April 21st, 2014
11:00 AM ET
What Hollywood gets wrong about heaven
Opinion by Drew Dyck, special to CNN
(CNN) - The 4-year-old boy sees angels floating toward him. They start out as stars, then slowly become more visible, wings flapping behind orbs of white light.
As they approach, they sing a melodious song. The boy cocks his head, squints into the sky, and makes a strange request. “Can you sing ‘We Will Rock You’?”
The angels giggle.
So do people in the theater.
The scene is from “Heaven is for Real,” the latest in a string of religious movies soaring at the box office. Based on the best-selling book of the same name, the film tells the real-life story of Colton Burpo, a 4-year-old boy who awakens from surgery with eye-popping tales of the great beyond. The film took in an estimated $21.5 million in opening on Easter weekend.
Even Colton’s religious parents (his dad, Todd, is a pastor) struggle to accept the celestial encounters their son describes: seeing Jesus and his rainbow-colored horse, meeting his sister who died in utero, and talking to his deceased great-grandfather, “Pop,” who, Colton exclaims, has “huge wings.”
The book and film are part of a larger trend. Depictions of journeys to heaven have never been more numerous or more popular. There’s “90 Minutes in Heaven,” “To Heaven and Back,” “Proof of Heaven,” and “The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven,” just to name a few.
Does God have a prayer in Hollywood?
So what should we make of such accounts? And what does their popularity say about us?
Some may be surprised that the Bible contains not one story of a person going to heaven and coming back. In fact Jesus’ own words seem to preclude the possibility: “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man” (John 3:13).
Scripture does contain several visions of heaven or encounters with celestial beings, but they’re a far cry from the feel-good fare of the to-heaven-and-back genre.
In Scripture, when mortals catch a premature glimpse of God’s glory, they react in remarkably similar ways. They tremble. They cower. They go mute. The ones who can manage speech express despair (or “woe” to use the King James English) and become convinced they are about to die. Fainters abound.
Take the prophet Daniel, for instance. He could stare down lions, but when the heavens opened before him, he swooned. Ezekiel, too, was overwhelmed by his vision of God. After witnessing Yahweh’s throne chariot fly into the air with the sound of a jet engine, he fell face-first to the ground.
Perhaps the most harrowing vision belongs to Isaiah. He sees the Almighty “high and exalted,” surrounded by angels who use their wings to shield their faces and feet from the glory of God. Faced with this awesome spectacle, Isaiah loses it. “Woe to me!” he cries, “I am ruined!” (Isaiah 6:5)
New Testament figures fare no better.
John’s famous revelations of heaven left him lying on the ground “as though dead” (Revelation 1:17). The disciples dropped when they saw Jesus transfigured. Even the intrepid Saul marching to Damascus collapsed before the open heavens - and walked away blind.
How different from our popular depictions. And it isn’t just “Heaven is for Real.” In most movies angels are warm, approachable - teddy bears with wings. God is Morgan Freeman or some other avuncular presence.
Scripture, however, knows nothing of such portrayals. Heavenly encounters are terrifying, leaving even the most stout and spiritual vibrating with fear - or lying facedown, unconscious.
Yes, the Bible teaches that heaven is a place of ultimate comfort, with “no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Revelation 21:4).
But it is also a place where the reality of God’s unbridled majesty reigns supreme - and that’s scary.
Did a 4-year-old boy from Nebraska really visit heaven? I don’t know. My hunch is that the popularity of such stories tells us more about our view of God than the place in which he dwells.
Ultimately I believe we flock to gauzy, feel-good depictions of heaven and tiptoe around the biblical passages mentioned above because we’ve lost sight of God’s holiness.
I fear we’ve sentimentalized heaven and by extension its primary occupant. I worry the modern understanding of God owes more to Colton Burpo than the prophet Isaiah. And I think this one-sided portrayal diminishes our experience of God.
We can’t truly appreciate God’s grace until we glimpse his greatness. We won’t be lifted by his love until we’re humbled by his holiness.
The affection of a cosmic buddy is one thing. But the love of the Lord of heaven and earth, the one who Isaiah says “dwells in unapproachable light,” means something else entirely.
Of course it means nothing if you think it’s all hokum. If for you the material reality is all the reality there is, any talk of God is white noise. But if you’re like me, and you think heaven is for real, well, it makes all the difference in the world.
Drew Dyck is managing editor of Leadership Journal and author of “Yawning at Tigers: You Can’t Tame God, So Stop Trying.” The views expressed in this column belong to Dyck.
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
I'm not so concerned about how Hollywood portrays heaven. I enjoy fantasy movies.
It really does bug me, though, how they messed up Narnia in Voyage of the Dawn Treader. They made it into something like a video game. "Find the blue light?" ... Are you kidding?
I am still pissed off that they cast Elijah Wood as Frodo in LOTR.
Whether it is bad casting, directing, or acting, I don't like Bilbo in "The Hobbit" movies.
I agree, he has not really fleshed out the character very well. The other characters tend to outshine him.
Huh. I thought he was okay as Frodo ... even though I really thought Frodo and Sam were going to kiss at the end. (Cue Seinfeld ... "Not that there's anything wrong with that!")
Still haven't seen the Hobbit movies. Have to see if they're on Netflix yet ...
I just did not care for the choice for Frodo. Not how I have been imagining Frodo all these years. The Hobbit is not yet on Netflix.
Finds a home in you
Dug in to you
A dead part
Do you have one?
Do you have a dead spot?
Did you want it to end like this?
You know the verdict
You didn’t want this.
Unlearning Violence: Daniel Dennett & Steven Pinker
As part of the February 2014 conference, "Unlearning Violence: Evidence and Policies for Early Childhood Development and Peace," Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker addressed the question, "can we become a more peaceful species?" Discussion moderated by Alex de Waal.
Dan Dennett is currently the Co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University.
Steven Pinker is a Canadian experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist, and popular science author. He is a Harvard College Professor and the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University.
Published on Mar 28, 2014
I like Daniel Dennett's books a lot. He is a great writer and a deep thinker.
I would love to listen to him and Alex Vilenkin (also at Tufts) do an interview together to see how their ideas bounce off one another.
In my queue is the exchange between Dennett and Sam Harris regarding free will. Dennett's response to "Free Will" is on Harris' web site, to which Harris responds in kind.
It has been probably eight years since I read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", but I remember it being excellent. "Breaking the Spell" is not bad. I have read reviews that have scared me off of some of his other books, like "Consciousness Explained".
I read all of those. Consciousness Explained was not hard science but it was thought provoking.
What about "Freedom Evolves"? Have you read that one?
I haven't gotten to that one.
