the mere fact that i'm alive and able to do things i can do and be with the people i love makes me believe and love GOD

The bible does not say that people are wastes of air because they used their free will to make a decision.

Babies are not born dirty. I don't believe in original sin and it was never discussed in the bible.

Women are not second class citizens. Allegorical tales about serpents and other such is not to be taken literally. Honoring one's partner or spouse should be mutually reciprocal.

Women are not unclean from menstruation - it is an antiquated discussion of hygiene and fertility.

Good one. Me too.

I exist, therefore I am.

Why can't you believe the story about Sodom and Gomorrah?

I might if there was a more logical and scientific explanation for it.
Some people have said that it was some kind of explosion. It could have been a natural disaster, or it could have been the result of an advanced race who had the ability to make weapons of mass destruction. Aliens perhaps.

Or it could have just been a fictional story, meant to be metaphorical.

Or it could have been some kind of solar flare or even a meteor. However the people viewed an event in the past, they had to explain it according to what they knew and believed. Whatever it was, if it happened, everything in this world has to follow certain laws.

The knowledge of those laws, and the ability to use them is what I call spiritual technology, or magick.

so what is the standard for validating anything that science has not yet made a theory about?,,,,should science be the only SOURCE of information we believe,,if so, arent we making scientists Gods?

scientists are men,, they do not know all and never will,, none of us will know EVERYTHING ,,,,but it will not change the fact of EVERYTHING Thats real or exists ,,is real and exists

Scientists are people, most definitely; flawed, imperfect, mistake-prone people. We should not believe something is true just because scientists say it is true.

As far as the relationship between (a) seeing science as the only source of information for what we believe, and (b) unreasonably elevating scientists - lets take a closer look. To say that science is the only source of information about what we believe is not far removed from saying that we require evidence for what we believe - since 'science' is not a static collection of beliefs, but a process for expanding our knowledge and challenging our 'beliefs' with evidence. To say that you require evidence for what you believe is not to elevate the opinions of scientists.






-----
I think that anthropomorphizing 'science' detracts from our ability to think clearly about issues like these - and yet it is very, very commonly done in these thread, by parties on every side of every issue.

Faith is belief without requiring physical evidence,,,,and even in the case of scientists,, we have a certain FAITH that they are truthful in their claims(as we are not personally there to witness the discovery for ourself) this faith in the validity of their documentation , in my opinion,, is not much different than my faith in the validity of the Bible....

of course being written to include such a LARGE span of time from so many thousands of years ago,,,,it would be hard to expect to still have EVIDENCE of most of what is there, and therefore what has been passed on has to be believed,, mostly, by faith

I believe that one should not draw a hard line between science and spiritual technology. I believe any way of seeking knowledge, either spiritually or scientifically is valid. I know their are those who would disagree.

Scientists are both men and women of course. They are human. I don't expect any human to know "everything." But I do expect that people should have a good reason before they commit to believing something.

If you believe something just because you want to believe it but you don't really know why you believe it or how it makes any sense logically, then you are just accepting something that some authority has told you. You are basically just trusting an outside authority.

For me, logic is an individual interpretation of acquired knowledge. Personally, I start with a basic premise and reason that if this is this way then this is possible which makes this possible etc etc.

But to really be open minded, you must be willing to change your premise and follow new paths of logic for alternative perspectives. That is what I do. Once you change your premise, then new possibilities appear.

One should NEVER completely commit or marry any of them if you want to remain open to the truth. Once you own a particular belief system, then you are stuck there defending it and many people will die for what they have gotten stuck on. Thats a shame.

makes sense,,,



I believe in my heavenly Father,, though I havent seen him,, but I have faith in the words of those who have,,,,I believe in my great great granddad,, and all I have of him is documentation from some higher authority,,,,,,, faith is always going to be, on some level, a natural part of survival

what we have faith in and who, is a very personal decision, and little to do with logic,,(Unless such faith is actually able to be disproven,, as in Santa Claus was not really bringing me presents because the same folks who told me he was later ADMITTED that they actually did)


proving the nonexistence of something is very tricky,,,The Matrix always amazes me in the premise of how far our faith in higher authorities and EXPERTS and what we read,, can actually go...

is it not possible that , for instance, there was never a Michaelangelo,, that perhaps those paintings were done by some peasant somewhere and attributed to someone with the power and prestige to make it happen? in a world where we cant WITNESS everything ourself, we choose to take faith in the things others document for us,,,,whether it be the scientists documentation of supposed experiments that have proven one thing or another, or whether it be historical accounts of how brave or humble, or noble any particular historic figure may have been


when we dont see it ourself,, or prove it ourself, we take the documents of others on faith...

