Interesting trends in the Gulch
I have been following with (not very) amused intrest how a lot of the conversations here in the Gulch go from their topic subject to either a heated debate about Religion, or, less frequently, a heated debate about Sexuality and Sex. It does wonders to boost a topic's point and post count... but really stinks when you see a good, timely, and interesting topic, go to add or comment, and it's now a theological or psychosexual discussion.
While I do know that Humanity tends to shy away from mental work, and instead default to the base and easy, I was surprised to see this becoming a rising trend here in the Gulch, and rising exponentially over the past 30-60 days.
While I do know that Humanity tends to shy away from mental work, and instead default to the base and easy, I was surprised to see this becoming a rising trend here in the Gulch, and rising exponentially over the past 30-60 days.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 8.
Also the reason some hold the doubts of unbelief that keep them believing. They just expect God to do something miraculous, while missing the small still voice that says "I'm here".
.
Your discussion with BambiB reminded me of this story:
An old, and devout, fisherman’s boat sank from under him one day, miles from shore, leaving him floating in the deep water.
After a while, another boat comes upon him and asks him if he “needs any help”?
“No, thank you. My God will protect me.”
After a longer period of time, a second boat comes upon him and offers to help.
“I appreciate the offer, but I know that God will take care of me.”
Well, the old fisherman finally drowns, and awakes to find himself in Heaven and face to face with God himself. The first thing that he says is “God…why didn’t you save me?”
God answers, “What are you talking about? I sent two boats!”
Degrees are from University of IL, mechanical and electrical engineering, University of Texas Civil engineering, Bradly University, IL, Fine Arts degrees in Ceramics and Photography, minored in PoliSi. I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject unless you were expecting something less aspiring?
I've been a student all of my adult life until the most recent years. Even when I was overseas I took correspondent classes in subjects that held particular interest for me.
It is a sign of respect unlike the word you were referring to, which is a sign of disrespect and contempt to most people.
I fully expected to die that day and had I the promise I have is that moment I would be in the heaven I did not deserve and that I would not go to the hell I did deserve.
That fact that I did survive was just the compilation of a series of events that just happened. Did Gods hand have a part in that, yes, because I believe that nothing happens by accident. Can I go out a drive the wrong way down a one way street and expect his protection? NO. If I did and was killed I would wake up in heaven trying to explain how I could be so foolish.
You see, it was not an experiment. It was the promise of God, a promise I accepted by faith because he is God and I knew he was. And when the day comes that I do die, my next sight that enters my vision will be in heaven.
Those who died there and everyone else before and since all have a destination. If they, in your words "tried my experiment" and meant what they were praying, each and every one had their prayer answered. Not with life in this world, but life in the next.
Yes we are all going to die and until that day comes for me I will be living my life in a manner consistent with his teachings. You now ask how do I know this - that's why it's called faith.
I disagree.
I have always believed that 'when our leaders cease to fear God, it is time to fear our leaders'.
But it's a poor basis for policy-making. Anyone who sincerely believes in god may also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and I really don't want them using their superstitions as a basis for how I must interact with my government.
How do I know that? If you divide the universe of religions into N mutually-exclusive categories, then anyone who believes in one of those N religions CANNOT by definition, believe in any of the others. If Buddhism is incompatible with Lutheranism, you cannot believe in both at the same time. If religion X is correct, then every other incompatible religion must, by definition, be wrong. So right off the bat we know that at least 70% of all the humans alive today are wrong in their religious beliefs.
Christianity is the world's most "popular" religion, followed by islam. In third spot we find, "No relgious affilitiation. But even christianity only tops out at less than 1 in 3 among the living, and we know that the vast majority of humans never believed in it because... well, it didn't exist while they were alive. At a "guesstimate" less than 5% of people have ever believed in christianity, and the numbers are worse for other modern religions. It's more likely that more people throughout history have believed in simple superstitions... like sacrificing animals to the "gods" of lightning (while cowering in their caves)... or perhaps they never even conceived of such a thing as a "god". Seriously, if you had not been "programmed" (taught) about the possible existence of a diety... would the idea have ever occurred to you independently? Was your expectation of god seeded by the comments of others, or did you arrive at it on your own? Maybe the only thing that has given us this on-going disease of anti-rationality is that the written word has made it more enduring? That no one comes to the table with a clean slate. That everyone is poisoned with the "idea" of god before they're able to think for themselves?
Whatever religion is true (if there be such a thing), it is followed by a minority of humans. Further, depending on the age of the religion, billions of people died before the religion was even created. An estimated 46 billion people had died before Jesus was even a gleam in Mary's eye. Another 12 billion or so died waiting for Mohammed to arrive. Something like 78 billion people were already dead when Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg. So, in most cases, more people died before the religions were even invented than were ever around to believe in them.
Which kind of calls into question the whole purpose of religion... and why your particular flavor wasn't around for the majority of humans.
Hm... in recent memory, what countries, rightly or wrongly, considered themselves "Christian", and which ones considered themselves "atheist"?
The Soviet Union et al were not self-proclaimed Christian nations, but self-proclaimed *atheist* nations.
Without God, there's no such thing as "natural rights", there is only power and action. I have the "right" to make you my slave... if I have the power to do so. Is it right? Is it moral? Perfectly, according to natural laws derived from the laws of physics.
Are pilot fish and leeches immoral? No, they're perfectly moral, in spite of Objectivism proclaiming that taking from another without giving in return is "immoral", or a violation of "rights".
Without a supreme deity to confer "rights", the only "rights" you can have are those granted you by those of your peers, equals, who have more power than you have.
Our country was founded, in fact, upon the principle of individual *liberty*. To suggest that the creators of the country were not *culturally* Christian is either naive or willfully obtuse.
And the Founding Fathers, in the DoI, referred to God; "...endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable rights". Was this the Moslem concept of God? The Hindu concept of God? Again, these men were culturally Christian.
Isn't Rand basically rational? Philosophically, how is that compatible with religion at all (the "anti-rational")? Sure, both may reach the same conclusions on case-by-case bases… but the motivations are different, and in some cases, the conclusions may be diametrically opposed.
So which do you choose? The rational Rand? Or the irrational religion?
Load more comments...