Boris, I don't think that I have ever claimed that to hear God one must first believe... If I have, I would amend that statement... I think it is more a matter that one has to be open to the possibility of God... I would not say that I was either a believer or a non-believer a few years ago. As a matter of fact, looking back at that time, I would have classified myself as "apathetic" to the existence of God... To look at solitude in another way, perhaps one in solitude would not have any external limits placed on the possibility of anything and would hear and recognize God even more clearly and readily than those of us who have to deal with all the "noise" about God? Why anybody comes to this forum is a good question. I firmly believe that everything happens for a reason, even though at the time that various events transpire in our lives, we don't always understand the reason. Many times, we understand them later, after we see the cumulative effects of our experiences. Laugh as you might, my gut feeling tells me that I was guided to this forum by the Holy Spirit to spread the word as I was instructed by God. Do you have a special reason for coming to this forum, Boris? [This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 03, 1999).]
truestory, Now, <u>that</u> was not exactly a straight answer. First of all, no matter how averse one is to the idea of God (or in fact if one is ignorant of the idea of God altogether) -- one cannot fail to perceive, or deny perceiving, a straight-out communication. The begging question here is: why aren't we atheists hearing God's voice in our heads? Since God is all-powerful, it is surely no bother for him/her/it to communicate directly to all humans, atheist or not, for all time past and present, hourly. That God doesn't do this, are we to conclude that atheists are left in the dark <u>intentionally</u>? How do you reconcile the real world with your beliefs? Secondly, I'll ask you to review all of the problems I posed earlier (in the "First...", "Second...", and "Thirdly..." paragraphs). Failing to answer them is tantamount to conceding that God does not personally communicate with all, or in fact (for some questions) with any number, of humans. The reasons I come to this board are many. One, is a sort of morbid curiosity as to the mindsets and foundations of faith. Another, is to watch for an occasional post or link worth reading. Then, there is the faint hope that somebody might actually benefit from my input (yeah, right...) Next, to sharpen my tongue -- because I strongly suspect that I will have to deal with plenty of zealotry in the future. Finally, for some reason I actually find this fun. Twisted, aren't I? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 03, 1999).]
666, Make me shut up. If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then why are you attempting to preach it to me? And if you're going to preach the word of God, it's very important to be in touch with the Holy Spirit, otherwise you may misinterpret things. For instance, I pray in my bedroom, alone, and not while anyone is watching or listening. I don't even attend church. The verses that you cited are talking about people who use prayer and their relationship with God to promote themselves, or to glorify themselves, or to set themselves apart. I am no different than anyone. I do not set myself apart from others, as we all face the same ultimate choice in life. I am not boasting when I talk about the Holy Spirit. I was merely trying to engage in the discussion, and offer up a very important premise that happens to be made very clear in the Bible, and happens to be very clear to me personally. The Holy Spirit not only exists and influences people and deserves to be offered up as support of the faith in addition to the Word, AND not only that, but is also the INTERPRETER of that Word. Thanks TS, I've been busy, busy. I miss you guys! See what I mean now about being tough? It's a jungle out here, and that is written. Pray, pray, pray for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth! Boris, If you were on an Island, God would communicate with you and so would Satan. God is fair and loving, and there is always a choice. There are almost two different sets of circumstances, in that every day in every circumstance you make decisions and every single one of them is like having an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, just like the little cartoon. Usually the devil's choice is more tempting, but there's that voice inside that tells you to do what's right. And there are a lot of times, in my life at least, that what I really thought was right wasn't, and there are plenty of issues that we could argue today where that is evident. Some of the things that we justify doing in this society today, globally, with what we thought was good intent, we find that it really isn't working out. Why? I had to ask myself that question. I asked the question regarding myself, and my own life, but got the only answer for anyone. I was exposed to the church when I was very young, and really just went to appease my grandma honestly, and I was turned off by a lot of it. I was much more interested in boys and make-up and shopping malls and such. My parents didn't talk about religion. I ignored the whole thought of it for a long time, til I messed around with those spiritual laws enough to have it pretty much slap me in the face. I didn't find anything inside myself but humility. Jesus made the change in me. People's lives don't change like this without Him. So I even tried getting into everything else first, before I'd go back to the Bible. I was under the impression at that time that