dot dot dot...
alright. lots of different perspectives from these different comments so let's see if i can't address them...
1. andrew - One of the most interesting books i've ever read is a book called "My Life Without God" by William Murray. William Murray, not to be confused with Bill Murray, was/is the son of Madeleine Murray O'Hare, the infamous atheist woman who spear headed the taking prayer out of school's movement. She's the one that brought the case before the Supreme Court.
Actually, Bill was the plaintiff in the case. His mom was a controlling (in his words) , borderline crazy, and very very angry woman who he (in his own words again) was trying to curry favor with as her son by going along with her "crusade." Now, little known facts about Madeleine or "Mad Madeleine" as she was commonly called are interesting. She once tried to sue NASA over astronauts reading aloud from the Bible in space, and also sued the U.S. government to stop the pope from being able to visit on U.S. soil. Now, of course that doesn't get taught in school. But it's true. So William, in his autobiography, describes life with his mother as chaotic, violent, dangerous, and ridiculous. She was a member of the socialists and also the communists, and was loosely linked to Lee Harvey Oswald when he shot JFK. She manipulated her son and her family to the point that William had to get away from her for good and distance himself from her because he firmly believed she was literally crazy. Known for her violence, "Mad Madeleine Murray" definitely has a wicked underbelly that most people who site the whole prayer in school supreme court case have no idea about. BTW - Bill, the plaintiff in the court case, later became a christian and is now president of a thing called the "Religious Freedom Coalition" - fighting from the "other side" of the argument he and his mother once championed.
2. Joe - heh. Hare Krishna's. Actually, I for awhile was definitely down with the Hare's. I had a book or two by them and was pretty intrigued by their whole deal. I think there's a certain percentage of truth in every religion, but the Hare's are interesting. Hare is a term similar to 'guru' , and in Hinduism - of which hare krishnas are a branch - there are like 7 or 8 main gurus or 'hare's. Hare Krishna was a teacher, who died, and a cult spawned up after him. Now, what you're obviously thinking is that christianity can be seen as a cult spawned after a leader that died as well. That may be true, to an extent, but considering the central figure of christianity is Christ's resurrection from the dead - we see the difference. Buddha died, Hare Krishna died, but Christ is testified to as being risen from the dead by the power of God His Father.
I definitely was down with the krishnas, and definitely went through a considerable spell where i considered myself Buddhist (well, my own perception of what Buddhist was at least). I also inadvertantly was going to this thing called the "Self Realization Fellowship Temple" - a kindof mixture between scientology and eastern polytheist hindu-like religion... Not to mention before any of that i was a staunch atheist and then an active reader of Satanic and Witchcraft books...
So , honestly i can't say that it would've been different for me any other way. Because it WAS different for me every other way. I've been deeper into most religions than 3/4 of the people i run into. I probably know more about Judaism than a good number of jews. But the difference is not the fact that I was convinced by some man or by some doctrine written by man, the difference is that I had a personal experience with a personal God and had a revelation of the truth in Christ..... something i can't deny even if i wanted to (and trust me, there are times when i want to).
Let me put it like this: Trust me, someone seeks after Satan enough they're gonna find him - I did. And when you find him you better believe that you're only hope is going to be in the Thing you doubted all along. I can get waay into it, and eventualyl i think we're going to head that way, but for now this is where i have to leave off with this argument...
3. Tim - the man i've somewhat traded places with. I love you man, I really do.
If science exists and IS universal (math, etc)....... then how'd it come into existence? It either was A) created, B) "came" "popped" "happened" "banged" into existence or C) was always there.
A) creation. no argument here.
B) Big Bang. A mass of energy that exploded. Mass of energy reminds me of an egg, so where's the chicken? Which came first??? What if there's something out there that exists beyond time? The chicken and egg are stuck, forever seen through the eyes of limited human perception. Man can't fathom eternity yet the Bible says (ecclesiastes 3:11) that "He (God) has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."
