negation of the negation. The motion of matter has been subject to transformation and development, particularly the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative differences. Mankind is considered to be the highest stage of material development. As with nature itself, so human development is subject to dialectal processes of development. The motion of any given stage of society is to be understood in terms of the character of the contradictions of its constituent social elements. At certain stages, and of necessity, quantitative changes occur in a given order which result in such heightened social contradictions that a new, qualitatively higher, stage of social development results. For Soviet dialectical materialists, the highest stage of social development was communism.

dialectical materialism: Definition from Answers.com

 

quantitative changes occur in a given order which result in such heightened social contradictions that a new, qualitatively higher, stage of social development results.

This is why "religion is the opiate of the masses", because it "apparently" lulls the oppressed working classes into submission and subservience avoiding the necessary class warfare. Therefore, ironically, the above lines indicate that Communism itself wants to stir up trouble and all that suffering to heighten the class conflict and eventually bring on the Communist Utopia.

 

Therefore, it really is a view where "godless universe evolves = let's help it evolve through suffering = atheism kills". Or that variety of it anyway.

 

Disclaimer: I have some atheist family, friends, and my local bottle shop grog supplier is a very nice atheist dude.

[pamela]

In reading these current posts there appears to be a consistant use of labels. I hate labels, always have, always will. A label does not define a person, it merely boxes them in via someone else's perception. Hence, they hold no value other than to describe a very small part of the total person by means of action, word or belief.

Why is it there an incessant need to criticize, belittle, or in other words, destroy our fellow man? Do we feel better, when we have reduced another to nothing, by our verbal abuse? One of those most subtle ways of this abuse is labeling. For example, label someone religious. What does this conjure up in your mind? For many of us this has a negative connotation, where as for others, it brings to mind a form of unity. And hence, the rift in peaceful existance begins. Amongst the religions there arises, the “my god is better than your god” thinking that is reminiscent of children proclaiming their toy is better than their friend’s. They have lapsed into the prideful thinking that elevates their ego to false importance. From atheistic to theistic, there arises the superiority of intelligence over emotion. Why do we give the label of religion some power as an entity that would seek to devour us? It is just a label. We all think and believe differently, yet, we are all the same. Humankind. Can we not revel in the differences that make each of us unique instead of tearing down the person and building a wall of separation against them? You cannot change the masses as far as their group thought, but you can change the world in you.

[Eclipse Now]

I personally think labels are very important. I know the label doesn't sum up the totality of my existence, but might at least be a 'shorthand' for the worldview system I have which I ultimately think describes reality.

 

Amongst the religions there arises, the “my god is better than your god” thinking that is reminiscent of children proclaiming their toy is better than their friend’s

It's not that at all, we are trying to describe reality itself. It's not "The way I was raised and the religious festivals I hold are better than yours" or anything so trivial, we are trying to understand what is true.

 

So, Monotheists hold there is only 1 god, but Hindu's believe there are many gods and atheists believe there is no god or gods. These are 3 mutually contradictory truth-claims, and trying to smooth over the differences arguing that they are "labels" defies the logical law of non-contradiction.

 

However, I agree with you over tolerance. Tolerance does not mean that I have to agree with atheists or Hindus or Muslims (the Koran states Jesus was never crucified on the cross, but most non-Christian historians from the ancient world accept that Jesus was executed by crucifixion). Tolerance means I don't blow up their car or spit on their kids. Tolerance means I can have a coffee with my Muslim friend and chat about these things. Tolerance means that, when I was younger and in the Australian army, I was prepared to die for my Muslim friend's right to be a Muslim in our democracy! But it never, never, never says we must commit intellectual suicide and violate the law of non-contradiction. Jesus either was or was not executed by crucifixion. Christianity and Islam cannot both be true. It's that simple.