there had to be a God, but I didn't buy into the exclusivity of Christianity at the time, and thought that all religions were probably basically the same and that they all pretty much directed people's behavior in the same way. Which in a lot of ways, is true. I did find that the resulting behaviors of different religions are basically the same, and the motivation is even the same, to know the truth and to know God, but the attribution is not the same. I found that the Bible was the final Word. Since Jesus was born, it's been about attribution. It's either of Him, or it's of Satan, and that's it. I'm not saying that people who do not believe Jesus is God come in the flesh are evil, or that the works of those people are bad. But we all have a responsibility to look at the Bible and the fulfilled prophecy and the perfection in the teachings, and see other religions for what they are. Christianity is the only world religion that is based upon the Son of God. Wow, did I go off on a tangent or what? And that is the second set of circumstance...the Bible and Jesus. I mean some of this you sense, inside you. Makes you question things, like you are. Then once you do, and you've been given the Word, you have to make a choice. Some people are exposed to Christianity at different levels it's true, but it's not always in the right way. You are lucky if you have those who walk with God around you and to pray for you, but ultimately, you can sit in that church pew til the day you die, and not get it. It's a personal decision. I refused to just take a leap of faith. If I was searching for truth, I wanted truth, whether or not it was the Christian faith. Honestly Boris, it just made the most sense to me. So I prayed to God in the name of Jesus, and I asked to be forgiven, and for Him to help me see the truth in my life, and for the Holy Spirit, and to change my life into what He wanted it to be. And He is. It's amazing how differently you see the world, and how clear the line between good and evil becomes. I've been shown things that I would have never perceived before. You just realize things like, duh, that's so obvious, then you look around, and not many other people think it's so obvious. It's frustrating in a way, but it's good to know the truth about things, and to know Jesus. It's like that little angel voice on your shoulder getting louder and louder, and He always steers you in the right direction, and pretty soon the little devil doesn't look all that tempting because you see him for what he really is. Wow, I am soooo rambling. Thanks for reading if anyone got to the end of this one. Nighty-night. ------------------ God loves you and so do I! [This message has been edited by Lori (edited November 03, 1999).]
Boris, You can't be serious about this. Not to answer every point made on this board now equates to "conceding"?... Does this mean that you concede any point which I make by virtue of not responding to it? Although I don't know you very well, I'd say NOT. Besides the fact that I don't necessarily agree with the premise of those statements, I took those paragraphs to be more rhetorical in nature and decided to focus on the question which was directed to me, personally... If my memory serves me correctly, you and I have been down this path before, Boris. My answer is yes. However, communication is a two-way street. A true atheist cannot communicate with God because a true atheist DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (not "knowledge" of God - that is agnostic). So, even when faced with communication from God, a true atheist would deny it, because a true atheist would not be open to communication from something which he/she firmly believes does not exist. Because it seems important to you, I will go back and review the three points from your previous post which you would like me to respond to. In the future, all you have to do is ask... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Boris, First of all, the solitude example is fictional. However, God is not just a "concept" - For those who have had direct communication "with" God, they cannot deny that God exists. One in solitude would not be firmly rooted in atheism and therefore would most likely hear communication from God and readily understand that God exists. Personally, like many others, I do not need a book or rituals to know that God exists. The priests and preachers and the "book" are used by God to inform mankind of God's plan for eternal salvation beyond the world which we observe and get caught up in on a daily basis. We, in our human egotism, are many times tempted by the temporal and have a tendency to ignore and fall away from the infinite wisdom of God. God would like to share in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit with as many souls as possible, however, seeing the general depravity of mankind, God promised to send a savior and came to us in the flesh in the form of Jesus Christ to show us the way to salvation. God's promise of salvation through the new covenant with mankind is a reality and a gift that can be extremely difficult for mankind to understand and accept. The priests and preachers, the "book," and even at times the rituals, are used as teaching tools to show us the way. If man were perfect and did not have an ego and if we were not given the free will to either accept or reject God's ultimate gift of salvation, then I might tend to agree with your third statement. However, as I explained above, that was and is not the case. The depravity of mankind created the "need" for a savior and our most merciful God obliged. [This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 03, 1999).]