C.S. Lewis speaks of the eternity of God in an analogy similar to the following:
he says Imagine God as an infinitely long piece of paper. and imagine time as a small, short and certainly FINITE line on the paper that has a clear beginning and end. That's the eternity of God, the timeless, the outside of time God - the christian idea of ALpha and Omega, Beginning and End, one who WAS and IS and IS TO COME. all that old christianese starts to come into clearer focus...
so if it banged, popped, came into existence - we have a finite creation. something with a clear cut beginning, therefore not infinite, therefore bound by time and excluded from the (potential of) eternity. if it (science, big bang, whatever) always was - then it has no clear beginning and trying to speculate what the beginning was is futile because it ALWAYS was, IS infinite, and ALWAYS will be. But the concept of science being eternal and extremely orderly and not having a Mind that made it that way is, to me, like laws and a courtroom and cases and evidence BUT NO JUDGE that presides over it - in which case, who gives a s**t?
we, as men, argue whether the glass is full or empty. But I want to know what's on the outside of it. To me, there's way too much intelligence inside the cup to not have an intelligent mind outside of it. Without God, man is smarter than science because only in man can science be understood and potentially mastered. No other creature that we know of has reason and consciousness enough to be able to handle such high and lofty principals. but if science is the highest and loftiest YET can't speak or think for itself, then man seemingly becomes the ultimate because he as a grain of sand has attributes that the giant and potentially all-inclusive set and system of order does not have. to me, that's like an ant vanishing in a furnace. either that or the segway into the next level of debate - the potential existence of the human "spirit"
1. andrew - One of the most interesting books i've ever read is a book called "My Life Without God" by William Murray. William Murray, not to be confused with Bill Murray, was/is the son of Madeleine Murray O'Hare, the infamous atheist woman who spear headed the taking prayer out of school's movement. She's the one that brought the case before the Supreme Court.
Actually, Bill was the plaintiff in the case. His mom was a controlling (in his words) , borderline crazy, and very very angry woman who he (in his own words again) was trying to curry favor with as her son by going along with her "crusade." Now, little known facts about Madeleine or "Mad Madeleine" as she was commonly called are interesting. She once tried to sue NASA over astronauts reading aloud from the Bible in space, and also sued the U.S. government to stop the pope from being able to visit on U.S. soil. Now, of course that doesn't get taught in school. But it's true. So William, in his autobiography, describes life with his mother as chaotic, violent, dangerous, and ridiculous. She was a member of the socialists and also the communists, and was loosely linked to Lee Harvey Oswald when he shot JFK. She manipulated her son and her family to the point that William had to get away from her for good and distance himself from her because he firmly believed she was literally crazy. Known for her violence, "Mad Madeleine Murray" definitely has a wicked underbelly that most people who site the whole prayer in school supreme court case have no idea about. BTW - Bill, the plaintiff in the court case, later became a christian and is now president of a thing called the "Religious Freedom Coalition" - fighting from the "other side" of the argument he and his mother once championed.
2. Joe - heh. Hare Krishna's. Actually, I for awhile was definitely down with the Hare's. I had a book or two by them and was pretty intrigued by their whole deal. I think there's a certain percentage of truth in every religion, but the Hare's are interesting. Hare is a term similar to 'guru' , and in Hinduism - of which hare krishnas are a branch - there are like 7 or 8 main gurus or 'hare's. Hare Krishna was a teacher, who died, and a cult spawned up after him. Now, what you're obviously thinking is that christianity can be seen as a cult spawned after a leader that died as well. That may be true, to an extent, but considering the central figure of christianity is Christ's resurrection from the dead - we see the difference. Buddha died, Hare Krishna died, but Christ is testified to as being risen from the dead by the power of God His Father.
I definitely was down with the krishnas, and definitely went through a considerable spell where i considered myself Buddhist (well, my own perception of what Buddhist was at least). I also inadvertantly was going to this thing called the "Self Realization Fellowship Temple" - a kindof mixture between scientology and eastern polytheist hindu-like religion... Not to mention before any of that i was a staunch atheist and then an active reader of Satanic and Witchcraft books...
So , honestly i can't say that it would've been different for me any other way. Because it WAS different for me every other way. I've been deeper into most religions than 3/4 of the people i run into. I probably know more about Judaism than a good number of jews. But the difference is not the fact that I was convinced by some man or by some doctrine written by man, the difference is that I had a personal experience with a personal God and had a revelation of the truth in Christ..... something i can't deny even if i wanted to (and trust me, there are times when i want to).
Let me put it like this: Trust me, someone seeks after Satan enough they're gonna find him - I did. And when you find him you better believe that you're only hope is going to be in the Thing you doubted all along. I can get waay into it, and eventualyl i think we're going to head that way, but for now this is where i have to leave off with this argument...
3. Tim - the man i've somewhat traded places with. I love you man, I really do.
If science exists and IS universal (math, etc)....... then how'd it come into existence? It either was A) created, B) "came" "popped" "happened" "banged" into existence or C) was always there.
A) creation. no argument here.
B) Big Bang. A mass of energy that exploded. Mass of energy reminds me of an egg, so where's the chicken? Which came first??? What if there's something out there that exists beyond time? The chicken and egg are stuck, forever seen through the eyes of limited human perception. Man can't fathom eternity yet the Bible says (ecclesiastes 3:11) that "He (God) has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."