When did Christians completely dismiss the brain? Naturally one's mind is busy processing inputs during the duress of severe illness, stress, or the temporary secession of breathing.
Since there is no evidence anywhere of the wild claims of their dogma, many will simply attribute god to some experience to try to bolster their unjustifyable belief, nad attempt to claim it as evidence. just look how many claim existance is evidence of " a creator", when it is no where near eviedence at all.
It is a common mechanism within the psyche. Simple rationalization.
Then explain how the physical universe can have a physical cause? Since, in order to do that, it would have to exist before it existed so it can be its own cause...
And don't use the "multi-verse" model because mathematics don't prove anything, since by varrying assumptions, math can be used to "prove" the existence of anything, including impossible things, and there is no evidence for the multi-verse model anyway, so it is just a belief system.
Theo....yet you readily accept the 'god always existed' philosophy
The universe is flat like a piece of paper. Next to our universe is a second, perhaps a third, perhaps an infinite number of universes. It makes sense that if one universe is left handed, there is another that is right handed. I know what you are thinking…so Egg dude, what caused the Big Bang? Well I wish I knew, but using undiscovered evidence I have come to the conclusion that it was caused be the wind. Using string theory, we can surmise that two sheets of universe touching (matter and anti-matter in this example) would cause a big bang. I little cosmic breeze might bring the two branes together causing the event. Another possibility would be the shape of an alternate universe in the multiverse. If we are flat, but another universe is curved in on itself it might simple touch at a single point. It would look like a speck of pepper to us, but it could be the end of all things. This is all possibly true and it is written down so you can believe it. God has a lot to do but I am sure he will still find time to listen to your prayers.
"Theo....yet you readily accept the 'god always existed' philosophy"
Yes, because it is of absolute necessity that something has existed forever. Either it is the physical universe, or it is that which was its creator.
If at any time absolutely nothing ever existed, then absolutely nothing would ever exist. Our physical universe exists now, but every observable piece of evidence tells us that this universe has not always existed. Therefore something had to exist prior to this universe. In order to avoid the impossibility of infinite regression, that which was this universes creator must have been eternal.
Theo....got any proof it was god? And even more importantly....your god?
" In order to avoid the impossibility of infinite regression, that which was this universes creator must have been eternal."
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
"Theo....got any proof it was god? And even more importantly....your god?"
Got any proof for multiple universes?
Theo....don't need any. I don't know how we came into existence, but the concept of a creator with a magic wand is illogical and unreasonable to assume without proof.
Incidentally, is "multiple universe" even a term? Since the word "universe" literally means "first sentence" as in the first sentence in the Bible – "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Yes theo, but since we know that is not what happened, ie The Big Bang, it is also the first of MANY places the bible is clearly wrong.
One sentence in, one sentence wrong.
"but the concept of a creator... is illogical and unreasonable"
It is not illogical if all other ideas of origins remain unproven and unprovable. It is then unreasonable to exclude the idea of special creation simply because of personal bias – it's bad science.
Theo...making assumptions with no element of proof based on not knowing the answer to complex issues is bad science. Removing logic and waving your hands in the air proclaiming 'god did it' is insane.
"Since the word "universe" literally means "first sentence" ..."
No, it does not.
You need to research the etymology of the word "universe" and then retract what you say it literally means.
Theo, Of course multiverse can be a word. The writers of the bible are wrong about pretty much everything else, so why do you think we are stuck with their name of our world. The multiverse theory would offer a counter argument to the "so fine-tuned it must be the work of a god". As you say no proof but that doesn't prevent you accepting a god and specifically the god of the bible.
"It is not illogical if all other ideas of origins remain unproven and unprovable."
Putting aside whether there is or can be proof for other ideas of origins, you cannot simply say, "You have not proved your idea, therefore my idea wins by default." You have to prove it as well.
"but since we know that is not what happened"
That is your opinion with no proofs to back it up. The universe began at some point, of that we are all in agreement. If you want to call it the "Big Bang" then that's fine with me. But it is the method that we are in disagreement over.
It is observable that our physical universe is not eternal, and we know that nothing can create itself, so the corner that a non-theist is backed into is the multi-verse model that there must have been other universes that somehow sparked this one into existence.
However this model begs the existence of infinite regression, which can only be shown in mathematics, there are no evidences for this – it is a belief system.
"we know that nothing can create itself"
We do? You are wrong. We don't "know" anything about what is behind that curtain. We do understand about 4% of what we experience and that is all so far. Science is exciting though and working to learn more.
You may know, or maybe not, that NASA's Kepler telescope is finding dozens of earth like planets in the life zone and there are probably millions more in just our galaxy. Since god created them all in your theory, do you suppose he visited them all and picked a chosen people to favor and may have had to sacrifice millions of his sons just to be fair? God would not want to favor one rather minor solar systems over all the others, would he?
Theo, We do know that no religious text accurately describes creation – all myths are proven incorrect by Big Bang, geology, evolution, cosmology, and much more. Pre Big-Bang we don't know but any god would not be the one of any religion. Realistically how likely is that a god could put into motion the Big Bang, wait billions of years for our Solar System to form, then millions more for life to form there, then billions more before humans appeared to choose a small tribe in a few hundred square miles out of the whole universe?
Santa....he wouldn't. Which is what makes the gullibility if these god believers so fascinating.
Theo, show some humility and admit you are wrong on the universe definition. I doubt you will. You have shown repeatedly that you are incapable, and too proud, of admitting a mistake.
"do you suppose he visited them all and picked a chosen people to favor and may have had to sacrifice millions of his sons just to be fair? God would not want to favor one rather minor solar systems over all the others, would he?"
No. Nothing like this has happened anywhere else.
Deuteronomy 4:32-40 – “Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and inquire from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything been done like this great thing, or has anything been heard like it? Has any people heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire, as you have heard it, and survived? Or has a god tried to go to take for himself a nation from within another nation by trials, by signs and wonders and by war and by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm and by great terrors, as the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him. Out of the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; and on earth He let you see His great fire, and you heard His words from the midst of the fire. Because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them. And He personally brought you from Egypt by His great power, driving out from before you nations greater and mightier than you, to bring you in and to give you their land for an inheritance, as it is today. Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other. So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may live long on the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time.”
"Theo, show some humility and admit you are wrong on the universe definition. I doubt you will. You have shown repeatedly that you are incapable, and too proud, of admitting a mistake."
OK, I gave an inaccurate definition of the word "verse." But in my defense, it was a high school science teacher MANY moons ago who said that. Apparently the etymological origins of that particular word slipped under both of our radars.
I'll admit when I'm wrong about something, it's a part of learning.
Here is Theo's premise in a nut shell:
Because humanity has yet to discover a complete logical explanation for the universe and our origins, that means anyone who wants to can invent any myth they want no matter how illogical because if logic hasn't given you the answer then "crazy" is about all you have left.