Lori, I can't make you shutup, I can only ask. I think you took me a little wrong. My intentions were not to preach, but to point to a passage that I feel many Christians / Catholics seem to forget about all together. It is verry interesting how you have interpited the words to suite you needs just like many Christians have done before you. TrueStory, I have recently become aware of the fact that I on many occasions (here and in everday life) have right out of the shoot come of verry harsh. After seeing this I didn't want to continue with it, becuase I reilized that it can prevent fruitfull arguments from taking place. Some times we make bad choices, last night happened to be one of them. ------------------ The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world -Max Born [This message has been edited by 666 (edited November 03, 1999).]
Hey, 666... I hope you don't think I was picking on you. Your post just happened to be one of a number which I have recently read where people said something to the effect that they just couldn't resist or that they couldn't help themselves, etc... Hope there are no hard feelings!
I wonder, in this "modern" world, what if God really is talking to a lot of us? I always see these people walking around talking to themselves & labeled them mentally as "crazy". Sure, some of them probably are unbalanced, but wouldn't it just be a hoot to find out they're conversing with God? What would have happened if Jesus had come to Earth this year? He probably would have been labeled a "cult leader" and harrangued as such, or perhaps labeled "crazy" and given medication to stop the voices in his head. What if a second messiah has come to earth, but we gave him shock treatment back in the sixties to 'bring him peace'?? Talk about ironic! And a claim of virgin birth would have been laughed out of the hospital. Plus, there's so many illusionists and 'magicians' out there - would a real miracle go unnoticed amonst all the fakery? I've seen some pretty darn impressive magic tricks - if I were any less skeptical it would probably freak me out. I don't know about you guys, but if I came accross some weird guy claiming to be the son of God and promising miracles, it would probably make me reach for the mace. Or, I might just back away slowly... "sure, okay. Yah, I believe you! No problem buddy. You just stay right there.." RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! Okay, I'm being a little silly, but what do you guys think - would a new messiah be belived in, or reviled as some kind of freak?
I think there might be mixed feelings regarding this at first. But in time the majority would believe. [This message has been edited by Flash (edited November 04, 1999).]
It says in the Bible that everyone will know, that it will be obvious when Jesus returns. Even to the non-believers, which is all that will be left upon His return to defeat the Antichrist. It is the Antichrist that you are speaking of Flash, the one who will come before the Son to deceive. He will not be obvious like Jesus, but will deceive many anyway, with his power, and claim to peace and love and enlightenment. ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
Not an opinion, but Biblical prophecy!!!! You keep pretending like you don't already know that. Didn't you used to teach Sunday school? *BG* ------------------ God loves you and so do I! [This message has been edited by Lori (edited November 04, 1999).]
Truestory, No hard feelings. I just thought your question merited a vaild respones. ------------------ The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world -Max Born
cute...real cute, Lori. To be honest I never taught on it because even back then I thought it was a piece of you know what. So..that is what the bible says..but only time will tell, huh? You will see, Lori- you WILL see.
