Science is almost ALL theories. Many are accepted as fact, but they remain theories because evidence may come along some day through increased knowledge or better instruments used for testing, that disproves a part or all of a "theory." It's called not being arrogant. Your suggestion that God exists and is a Lawgiver is as much a theory as evolution is, and with less evidence.

The difference between fundamentalists and science can be described like this.

If suddenly, irrevocable proof came out that evolution was definitely a fact, fundamentalists would say "well, that's nice, but I still don't believe it." But if sudden irrevocable proof came out that God was real and evolution was false, scientists would acknowledge the evidence, throw out the old broken theories, and study something else. Without batting an eye.

The sad thing about the fundamentalist approach to evolution is that most believe evolution puts forth as truth some things that it doesn't. Like one species turning into another species, for example. Missing links and other such nonsense as reflected in statements like "If you sent a tornado through a junk yard, you'd NEVER wind up with a fully functional 747 after it was over." Fundamentalists seem to think that is what evolution claims. It isn't. And I'd say you can study that for yourself, but it's pretty clear you have already decided (incorrectly) what it is, and have no interest (which is good, because your understanding of it is wrong, and believing in wrong things is....wait for it....bad. )

You seem to want to pin on me a complete belief in no God at all. You can't pin that on me because it doesn't exist. What I do believe is that it is highly improbable.

I wonder, if in the far future when more is known about everything, who will come by and determine which of us was the caster of pearls.

If suddenly, irrevocable proof came out that evolution was definitely a fact, fundamentalists would say "well, that's nice, but I still don't believe it."

and that's a misrepresentation of the truth Ock. The Christians do NOT have a problem with provable well tested out scientific FACTS. What is at issue is the theories TAUGHT as fact. Evolution is NOT a FACT. It is a THEORY. So no we do not believe in the theory of Evolution. To a Christian that is just one more avenue (lie) to get God out of the picture, and we're not falling for it.

You seem to want to pin on me a complete belief in no God at all. You can't pin that on me because it doesn't exist. What I do believe is that it is highly improbable

semantics again. Either you believe or you don't. Highly improbable is saying the same as HE doesn't exist. Why not just say it? Do you think you're safer with one foot on either side of the fence?

Wow. Do you people have anything else to do in your day?

ROFL. Nope, this pretty much sums up our day. We just all sit around the computer and figure out the world. Someday you'll thank us when we have it all ironed out.

To me the Bible is a book of collected writings. That is it. Not divinely inspired. Not the literal word of God.

notice the operative words here..."to me." And I would answer you I agree with you. But "to me" after testing out this word for more than 35 years I have found them to be exactly what they claim to be. I would ask you....how much have you read this word that claims to be the very word of God? Have you even read one book out of the 66 included in the bible? I say this because most that come at me like this have never even picked up the bible at all.

As a grad student and especially coming out of a science background I shouldn't have to tell you about doing"research" before you come up with your final answer now do I? Have you tested this out like you may test a scientific experiment or are you basing your belief on what others have told you to be true?

Anyway, why it is so important that I or any other person that does not believe your beliefs should align ourselves with your thought process or belief system?

It's not about us first of all. Second of all from our POV we are told to "go and tell" of the hope that is to come for all mankind that will listen. We have experienced that hope and understand what Christ meant when he said we could have an "abundant life" right now even. We, as Christians, want to share what we have with those around us. That's it in a nutshell. It's out of obedience and love we do what we do. Our obedience to God and our love for him as well as to those around us whether we know them or not.

One of the beautiful things about Buddhism, for me, is that each person must find their way to enlightenment. You have chosen your path. I have chosen my path.

So you'r another believe in Buddha? Hmmmmm......... One thing I am noticing is those here that believe as you do, in Buddhism, seem to be having the most difficulty with this subject. Why is that? I also feel for the most part, the most hostility coming from those that beileve in this path. Why is that? Aren't you guys supposed to be mellow and reflective?

No real hostility, KFC, (at least from me) just a certain amount of annoyance at Christian arrogance and unwillingness to see the validity of other points of view.

There is no "supposed to be" of Buddhism. There is just being present. If one is angry then one is angry and lets it go; if one is happy then one is happy and lets it go. Serenity comes from being centered and not being a slave to emotions. This does not mean that we don't have emotions.

There is a nice little article in this month's issue of Shambala Sun by my friend Brad Warner, author of "Hardcore Zen" and "Sit Down and Shut Up!" Its about your very question. You might pick it up at the bookstore. Essentially he says people get their ideas about Buddhists from media images and these are seriously distorted. True Zen is tough stuff, not for everyone. Moreover its about manifesting yourself as you are every moment with the highest degree of authenticity. Hard to make an image of that.