Really? Seriously? Despite the fact that everything taken seriously be scientists is subject to independent verification? If you have doubts about a particular experiment, and you have access to the right equipment, you can repeat it yourself following the procedure the scientists published. If you have doubts about an astronomers interpretation of data that was recorded at an observatory, you can get access to the very same data and analyzing yourself.

There are cases where shoddy work by a scientists could permanently destroy valuable data, such as in archaeology; in which case, conservative scientists (and non-scientists) limit themselves to evidence that is preserved and made available for independant review.

To say that this kind of 'faith' is equal to 'faith' in the bible is just silly.

Though, there is no doubt that there are stupid people out there who have 'blind faith' in the opinions of scientists....the existence of such stupid people hardly places scientific evidence on equal footing as 'biblical evidence'.

Despite the fact that everything taken seriously be scientists is subject to independent verification? If you have doubts about a particular experiment, and you have access to the right equipment, you can repeat it yourself following the procedure the scientists published. If you have doubts about an astronomers interpretation of data that was recorded at an observatory, you can get access to the very same data and analyzing yourself.


subject to independent verification? who can prove it was independent, who can prove the association or reasons behind the verification? there are millions of experiments that scientists have done,, do people get the exact equipment and duplicate these the same way? can those people be PROVEN to be honest in the facts they disclose and not just anxious to re prove what they believe already? How many times did people duplicate the data that proved the EARTH was flat? There is no situation in which you will be able to completely anihilate peoples personal preferences and beliefs and how they affect their perceptions and conclusions...

I dont think its silly at all to compare faith. IF you have not proven it yourself, SEEN it for yourself,, you have used faith by holding someone ELSES claim as true,,,

In the case of your example of Michaelangelo, whether their really was some guy by that name, is pretty irrelevant.

Just as true historians, even Biblical historians will tell you that there was no man by the name Jesus. If a man existed about whom that story was written that was not his 'real' name. I have heard his name mentioned and it was Joesph ben something...and I have also heard it was: Yeshua Ben Yosef, also Joshua, etc. There are more of course, but it's just not important. The story itself is the point, not the name.

When I look at stories that are supposed to be "true" or were written as "history" I always look for motive. There is always a motive or reason that story, propaganda, lie, fiction, myth, account, record was made and kept.

If. for example, Michaelangelo was a fictitious name, there must have been motive for that. If there is no reason or motive, then there would have been no need to fabricate the story.

I do see a motive for the fabrication of the new testament and it was all tied in with Rome and control over religion. Religion was power.

I, for one, do not hold that Michaelangelo painted the sistine chapel. Of course I don't hold that he didn't, either. I know that I don't know, and I hold that there must be a set of good reasons why this appears to be the majority opinion of historians and artists (but that doesn't make it true).

im not sure what 'true' historians are,, there are actually accounts of the name Jesus,,,but I also see reason to fabricate MOST historical documentation (it goes to psychology and convincing people of their greatness, or inferiority,,,)

There's a huge difference between science and religion. Science does not ask you to have "faith" in anything. On the contrary the whole idea behind science is that you should question it and even go into the lab, or make the astronomical observations yourself. They even have colleges that will teach you ever possible detail and they encourage questions.

Religion on the other hand discourages questing the "word of God". If you start questioning the word or actions of the Biblical God people start saying "Who are you to JUDGE the actions of God".

But that's a totally bogus acusation. For example, when I point out absurdities and actions that I feel are basically stupid in the Biblical story, I'm NOT suggesting that God is stupid. What I'm suggesting is that the story is cleraly to stupid to be describing the actions of an all-wise God. Therefore it MUST be written by men and not be from a God after all.

The whole idea that I'm question the morality of God ASSUMES that the Bible necessarily must be the word of God without question, and therefore I must be questioning God's wisdom. But that's a very pathetic point of view right there. The same people who feel this way about the Bible, will easily turn around and say things like, Well of course the story of Zeus wasn't from God that story was stupid. Or they will say, Wicca and the Moon Goddess can't be true that's just silly to think that there is a Goddess in the moon!

Well, from my point of view it's just silly to think that any divine all-wise deity would do the utterly stupid and ignorant things that are attributed to the Biblical God. Like being appeased by blood sacricices, and asking people to stone sinners or heathens to death on his behalf. Or being male chauvinistic. All those things are utterly stupid as far as I'm concerned, thus I conclude that they cannot possibly be describing the actions and desires of any all-wise God.

