Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the holy spirit?

[Dick Knights Mumm]

So MB - are you saying you are not the messiah ?

 

[Commander]

So MB - are you saying you are not the messiah ?

I feel a new poll coming on...

 

[Gwylan]

So MB - are you saying you are not the messiah ?

No, but he is a very naughty boy

 

[byf]

If the not so sure people would admit they do believe..then we would more or less have a split vote! and would be half way to securing a decent future for ourselves and the world.

 

[Withdean and I]

Irish Independent, Friday 22 September 2006:
'Have you heard of the Inquisition? Stupid question. Of course you have. Have you heard of the Crusades? Ditto. Did you also know that when Crusader forces took Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred the inhabitants? Perhaps.
But have you heard of the Committee for Public Safety? Or the massacre of the people of the Vendee in France during the French Revolution? Or did you know that when Muslim forces captured the last Crusader stronghold of Acre in 1291, they massacred the inhabitants? The answer to all these questions is, almost certainly you haven't.
If you know the answer to the first set of questions, but not the second, it is because you are most likely the victim of historical propaganda which presents to the public a demonised version of Christian history, and a carefully sanitised version of what can loosely be called secular history.
In the last 200 years, and especially over the last century, secular ideologies such as Nazism and communism have been responsible for the deaths of an estimated 150 million people. That is more than all the wars of religion in all history. Communism, let it be remembered, presented itself as a humanistic ideology.
I mentioned the Committee for Public Safety a few paragraphs back. It presided over the Terror that was unleashed to 'save' the French Revolution from its enemies. The French Revolution represented the first major appearance of secular thought in history. It managed to kill more people over a few months than the various Inquisitions did over 300 years.
It killed all these people in the name of reason. But why, pray-tell, is the Inquisition a by-word for hatred and intolerance, and the far worse Committee for Public Safety is not. The reason, to borrow a cliche, is that history is written by the victors. The architects of the French Revolution, and their successors to this day, have managed to put their stamp over our history books. The people of the Vendee, incidentally, were massacred because they rose up against the brutal suppression of the Catholic Church by the revolutionaries, again in the name of 'reason'. Between one hundred thousand and two hundred thousand of them were killed for their troubles.
While the majority of Christians by now have some idea about the sometimes brutal history of their faith, the majority of secular-minded people believe implicitly in the sanitised version of their own history. If they knew a bit more about their own history they would be less ready to assume that it is only Christians who have something for which to apologise. '

 

[NMH]

No, you're starting from the supposition that god exists. AFAIC there is no such thing therefore what I feel cannot be god. You believe, I don't.
Your presupposition that you are correct does not make you so. I am asking you what if you are wrong? What is it that I feel? I am open minded enough to admit that if I am wrong then what I feel is god, I just don't think god exists. Are you willing to admit you could be wrong?


Incidentally, would you care to answer my question that I asked Withdean and I

"Now, a question for you?

I do not believe in god, I do not believe in any regligion. We are all there is. We are born, we live, we die. End of. I live a good live, I don't steal, I don't commit adultery, I don't murder and I don't worship craven idols. What is my eventual fate on my death according to your god and your religion?

If god exists what is my fate on my death."

Obviously I am missing some part of what you are asking here, because I think my post (that you quoted) did NOT specify that you have to believe in a god, nor did I state, or suppose that there is one, and I'm saying you and everyone else could put the feeling of love down to anything other than a 'higher being'.

I can't think how that controverts what you are saying or misses the point. ?? Beats me


quoteriginally posted by NMH
Since you cannot actually 'be' God (not the creator of light, earth and life anyway), then I can only possibly suggest that you can feel god or feel the 'experience' of godly presence. Whatever you deem that feeling to be, you can appreciate how good it feels regardless of what it might be considered as down to. People certainly do feel love without attributing it to any higher being than the spirit that moves them within.



As to your question, and addressing my own personal feelings of what YOUR god will do (as central part of your being, because that IS my belief, it has nowt to do with what MY 'godly central being' (aka nature) places on you!) - I can only imagine you would be able to face your-self (your own nature, the person that you are that determines how you feel about what you have done) with pride at having lived a proper life, and not been a general MF'er.