Be well.

I don't believe. But I am not saying I'm right. And no, I don't say what I say to make myself feel more comfortable. If there is a god and he's so insecure as to be offended by the fact that I think, I'll happily join my brothers and sisters in hell. For me there is a difference between not believing something and believing that it is not. Read that last little bit again. Neither you nor Lula seem to understand it.

Regarding what you said to Asaxygirl, you should probably do a little research of your own. You might find that:

A) She's your elder and,
She was raised Buddhist and Shinto in Japan and later became a member of the Catholic church before returning to Buddhism.

And I agree with Sadaiho. No hostility. Frustration and a certain amount of annoyance. The annoyance isn't due to differing beliefs. It's due to the fact that there is no way to discuss it because of the different criteria for what is evidence.

The thing about theories...you're really not very good at fundamentalism, KFC. Most dogged dogmatics have given that one up as the kind of argument a child makes on the playground. Everyone with two neurons to rub together knows that it is very rare that a scientific theory becomes a fact. Scientists aren't arrogant enough to take a bunch of hearsay and call it law, and every day they go to work, they spend a lot of time trying to prove themselves wrong.

Gravity is not even a fact. Do you believe in gravity? It's just a theory, after all.

So if we could get millions to believe in Ock's leprechauns and thousands to martyr themselves to 'prove' their existance, the leprechauns would be real, and Lula would consider dedicating her life to their service.

Those leprechauns are real, and I challenge anyone to prove their unbelief in them. I'm sure a lot of people will bring up the bible as proof that Fred isn't real, but that's just the work of Doug. Sad that so many fall for his tricks.

OCK POSTS: #73



And I will give you this one...of having faith and belief.

A little girl asked her father if she could go down to him in the dark cellar. He said that she might. But when about to descend, she found the ladder had been taken away. "I can't get down, there is no ladder" she called. "Jump down, I will catch you", said the father.
"But I can't see you, I can't see anything", she said. "Jump and I will catch you, my arms are wide open". The little girl had faith in her father and unheistatingly jumped into the darkness and was safely caught in her father's arms. Now if the girl only believed in her father, and let it go at that, without jumping, she would have not enjoyed the pleasure of being with her father. So it is with God.

Well then you're not my elder. Not that that makes a huge difference to me but sometimes it does.



I never said I did. I just asked a fair question. Usually when I have these discussions with others, they do admit they've read very little of the scripture. Sometimes when they have read it at all it's with a skeptical attitude. That's why I asked. No assumptions made from me on this one. I would say no more than you for asking the following questions of me....



And I'll answer. Absolutely not. My faith does indeed answer all the questions of life, such as where did I come from, what is my purpose in life and where am I headed. In my opinion, these are the most important questions of life for us on planet earth.



hahahah well you just described me as well. We DO have common ground here.



You sound like you're on a similar path as my son. His degree is in Molecular Biology and he's working on his Ph.D in Neuro Science. His field right now is working on a cure for epilepsy spending eons of hours working in the labs. His best friends are mice....dead one...ewwwwww! It would be a hoot to see you two meet up someday. Who knows maybe you already know him and don't realize it?



and do you have witnesses to back you up on this Ock?

sOdAIHO POSTS:

In His sermon, CHrist establishes a complete expression of Christian doctrine by which His followers are guided. We learn that the important and chief work of life in the service of God, that fancies that the world holds as most worthwhile are of no consequence, and even harmful to those who place the God first plan in their life.

There are 2 accounts--St.Luke and St. Matthew. From them we learn that Christ's teachings are a sharp departure from the Mosaic tradition, in fact advanced far beyond them in human relations.

Moses had appealed to people hard of heart by promising material blessings as a reward of right living. So it was that the Jews had always considered wealth representative of God's blessings, sickness and misfortune as proof of His wrath..so too their harshness towards the sick and unfortunate, their misunderstanding of Messianic prophecies. But our Lord dispelled these with the Beatitudes. He talked to the poor, to the less fortunate who knew the burden of oppression. How great was their rejoicing when Christ proclaimed the foundationstones of His kingdom...Blessed are this...Blessed are that...Christ didn't come to destroy the law, but to elevate it to Christian perfection...something Anne Coulter knew well as we have already discussed.

Yes, Christ wasn't about a political or military revolution, He proclaimed a spiritual revolution.