"You have shown repeatedly that you are incapable, and too proud, of admitting a mistake"
That's not true at all. Is a math teacher proud when they tell a class of students about a new trigonometric function and none understand? No. It's not pride when one has the right answer about a matter. And I have said on this forum NUMEROUS times that if I am wrong about anything in my theology, then show me in scripture where I am wrong, and I will change my theology. That's the mark of any good student. (good meaning willing to learn)
You really can't get your head around the FACT that man made up the gods not the other way around. Your rambling on about how the universe was created, it is an apologists canard to say, well really we do not know but hell it must have been a supernatural god and not just any god but our god. Funny and sad at the same time.
No, I'm just trying to show the illogical nature of attempting to explain how our physical universe could possibly have a physical origin. If that's true, then it would have to exist before it existed in order to create it.
Does that then mean that those other universes in the multi-verse model are physical in nature, or are they not physical in nature? If they are physical in nature, does that mean that eternality is ascribed to that which can be observed to be mutable? Or if they are not physical in nature, does that mean you are allowing for the supernatural to exist?
I'm just asking...
"You really can't get your head around the FACT that man made up the gods not the other way around."
I've said this before, but it is strictly your uninformed opinion that you claim it is a "fact." Just read about the life of Polycarp (and I could list many others, such as Clement) and try to explain his life if Jesus was not God. Keep in mind who Polycarp was, who his teacher was, and who taught his teacher. Then look at what he wrote, what he stood for, what accomplishments he did, and how he died.
"Forever" is a concept that requires time, and it is entirely possible that time itself is a dimension that only unfolded with the Big Bang. It may be completely nonsensical to speak of any time before the Big Bang, then. Perhaps you are making the common fallacy of imagining being an outside witness to the Big Bang? A true model of the BB would have to reel forward from an inside point-of-view, not an outside view of some kind of explosion. As far as we know, there was never any space outside of the singularity from which to view the expansion, of into which the universe expanded. Try thinking that you are inside of an expanding balloon, and that this is all there is.
This creates a problem for your Creator god, however. Everything that we know about minds indicates that something physical houses every one of them, and that it requires time to make calculations and thought, and even more time in order to act. A being that can somehow think and act without time could exist, but not in any reality that we have experience with, or any that makes scientific or logical sense.
The scientific models never assume that "absolutely nothing" ever existed. As Hawking indicated, all that was likely required for a naturally occurring universe was that certain natural Laws have always been in place, and it may be that it's impossible for them not to have always been in place. It's rather doubtful that an "absolute nothing" is even possible, as I've noted to you before.
What if there is matter outside of what we have discovered? You seem to be working on the assumption that the big bang started the entire universe. I have never seen any proof of that.
""Forever" is a concept that requires time, and it is entirely possible that time itself is a dimension that only unfolded with the Big Bang."
I agree with you. Time is a construct in the same way that the physical universeis a created thing. The phrase "In the beginning" notes that time was a creation, after all, in the beginning of WHAT is the first question to be asked. In the beginning of everything that was created is the simplest answer. When we say that God has existed forever, the language is condescending language in that we have to dumb down some ideas about God because they are too much for our minds to wrap around. His eternality is one of those ideas.
"It may be completely nonsensical to speak of any time before the Big Bang, then. Perhaps you are making the common fallacy of imagining being an outside witness to the Big Bang? A true model of the BB would have to reel forward from an inside point-of-view, not an outside view of some kind of explosion. As far as we know, there was never any space outside of the singularity from which to view the expansion, of into which the universe expanded. Try thinking that you are inside of an expanding balloon, and that this is all there is."
Yeah, and because none of us humans were there to observe the creation of everything that was created, we must defer to the one who was, and that was God. The book of Exodus tells us that God spoke to Moses as a man speaks to his friend, so we know that when Moses wrote about things that man could never discover through his own means, it was accurate, being given to Moses by the only one who could give an accurate description.
"Everything that we know about minds indicates that something physical houses every one of them, and that it requires time to make calculations and thought, and even more time in order to act."
For created beings, sure. But the Bible teaches that we are not bodies with a spirit, but spirits that inhabit bodies. We have minds that operate within our bodies, but they are not ultimately dependant on them.
"A being that can somehow think and act without time could exist, but not in any reality that we have experience with, or any that makes scientific or logical sense."
I wholeheartedly agree.
"The scientific models never assume that "absolutely nothing" ever existed."
I didn't say that it did, which is why I usually make that point to tell folks that theologians don't assume that either.
"As Hawking indicated, all that was likely required for a naturally occurring universe was that certain natural Laws have always been in place, and it may be that it's impossible for them not to have always been in place. It's rather doubtful that an "absolute nothing" is even possible, as I've noted to you before."
I agree that there was never a time that "absolutely nothing" existed. But there was a time when our physical universe was nothing. Many say that the universe was a singularity that exploded... But objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force, so we could talk about what the outside force was, but then that's at the center of the debate – science cannot tell us.
"What if there is matter outside of what we have discovered?"
I don't follow... I'm positive there is matter outside of what we have discovered in the sense that we can't see or get to the bounds of the universe, if it has any bounds. Is there matter outside of what we have discovered in the sense that there exists another universe? I don't believe so. I say that because these models are proposed in order to posit the idea of that which is physical also being eternal.
"You seem to be working on the assumption that the big bang started the entire universe. I have never seen any proof of that."
Yeah, I haven't either. Scientist's best and most favorite answer is "I don't know." That gives them license to posit any idea they want if they can back it up with mathematics.
Don't start with that first cause garbage again unless you can apply it to your god as well, and do not redefine the laws of causality to be able to exclude your god. Since I know you use an incorrect defintion in your first cause garbage, I know it is false.
Also, since you have no idea what was before the Big Bang, you do not know what caused the Big Bang. Still no evidence anywhere of any "creator".
Since you have no idea what was before the Big Bang, you do not know what caused the Big Bang. Still no evidence anywhere of any "Multi-verse" or "eternal universe" or any "physical cause" to the physical universe.
Theo....or no evidence of any god either....
Finally you get it. We do not know, which means quite simply we do not know.
All the rest, including belief in any gods and the religions spawned from those beliefs si , then , quite obviously illogical.
Thank you for finally admitting it.
You really expect a creator god of the entire universe would get hung up on a tiny planet on an insignificant little solar system in one of billions of galaxies. Sorry pal man created that god, the universe created us and perhaps we are not alone! Who or what created the universe we do not know and maybe never will before the earth is consumed by our star/sun.
Time began just like the physical universe that we are experiencing began, but you cannot prove that either is a created thing, and any being that could create anything would require time in which to do it.
