John Reimer Wrote:
> This God has not only set the standard that defines evil but has also promised to judge all evil finally.  And he also defined how one is saved from this evil.   Does Epicurus decide for himself what he sees as evil in the process of "disproving" God?  What does Epicurus perceive "evil" to mean?
> 
> The strange thing is that people continue to complain about evil but refuse to turn away from it in their own lives, or to adopt the plan that frees them from that bondage to it.

Ah, but which religion is correct, then? Muslims will claim christians are infidels, christians will say the same of hindus, etc, and none of them have any more proof than the next.

Speaking of hindus, my parents shared a nice story after their visit in India. They were invited off the street to a wedding, and asked if it was a hindu wedding, as they were christians. The host answered, "The gods are the same for everyone", and let them in.

-- Simen

Hello Simen,

> John Reimer Wrote:
> 
>> This God has not only set the standard that defines evil but has also
>> promised to judge all evil finally.  And he also defined how one is
>> saved from this evil.   Does Epicurus decide for himself what he sees
>> as evil in the process of "disproving" God?  What does Epicurus
>> perceive "evil" to mean?
>> 
>> The strange thing is that people continue to complain about evil but
>> refuse to turn away from it in their own lives, or to adopt the plan
>> that frees them from that bondage to it.
>> 
> Ah, but which religion is correct, then? Muslims will claim christians
> are infidels, christians will say the same of hindus, etc, and none of
> them have any more proof than the next.
> 
> Speaking of hindus, my parents shared a nice story after their visit
> in India. They were invited off the street to a wedding, and asked if
> it was a hindu wedding, as they were christians. The host answered,
> "The gods are the same for everyone", and let them in.
> 


Do you wish to argue on behalf of Islam and Hinduism?  The topic of discussion was not Christianity verses these religions.  It was a discussion about theism and atheism.  It seems you prefer to move the topic off its original focus for some reason.  Is this meant to concede the God exists, and now we should discuss the most likely form in which he exists? :) 

-JJR

John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Simen,
> 
>> John Reimer Wrote:
>>
>>> This God has not only set the standard that defines evil but has also promised to judge all evil finally.  And he also defined how one is saved from this evil.   Does Epicurus decide for himself what he sees as evil in the process of "disproving" God?  What does Epicurus perceive "evil" to mean?
>>>
>>> The strange thing is that people continue to complain about evil but refuse to turn away from it in their own lives, or to adopt the plan that frees them from that bondage to it.
>>>
>> Ah, but which religion is correct, then? Muslims will claim christians are infidels, christians will say the same of hindus, etc, and none of them have any more proof than the next.
>>
>> Speaking of hindus, my parents shared a nice story after their visit in India. They were invited off the street to a wedding, and asked if it was a hindu wedding, as they were christians. The host answered, "The gods are the same for everyone", and let them in.
> 
> Do you wish to argue on behalf of Islam and Hinduism?  The topic of discussion was not Christianity verses these religions.  It was a discussion about theism and atheism.  It seems you prefer to move the topic off its original focus for some reason.  Is this meant to concede the God exists, and now we should discuss the most likely form in which he exists? :)

What's to say that - if He exists - we could even comprehend the form of His existence, be it physical in our sense of spiritual in the "higher" religious sense.  There are differing dogmas in the manifestations of the existence of the Supreme Being.  Classical Christians adhering to the Nicaean Creed would tell you that God is in everything and yet nowhere.  Mormons will tell you to hie to Kolob.

Along those lines, CS Lewis made some excellent inferencing about the
omnipresence of God when he made the analogy that God is like a writer.
  The characters in the story (us) are not in any specific point in
time, because to God (the writer) they are in every point in time, held
in memory at each point.  From this we can at least infer that God would
be capable of existing in a kind of extended physical state such that
time would not have effect upon Him - otherwise time would pass for God
just as it does for us, which would negate the ability of God to be
omniscient.

To try and force Lewis' analogy closer to being on-topic, when you write a program, you write code for a specific and finite point in the execution of the program.  However, in your comprehension and understanding of that application the state in which the application is in is in both the beginning and the end.  You know where it came from, where it "is," and where it's going.  Similarly, Lewis hypothesizes that we must all be like applications to God, and that He perceives us in an entirely different way than we do the world.

Either way, we can bicker about religion all day long, and never get anywhere because religion is a completely subjective topic.  It's different because it's at its core it's a belief, therefore there is no intrinsically right or wrong answer.  There's only the answer of the individual, which looses its "correctness" the moment it leaves scope of the individual.  Personally I think it's good for people to believe in a God, since the whole "Gospel" concept has a tendency to make people more interested in civility and in making themselves better, whether it be motivated by a love of Jesus, a fear of Allah, or from fear of Karmic retribution, or whatever else you may peradventure to believe.