truestory, You have certainly answered my questions, but somehow you failed to <u>really</u> answer them. What do you think was the reason all of those questions were asked? What was the unifying point I was trying to make? The "solitude example" was trying to show you that every single religious concept you are in possession of, came from humans and not from God. You are only aware of souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, or God, because you grew up amidst a crowd that passed those words, definitions, and beliefs unto you. You absorbed a popular belief system -- and it is that "folk", "cultural" set of ideas that you claim to be your own and that you hold so dear. You are ascribing to a dogma, and dogma is the source of your "faith". The second "question" tied in with the first one. If God personally communicated with you, why would you need all the other humans to teach you all the religious concepts that you command now? Why would there be an instruction book? Why do you have to read it, or have somebody else read it to you, or have somebody else describe or represent it to you -- to get your "knowledge"? If God truly communicates with individuals, then surely God would be capable of giving you all of the necessary religious knowledge! You should just come into the world already aware of all the commandments, all the rules, all the "spiritual laws". You should need no religion to teach you, or "save" you, or "enlighten" you -- you would already possess all of the knowledge, before you could even form the first skeptical question. Why does God not invoke such a direct and sure-fire way, and instead chooses to rely on the grapevine game to convey his "truth" to the people -- so that by the time the "truth" arrives, it is distorted and maimed and embellished beyond all recognition? And the more time passes since God's last "legitimate" contact, the worse the corruption gets, with no end in sight? Now, we arrive at the third point. This was the question: First of all, you don't even address the question. Yet, this is the weakest link in your entire argument. Judaism existed long before Jesus. Which means, at least an entire small tribe on this Earth did not need a "savior" to find their way to "God". Which begs the question of why in no other place on Earth, among thousands and thousands of cultures and civilizations, an identical to Judaism religion never arose? It begs the question of why, from emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens at least 50,000 years ago, Judaism never came around, and only appeared (allegedly) about 6500 years ago? Why did God wait so long to make "first contact"? Why did God only make "first contact" with a tiny tribe in the middle of a desert? Why did the countless other individuals go "un-enlightened" all that time all over the world? Secondly, are you alleging that all other religions in the world exist only due to their adherents' egos?!! I am reminded many times that in my atheist stance I seem to discard the opinion of 95% of the world. Well, you seem to come pretty close to my record, in stating that the 4/5 of the world's population are all misled by their egos, while your "Truth" is the real thing! <hr> The overarching point is that Christianity is a human phenomenon that has nothing to do with the supernatural. It does not nearly possess the high pedestal that its proponents seem to imagine. Just like all other human religions and cultures, it had its limited and rather earthly origins -- and it will bite the dust just as surely as did the coutless thousands of other religions before it. And even more religions are possibly yet pending (assuming humanity survives that long, and doesn't learn to differentiate reality from wishful fantasies.) ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 07, 1999).]
Boris, I understand what you were TRYING to do, Boris. However, based on my experiences, it does not hold muster with me. We have been down a similar path before, Boris. Although we both may have first "heard" of the existence of "souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, and God" from some amongst the crowd that we grew up with, some of your other life experiences and mine have been very different. As I have explained to you on many ocassions, I have, in fact, had independent experiences which substantiate the existence of "souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, and God." You see, Boris, based on my experiences, I cannot deny that God exists and would have to rely on a "cultural" set of ideas from you and other humans to convince me otherwise. As I have explained previously, Boris, although I had previously heard of both God and atheism, of both spiritual and earthly things, I was fortunate enough to have had the truth revealed to me independent of other humans. As I have also explained previously, I was also fortunate enough not to have needed an instruction book prior to this revelation. However, many people are still lost and are looking for the answers about God and salvation. In accordance with God's promise to mankind, God has given us the knowledge we need for salvation through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ which are well-documented for the benefit of mankind. God does communicate with us, God is certainly capable of giving us all of the knowledge we need for salvation and God has already done so. We were also given a free-will to accept or reject this communication and knowledge. Therefore, there are some of us who accept it and some of us who reject it. Boris, you claim that we SHOULD just come into the world with all of the knowledge which has