The Bible doesn't say '"In the beginning of everything that was created" does it?
Genesis 1:6-7 says 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. What they're describing is a solid barrier of a sky with "waters" above it. How does this possibly match anything we actually know about the atmosphere? Is the sky actually solid, like the Bible states? Is there actually water just outside of our atmosphere? The Genesis account simply does not map to the reality we all now today, sorry!
"His eternality is one of those ideas."
Just because we have the word "eternity" in our language doesn't mean that any one thing actually is eternal. Same goes for the word "perfect". You're proposing to solve the problem of how any being can operate outside of time by merely calling it a "mystery" and hoping that people simply stop thinking about it. The difference between that and what science offers is that minds can actually wrap around complex theory and mathematics, where I doubt that anyone has ever actually solved the kind of cryptic theology you're suggesting.
The notion that God was around at the time of the Big Bang is a thing of the human imagination. No data suggests it, and there is nothing in the nature of the universe at this time to indicate that there could be anything "outside" of the singularity. You're just suggesting theological ideas; the product of theologian imaginations. Nothing more.
"Moses wrote about things that man could never discover through his own means,"
Everything that we know for sure suggests that all that we are, our consciousness and personality, is just the product of our meat brains. Alter, injure or destroy our meat brains and "we" cease to exist except in other people's memories housed in other meat brains. If we had souls that existed apart from our brains then alcohol and drugs wouldn't addle us, we wouldn't really be fooled by illusions, and there would be no reason for people being of different intelligence, right? Do you have any hard evidence that suggests otherwise?
Any reality that we don't have experience with, or any that doesn't make scientific or logical sense, isn't a reality that should actually be believed in. If you've read any Science Fiction or Fantasy literature you'd realize that humans have a great talent for creating universes of the imagination, and there's nothing in your created universe to separate it from one of these imagined ones.
If your God created the universe he would have had to create it either out of part of himself, or out of absolutely nothing (that which would have been "outside" of God), correct? Neither is a very good option for you theologically, or scientifically.
" But there was a time when our physical universe was nothing."
How do you know this? I see a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can demonstrate your proof.
"But objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force, so we could talk about what the outside force was,"
Sure, now, in a universe that has expanded, formed particles, and experiences elapsed time. We really don't know what the universe was like as a singularity. Maybe it was too unstable not to expand? Then again, what's wrong with gravity having a role to play in it?
The article says; "Even Colton’s religious parents (his dad, Todd, is a pastor) struggle to accept the celestial encounters their son describes: seeing Jesus and his rainbow-colored horse, meeting his sister who died in utero, and talking to his deceased great-grandfather, “Pop,” who, Colton exclaims, has “huge wings.”
Struggle to accept? Struggle to accept? It's called a child therapist
Yes, a therapist if it is creating a ongoing mental condition that needs attention. On the other hand, it is just a kids fanciful imagination behaving normally. Why would an adult take it seriously? Only a REALLY bad parent.
Concert...,or a pastor that knows he can make a quick buck via a gullible community
Yes, perhaps an adult therapist is more needed......
Today there are many "Christians" rejecting sacramental baptism (born-again-side). They claim one would get born again when he simply puts his trust in the Lord. Even for ecclesiastical Christians is vaild: Repentance and faith in Jesus are required for sacramental baptism. However, the very locus in space and time of the Rebirth is the baptism itself. Faith before baptism can merely be a kind of "accepting something as true". At first through sacramental baptism our faith gets sealed, and becomes the faith which makes us able to present our bodies as a living sacrifice.
The born-again-Christians rejecting sacramental baptism will face great difficulties. They try to fight their sinful acts though their "old man of sin" has never died. They stuck in their "old man of sin". They are just who they are. They will despair in their hopeless fight, and become very unhappy people. It is of great disbenefit for them that they claim baptism would merely by a symbolic act, an act of obedience, and a public confession of faith. Deadly error.
We really need to get reborn out of Water and Spirit. It is necessary that our "old man of sin" dies through a divine act. God himself must remove us from the way of sin, and set us on the way of love and righeousness.
But that's not what Paul says in Rom. 10:9-10 is it?
He seems pretty clear that it is belief in Jesus and his sacrifice that bring salvation.
Before sacramental baptism we are so weakened through our sinful nature that we hardly can believe.
Our faith before baptism is more or less merely an "accepting something as true".
Conditions for sacr. baptism are repentance and accepting the gospel as true. Yet, at first through baptism we get released to the saving faith making us able to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, and to adore God in Spirit and in Truth.
I am so glad that you are the only one who believes the nonsense you concoct.
"My" doctrine you can also find in the "Book of Common Prayer" of the Church of England.
Do you still assume I would be the only one who believes that?
Rainy....I could open the Sears catalog to any page, pick an item, and somebody, somewhere would want to sleep with it, maybe several. Religions tend to work on the same concept
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't believe I saw an answer to my question. Paul seems to be saying that belief in Jesus and his crucifixtion are all that are necessary. You are saying there are other requirements (i.e. baptism).
Who should I believe?
What is wrong with you that you keep posting the sane post within 2 posts of each other? Refresh your computer. Your words aren't so important that you have to repeat the 6 minutes later.
Early onset Alzheimers.
"We really need to get reborn out of Water and Spirit."
thefinisher1 = butthurtism
I think the only thing that might pacify the troll is self-flagellation.
finisher does absolutely no harm to atheism, I don't think that is true for theism.
Today there are many "Christians" rejecting sacramental baptism (born-again-side). They claim one would get born again when he simply puts his trust in the Lord. Even for ecclesiastical Christians is vaild: Repentance and faith in Jesus are required for sacramental baptism. However, the very locus in space and time of Rebirth is the baptism itself. Faith before baptism can mere be a kind of "accepting something as true". At first through sacramental baptism our faith get sealed, and becomes the faith which makes us able to present our bodies as a living sacrifice.
The born-again-Christians rejecting sacramental baptism will face great difficulties. They try to fight their sinful acts though their "old man of sin" has never died. They stuck in their "old man of sin". They are just who they are. They will despair in their hopeless fight, and become very unhappy people. It is of great disbenefit for them that they claim baptism would merely by a symbolic act, an act of obeience, and a public confession of faith. Deadly error.
We really need to get reborn out of Water and Spirit. It is necessary that our "old man of sin" dies through a divine act. God himself must remove us from the way of sin, and set us on the way of love and righeousness.
The majority of christians disagree with you Rainer.
not just christians. Pretty much anyone with a working brain.
According to rainman though, HIS version of christianity is the only correct one. No one else is a christian.
He is mentally disturbed, as evidenced by his posts.
Every Scotsman thinks they are the archetype.