Moses had said thou shalt not commit adultery, divorce is to be tolerated..but Christ said evil thoughts and impure glances are sinful, marriage is to be restored to its primitive sanctity, one man and one woman for life. The Old Law had said they were to exact an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the New Law demands that Christians suffer violence for their conviction. The Talmud which you have said that you frequently read, teaches the pagan is not our neighbor, have no pity on the Gentiles. The Christian must love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who maltreat and slander us.

Oh, yes, the Savior changed the whole view of life...He raised our minds and hearts to heavenly things. He assured us of God's love no matter how difficult the path. Oh yes, a new teaching, a new program, apart from the materialistic background, the synagague to His Church, a visible human organism, yet spiritual in nature.

There is no doubt as to His teaching...it has come down to us through the ages...what is old, is new every time it is taught.
Do you know what happened when He came down from the mountain where the Sermon was given to Capharnaum? One of the elders of the synagague came to seek His help on behalf of a Roman centurian whose servant was close to death. Slaves were regarded as cattle then. Christ acceded to their request and before He got to the centurian's house, and knowing that a Jew would be rendered unclean to enter into a Gentile's house, he sent friends to tell Christ that he was not worthy that CHrist should enter under his roof, but only say the word and my servant shall be healed. Our Lord praised his faith in the presence of all and said that at that hour the servant was healed. I believe that CHrist performed the miracle of healing the servant.

Ock posts:


We discussed gravity about 40 posts ago! Gravity is still pretty much a big mystery...I think Cedarbird was on to something though when she said that we know it exists becasue if not for it we'd be floating.

I wrote:





Yes, I understand the difference between not believing something and believing that it is not...that's relatively easy to understand.

It's just that your #73 reply, that "truth is relative", "survival of the fittest", etc., examples aren't really a persuasive rebuttal to what I've given as demonstratable physical evidence of the existence of God, that we can know by human reason, namely the law of causality and the argument of the inner voice of conscience.

After that I offered the argument of universal belief which is given the fact that all people of all times haved believed in a Supreme Being who is God, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a justification for that belief. Kinda half-heartedly, I used your own story about the elf to try to make this point.

Should we, in fact expect the secular history records of Jesus' day to have preserved any mention of the life of Jesus and if so what kind of references should we expect?

Actually there is some evidence outside of the biblical writings but admittedly not alot especially from the time period of his death. From the decade of the thirties practically nothing survived. Although surviving from this time period is an inscription of Caesarea bearing two thirds of Pilate's name. All that is left of the forties are fables written by Phaedrus. I could go on with the fifties and sixties AD. Most of that stuff comes from Spanish emigrants in Rome.

Take the record of Pontius Pilate for example. In my research I did find that no offical record has been preserved of any report which Pilate or any other Roman governor of Judea sent to Rome about anything. And only rarely has an offical report from any governor of any Roman province survived. But we can read from Justin Martyr writing about 150 AD his informing emperor Pius of the fulfillment of Psalm 22:16.

"But the words, "They pierced my hands and feet," refer to the nails which were fixed in Jesus hands and feet on the cross and after He was crucified. His executioners cast lots for His garments and divided them among themselves. That these things happened you may learn from the Acts which were recorded under Pontius Pilate." First Apology

He said also:

"That He performed these miracles you may easily satisfy yourself from the "Acts" of Pontius Pilate." First Apology

A generation or so later we have the writings of Tertullian, who wrote that the census which was held about the time of Jesus' birth was recorded in the offical archives of the reign of Augustus and that anyone who took the trouble to look these archives up would find the registration of Joseph & Mary therein.

I would say this is a bold statement, if in fact, no record existed.

One prolific writer and contemporary of Jesus was Philo. He was born around 15 BC and lived in Egypt dying around 40 AD. He came from a wealthy family. His works were primarily of philosophy and commentary on Jewish scripture and religion He wrote, "It is not unduly surprising that such a person should not pay much attention to an agitator sprung from the humblest of the people whose doctrine if he had one had no connection with philosophy."

We know Paul died aroung 67 AD and after that there are much ancient writings outside of scripture in regards to the Christian faith. Some of these ancient secular writers you can check out include:


Cornelius Tacitus born 52-54 AD
Lucian of Samosata (second century) He spoke scornfully of Christ but even this gives us proof that Christ indeed exist.
Flavious Josephus born 37 AD -Jewish Historian
Plinius Secundus, Pliny The Younger (Govenor of Asia Minor 112 AD)
Tertullian
Thallus - (one of the first Gentile writers who mentions Christ in 52 AD known from fragments cited by other writers)
Phlegon- Fist Century Historian

Rabbis

There are all kinds of comments about Christ from various kinds of rabbinic literature. The Jewish authorities did not deny that Jesus performed miracles but they attributed them to sorcery.