been communicated to us by God throughout history? Boris, this premise seems to beg the question, "Which came first?" Mankind and its relationship with God did come first and we knew all we needed to know for eternal salvation. However, throughout history, mankind made a mess of this most important relationship with God and jeopardized its salvation through such human flaws as egotism, greed, short-sightedness and concern only for that which is temporal... The mess which we created necessitated the need for help from God which God chose to send via such things as the ten commandments and a savior so that as many as souls as possible would be saved. The birth, life and teachings of Jesus Christ in the flesh is certainly considered by many to be a direct communication. The truth which Jesus Christ perfected for us is relatively simple. It is skepticism and some of our other non-perfect human conditions which causes the truth to become complicated. What is it that you would consider to be God's last "legitimate" contact? You, being an atheist, I would venture to guess would say "none"? Boris, you restated your question in the form of a challenge: Then, Boris, you posted what I consider to be a manipulation of my answer: You see, Boris, you left out the all important statement which I made which was: "However, as I explained above, this was and is not the case." After you left this all important satement of mine out, in an apparent attempt to give the false impression that I somehow avoided your question, you go on to say: To be fair and reasonable, I will reiterate my answer in its entirety: Now, Boris, I would suggest that you re-read your question and my answer as it was "truely" addressed without trying to kid yourself or anyone else. Although God has communicated with man from the beginning, the fact is that Judaism originated from God's contact with man which specifically addressed man's "need for" and God's "promise of" a savior. It was the first stage of God's plan under the new covenant to prepare mankind for the coming of Jesus Christ, Boris. It was not God's first contact with mankind. I am being forthright and honest in my debate with you, Boris. There is nothing for me or anyone else to avoid in your questions. Why you insist on continuing to twist, twist, twist... only you can answer. (Hey, are you Chubby Checker?) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
truestory, It is amusing to hear you accuse me of "twisting", since I am the one who should be making such accusations. Though I concede, you beat me to the punch. <hr> First, you agree that 'we both may have first "heard" of the existence of "souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, and God" from some amongst the crowd that we grew up with'. But then, you state that 'I have, in fact, had independent experiences which substantiate the existence of "souls, Christ, afterlife, heaven, hell, and God."' For one, you cannot call your experiences "independent" -- because you interpreted them within the "folk" framework to which you admit. You did not approach these experiences impartially; you already had a background against which to view them. Consider the fact that, had you adhered to Hinduism instead, you would have interpreted your experiences quite differently, and they would have served to similarly "substantiate" a Hindu framework instead of a Christian one. Therefore, your alleged experiences do nothing to serve as a proof of Christianity; rather, they serve to demonstrate an ontological fallacy that you committed. You see, theories are not tested by "substantiation" -- they are tested by measurements which serve to emphatically contrast them against other theories. As far as I can tell, there was nothing in your experiences which argues specifically for Christianity, and which prevents interpretation in terms of any other religion. <hr> You state 'I was fortunate enough to have had the truth revealed to me independent of other humans.' Then you say, 'However, many people are still lost and are looking for the answers about God and salvation.' Now, isn't it amusing that <u>you</u> were "fortunate enough" to have experienced a direct revelation, while 4 billion other people remain "lost"?? How do you account for such extreme preferential treatment? But wait, then you say 'In accordance with God's promise to mankind, God has given us the knowledge we need for salvation through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ which are well-documented for the benefit of mankind.' First of all, if you experienced a direct revelation, at least <u>you</u> have no use for the "life and teachings of Jesus Christ". It serves no "benefit" to <u>you</u>. You already know the truth, "independent of other humans", remember? Which means, independent of all documentation, as well. So again, I ask the question, what makes you so special? Why shouldn't <u>everyone</u> experience direct revelations from God? Why should <u>anyone</u> need "documentation" to "benefit" them? Why couldn't <u>everyone</u> obtain all the right knowledge "independent of other humans" -- through direct contact with God? Please note that by "direct contact" I mean <u>personal</u>, <u>contemporaneous</u>, <u>individual</u>, <u>one-on-one</u> contact -- not "contact" through allegations of one's ancestors. <hr> Really? I've never had God communicate with <u>me</u>! Nor with anyone I directly know! Unless by "communication" you mean the <u>humans</u> passing on religion from generation to generation. Sorry, but I don't consider a monk's sermon to be putting me in communication with God. 'beg the question, "Which came first?"'