First, Hollywood doesn't get anything wrong about heaven. Hollywood's purpose is to make a profit, not to remain Biblically accurate. So if they take liberties in not adhering to Biblical descriptions, why is anyone surprised?
Second, Biblical descriptions of heaven are written by ancients who were afraid of most anything they didn't understand nor could explain. And for the most part we have no idea who those writers were. Even most Jews don't believe that Moses actually wrote the first 5 books of the Old Testament. They are stories, literature, and mythology.
Okay, actually there is a third thing: The liberties that Hollywood takes in Biblical interpretation or no more unbelievable than those of the death, burial and resurrection of God. God (Jesus) committed suicide for God (in heaven) in order to forgive his creation for a world that God himself created. And God could not foresee this as a possible outcome?
Yes, and if we DID believe in or even understand what heaven is, Hollywood would still change it to make it more exciting and get the facts wrong. It's what they do.
And I'm glad they do. Entertain me and I'll pay. I get plenty of reality in other ways.
What's the point of thinking non-belief is correct when atheists have to evidence to support their claims? Atheism is stupid. Plain and simple!😊
Do not feed this troll!
It is hard to resist feeding thefinisher1.
Do you believe unicorns, leprechauns, Zeus, Odin, and pixies are real? If not, then you have non belief also.
I may not believe in those gods, but I don't live an obsessed life over not believing in them. Grow up, kiddo!
But you would agree that you are obsessed with being a troll, yes?
Do you have a life believing in God?
If so, whats worse, obsessing over the mystery of why most people believe in imaginary beings, or believing in those beings?
Why is anybody trying to reason with this azzwipe? He is a troll!
the: So you too are an Atheist.
Your atheism is a lie, so, atheism is worse, because it's stupid.
You only hurt theists by sounding like a dolt...keep it up-we thank you!
Both of my children are atheists. Smart kids by my estimation and I am proud of them.
So you brainwashed and forced them to be atheists? How very common among you atheist parents. Ignorant child!
I admire a child that uses rational thought and doesn't confuse mythology with reality!
Fintronics....most intelligent people think the same way as you on this matter
Concert...I don't know your kids or their ages, but I can guarantee they are smarter than finisher
The are very bright kids and both have been exposed to a wide variety of religions, including Christianity. The have been taught to see things with eyes wide open and be critical thinkers. I have never discouraged them from attending church or believing in God. They both arrived at atheism on their own. I understand I am an influence, but teens listening to their parents? Not too common.
@finisher is just a crotchety, cranky, "Get off my lawn!" old coot.
Or a 12-year-old struggling to pass fourth grade.
Good parents raise good kids. You keeping an open-mind certainly has influenced them and obviously has done wonders for our future generations.
My soon to be 20 year old daughter took a Comparative Religions Course, was raised Wiccan, delved in to Moronism and now has walked away from that...she enjoys the peace that she gets from her Wiccan family but is not a believer in any other god and finds the Christian god morbid.
TP....was Moronism a Freudian slip?
TP....that covers all religions essentially
Yes it does.
TP....that covers all religions essentially
Some people assert that our world full of life is proof of God.
If P, then Q.
P = God, Q = life.
What if P = I won the lottery, Q = I buy a new car.
No. This is a logical fallacy, affirming the consequent.
A nationwide manhunt is underway for a pastor accused of sexually abusing up to 10 young girls for roughly ten years.
Victor Barnard, a pastor at River Road Fellowship in Finlayson, Minnesota, allegedly told his victims that it was God’s word for them to have sex with him, and that he was “Christ in the flesh.”
Nancy Grace talks to one of the alleged victims, Lindsay Tornambe, whose parents reportedly handed her over to Barnard when she was just 13 years old.
“I don’t know how this happens in America,” Grace said.
The global prevalence of child sexual abuse has been estimated at 19.7% for females and 7.9% for males, according to a 2009 study published in Clinical Psychology Review that examined 65 studies from 22 countries. This is a dark, disturbing and damaging sickness. I was a victim myself and can testify that it can do life-long damage to a person’s life. I hope they lock this guy up for life.
Lock him up and chemically castrate him and all other peds/rapists.
I wish. He is probably dead by now. He had many victims and should have been arrested but never was. Unfair.
I almost want to believe in vigilante justice in cases like this. Disgusting waste of human flesh and oxygen.
They have to catch him first. Apparently he's being protected by his "flock" in Washington state. He's already been on the loose for a couple of years since these victims started reporting his crimes.
Wow, so his flock is complicit...idiots.
Yes, TP, I read that some of them followed him to Washington, and he's undoubtedly set the hook on some more dolts there.
I'm sorry for what you went through, Concert. Truly.
Thanks Akira. Me and thousands of other kids. The problem is when you are just a kid you are to frightened or embarrassed or confused to report it to your parents or authorities. Especially in a small town and when the molester is well respected in the community. Standard story unfortunately.
Additionally, the damage it does can manifest itself in a number of ways and at any time. Buried shame and embarrassment can be dangerous and affect a person's life throughout their life.
I know. It's sad that people cannot see through the thin veneer of respectability to see the monster within...or refuse to believe their own child if they do speak up.
Those parents are assholes. Plain and simple.
I am very sorry to hear about your experience. Concert.
In the news bit that I posted, I guess what I would like explained further is:
"whose parents reportedly handed her over to Barnard..."
Thanks Doris. I can tell you this, it has made me a very watchful parent and that is an understatement.
I can't say that I'm shocked or surprised that this has happened AGAIN... just exasperated at the to-be-expected results of the plethora of gullible people who latch on so tenaciously to religious delusions, fantasies and superst.itions.
Atheists will never win, so, why try atheists? People laugh at how stupid your atheism is and always win. Awww!!! Poor babies!!! Your atheism is too weak. Get over it.
Do not feed the trolls
Oh c'mon, we all have our guilty pleasures.
gnm: Let him/her keep it up, given that it never does say what it believes and only hurls insults at Atheists, people will see it as a Theist and steer away from theism. Who would really want to go anywhere where someone like this is, unless of course it is to pay the visit to it at the local asylum?
TruthP....of course you are right. I just hate to see other posters wasting their time with something worthwhile to say, when all this j-off has to say is c-rap
gnm: I know what you're saying, this jack ass gets cheap thrills out of this-a sadistic miserable loser at best.
He's like the kid who eats his own boogers. Everyone knows him for the sick little boy he is.
Saltshaker, is that you??
This reminds me of those old Kung Fu movies, where the boasting guy says "You're Kung Fu is too weak", just before the hero beats the snot out of him.