[pamela]

originally posted by eclipse

Christianity and Islam cannot both be true. It's that simple

.

eclipse, this very statement is exactly what i mean by this

Amongst the religions there arises, the “my god is better than your god” thinking that is reminiscent of children proclaiming their toy is better than their friend’s

It's not that at all, we are trying to describe reality itself. It's not "The way I was raised and the religious festivals I hold are better than yours" or anything so trivial, we are trying to understand what is true.

what is true for you, is not true for someone else. that is evident in the diversity of religions

 

So, Monotheists hold there is only 1 god, but Hindu's believe there are many gods and atheists believe there is no god or gods. These are 3 mutually contradictory truth-claims, and trying to smooth over the differences arguing that they are "labels" defies the logical law of non-contradiction

the label refers to the ideology and not the individual. Yes, there are of course differences in beliefs, but the point is to see the individual as the individual, and not the collective sum of the belief

 

However, I agree with you over tolerance. Tolerance does not mean that I have to agree with atheists or Hindus or Muslims (the Koran states Jesus was never crucified on the cross, but most non-Christian historians from the ancient world accept that Jesus was executed by crucifixion). Tolerance means I don't blow up their car or spit on their kids. Tolerance means I can have a coffee with my Muslim friend and chat about these things. Tolerance means that, when I was younger and in the Australian army, I was prepared to die for my Muslim friend's right to be a Muslim in our democracy! But it never, never, never says we must commit intellectual suicide and violate the law of non-contradiction. Jesus either was or was not executed by crucifixion

I never mentioned tolerance, that is the LEAST anyone one can do. It sets you above the others in your mind as if you are doing some menial favor by putting up with them. It is about imparting kindness to others, DESPITE, the barriers of religion, race, gender, etc.....

Intellectual suicide? not sure i am following you on this. However, I would and have sacrificed my intellectual side, to sit with, listen to, befriend those who were intellectually incompetent. Does that make me superior? of course not, it makes me human: we are all on the same level. it is only your ego that sets you above others.

The issue of whether Jesus was crucified or an illusion as noted in Islam, is not the point. What each individual lays hold to for his own hope is.

[Eclipse Now]

I didn't mean to sound patronising, I'm just pointing out that "tolerance" nowadays seems to mean "everything is true". Well, tolerance can be done "grudgingly" or kindly, I agree, but when we are talking about this rationally and not emotionally several things emerge.

 

Christianity and Islam cannot both be true because they are both mutually contradictory. This is a fact. It's not 'What's true for me..." because the universe doesn't operate that way. People that might believe they are superman when they jump from a skyscraper still die, OK? Our "beliefs" matter because if they do not approach something to do with reality, they can cause a world of pain.

 

The point is the law of non-contradiction.

 

So I totally agree that "we need to be nice to each other and respect each other". But if that means defying logic and accepting meaningless platitudes like "everyone's truth is equal" count me out, because that statement defies possibility.

[pamela]

posted by eclipse

Christianity and Islam cannot both be true because they are both mutually contradictory. This is a fact. It's not 'What's true for me..." because the universe doesn't operate that way. People that might believe they are superman when they jump from a skyscraper still die, OK? Our "beliefs" matter because if they do not approach something to do with reality, they can cause a world of pain.

How can you prove either one is true? you cannot. Therefore, let each one believe as they will. Beliefs do matter, I did not say they do not.

So I totally agree that "we need to be nice to each other and respect each other". But if that means defying logic and accepting meaningless platitudes like "everyone's truth is equal" count me out, because that statement defies possibility

you don't have to accept any one's beliefs, no one is asking you to.

Funny, somehow using the terms logic and meaningless platitudes together, just doesn't quite fit. They defy each other.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm gonna go ahead and support Eclipse Now by posting something I wrote here way back in November 2006.

 

Person A: Absolute truth = X

Person B: Absolute truth = Y

 

Person C: Clearly, one or both of you is wrong. So where do we go from here?

 

 

My take is that religious "truths" are wrong because they are framed in the absolute. Science takes the high ground because it is dynamic and changes when previous data is proven inaccurate or incomplete.

 

What can be done? How do we resolve these inconsistencies which are clear to all but the most closed minded? Change the absolute truths such that recognition is made that there are no absolutes except, perhaps, change itself.

 

 

The point is, their truth is absolute in the eyes of a believer, yet the truths of one religion directly contradict the truth of the other religion. Ergo, one or (much more likely) both of them are flat out, undeniably, without quesiton... WRONG.