?! (keep reading...) Excuse me, but I am <u>NOT</u> talking about "mankind" -- I am talking about me, and you! I am talking about <u>individuals</u>! Who cares what happened in human history? When <u>I</u> am born, <u>I</u> should be directly contacted by God, and be made aware of all I need to know. <u>I</u> should not rely on other representatives of "mankind" to teach me; <u>I</u> should be directly taught by God. <u>I</u> come first, as far as <u>my</u> own conscious existence is concerned. Everything I subsequently learn, comes <u>later</u>. Again, why does God not <u>personally</u> contact each and every one of us? Why does not each and every one of us have revelations? Why must we rely on a grapevine to claim to represent, and indirectly speak for, God? Why can't God speak for him/her/itself? Well, I certainly do not consider it "direct"! It may have been direct to those people who actually lived alongside with Christ. But, obviously, <u>we</u> do not! This is classically <u>indirect</u> communication, where the source is allegedly God, but the medium of communication is religion! Religion, the Bible, the priests -- these are all <u>middle men</u>, all corruptible and demonstrably corrupt! How could you possibly call this "direct communication"?! Interesting play on words. Of course, as an atheist I do not believe in "miracles". However, taking your point of view, I would argue that there were indeed cases of "legitimate" contact from God. God did directly speak to Abraham, and to Moses, and to the 12 apostles, and to many many others, did he not? God did part the seas, and flood the world, and rain mana, did he not? So, where's God now? Why doesn't he directly talk to us? Why does God's communication always take the form of "documented" <u>past events</u>? I do not consider religious legacy to be a "legitimate" form of communication -- merely because we all agree that such a source, even if stemming from a true origin, is not a high-fidelity communications medium. I've repeatedly made the analogy to the game of grapevine. This is not legitimate communication. In legal terminology, this is "hearsay". I want something more than just hearsay! Don't you? Doesn't anyone? <hr> Finally, you made quite a mess of my "third" challenge, rather than answering it satisfactorily. I will re-state it yet again: I did indeed abridge your response, but not in an attempt to "manipulate" it! I just wanted to make it more concise. But fine, here's your complete reponse this time: You still do not address the question! Not even with this: This time, I kindly ask <u>you</u> to reread my challenge. Where did I mention "mankind"? I was talking about <u>individuals</u>! I was arguing that if God was in contact with everyone from the word go, that if every single human experienced one-on-one conversations with God, revelations, or whatever you want to call it -- then there would not be such a diversity of religions and cultures in the world. Furthermore, if every human always had direct contact with God, then Judaism would have been born with the first human, and it would <u>never</u> have been corrupted, degraded, etc -- because it would not be propagated from person to person; it would be propagated directly from God to every person. There would be no need for mass religion, because every individual would already inherently embody the religion, through direct communication with God. With this clarification, go back and yet again reread my challenge. How do you reconcile history with God? ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Lori, I'm sorry, but I didn't notice that big thing you edited into your Nov 3 post, until now. You have said repeatedly in many posts that your chief reason for the faith is that it "works". My very simple counterargument to this is to ask the following questions: does it work because God exists, or does it work in the same way a visit to a shrink works? Is the direction, reinforcement, comfort and structure you find in your life due to God, or to your faith? Could the "goodness" be actually coming from <u>you</u>, and not from some divine source? Could it be that through "faith" you merely found a way to get more in touch with yourself, to buffer yourself against "interference" that comes from the external world? To this end, I would like to point out that a great many atheists live in a similar state of comfort and moral rectitude -- with no need for God, mind you. If your religion is merely a matter of finding a purpose -- then I must say that you bought into a rather shabby way of accomplishing that goal, given the wide selection available. As to the claim of enlightenment, that many things seem "obvious" now that you've got your faith, consider the following analogy. A long time ago, the sky mystified humans. It pristinely, almost transcendently, presided over the world, and featured powerful and enigmatic objects like the Sun, the Moon, and weird phenomena like shooting stars, comets, planets, stars and the Milky Way. The best people could do is to give various objects names, and to try to discern or invent any pattern to their behaviors. The first theories were rather crude, and like most primitive "science", they employed animistic approaches to ascribe human properties, motivations, and emotions to any and all objects, so as to explain "behaviors" of the world. This was not very satisfactory, until somebody observed that the entire heavens seemed to undergo a coherent motion. With a spark of inspiration, the idea of an ever-rotating "heavenly sphere" was born. Imagine the glee and delight, when such a powerful simplification suddenly injected so much sense and order