Letting go of superst.i.tion
Speakers in order of appearance:
1. Lawrence Krauss, World-Renowned Physicist
2. Robert Coleman Richardson, Nobel Laureate in Physics
3. Richard Feynman, World-Renowned Physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics
4. Simon Blackburn, Cambridge Professor of Philosophy
5. Colin Blakemore, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Neuroscience
6. Steven Pinker, World-Renowned Harvard Professor of Psychology
7. Alan Guth, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Physics
8. Noam Chomsky, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Linguistics
9. Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel Laureate in Physics
10. Peter Atkins, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Chemistry
11. Oliver Sacks, World-Renowned Neurologist, Columbia University
12. Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
13. Sir John Gurdon, Pioneering Developmental Biologist, Cambridge
14. Sir Bertrand Russell, World-Renowned Philosopher, Nobel Laureate
15. Stephen Hawking, World-Renowned Cambridge Theoretical Physicist
16. Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics
17. Ned Block, NYU Professor of Philosophy
18. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics
19. Marcus du Sautoy, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
20. James Watson, Co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate
21. Colin McGinn, Professor of Philosophy, Miami University
22. Sir Patrick Bateson, Cambridge Professor of Ethology
23. Sir David Attenborough, World-Renowned Broadcaster and Naturalist
24. Martinus Veltman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
25. Pascal Boyer, Professor of Anthropology
26. Partha Dasgupta, Cambridge Professor of Economics
27. AC Grayling, Birkbeck Professor of Philosophy
28. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics
29. John Searle, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
30. Brian Cox, Particle Physicist (Large Hadron Collider, CERN)
31. Herbert Kroemer, Nobel Laureate in Physics
32. Rebecca Goldstein, Professor of Philosophy
33. Michael Tooley, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado
34. Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
35. Leonard Susskind, Stanford Professor of Theoretical Physics
36. Quentin Skinner, Professor of History (Cambridge)
37. Theodor W. Hänsch, Nobel Laureate in Physics
38. Mark Balaguer, CSU Professor of Philosophy
39. Richard Ernst, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
40. Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology
41. Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson, Princeton Research Scientist
42. Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Laureate in Physics
43. Hubert Dreyfus, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
44. Lord Colin Renfrew, World-Renowned Archaeologist, Cambridge
45. Carl Sagan, World-Renowned Astronomer
46. Peter Singer, World-Renowned Bioethicist, Princeton
47. Rudolph Marcus, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
48. Robert Foley, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution
49. Daniel Dennett, Tufts Professor of Philosophy
50. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics
Mozart – Requiem Mass In D Minor K 626 – 1. Introitus 00:03
Massive Attack – Two Rocks And A Cup Of Water 02:28, 19:14
Max Richter – Embers 05:13
Ludovico Einaudi – Andare 09:27, 24:30, 26:31
Ludovico Einaudi – Nuvole Bianche 13:13
Max Richter – Vladimir's Blues 29:21
Ludovico Einaudi – Eni 30 Percento (The Earth Prelude) 33:16
I wonder how many bible thumpers are actively looking for video clips of smart people who believe in god.
Truly an interesting video. It's a shame that that there was only one female however.
There is a simple reason why we make so little supernatural experiences: We adhere too much to the visible world. Our natural flesh (Greek: sarx) is extremly bound in the visible world, and remote from the invisible world.
The first step of getting released from our captivity in the visible world is the death of our flesh (our old man of sin). Should we commit suicide? That is not necessary. There is another way to get rid of the flesh: The rebirth or sacramental baptism where we die and resurrect together with Jesus. As we die and resurrect at the same momemt, we don't perceive baptism as a kind of death (actually our life as sinners gets abolished).
John 3: 5-7
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Sacramental baptism or rebirth is the very first but necessary step to experience miracles.
After the rebirth our flesh (we as sinners) is declared dead but still there. Our body still wants to live according to its old habits though we have been baptized. At baptism we also received the Holy Spirit. We have to struggle daily that the Spirit gets control of our body or limbs more and more so that our body less and less acts according to its old habits.
God has actually abolished our life in the sin through baptism, but he has not abolished us, of course. We are set free, but it is our task and responsiblity to grasp the new life daily more and more. God will never violate our free will. God has set us on a new way, and it is up to us to go on this flat way.
Today even people having received sacramental baptism nurture their flesh through materialism, se-xual greed and too much eating.
Our saramental baptism will only be of any benefit for us if we spare enough time for contemplation about divine things(we should not offer every minute for the job and consumption). We should be chaste, and eat less.
(Contemplation includes daily prayer)
Colossians 3: 1-5
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. 5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
It is a great pity that today very many people having received sacramental baptism, don't make supernatural experiences. Simple reason: They don't fight against their old habits though they would be on the winner side because their flesh (old life as sinner) has been declared dead through baptism.
Your all-powerful god requires an ancient water ritual before he will forgive us for a sin we did not commit. Right.
When God was a bachelor, He demanded genital mutilation.
Now that He is His own Father, He merely requires ritual drowning (and cannibalism, depending on your flavour of Xtianity)
So salvation requires baptism AND the belief that Jesus died for our sins? Seems like there's more and more requirements being added on to this "free gift".
Some of our best scientists are Christian. They believe in God, spirit, etc., what you call the invisible world. I would think that one of them would be able to be adequately unshackled from the visible world to devise an objective way to detect this invisible world.
Other scientists have devised ways of detecting invisible phenomena. We can detect sound outside our hearing range, we detect light outside our visible range, we detect chemicals outside our taste range, etc.
Science has explored and discovered that the world is mostly invisible to us. We detect a tiny portion, only the parts that impact our survival and ability to procreate, very consistent with evolution. Scientists can't help but explore. In all that exploration, no scientist has found any evidence of your invisible world.
How many times do they have to tell you;
FIRST you have to believe in it.
THEN you must attribute everything you don't understand to it.
THEN they will convince you it is real and you have 'proof'.
Not the lind of 'proof' anyone else would know about, but your own personal 'proof' that we nasty athists will not accept even though they know the 'truth'.
Sadly, that about sums it up for many.
The gateway to God's Kingdom is sacramental baptism or the rebirth out of Water and Spirit.
We go through (or use) this gate when we fight our sinful habits on the basis of the two promises of baptism: We have died for the sin, and we are in Christ.
Through baptism God has abolished our life as sinners. It is only that we have to grasp that new life through daily faith and obedience. Our body is still sinful after baptism.
There is no other way to God's world.
That's just your brand, Rainy. Here's another one:
If that's the only way, then I conclude it is completely imaginary. I'm sure it seems real to you, I'm sure you are sincere. Human imagination seems more real that objective reality to some, that's how strong our imaginations are. It's like a socially acceptable form of schizophrenia. In most cases it does no harm. Sometimes it leads to behavior that infringes on other people's rights. In those rare cases, I oppose them.
