Posted on 01/03/2002 11:19:13 AM PST by ArGee
A very rich man decided that he wanted to show kindness to the people of the fair city where he lived. Since he was very rich indeed, he decided to throw a banquet for the entire city. He rented the largest sports arena in the city and began his plans. He planned for huge amounts of the best food possible, making allowances for every religious and medical diet. He advertised the banquet in every possible manner - television, radio, billboard, door-to-door canvassing. Considering that there might be some who could not travel, he arranged for free bus transportation to and from the event, and some special-needs vehicles for all who could not ride busses. He even scheduled the banquet to run for 24 hours a day for several days so that everyone could be sure of being served.
He planned long and hard and finally the big day came. The rich man ate quickly and then went about wishing all his guests well and personally making sure that all had every need met. After a while he went outside to tour the grounds and talk with those who had not yet gone in, and those who had already left. Everyone was happy. Many were profusely thankful. It was a glorious occasion.
At one point the rich man noticed a group of people sitting outside a locked door with most unpleasant looks on their faces. Sensing they were not happy, he went over to them. He did not introduce himself but simply asked them if he could be of service.
"We want to go in through this door," one of them replied.
The rich man explained to them that the hall was arranged to feed a large number of people as quickly and effortlessly as possible. This required order inside, and the entrances and exits had been carefully planned to be as efficient as possible. He then offered to go call one of the golf carts that were avaialbe to help people who could not walk far to take them to the entrance. But the man replied, "We do not want to go in the entrance. We want to go in this door. We don't understand why we can't go in any door we wish. We think the man who set this banquet up is mean and hateful for insisting we go in through the entrance. He has tried to bill himself as a very kind man by offering this banquet, but he is not kind at all if he will not indulge us and let us go through this door.
The rich man was distressed at these words, but still attempted to please these people. He tried once more to explain to them what was behind this particular door, and how if they went in this door they would disrupt the meal service being offered inside. He offered to drive them himself, not only to the door, but inside the hall to their tables if they would only go through the entrance to enjoy the meal. Again the man said, "No, but only a hateful man would keep us from going through the door of our choosing. And we will sit here and tell anyone who will listen to us what an awful man he is until he lets us in."
At that the rich man was enraged and he shouted, "Enough." Then he called a police officer to have them thrown off of the property and ordered that they not be allowed to return until the banquet was over and all the scraps had been hauled away. Then, mourning for their loss, he turned to visit with other guests.
Of course one cannot go to heaven without God. The question is how does one make God want to be your savior.
So now you say only the dead have no faith, interesting...
You have faith the sun will come up tomorrow.
No I don't. I KNOW the sun never comes up. I have independently verifiable evidence to demonstrate that the effect you are describing is due to the fact that the earth spins on it's axis and that the only way the effect you describe won't happen the following day would be due to a cataclysmic disaster. I accept that risk.
You have faith you'll still be breathing 10 minutes from now or 5 miles further down the road.
Wrong again, I understand the risks of life, the chance that accidents etc. happen, and accept those risks.
You have faith the big Mack truck will stop at the red light.
Wrong again, I understand the risks of life, the chance that accidents etc. happen, and accept those risks.
You have faith you'll PROBABLY be able to get your money at the bank when you need it.
Another fallacy. I understand economic situations, that money is a concept and not real objects, and that banks and the economy can fail. I accept those risks.
You have faith the food you eat is reasonably safe.
Wrong again. I understand the risks of food born illness, take reasonable measures to lessen those risks as much as possible, and accept the risk that my food will be tainted.
You have faith people who seem to like you today are likely to continue liking you tomorrow.
Nope, I understand the fallibility of human nature and accept the risk that people who demonstrate an appeal to being around me today will in all liklihood, continue that behaviour tomorrow.
You have faith that the skills that serve you so well today will likely serve you well next week.
Definitely wrong. I know and understand that my current skillset can be 100% invalidated due to technological advances next week. I take measures to continually educate myself in my field to minimize that risk as much as possible.
You may even have faith [probably rather shaken after Billdo and Shrillery] that at least some government people would like to see the nation continue.