into the mystery. Imagine further elation, when the idea of the rotating sphere was further extended and embellished by Aristotle, to eventually employ a sophisticated machinery of nested rotational mechanisms -- to accurately describe the motions of not only the stars, the Sun and the Moon, but the Planets as well! Such clarity was taken as a surefire signal that the idea of heavenly spheres was the key to revelation, a piece of truly divine wisdom. It was amazing to the followers of Aristotle that nobody had come up with such a simple, elegant and <u>obvious</u> description of the heavens much earlier. The theory opened eyes, it gave deep insight, it enabled astronomical predictions of unprecedented clarity. It truly was a revelation. Little wonder that the Christian church took it as such, and elevated it to the status of practically divinity. What a joke it was, in retrospect. For centuries now, armed with Copernican theories, it has been hard for many to comprehend how the anscients managed to err so egregiously. Knowing the true nature of celestial objects, it is almost impossible to look at a crescent Moon, and not to see a three-dimensional sphere illuminated from a side by the light of the Sun. Climbing a mountain and watching the horizons expand, it is almost impossible to comprehend how the anscients missed the "obvious" fact that the Earth is a sphere as well! Knowing of gravity, it is nearly ridiculous that the anscients could not fathom its "obvious" existence. So... Was Newton's "revelation" truly the inspired one, the final leap of comprehension, the real understanding of the workings of the heavens (not to mention the rest of the universe)? Judging by the conviction, elation and enthusiasm of its adherents, it <u>surely</u> must have been, right? It made so many things obvious, which were not obvious before. It brought to attention many phenomena which were not even observed readily in nature, and only could be "conjured up" in arcane laboratory equipment. The evidence for the world-view was overwhelming, the merit of the framework was unquestionable, its methods became second-nature to a great many people, it expanded horizons, pointed ways to solutions, resolved paradoxes, brought order and astonishing clockwork clarity to the world. By God, it must have been the real Truth. Yet notice that the ultimately-Newtonian framework entirely and nonchalantly threw out all of the concepts and precepts of Aristotle's divine theories, without exception. Not even a vestige of the old music of the heavens, of the magical epicycles, remained. And given that, Newtonian proponents should have been more cautious about their own conviction. For their fate exactly mirrored that of the Anscient Greeks. Of course, from the modern perspective, the clockwork universe of yore is laughably primitive. We have done and threw away most of the deeply entrenched, seemingly inescapable Newtonian concepts and beliefs already, and we are on the verge of throwing away the rest. Are we then on the brink, finally, of Ultimate Truth? One could, of course, foolhardedly edify the modern theoretical corpus as the ultimate achievement, and enjoy a long-delayed and well-deserved sigh of relief. However, one mindful of the past would rather take notice of the recurring paralleles. It is not only possible, but in fact likely, that despite all of our revelations, and all the pieces that have fallen into place, and despite all the "confirmations" we are getting from the external world -- we are not even close to approaching the ultimate Truth with a capital T. The moral of this excursion? Your belief in God is entirely analogous to a belief of any of the past philosophers in their respective cosmologies and metaphysical frameworks. In fact, your faith is indeed in itself just a metaphysical framework. Hence, you should be far more cautious in your elation at all the "confirmations" and "clarifications" that your religion has enabled you to make. It is much more likely (and in fact, evident) than otherwise, that your fundamental concepts are catastrophically wrong, that your modus operandi is systematically flawed, and that your "insights" are merely spurious and fruitless misinterpretations. There are many reasons why many very smart people, having deeply analyzed the precepts and methods of religions, and the relationships between all other fields of human knowledge and religious metaphysics, arrive at the conclusion that religion is merely pseudoscience, a bad theoretical formulation, a miscarried child of the strife to comprehend. I do not ask you to take their word for it, but to actually seek out their word and judge for yourself. The depth and scope of such discourse would demand a full-time devotion to a philosophical doctorate; however, libraries and bookstores are stacked with modern accounts of materialism and arguments against dualism. Rather than watch tabloid TV programs, or browse the babbling popular texts, perhaps it could truly be a horizon-expanding experience for you to actually try to tackle an account at the level of the academia. All this is to say that you are much too hasty and uncircumspect to jump to your conclusions, and embrace your "confirmations" (which, by the way, are not a valid method of acquiring or testing knowledge), as part and parcel of The Ultimate Truth. History truly does repeat itself, and social phenomena, such as religions, are not excepted from that rule. From my own perspective, having already seen too many ill-fated self-deceptions in the name of understanding, you are obviously enough yet another sore example. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