C.S. Lewis speaks of the eternity of God in an analogy similar to the following:
he says Imagine God as an infinitely long piece of paper. and imagine time as a small, short and certainly FINITE line on the paper that has a clear beginning and end. That's the eternity of God, the timeless, the outside of time God - the christian idea of ALpha and Omega, Beginning and End, one who WAS and IS and IS TO COME. all that old christianese starts to come into clearer focus...
so if it banged, popped, came into existence - we have a finite creation. something with a clear cut beginning, therefore not infinite, therefore bound by time and excluded from the (potential of) eternity. if it (science, big bang, whatever) always was - then it has no clear beginning and trying to speculate what the beginning was is futile because it ALWAYS was, IS infinite, and ALWAYS will be. But the concept of science being eternal and extremely orderly and not having a Mind that made it that way is, to me, like laws and a courtroom and cases and evidence BUT NO JUDGE that presides over it - in which case, who gives a s**t?
we, as men, argue whether the glass is full or empty. But I want to know what's on the outside of it. To me, there's way too much intelligence inside the cup to not have an intelligent mind outside of it. Without God, man is smarter than science because only in man can science be understood and potentially mastered. No other creature that we know of has reason and consciousness enough to be able to handle such high and lofty principals. but if science is the highest and loftiest YET can't speak or think for itself, then man seemingly becomes the ultimate because he as a grain of sand has attributes that the giant and potentially all-inclusive set and system of order does not have. to me, that's like an ant vanishing in a furnace. either that or the segway into the next level of debate - the potential existence of the human "spirit"
Leave a Comment
meg523 on
youre a far cry from the longhaired poop cutter I used to know. Randy's grown up *sigh*
Sidenote: I really need to blow my nose.
Cavutto on
Man, that's really coincidental that you mention infinity here. I think I came pretty close to driving myself completely mad last weekend doing a thought excercise sorts. I was trying to research the biggest number in the universe...which I know sounds ridicuously stupid, but it was absolutely mind-blowing. I'll blog about it this weekend. Its seriously way too much for a human to possibly begin to comprehend, but I'll share what I've managed to wrap my head around so far...which is in reality a smallish number. I can't wait to get home and blog it for ya. Everytime I think about big numbers i get all excited (like now). Sorry about the rant. Have a good weekend!
AndrewK on
(Takes off dancing shoes)
Definition:
Theory - a statement or set of statements used to explain a phenomena. A theory is generally accepted as valid due to having survived repeated testing.
Intelligent Design theory - how do we test this hypothesis? Faith is not a reasonable answer. Neither is saying that we haven't found the "missing link."
It intrigues me that while trying to push Creationism (because that's exactly what this is) the supporters of I.D. theory are trying to rend invalid the theory of evolution.
What is the big fear here? That we're descended from apes? If you believe in God who created this planet and all the life on it and in the universe SHOULD IT MATTER if we have? Perhaps the Bible is being interpreted wrong (which happens all the time). Maybe God gave our ancestors the gift of thinking of self instead of letting His creations remain animals. Maybe that's how he created Adam and Eve. It's a theory. There's no way you or anybody else could say otherwise because this, just like Intelligent Design, is perfectly plausible if you have faith in your ideas. Unprovable, yes. Not science-based, yes. Plausible, yes.
In regards to your response to my comments, what point were you trying to make? You didn't answer me at all but left me wondering what you were trying to intone.
You mention the story of Madeline Murray O'Hare - a woman who is referred to by her own son as "violent", nicknamed "Mad Madeline." I take offense to this. Am I supposed to suddenly realize that the whole argument I've been putting out there is wrong because you believe I'm an atheist?
Is it because you think the reason I feel the way I do is based on your perceptions of my relationship with my mother? I was raised Roman Catholic and I don't go to church because it does not match my beliefs. Not because of mommy. This doesn't mean I don't believe in treating people right. What does that mean? Commandments 5 - 10 are a good place to start.
My argument against Creationism being taught in schools stems from the Bill of Rights. It's called the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Let's get down to it: Forcing religion down people's throats disguised as science is not the way to make people believe in God. You made your way back to Him, after many different experiences, and that's made you the man you are. What's the point in rendering other people's path's obsolete when you yourself have taken so many to end up where you are? Religion is a choice, and will always be that way whether people are allowed to speak about it or forced to keep their views to themselves.
"The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed."
-James Madison, June 7, 1789
johnlanguage on
wow, andrew.
Firstly - and this is for everyone - this is my blog.