Personally, I'm sure I will have some details in my own life to answer for, things I might have said or done that I know to be wrong and might whip before me in my deathly transcendence of time, the moment that may be eternity when I will have no perception of heartbeat, of living body, and therefore of time.

This gets pretty deep I think, but I'm trying to express my own view of it.
In other words readingstockport, I don't believe my version of a God would have any say over yours, or whether it matters now if you have a version at all.
I am certainly here, you are apparently there, so it's safe to say we both have some kind of spirit. Mine doesn't relate to yours and it's certainly not for mine to judge what your spirit has to answer for!

 

[Withdean and I]

Sorry but that has nothing to do with religion or not. I am an atheist and have been since I can recall. I have never mugged anyone and your implication that it is only christians who have some kind of moral framework worth adhering to is quite simply ridiculous. If all people followed the atheistic moral code which I follow anyone could walk throught the streets of london quite safely. Your christianity has nothing to do with it, in fact if you feel the need to hang your moral beliefs on a religion it says more aobut you than it does about me.

Apologies readingstockport if I didn't answer your question.

Hopefully this is it.

If all people followed your moral code then indeed we would have a much better place than we currently have, where people didn't abuse each other or worse. However, no human ever, has been perfect except for Jesus. He led a perfect sinless life. He was God's son on earth. Therefore any moral codes laid down by anyone except Jesus are going to be flawed because we humans are all flawed.

I have come from not having a belief to having one. I have been on both sides of the fence. Maybe you would find it interesting to have a look at the other side of the fence because it's actually an incredible and exciting place to be.

 

[NMH]

If the not so sure people would admit they do believe..then we would more or less have a split vote! and would be half way to securing a decent future for ourselves and the world.

Hah! It's the people who insist they do believe in a doctrine that do all the killing and destruction!
I'm wondering if it would be better if no-one believed in a consumate one-ness that is called God, then they'd have less to fight and argue about.

 

[readingstockport]

Ok, nmh.

We come at this from opposites really.

You say the love I feel is god and I say the god you feel is love. You accept the existance of a 'supernatural' deity, I don't.

One thing though, we both feel the same love for things - we just ascribe it's origins to a different cause.

On that point <big hug smiley> and lets agree to differ, ok?

 

[Trufflehound]

I agree - Bach is the mutt's nuts.

I went to Bach's 300th birthday party in Berlin in 1985. (FACT)

Ungrateful bastard never showed up. (WILD SPECULATION)

 

[readingstockport]

Apologies readingstockport if I didn't answer your question.

Hopefully this is it.

If all people followed your moral code then indeed we would have a much better place than we currently have, where people didn't abuse each other or worse. However, no human ever, has been perfect except for Jesus. He led a perfect sinless life. He was God's son on earth. Therefore any moral codes laid down by anyone except Jesus are going to be flawed because we humans are all flawed.

I have come from not having a belief to having one. I have been on both sides of the fence. Maybe you would find it interesting to have a look at the other side of the fence because it's actually an incredible and exciting place to be.

I'm happy on my side of the fence as you are on yours. As I said to nmh we both feel the same thing, we simply hold a different root cause as being behind it. <big hug smiley> to you as well and lets agree to differ on this

 

[Man of Harveys]

Ungrateful bastard never showed up. (WILD SPECULATION)

Why not? WHY NOT? You CANTATA my question? FUGUE you buddy! *throws gauntlet*

 

[Trufflehound]

Why not? WHY NOT? You CANTATA my question? FUGUE you buddy! *throws gauntlet*

Well originally Arnold Schwarzenegger had said he'd be Bach, but his contract was terminated at the last minute.




(EDIT: There you go - Jesus to Arnie with only 112 degrees of separation)

 

[NMH]

Ok, nmh.

We come at this from opposites really.

You say the love I feel is god and I say the god you feel is love. You accept the existance of a 'supernatural' deity, I don't.

One thing though, we both feel the same love for things - we just ascribe it's origins to a different cause.

On that point <big hug smiley> and lets agree to differ, ok?