No such thing at all. I place no faith whatsoever in any politician. I observe behaviour and vote for those who in my judgement, will cause the least amount of damage to this country, then continue to observe. Again, this goes to the observable nature of human character flaws. Politicians have too much power to trust them, let alone put any faith in one.
You have faith that your computer will function the next time you boot it.
Dead wrong. I am an IT professional. Experience has taught me you can never count on a machine functioning upon a reboot.
You may have faith that you'll get some thrill the next time you have sexual relations.
Wrong again, experience teaches that in all liklihood, even bad sex is still pretty good.
You have faith that when you go to brush your teeth, your neural pathways will function right and you won't poke your eye out.
Absolutely false. I understand that most accidents occur in the household of the victim statistically, and I accept the risks.
You have a kind of faith that the government will take too much of your income in taxes.
Come off it! That is 100% what observation bringing about reproducable and falsifiable results leading to valid conclusions is all about!
You have a kind of faith that people like Billdo and Shrillery will go on being destructive.
Wrong again. Observation, taking the reproducable and falsifiable results, and drawing conclusions. No faith needed at all.
You probably have a faith that you won't find any philosophical/religious cause for a valid cosmology including a created origin for man and the universe as we know it.
Wrong again. I look at the evidence, consider the current theoretical work, and accept the most plausible as just that under current evidence, all the while ready to shift to a more plausible explanation as soon as we have new or different evidence, or falsify the original evidence.
However, all of the above are probabilities.
You're getting closer.
We think we know enough to predict the sun's survival well beyond our lifetimes.
While understanding all the while that our evidence is likely incomplete and the sun could explode at any moment.
But that is faith in our own brilliance about an object that could well have a few secrets left undiscovered by our distant eyes.
As I just stated. This is what the scientific method is all about. Plausible theories and conclusions can only be formulated with currently available independently verifiable evidence. Once new evidence is uncovered, the paradigm shifts.
In a world made-up primarily of uncertainties--probabilities at best--FAITH is an absolute necessity to avoid despairing or at least dysfunctional synaptic catatonic immobility.
I have just demonstrated your entire premise as false. I get along fine with no faith at all.
You have evidently chosen to invest your faith in a construction on reality that you probably believe affords you more options, more choice.
How do you reconstruct this hypothesis of yours to fit the new evidence I have presented? I have no faith and have demonstrated how I have no faith.
I happen to believe that the targets of your faith investments even now and certainly ultimately will devastatingly restrict your choices to fewer and fewer options.
Wrong again. #1, I have no faith. #2, my acceptance of plausible explanations and the risks associated with living can be altered with the simple addition of new data. Blind faith such as that required for religion seemingly will reject new data that contradicts that faith, something I am totally unwilling to accept.
Interestingly enough, I have seen none of this evidence that you speak of. All I have is a book, no different than The Iliad
Don't believe everything you read. Many times, you'll be disappointed.
No. Incredible claims require incredible evidence.
That relationship was destroyed by Adam. Abraham had a shadow of it. David had a shadow of it. It can not be in fullness until the sin of Adam is destroyed.
I'm sure you think I would feel different if I knew better, but I find Adam's relationship with God, boring. I find Abraham's and David's much more satisfying. Like I said, I'm convinced that God set the tree up in the Garden with the expectation that Adam would eat.
Borrowing from something I read once, when Adam ate, God wept, both for the sadness of what mankind would go through, and for the joy of knowing mankind had become that much more like Him.
Especially from someone who rejects the evidence of the senses without verification.
I'm not sure we have any societies, untouched by religion, to compare with.
That's not a function of religion, but a function of lust for power. People who want control over others will misuse whatever tool is handy to do it. When Christianity is most powerful, the powermongers will use (or misuse) Christianity. When Marxism is power, they will use that.
If there were no religion, there would still be torture. There would just be other rationalizations for it.
I've never asked for proof. All I have asked for is independently verifiable evidence to support assertions. There is no such thing as absolute proof.
You can present independently verifiable evidence to support the existance of the universe.
In any case, looking at the process a person goes through, even those directed by God in the Bible, people do not become more childlike under but more knowing and more like God.
First and foremost, in my reading, at least, God is a creator. The process by which God seems to mold us appears to be one that makes us a more creating people.
That's my reading in interpretation of the Bible and the world. I don't claim to "know." I merely believe strongly.