Modern Christians could complain about the fact that they experience nearly no miracles. Seemingly, the Bible has nothing to do with the real world where we live in.
Yet, the issue is that we don't apply the good old doctrine well, we don't fght against our old habits through the power of baptism and Jesus' sacrifice.
We as sinners have died at baptism in a real sense. We have really died. Christ whom we received at baptism is our new life.
Yet, if we don't grasp our new life, we will really feel through diseases and depression that we are dead. That is a hard fate for a Christian.
Christ is our new life also in a biological sense.
So no matter how a person lives, if they didn't get baptized they are going to hell?
You really believe your just and loving god exisits like this?
All unbaptized people stuck in their sinful flesh. Flesh remains flesh – no outlet.
"We as sinners have died at baptism in a real sense."
We? ,,,,,,,, not unless you have a mouse in your pocket...
What Hollywood gets wrong about heaven...............
What Hollywood gets wrong about heaven.....
Heaven is a fictional place that was invented thousands of years ago by all religions.....it was a way for the people in power to quiet the peons they controlled by giving them hope that they get their chance in the next life.....so sick.... and the ignorant people in todays world will not give it up either...they think they're going to a place where they will have to end up loving the people they hate here on earth....how stupid is that?
I don't know what more could be done to relay the existence of God Who tests man by Faith and revealed Himself tremendously. To wit we have this wondrous creation and great mysteries than can only show a Supreme Being behind it all.
A few days ago on a previous Blog entry, someone mentioned Andy Kaufman. I couldn't help but think that Andy Kaufman had no problem believing that people heal the sick in the Philippines, and he traveled halfway around the world to seek a cure for cancer from others, only to find out it was a hand trick scheme using giblets, but had a problem believing in [a] God.
A lot of times I see that to some people it could be just anything but not [a] God, how dumbfounded and futile.
A hand trick scheme using giblets would be about as effective a cure as prayer.
Vic – "I don't know what more could be done..."
Since most of the world's population is unconvinced you god exists, there is obviously plenty more that could be done.
That should be "your god", not "you god".
Throughout human history, the vast majority of people believed/believe in [a] God(s), they just differed/differ on who that/those God(s) is(are.)
How many gods do you believe in? Just one, I assume? If so, why did you pick that one out of all the thousands of choices? Did you investigate all the possibilities, or just pick the convenient one that predominates in your culture?
One Godhead Three Hypostases, the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit.
Belief is a "conviction of the heart," after a lifetime of experience and study, that happens to be my conviction.
Vic – "..."a lifetime of experience and study.."
How many religions did you study?
Vic – "Belief is a "conviction of the heart,"
Then surely you can understand the non-belief of those who have had no such conviction.
Unfortunately, I don't see non-belief here, I only see anti-belief!
And, unfortunately, I don't see any god here, just an invisible, unproven deity.
Vic – "I only see anti-belief!"
Oh? How so?
I'm not so sure. Maybe there is a natural mammalian instinct to feel that something greater must be served or feared. Take pets for instance. I'm not saying they are necessarily incapable of imagining a deity, but maybe what's more likely is that they think of their owners as deities. Perhaps quite a bit of time in man's early history when he had a greater fear of other animals around him that posed a much greater immediate danger to him than people are used to thinking now; that he didn't think himself so much the most cunning life form in his world. Maybe many people during that time thought of some of the other animals as gods, perhaps even controllers of the sun and stars, etc.
"This oil I hold in my hand has the power to bring the dead back to life!"
"Really? Please show us this great wonder you claim!"
"What? Of course I won't show you peasants, this is far to valuable and none of you can afford it!"
"Well I don't believe you then, I wouldn't pay a penny for your cure!"
"Why do you have to hate a fellow mans dead child? Why do you have to be so anti-resurrection?"
"I'm not anti-resurrection, I just don't believe you because you have no proof of your claim and you are unwilling to provide any other verification. You sell your snake oil to uneducated peasants and when we call you out on it you act as if your feelings are hurt. Well many of us aren't buying it anymore and we will continue to spread the word about your inability to back up a single claim you make."
"Unfortunately, I don't see non-belief here, I only see anti-belief!"
"Call it what you will..."
This sounds like a MP sketch. Well done.
They also thought the earth was flat...
Hey Vic Really ?
You say he has revealed himself tremendously. Other believers speak of "divine hiddeness".
God tests man by Faith, He does not show Himself directly, rather, He reveals Himself through His creation and Scripture.
Since the fall of Adam & Eve, God relegated human to mortality and this life realm that he/she needs to endure and pass the test of faith until the end of time.
My point is that a lot of believers would disagree with you.
"God tests man by Faith"
That is the most ridiculous line of bs in Christian thought.
"I don't know what more could be done to relay the existence of God Who tests man by Faith and revealed Himself tremendously."
Is that a joke or is your imagination really that limited? You can't think of anything more that a god could do to reveal himself? If a god existed, he would have to be going way out of his way to NOT reveal himself given we have zero evidence to suggest he exists. If a god existed, he could swing by and say hi once in a while. That would be a bit more revealing than presenting us with zero evidence of his existence. Heck god, just shoot us an email with your picture and we'll believe.
Halftime appearance at the Super Bowl!
'He' probably couldn't do any worse than the Chili Peppers poor performance
At the very least....no wardrobe malfunctions!
This existence, the universe and life in it, is "Prima Facie" evidence of God.
If not, you might as well give answer keys along with the exams in schools.
Vic – "This existence, the universe and life in it, is "Prima Facie" evidence of God."
Can you concede that it is not necessarily evidence of your particular god?
The majesty and grandeur of the forest is prima facie evidence of Faeries.
@Vic – You probably mean 'res ipsa loquitur' not 'prima facie'
"Prima Facie" is stronger and more relevant given the awe and inspiration at first sight involved in examining this existence.
"This existence, the universe and life in it, is "Prima Facie" evidence of God."
Here you go again with your first glance garbage again...just recycling already disproven nonsense.
This existence, the universe and life in it, is "Prima Facie" evidence of the Matrix.
.This existence, the universe and life in it, is "Prima Facie" evidence of Aliens conducting experiments
This existence, the universe and life in it, is "Prima Facie" evidence of any of hundreds of other gods"
This existence, the universe and life in it, is "Prima Facie" evidence of Charles, the superintendant on the rental property called the universe.
Your first glance argument is simply wholly invalid, and illogical. Surprised you brought it back up..an oldie but a nosensical illegitimate argument..
I never read it anywhere, I spoke/speak it out of conviction in my own words for to me this existence, the universe and life in it, is "Prima Facie" evidence of God.