My blog.
And I will use my "freedom of speech" to speak about whatever i want to in MY blog. If i want to talk about beastiality and the benefits thereof, I can. because this is my blog. so if you or anyone else doesn't like it, thats fine. honestly, you dont have to read it.
Secondly - Man. I would submit here that you kindof jumped onto this train a little late. The entire basis of my last like four posts was the fact that PHILOSOPHICALLY, and this is all philosophical here (if i wasnt a christian or you didnt know it, this'd be a relevant discussion and people wouldnt accuse me of proselytizing). But it was based on the idea/concept/THEORY that science is still theory, as is God in a way, and therefore both sides are in the same boat. a "by faith" argument. that's it. It moved on, winded like a river a bit, but i think it stuck near it's core of reason.
Separation of church and state? doesn't bother me. i dont care. what bothers me? the fact that people don't realize what was up with that lady and they glorify who she was simply because of what she did........ i dont mind it, trust me, i just wish it wasnt done by such a messed up lady who from a personal perspective seems to speak larger volumes yet gets heard much less. it was informative, i thought, and i definitely wasnt insinuating anything. and how can i say i wasnt insinuating anything? because i dont care that church and state are separate in the first place! the plaintiff became a christian, is that not interesting or worthy of a sidenote?
Who's forcing religion down who's throat? This is my blog!!! Go away if you don't want to read it! You mean to tell me that EVERYONE ELSE is entitled to speak whatever they want in their blog, but when it comes to me if you happen to read it i'm suddenly "shoving my religion down your throat." dont read it. i dont care.
your mom? what the heck does this have to do with your mom? I am slack jawed right now trying to figure out how in the world you believe or could think that im sitting over here passing some retareded judgmenet on you for not going to some roman catholic RELIGIOUS institution, saying hail mary's and sit kneel standing until your blue in the face. PLus - your mom??? and i have talked to you a bit before and YO, I don't care if you're an atheist man. I don't care. But that's not going to stop me from speaking MY mind , which I was doing hypothetically and philosophically anyway. The day i take my words and try and disguise them as gospel truth is the day its time for me to jump off a cliff and end it all. the moral of the story is that I'm , like you and everyone else, a MAN and subject to error and futility.
So, Im sorry to be harsh here -r eally - but next time you get pissed off and lash out without knowing for sure what and whether i am insinuating something or what and whether I'm speaking philosophically or HOlier than Thou - Don't jump the gun and try and quote me some "crippling" quotes that don't even apply to me anyway because I never said I disagreed with it in the first place.
and trust me again, I dont care if we're descended from apes. That wont sway my faith. But don't get accusatory with me about my touchiness with the "fear" of being descended from apes when many people who use that argument would be a thousand times more terrified if we were descended from God.
So I'm sorry if I offend you or whoever with who I am. MAybe I'll conceal the fact I'm a christian next time and write the same exact arguments I did here and be met with approvals and nods for being (mostly, i think) philosophically sound.
But im freaking tired of being the one who gets lashed out at from some potential weird catholic guilt mechanism inside of someone who sees the words "I" and "am" and "christian" and automatically takes the defensive posture.
you (anybody) dont wanna be told what to do? thats fine, im not telling you what to do. you dont wanna read what im writing? fine. you wanna twist (and maybe you havent, but people do) what i say to fit some assumption you've made about christianity? whatever. but dont try and crucify me over crackerjacks, because im tired of this bullshit.
AndrewK on
I wasn't mad AT ALL writing back to you. There was no jumping the gun. I read my response and reread it and edited it multiple times before I posted it to get what I had to say right. There was no lashing out. There was disagreement in our dialogue - which was about Intelligent Design in school curriculums.
"Forcing religion down people's throats" is about putting creationism into schools, not about you or the way you live your life.
If people glorify O'Hare...whatever. I'm not one of them. I tried to understand why you would write that back to me, and my assumption was either you thought I was a supporter of her and an atheist, or that my religious and civil views were somehow relating to my relationship with my mother. I believe in individual civil rights as defined in the Constitution, and the people pushing *legislation* for I.D. do not.
Read your newest response to me. You make so many assumptions about what I've said, and why, and that's the reason I responded to your prior with questions. You may have come across people who don't like you because of your religion, but that's not me, and YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT. You're so tired of being misunderstood, then why lash out at me and mock me for the tenets of my beliefs?
You should care about seperation of church and state. It's about letting people believe and practice what they want without being forced into another religion or persecuted for their beliefs. It is the core issue with Intelligent Design in our school systems. It's also the reason the United States of America exists.