Well I would, except I'm not sure how we differ as the things you say I believe are not true. A supernatural deity? I have said all along that we are based on NATURE, and if anything that is what the creator is. Again, nature, not supernatural at all!

I do NOT say the love you feel is god. Again, that is the opposite of what I said. You ask if god is love, are you god by feeling love? I said you cannot become a feeling. I think people equate love with god and vice versa, but love is a feeling based on natural chemicals in the body. That we describe our love as coming from the heart, is a spiritual expression of how people perceive the chemistry.

All seems perfectly natural my friend.

 

[readingstockport]

In which case I have completely misundertsood what you wrote.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

I am sure he existed and was probably, like that Mohammed guy, a clever and very humane bloke in an era where humanity was just above supporting Crystal P@larse in popularity.

No the universe is far too big for there to be any one almighty being. Total poppycock founded in days when we knew no better.

TNBA

TTF

p.s. He was not the messiah he was a very naughty boy!

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Quite right, we do. And quite right too, all the time that simple-minded folk shrug their shoulders when they don't understand something and say "ah, well, no reason for that so it must be that god thing again". This concept of god filled a vacuum of understanding for centuries and once that vacuum was allowed to be filled by science, there was no need for a god.

And what about physics?

Physics is full of theories that cannot be actually physically proven but are alot are accepted as being truth.

Below is a discussion years ago between a Professor and student.



An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and.....
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hummmm
(Student is silent.)
Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness?
All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, and smelled your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith! And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light.... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness - darker, wouldn't you
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?
Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class is in uproar.)
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelled it? ....No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it, sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

That young student was Albert Einstein.......

 

[Hungry Joe]

Unfortunately, there's still nettled pain in each parcel of improvement. Even right this moment my brain pulsates with menace and the promise of living harm from birth.
Things do seem strangely clearer to me, yes. So there's good news in that way. But, still so much confused that i am consistently adrift from what i mean or wish to control, and only daily get to recognise the 12 months of what i breathed without.

Thanks for the comment. Just don't believe that the deadly undead might be worthy of your praise or worship.

That saddens me to the point of wet eyes to read (mind you, listening to Ryan Adams at the same time has added to the melancholy of the moment I'm sure). I've been in some very dark and lonely places myself facing the prospect of an early exit from this world, so f***ed up and so beautiful, but I can't begin to imagine what having your brain and thought process that scrambled must be like. I'll put whatever positive thoughts I can for you out into the ether, probably won't help you much but it'll make me feel better. Keep your chin up son, I'll continue to praise your words when they hit the spot but as for worship, I'll leave that to the real believers (you know, the ones with sinister smiles and sharp suits) xx

 

[Trufflehound]

That young student was Albert Einstein.......

Einstein was not a handsome fellow
Nobody ever called him Al
He had a long moustache to pull on
It was yellow
I don't believe he ever had a girl

One thing he missed out in his theory
Of time, space and relativity
Is something that makes it very clear he
Was never gonna score like you'n'me

He didn't know about Quark, Strangeness and Charm

I had a dangerous liason
To have been found out would've been a disgrace
We had to rendezvous some mesons
On the corner of an undiscovered place
We got sick of chat chat chatter
And thelook upon everybody's face
But all that does not anti-matter now
We've found ourselves a black hole in space

And we're talking about Quark, Strangeness and Charm

Copernicus had those Renaissance ladies
Crazy about his telescope
And Galileo had a name that made his
Reputation higher than his hopes
Did none of those astronomers discover
While they were staring out into the dark
That what a lady looks for in her lover
Is Charm, Strangeness and Quark.









Sorry, wrong thread...

 

[readingstockport]

And what about physics?


That young student was Albert Einstein.......

Oops, sorry.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Urban myth.

Edit to
Add to that I have never heard a physicist claiming what they say to be the truth, and I did physics at university. I have only ever heard them claim that the theories they propound are the best ones available at the time that fit the available evidence. For example, Newton was not wrong in his classical theories of mechanics. He was merely correct for what was known at the time. When more rigorous theories and procedures came along later his theories were tested, found wanting and refined.

Classical religion does not allow for this refinement and correction. It propounds a truth which must be accepted on faith and which, by it's nature, cannot be tested.