(OTOH -- as I mentioned somewhere down the pike, there are writers, such as Paul Davies, who do present such evidence. As I've learned from experience, I have the background to understand them, but not argue them clearly. I refer you to such literature.)
I am in the camp with those who actually study the Bible to understand what G-d requires. In my experience, those who try to discern what G-d has said, rather than trying to use the Bible to support my own agenda, tend to be a pretty homogeneous bunch.
But, at the risk of defining who is and isn't Christian, you will find that abortion and homosexuality are not central doctrines of the Christian faith.
Shalom.
That's dodge #2. All I'm asking is if you are in the camp of Christians who believe that blasphemers, adulterers, homosexuals, etc should be put to death based on Old Testament/biblical law.
The correct answers are a) none of my business, b) yes or c) no.
You have every right to your beliefs. I'm merely curious regarding who I'd be expected to break bread with at this banquet. After all, these are not "trivial" differences among Christians, despite your assertions.
When I was young I used to have horrible nightmares of going to hell because I just didn't believe in any of it. I saw no reason to. And as for your parable, I can't tell if "the banquet" is supposed to represent Christian fellowship, or a psychological state of well-being, or the second coming, or heaven. But I can tell you this: if it represents Christian fellowship I've tried it and found Christians to be no better (or worse) friends than non-Christians. If it represents a psychological state of well-being, I must tell you that a dogma which says "believe in a story that makes no sense to you or be punished" never gave me an iota of peace. Only when I finally realized I was free to walk away and nothing would happen to me did I breathe easy for the first time in my life. And if your parable represents Heaven, then you have NOT been partaking for 10 years because you aren't there yet. If the banquet represents Jesus' return to earth, as I mentioned before, those fliers are 2000 years old and curling up at the corners, yellow with age.
What kind of person would I be if I didn't point out that you are trying to rook people into entering into a dogma that places your own mind as your own worst enemy? That is neurosis of the first order, poison to psychological health, and the first step on the road to madness.
It is true that the Judeo-Christian religions used religious law as a substitute for civil law. Christianity was born, nourished and matured under the society established Roman Empire. In any case there is no denying that these religions have bestowed great suffering upon the world over the past 3000 years. We can speak of what might have been but this is what really is.
Once, just once more, under the watchful eyes of the cameras of CNN would do just fine.
The religions have? Or the people who have used and misused the religions have? If you want to blame religion, then by the same standard, these religions have conveyed great comfort, beneficence, and progress for the past 3000 years, as well. And since bad news tends to get more press than good, it is hard, if not impossible, to judge what the exact balance is.
We can speak of what might have been but this is what really is.
Fair enough. But then, by the same token, we cannot say, "None of those people would have suffered their fate if Christianity (Islam, Judaism, etc) did not exist."
At least they would not be giving the Higher Being a bad reputation.
How many wars have been fought in the name of Buddha? Buddhists may fight in wars but they don't fight for Buddha. I wonder how Buddhism has managed to avoid the Judeo-Christian blood baths?
The possibility of something existing that cannot be verified to exist is there, however, it is so remote as to present no compelling reason for me to believe its existance. Examples are sasquatch, yeti, the Loch Ness monster, U.F.O's, elves, unicorns, devils, leprechauns, demons, gnomes, angels, hobbits, and gods.
Are you're referring to "evidence" or "proof"? There is by far more circumstantial evidence (mutually agreed upon by more notable scientists) that the universe and all in it is a result of intelligent design and divine purpose than all the disputes which counter that claim - but absolute proof is not possible (and to some is not necessary), so I don't fully understand whether you seek "evidence" or if you seek "proof". There are many scientific investigations which lack 100% cooberation, but the percentage of those failures to meet the desired results do not outrightly negate the percentage of efforts that are affirmative of a particular thought or theory. As you know, evidence is only one or a set of observations which point to a particular conclusion - proof is the assimilation of all the evidences presented necessary to substantiate a claim. So the "proof" you seek might just lie in how you process the evidences you are presented with.
But hey, don't take my word for it - I'm also only human with no better "eyesight" than anyone else. I too have many questions about this God that require "attitude modifications" performed on the fly as I learn those answers fragment by fragment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.