John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Simen,
> 
>> John Reimer Wrote:
>>
>>> This God has not only set the standard that defines evil but has also
>>> promised to judge all evil finally.  And he also defined how one is
>>> saved from this evil.   Does Epicurus decide for himself what he sees
>>> as evil in the process of "disproving" God?  What does Epicurus
>>> perceive "evil" to mean?
>>>
>>> The strange thing is that people continue to complain about evil but
>>> refuse to turn away from it in their own lives, or to adopt the plan
>>> that frees them from that bondage to it.
>>>
>> Ah, but which religion is correct, then? Muslims will claim christians
>> are infidels, christians will say the same of hindus, etc, and none of
>> them have any more proof than the next.
>>
>> Speaking of hindus, my parents shared a nice story after their visit
>> in India. They were invited off the street to a wedding, and asked if
>> it was a hindu wedding, as they were christians. The host answered,
>> "The gods are the same for everyone", and let them in.
>>
> 
> 
> Do you wish to argue on behalf of Islam and Hinduism?  The topic of discussion was not Christianity verses these religions.  It was a discussion about theism and atheism.  It seems you prefer to move the topic off its original focus for some reason.  Is this meant to concede the God exists, and now we should discuss the most likely form in which he exists? :)

Well, would it be irrelevant or forbidden, in this discussion?

Chris R. Miller wrote:
> Either way, we can bicker about religion all day long, and never get anywhere because religion is a completely subjective topic.  It's different because it's at its core it's a belief, therefore there is no intrinsically right or wrong answer.   There's only the answer of the
> individual, which looses its "correctness" the moment it leaves scope
> of the individual.

There is absolutely nothing subjective about it.
Either there is a god, or gods, or there is not.

Like the question, is there life on Mars?
We can all have different opinions, but it doesn't change the facts.
Just because we're ignorant of something, doesn't make it a matter of opinion.

Hello Georg,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Hello Simen,
>> 
>>> John Reimer Wrote:
>>> 
>>>> This God has not only set the standard that defines evil but has
>>>> also promised to judge all evil finally.  And he also defined how
>>>> one is saved from this evil.   Does Epicurus decide for himself
>>>> what he sees as evil in the process of "disproving" God?  What does
>>>> Epicurus perceive "evil" to mean?
>>>> 
>>>> The strange thing is that people continue to complain about evil
>>>> but refuse to turn away from it in their own lives, or to adopt the
>>>> plan that frees them from that bondage to it.
>>>> 
>>> Ah, but which religion is correct, then? Muslims will claim
>>> christians are infidels, christians will say the same of hindus,
>>> etc, and none of them have any more proof than the next.
>>> 
>>> Speaking of hindus, my parents shared a nice story after their visit
>>> in India. They were invited off the street to a wedding, and asked
>>> if it was a hindu wedding, as they were christians. The host
>>> answered, "The gods are the same for everyone", and let them in.
>>> 
>> Do you wish to argue on behalf of Islam and Hinduism?  The topic of
>> discussion was not Christianity verses these religions.  It was a
>> discussion about theism and atheism.  It seems you prefer to move the
>> topic off its original focus for some reason.  Is this meant to
>> concede the God exists, and now we should discuss the most likely
>> form in which he exists? :)
>> 
> Well, would it be irrelevant or forbidden, in this discussion?
> 


Oh, I've come to doubt there is anything irrelevant or forbidden in this newsgroup. :)

I am merely pointing out that we weren't comparing types of god-centric belief systems to begin with.  And to move over to it now is to leave the discussion of atheism/materialism behind.   It would seem kind of difficult and unusual for the athiest/agnostic/naturalist to start arguing on the behalf of a belief system that he doesn't actually believe in, instead of for his own worldview which is the usual course of things.  It just comes across as dodging the discussion to do so, that's all.  If he wants to, however, that is fine.


-JJR

Don Wrote:

> Chris R. Miller wrote:
> > Either way, we can bicker about religion all day long, and never get anywhere because religion is a completely subjective topic.  It's different because it's at its core it's a belief, therefore there is no intrinsically right or wrong answer.   There's only the answer of the
>  > individual, which looses its "correctness" the moment it leaves scope
>  > of the individual.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing subjective about it.
> Either there is a god, or gods, or there is not.
> 
> Like the question, is there life on Mars?
> We can all have different opinions, but it doesn't change the facts.
> Just because we're ignorant of something, doesn't make it a matter of
> opinion.

While ultimately the truth is absolute, there is no way we have of scientifically proving the existence of God - probably due to his existence on a "higher" or otherwise undetectable plane.   Call it a dimension, heaven, whatever.  He's undetectable to our sensors, capt'n.  Perhaps if we remodulate the deflector dish?

Given in impossibility of scientifically proving God, all religion therefore becomes of the subjective matter.  Does that make sense, or is my reality distortion field showing?  ;-)

So John can you describe anything you have seen  in your life that has given you the slightest real indication that your faith is justified?

Any logical person would judge the truth of something by their own set of experiences in life.  To do otherwise would be blatently stupid. So what makes you so adament that you are right.

Answer if you dare.