This universe, and life in it, is only "Prima Facie" evidence of this universe. Anything else is speculation.
"This existence, the universe and life in it, is "Prima Facie" evidence of God."
What a pathetic attempt at providing evidence. The universe exists and therefore, so does my god invention? I don't think so.
Unfortunately, you lack the evidence and facts to use 'prima facie' appropriately
"to me this existence, the universe and life in it, is "Prima Facie" evidence of God.
Yes vic, you have once again shown you CHOOSE to thros logic and reason out the window and go with your unjustifyable belief.
You have chosen to IGNORE the other myriad possibilities.
You are a prime example of religion displacing logic and reason.
" To wit we have this wondrous creation and great mysteries than can only show a Supreme Being behind it all."
Flat out false. There are many other p[ossibilities. You have let your "light" blind you.
To wit we have this wondrous creation and great mysteries than can only show a Supreme Being behind it all....
You're sad Vic....real sad.
Idiot, I don't see any evidence of deep thought or rational consideration on your part in your answer.
Really? "deep thought"?... oh my,
The only Supreme Being worth mentioning is Leeloo (Milla Jovovich) when she was wearing her Jean-Paul Gaultier strap outfit
"To wit we have this wondrous creation and great mysteries that can only show a Supreme Being behind it all."
Things previously thought to be the ineffable work of supernatural beings are now handily understood to be naturalistic phenomena. Strange how the role of the gods gets lesser and lesser the more we understand about nature.
Religion is the cave-man instinct that comes upon us when we're confronted by something we don't understand.
Religious faith is the emotion that precedes thought and rational analysis.
The world doesn't work how we want it to work.
We can only describe it, and chronicle its workings.
God is an explanation for the reason behind the Universe's existence, something which is unknowable and has no relation to what happens in the Universe.
Doc, we as reasonable people seeking answers and reasons for all things , seek a purpose for all things as a way of making sense of our world, universe and lives. Some of us have come to realize a role and purpose in us for which we interact and believe in a higher power.
Religion was born to serve the same purpose as science; it answered questions about the world and how it worked. Of course, when we required religion as a psychic salve science was unable to answer such questions; science didn't even exist except as a "hey, stop pushing me into the water or I'll get wet" practical exercise. Religion was the first symptom of our sentience, of our consciousness and of our acknowledgement of our own subjectivity.
Here in the modern world, religion is an ar.tefa.ct. We've managed to describe almost everything, in physical terms. We've even managed to explain a great deal, too. The spirit world, we've discovered, can't exist, without something else collapsing into nothingness around us, an eventuality which has yet to manifest itself; souls, once thought to be a physical ent.ity, prove to be nothing more than hopeful thinking by people who are afraid of dying.
God, well, he and his kin have been relegated by science to the very beginning of time, the exact moment of the big bang, when all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into one minute area. Everything after that time is accounted for by physics, if only in a general way. And even then, God seems highly improbable. Science says that God is irrelevant to everything we do and everything we are; that means we have to work to make everything we do and everything we are relevant; and that's a bitter pill to swallow.
Doc, science for me expands and magnifies the boundaries and intellect of the creator instead of retracting from him.
Science for me explains in simple terms there is no "creator"
Fintronics...logic and common sense tells me there is no god
To wit we have this wondrous creation and great mysteries than can only show a Supreme Being behind it all.
Everyday tasks must be so challenging for you with such a sad, small, closed mind.
Please tell me what sort of asinine fool spends so much time and effort and goodness to create from nothing a perfect universe and a perfect existence with all of its intricacy ... and then tricks Eve into eating an apple so that he can then undo his master work that he put so much time and effort into and turn it into the barely holding together chaos that we see today that he has to constantly micromanage? Seriously? Seriously?!?!
Dog...not only that, but he knew even before he created Eve that she was going to mess things up....and created her anyway. And Christians wonder why we think they are such mindless sheep.
Why the upgrade?
Stupid will do nicely.
Max....I was in a generous mood.
The idea that an omnipotent creator of the universe would care one whit about whether lifeforms on what is not even a speck worship him or not seems absurd. It is worse when he is jealous and petulant when they don't. And worst of all when he punishes them for eternity for it. Such human vanity.
"human" is the key word there.... god is so obviously an invention of man..
God is perfect. God is of divine law. God doesn't break God's own laws and we, man and woman, were created in that image. But we, unlike God, are never satisfied. God is perfection and any imperfect thing doesn't fit. Adam was the one who was instructed to always obey God's will (but did Adam consider himself as perfect as God, or even more perfect?) and Eve was tempted, then tempted Adam, who gave in. We of our own will are imperfect. Man can't realize his own perfection without depending on God, his creator. If I deny the creator of my own mind it must be obvious this is self destructiveness. Then all my projections, scheming and manipulating are lies so my father is the father of the lie. How much is the father of the lie going to have my best interests at heart? The law says try with all my heart to live by the law and my life will work. I've got to learn to be satisfied with that.
Moody....how can you say god is perfect when his first human creations screwed up so badly? And, the direct descendant of that first creation committed murder, and he wiped out all of his creation several years after that. A perfect god would have done a better job, I think
Delusional cult speak... beware of the cups of koolaid handed out at the end...
Nice little story...now if you could only provide evidence that your god exists, there might be a realm of truth to it. Thankfully not all of us are so blind to worship your god that condones rape; murder; child abuse; oppression of women; oppression of LGBT; condones slavery...or perhaps you agree with those things.
But don't you see...you were told that you are imperfect by a church/religion who needs you to keep patronizing that church/religion. If they told you you were perfect, there would be no need for any church/religion.
"God is perfect. God is of divine law"
As it was and always shall be, god is whatever you imagine god to be.
There is still no evidence anywhere that gods exist outside of mans imaginations.
"God doesn't break God's own laws"
Thou shalt not kill + global flood = fail
“I see two problems with heaven and hell. First, heaven supposedly will be full of Christians… so that'll suck. Second, hell will definitely be filled to the brim with "good" Christians and also most likely with creepy Mormons and Scientologists… which will indubitably suck a great deal. So kind of a lose-lose scenario either way.” – LET
the little boy told a far fetched, unproveable but lovely story, and Christians do love their far fetched, unproveable but lovely stories ... they have a whole book of them. Thus, ths has all been a good money earner for the boy and his family.
Religion and the money making potential of its stories. A very successful business formula.
"Religion and the money making potential of its stories. A very successful business formula."
Finally, a verifiable and verified fact.
If Harry Potter can make billions of dollars the profit from one of the oldest books of fiction is immeasurable...
Stop lying in the name of your atheism. It's unhealthy.
What's the name of our atheism? I didn't know it even had a name.
Athy...didn't you get the memo? We meet Thursday night!
I'll be there!