Mike,


>Hey Doug,
>
>Here's just one reply in response to your three.
>
>>Well, then you "believe" in yourself as the 'final' arbiter of right/wrong, good/bad and so forth.
>
>I woudn't say that.

Perhaps not but that doesn't change the position or how you got there it seems. IOW, you have to have faith in your own thought processes, even if that's all you have faith in. If you do not then you can't be sure of anything, right? That is, unless your existence is non-thinking and in your case that's not true. You're too bright...

>
>>You say that people ask you questions and you answer them.
>
>I didn't say that either. I said I think about them.

*chuckle*

Uh huh..

>
>>This is called 'agnosticism' (a-gnosis, where 'gnosis' is Greek for 'knowing' or 'knowledge'), roughly translated from Latin as 'ignoramous'. <g>
>
>The difference between me and agnostics is, they usually wonder "Does God exist?" while I try to live my life as the question itself did not exist.

So essentially you just avoid the issues? I've never found that by ignoring an issue that it will go away.

>
>>Don't say that there's no evidence if you choose to not look at what is being offered. <g> This sounds like you've already made your mind up and are ignoring the evidence.
>
>Ignoreing evidence? Like "love" as evidence? Sorry, Doug, but just because you cannot explain certain things, it doesn't mean that its evidence that a God exists. And if it did prove a God existed, does it prove that its the Bible's God?

Well, as I've mentioned several times there are many many great written works that go through this reasoning process. Far too much for a message board. Start with Franciss Schaeffer's work, "The God Who Is There" for starters. A great book to explain the various philosophical rationales and positions and to explain how the Historic Christian position fits into all of them. A really good read IMO. Dr. Schaeffer was a very bright fellow. But, since you're just pretending the issue doesn't exist... <g>

You know.. That's a similar position to Christian Scientists. They just pretend that they aren't sick. My grandmother died of breast cancer that she didn't have... Pretty dumb..

>
>>That is, You have pre-judged the outcome without respect for the facts. That's called 'prejudice' Mike and isn't an indication of an open mind.
>
>I see two facts here:
>You don't know how a blade of grass lives or the mind works.
>You use that uncertainty to mean something supernatural is behind everything.

No, not at all. I admit the limits of my ability to understand but I also am able to observe the order in nature as well. That order didn't "just happen" as it violates all the observable laws on nature. THings go from more order to less order, not the other way around. If there is order to the universe then that order had to come from a powerful enough source to put it there.

IOW, someone had to wind up the top, so to speak. I've given you some references here as well...

>
>This is the same thing humans have done since we've been around. People that didn't understand the Sun assigned a God to it, or how the seasons worked, ect. As we started learning about our world and its surrondings, we didn't need God's for everything.

Well, you're just ignoring the issues and at least these others are dealing with them. <g>

>
>So, please clue me in. In order for me to understand your conclusion based on the two facts that I've gathered from you, your going to have to explain it more.

Nope.. I've given you the references. If you're so unconcerned then so be it. Did you even bother to investigate Mars Hill or L Dolphin's web site?

>
>>God is 100%. Man is not. <g>
>
>How convienent.

Ok.. Show me any man who is perfect...

I'll wait. <g>

>
>>You cannot assert something as true (opinion) if you did not so believe.
>
>Says who? If I have an opinion, I HAVE to believe that my opinion is the only one and the best one? That sounds like the beggining of something bad.

Sounds like you're admitting you have a elief system to me. Or do you just say things? <g>


>
>>Regardless, you do have a belief system. Perhaps you just call t somethign else but you can be assured you have one.
>
>Thanks, glad you can think for me now *sigh*

No, I don't care to think for you whatsoever. I do care that you think. You're starting to sound like a petulane teenager.. <g>

>
>>But that isn't saying that in order to be 'good' it must be a generalization. That's your error. There are absolutes. You just need to determine how to find them and what they are.
>
>See, it was a joke. "All generalizations are bad" was a generalization itself, just like "There are no absolutes" is an absolute.

I got the joke Mike but there was a serious point to be made from it IMO.