In other words, if I treat religion the same way I treat science (by asking questions) then I very QUICKLY come to the conclusion that it can't possibly be the divine word that it claims to be. It simply isn't wise enough. I'm wiser than the God that's being depicted in the Bible as far as I'm concerned. So how can I be wiser than God? I can't be! Therefore the biblical story cannot be about any God. It far too ignorant.

So comparing science with that religion is like comparing apples with oranges. There's just no comparison at all.

we can agree to disagree. I go to God with questions, all the time,, but with respect. Nothing I learned told me that I couldnt. It is respect for him as a Father. I dont hold him to all the rules and standards he placed upon me because he is my FATHER. When I was a child I did not expect my parents to have to follow the same rules as me because they had much different RESPONSIBILITIES and roles in life...as does God.

You keep stating that you COULD re administer experiments documented by Scientists and get the same results,, but my question is ,,,would your interpretation of the results be biased by what you already BELIEVED or had faith in? Have you actually been able to perfectly duplicate what someone else wrote, and get the exact same result?

I repeat the example of how many times and different ways it was 'proven' that the earth was flat,,,before it was disproven. Because something is duplicated, does not mean its interpretation is unbiased or absolutely right.

Things we dont understand today, as spiritual children,, may not seem logical or understandable,, but that also does not make the source unreliable,, it could just mean we will need to grow and experience more,,,,


I believe it completely logical that a Creator who could create life itself,,,would be beyond our limited understanding and would have a base of 'values' that we may not understand with that limited capacity. But I believe in Him completely, and his love. I believe in the life of Jesus as documented in the bible. And I believe Jesus as the most perfect example of how humans can be close to God. Now for those that didnt believe God existed, that closeness would be no more an issue than becoming friends with Santa, and should affect their lives no less or no more than such a friendship either.

In this physical life, we do the best we can,,, we can have concern about our spiritual life and where it is going and we can have faith in what happens after death(as obviously , noone is around to PROVE) ,,,, I am concerned with my spiritual as well as my physical. I want my spiritual to be with the GOD I believe created it,, and so I follow the book I believe he inspired and take the lessons in it to achieve that goal.....

ANYBODY with access to the necessary equipment can! This means YOU!!! (For a huge portion of pre-20th century physics).

I'm starting to doubt whether you've even ever read a real science journal.



Thankfully, no. The point is usually not to exactly duplicate anything, but to approximately duplicate and compare results. The point, though, is that this is subject to independent verification. Which is NOT to say 'oh, and therefore they are correct'; it is only to say you can't compare this kind of faith to faith in the bible.



While scientists go to great lengths to use procedures which prevent this from influencing their results, sometimes it just can't be avoided. one of many reasons I don't hold scientitic beliefs to be truth.




See, comments on like suggest you aren't really thinking this through. You are not talking about the history of evidence-based science, you are talking about the history of human ignorance. Long, long before a round earth became accepted, there were some people who preferred an evidence based approach who realized that the earth was not flat. What 'experiments' do you think people did to test for a flat earth, and concluded the earth was flat?



And therefore, anything goes?



Interesting use of words. What do you mean by 'faith' in the first sentence?

by faith, I mean belief as true ANYTHING that one has not seen or experienced FOR THEMSELF

scientific verification is great, I am not disputing it only saying that we must BELIEVE IN it if we havent done the experiment ourself

even if several sources SEEM to support something it doesnt mean IT must be so,, so we have faith


there are many books in the bible, which document the Life of Jesus , from different authors,,,that they were compiled into one book doesnt make them any less similar to 'independent verification' that scientists do to reinforce the theories of other scientists

books were not published in great numbers in biblical times,,,Jesus lived thirty odd years,,,,how much documentation would there have been and how many different accounts would be necessary to make them valid? Its all different forms of faith,,,that which we choose to believe and that which we dont,,,

Thats fine, but anytime anyone make a absurd correlation between 'faith' in the bible and 'faith' in a scientists published results, I hope there are honest, intelligent, truth-valuing people to point out the flaws in this comparison.



I'm surprised by this paragraph; I hope you don't think I was trying to invalidate your faith in God in any way.




Yes, in both everyday kinematics and in electricity and magnetism, I've exactly duplicated other people's results.



Really? Someone experimentally proved that the earth was flat? Or did they (accurately) prove that the curvature of the earth had to be below a certain threshold?





You are correct, but you are missing the point. Duplication by two parties doesn't make it correct. The fact that you can personally check up on the validity of the claims places experimental evidence in a completely different category than history and the bible.