I wrote this:
"You made your way back to Him, after many different experiences, and that's made you the man you are.
What's the point in rendering other people's path's obsolete when you yourself have taken so many to end up where you are?"
I wanted you to not only understand my point of view on I.D. but also realize my views on God and religion itself, Randy. This was NOT an attack on you. I believe that mixing church and state is wrong. If you're raised with religion, fine. If not, we should let people find out about religion on their own, like we have. The question is rhetorical.
I don't think Intelligent Design theory should be taught in schools. This doesn't mean I think it's wrong to believe it, that you're wrong for believing. As school policy it would overstep civil rights boundaries, those which made this country great. I didn't quote James Madison and the Constitution to prove you wrong. I did it to show why I believe what I do.
Andrew
johnlanguage on
dude i was angry with this deal:
"Is it because you think the reason I feel the way I do is based on your perceptions of my relationship with my mother? I was raised Roman Catholic and I don't go to church because it does not match my beliefs. Not because of mommy."
it struck me as incredible that you'd even think or question such a thing, not to mention it still seems to smack of some guilt or suppostion or something. but considering that you, of all people, know that my relationship with my own mother is not some peachy keen kindof thing how could you logically think im trying to remove specks from your eye while having giants planks in my own? but whatever.
im not interested in arguing. i really am not. im interested in philosophy and getting to the root of issues. im interested in having my own ignorance and supposition dispelled or dispelling other peoples' ignorance and supposition. Brother sharpens brother like iron sharpens iron and I bring my ideas to the table and I am here for an exchange of ideas. If someone doesn't like my ideas, that's fine. I actually wish someone would take me on head to head logically on the points i've presented. because im not scared of being wrong. and im not scared of not knowing the answers either. but the separation of church and state is not somthing im interested in debating. I dont care about it therefore i dont care to waste my time on it, and even if i cared to - i dont have a position on it to bring to the table.
Anyone who thinks im just proselytizing has never been proselytized by me. I could sit back and quote Jesus from here to forever if I chose to do so. To the people who dont like what i say now, how would you like me then? Not at all, I'm sure.
Faith is the substance [actuality] of things hoped for. If there's no substance, it's not faith - it's deception. Man is like grass, here today and gone tomorrow. Like trees, alive one moment and falling dead in the forest and rotting the next. If there's no reasons for existence , how can we use reasons (the very things we deny exist) to come to that conclusion? To me, it doesn't add up. But hey, whatever.
so let's not get me wrong here. You can and are free to think what you will. I'm just here to challenge people (myself included) to think. This philosophizing is as much digging at my own root as it is at other peoples'.
There's not a day that goes by where i'm not asking myself why i believe what i say that i believe - i could just as easily say "I believe in God and that's final," the way some people say "we come from apes and fish and that's final" or "whatever i want to think is what i believe and that's final." But belief is by faith and if there's no Truth behind that faith it's falsehood........ I'm searching for the Truth here. If it's God it's God, and if its Not its Not but please don't get upset if you read my blog (willingly eating what i'm serving btw- not having anything forced down a throat) and what you read challenges what you believe. because that's my point. If you're content to believe without understanding why or being able to withstand somebody poking at your root, then you've become exactly what you hate in christians - someone who flat out just says "i believe in God" who themself doesn't even know why they believe what they say that they believe and refuse to listen.
so let me return to my point. science (creation?) was either A) created. B) always was , or C) has a definitive beginning , at which point something somehow appeared inside of nothing. and yes, appeared is the right word in this context.
it's A , B, or C , people, and that's what I propose as a hypothesis. You got something else, I'd love to hear it. if it always was (aka eternal), why do we waste countless years of our lives philosophizing about the beginning? if it appeared, well, then you've got to bring 'chance' into the whole mix - because, let alone the fact i've never seen (and propbably never will) "nothing," how does "something" "appear" inside of something that never existed (aka "nothing")in the first place?!
yeah. so there's space dust. Where did that come from? how did that get there? was it always there? Then we bring in chance and what the chances are of the chain of events that lead you to me this very moment. Astronomically astronomical, I would propose.
Does order make chaos? Impossible! Does the meaningfulness of science (order, laws, properties, behaviors) combine to make meaninglessness? You decide, but I rest my case.
AndrewK on
With my question, I was trying to figure out what you meant. As in, "By him posting this, am I supposed to draw a connection to it through the relationship of my mother and my former church-going ways?"
I don't feel guilty about not going to church; I do feel bad about the hatred, ignorance and deception which the Roman Catholic church seems to be rife with. But that's something else entirely.
http://heartlandvalues.blogspot.com