>
>>IOW, you cannot say, "I don't know therefore I know." That is, you cannot say, "I don't know if god exists therefore he doesn't exist." That's a patently incorrect contradiction.
>
>And I didn't say anything of the kind. Like I said, I don't spend my time worrying about if God exists or not. Wondering wether there is a god or not is like wondering if there are invisible gnomes that run around telling people what to do. I don't see any reason why I should spend more time considering the God question as the gnome question.

I understand that this issue isn't on your 'radar screen'. Why then do you seem to feel compelled to engage in these conversations?

>
>>If you take that route and He does not (not true but for this example) then after this life you're no better or worse off than if you had taken the route that He did not exist.
>
>Exactly. The best reason (or pseduoreason) to believe in god is "It gives life meaning/hope/reason/ect.". Well, I say forget that. Like I said, I don't need supernatural entities to make life feel worthwhile. I do pretty good on my own. Basically, religion would be filling a whole that I don't have.

??

Are you saying that your life doesn't have "meaning/hope/reason/etc" or that you just do not care? Remember.. It's a relationship, not a religion..

>
>>OTOH, if you take the position that He does not exist and He does (He does - trust me) then you're going to have a problem...
>
>I don't think he'd care. If he did, he probably would have staightened me out a while ago. I imagine that is there was a god, he'd be more thankful that I'm happy to be alive, no matter where I thought my life came from.

You mean like force you to do things? I thought you objected to that and that was why you didn't want to think about these issues.. Are you saying that if God existed you would want him to force you to change?

Perhaps God cares but so much that He is a gentleman and won't force you to believe, even though He'd love for you to so do?

>
>>This is irreduceably true. You will die some day. I will die some day. This issue will be dealt with and there is no avoiding it whatsoever. This is reality. Every single human wil face these issues and IMO it is far better to so do now and be prepared than later and not be prepared.
>
>Don't get your hopes up. You spend your time preparing for the afterlife, and I'll spend mine leading the life I have. Then, wether or not there is an afterlife (I'm not thinking there is) I won't be dissapointed. You, on the other hand, might be.

Not so. In this case I wouldn't know, would I? <g> From my position my life is filled with joy, peace and love now and when I awake after this life it just goes on for eternity whereas you have no "meaning//hope/reason/ect." as you stated above and then all traces of you just disappear?

Doesn't sound like your position has much to offer..

>
>When you believe in god, if someone tells you there is no life after death, and when you're dead, you're dead, for some reason, you tend to think life is less precious. Thats your problem, right there. If it turns out they are able to explain love at teh chemical level, does that make it any less enjoyable? Does that take the fun out of it? I don't think so. Those of you who give it some supernatural explanation do. Change that attitude (its hard, especially when you have beliefs in the way) and you'll be fine.

Not so.. I happen to think that life is precious beyond belief. So much so that God Himself took my justly deserved punishment on my behald just so I could have that life..

Love may certainly have a chemical component but at least I have it. You can too..

>
>>Speaking of measurable results.. We got about 11 inches of powder here yesterday. If this storm hits you folks it's going to be a doozy!
>
>We got 15 inches a couple weeks ago, but its mostly melted already. We could use a couple more feet up here.

For the water content? I thought Minnesota already had enough lakes. <g>

>
>>>>Paul stated that those who practiced this "would not inherit the kingdom of God", so I suppose that's a part of the basis why some think using drugs is immoral.
>>>So... Jesus suggests we drink wine, but we won't be allowed into heaven by consuming the drug?
>>No, He never suggested anything either way.
>
>Lets try and clear this up. Didn't Jesus tell us to drink wine as his blood? Haven't we covered that fact that alcohol (the stuff in wine) is a drug? And didn't Paul say those who practiced drug use would not inherit the kingdom of god?

Jesus instructed the disciples to drink the wine "in rememberance" of the shed blood of His sacrifice. Again.. The wine in those days was hardly more than mildly fermented grape juice. Enough to kill the bugs.

And, yes, Paul did state that those who used drugs (translated witchcraft in King James English) wouldn't inherit the kingdom of God. Does that mean that all drugs are evil or bad? No; that's a lot of nonsense. It had to do with using the drugs for religious ceremonies and so forth.