Many Jewish scholars in our present time have been in the forefront affirming the historicity of Christ. Geza Vermes, David Flusser, S. Safrai and Pinchas Lapide have lead the way claiming Jesus as a first century Jew. I could go on and on as to what they found out by studying Jesus and his Jewish background and how it compares to the Hebrew Scriptures finding no discrepeancies in his very Jewish nuances in His words and deeds. Many parallels between his teaching and rabbinic teaching have been found. When you compae these teachings you can see how far fetched the idea that the life of Christ was made up by zealous Christians of the second and third centuries.

Don't get me started......I'll spare you the rest.

ASAXYGIRL wrote:
"If you would like to ascribe this inner voice of conscience to your god then that is your choice....Your truth is .....called the Bible. To me the Bible ...is not provable nor is there rigorous, repeatable study to show that the claims made in this book are true or false....There is no proof to me that Jesus or the Christian defined god is the source of all that is good and moral....As a scientist I look for rational arguments...ones that can be substantiated with fact."

Asaxygirl posts: #97 Grad school calls and homework is waiting so I'll make this fairly brief.


It is understandable that as a grad student you are busy with homework and all. Nevertheless, you found time to post your comment implying my assertion that God as LawGiver hardwired our inner voice of conscience is irrational (reply #54).

You asked:


Perhaps you didn’t read my answer which btw, comes not from Scripture, but from human reason...specifically the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Ever hear of the law of causality? It tells us that every effect must be due to a power or agent that caused it. Nothing in the world came into existence of itself...including the phenomena of the moral law dictated to us by inner voice of our conscience, of which I'm sure you agree we all have.

Motion comes from a mover; design from a designer, life from life and the moral law dictated to us by our voice of conscience from a Lawmaker or Lawgiver. The proof of causality is simple and irrefutable. A watch takes a watch maker, the Cosmos manifests design that supposes a Designer of infinite intelligence and power, whom we call Almighty God. The universality of belief in the existence of a Supreme Being is a forceful reminder of the fact that our human nature recognizes and is dependent upon the existence of God.

Another proof is the existence of law as it manifests through inanimate as well as animate nature. It evidences the existence of a LawMaker or LawGiver. The Natural(moral)law in particular is a constant reminder of the LawMaker enjoining us to do and not to do certain things.

So, what's your rational argument as to where our interior law known as conscience comes from? If not from God, what's the source....From where/ from what/ from whom does our conscience come?

and do you have witnesses to back you up on this Ock?

*drops voice to a whisper* Yeah...but Fred doesn't like it when you test him, and he's a leprechaun, (to Lula,) not an elf. Elrond is an elf - well, he's half elf. Regardless, I don't have to prove the existence of Fred, you have to prove that Fred is not.

"But I can't see you, I can't see anything", she said. "Jump and I will catch you, my arms are wide open". The little girl had faith in her father

She protested first, and then his voice spoke to her, sound waves she perceived with physical ears, and she had faith? Are you saying you've heard sound waves from God with your physical ears? I don't suppose you could get us a recording...

namely the law of causality

Another playground argument easily refuted. Everything must have a cause. So God caused the universe. So what caused God then? God is eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? Next.

Moses had appealed to people hard of heart by promising material blessings as a reward of right living.

Silly people with hardened hearts. Oh wait...who was it that hardened them? Exodus 7:3 (Stacked Deck Theory proven WITH the bible)

The Old Law had said they were to exact an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the New Law demands...

The eternal law of god changed? I guess the first law was just a theory.

I think Cedarbird was on to something though when she said that we know it exists becasue if not for it we'd be floating.

Actually, gravity is a lie. God put little spiritual magnets inside all of our bodies that stick us to the planet. You can't see them, but clearly they are there.

B-I-N-G-O!

And now that the science of genetics, molecular biology, etc. have given us more detailed info on DNA, we know without a doubt that there is no such thing as one species (kind) evolving into a completely new and different one.

Ock it's past your bedtime. You are a silly, silly man......too much partying during the Superbowl?   



Really? I thought you said you studied this? Again I noticed the "to me" statement that you keep using. Good. I'm glad you're clarifying this.

While I can't prove to you the bible is the inspired word of the Living God or that Jesus was God in the flesh, I can show you much, much evidence that many of the facts presented in the bible are true...you know people, places, events and things. They are easily verified with archeology, historical documents and the like. This is not even debated. You don't even have to go far into research to realize this.

After doing the needed research even the most hardened atheists have to admit that this bible is at least historically trustworthy. If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity. The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable.

and WHAT color are your eyes Lula? They wouldn't happen to be blue now would they....