>
>>>Hmmm, maybe this explains why it is ok to you for laws to be inconsistant. You've become desensitized to unfairness thanks to religion...
>>I'd disagree. I think you're just looking for a way to rationalize your chosen lifestyle and you're sort of under the spell of "me first and always, no matter what anyone else thinks" kind of thinking.
>
>Me first and always. Huh. I don't know what to say to that. Its pretty insulting though. The fact that I don't believe in your god means I'm naturally selfish. Who's under what spell here?

Well, look.. If you assert that all of your beliefs come as a result of you thinking about them and you do not provide any other source for them then, yes, from your point of view it is all about you. What have you offered other than that as proof of your positions? I sure don't have all the answers. As a matter of fact I didn't have any of them.

Tell me that it isn't all about you and what you want but from what you've stated so far that's what I'm seeing. You stated the following up above: "Says who? If I have an opinion, I HAVE to believe that my opinion is the only one and the best one? That sounds like the beggining of something bad."

So, when you assert that you believe that your opinion is "the only one and the best one" I draw the conclusion that your thinking process is the final arbiter in your mind as to what to believe or not or what is right or wrong. I don't do that. Not everyone thinks that way... Perhaps you've been unaware of this.


>
>>The proper and official word for that belief system is hedonism.
>
>I don't know, man. I've always thought people that say things like "You shoudl believe in God because then you can go to heaven and live in bliss" was more on track with hedonism (the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidence of pain) than "Life is what you got and then you're dead". Thats just me though.

Well, I suppose you'd think that way because you haven't done your homework. Jesus Himself said that the life of the Christian would be hard - to the point of death and that His followers would be hated just as He was.

Christianity is not without pain and sacrifice. As a matter of fact if you're unwilling to give everything up for Christ then you're not really "in the game", so to speak. The thing is is that it's worth doing. But, no, it's not easy at all. Joy is not dependent upon external circumstances...

>
>>No, that isn't true. Add of the expense of job injuries, auto wrecks, theft, lost work days etc and I'd bet you'll be quite surprised.
>
>Most of the studies I've seen show that the major problems drugs lead to are only possible because they're illegal. Herion that only takes pennies to make can go for $150 because of the risk involved in selling it. Therefore, the users bottom out faster and more frequently. Thats why England is rethinking how it should be dealt with (which, remember is what started this thread, you read the link I posted, right?).

Well, I'll certainly grant you that the notion of legalizing drugs is compelling. I just am of the opinion that it doesn't resolve the core issues.


>
>>Great question Mike. I suppose the answer is that man, as an aggregate, is incurably bent on self destruction. It is irrational, that's for sure.
>
>Yes, some people are like that, it is unforunate. And thats why I don't mess with that stuff. But the people that do shouldn't be treated like murders and rapists. Especially when they're addicted to a substance that is very difficult to attain (compared to ciggerettes for example).

Most, if not all people are like that, sad to say. Who was it that said that the druggies still broke windows in Amsterdam? Doesn't sound like a resolution to me.

>
>>The problem of legalizing substances doesn't remove the problems - it just legalizes them. People will still abuse these substances only now that they are legal the next step is that society (as an aggregate) will be asked to pick up the tab.
>
>Society is picking up the tab for the war on drugs, its costing a fortune. When Sherrifs start refusing federal money for the war on drugs, you know that something isn't right with the current method.

Understood. It is a nasty mess.

>
>>>Ok, give one simple, valid argument that proves there is a god.
>>love
>
>Hmmmm. I can't say I've seen a valid argument expressed in one word before. Care to symobolize that?

The cross of Jesus.


>
>>Now, you return the favor: Give me one valid argument that explains the concept of love (not sex <g>) apart from God.
>
>http://www.ravesafe.org/love.htm

Interesting article. The Greeks had four words for our one and from what I read they aren't all covered. Physical attraction, familial love and brotherly love perhaps but not agape.


>
>Not that I totally agree with it, but its what you asked for (unlike you giving me the word "love" as an argument).

Well, as I said, there's more to that little word than perhsp you are aware of.

>
>>If man is just an animal and all that there is is a physical universe then the concept of love is a cruel hoax.
>
>You're the one setting yourself up for disappointment. Its your decision.

Not so. I do not think man is just a physical animal. I am certainly not disappointed in God's love for me. < s >

Again; thanks for the fun exchange...