kinda gives a new perspective on the tale all right. see i always thought that this tale showed , that god did not see and know all; or else he did and was a prick for mentally torturing abe. maybe, as this clip suggests his just incompetent? personally i think his a prick, telling abe to kill his son, and then saying, nah i was only kidding. what a wanker
That, for me, was a very heavy 4 minute video. Being that I'm currently struggling with, and moving away from biblical belief, but with the apron strings still attached (I know some of you are probably LOLing about that), it also put that pivotal story into perspective for me.
They got the main points of the story pretty right – Isaac is a grown man, not a boy; God apparently rested on the 8th and 9th day also (I never thought of it that way!); both Abraham & Isaac were ready willingly to do it; etc.
There were some mistakes, though – for example, God didn't ask him if Abraham would complain if he thought that the commandment was wrong; Abraham assuring God that he wouldn't actually complain (he did already earlier, about God's wanting to destroy Sodom and Gemorah); the next New Idea of cutting off the "skin around your son's…" (that had already happened years ago when Isaac was a baby); God's not remembering Isaac's name – and Abraham preferring the new one of Ivan; God not remembering what the foreskin is called; them doing it right away (they walked for three days to Mt. Moriah to do it, and Isaac didn't even know what they were going to do until later on); their physically "seeing" God as an Old Sky Man (if anything, it's an intellectual perceiving); an angel told him to stop, not God; He didn't say "wait, wait!", but rather "Abraham, Abraham!"; it was a test for Abraham to know how far he would go, not for God (God already knew, like He knows everything [?]); and of course, so much humor (even though Isaac in Hebrew actually means "he will laugh!"), etc.
You're probably amazed – and amused – at how much I know the story in detail. But it's one of the most important stories in the OT for believers.
But my point is that the parody kind of shows how parodous the story is. Believers hold that this was the ultimate demonstration of sacrifice and submission to God; others say that it shows how insanely far believers will to to do what they think a God, Who probably doesn't exist, wants them to do. I am now leaning towards the later, after having believed the former for a long time. It's hard to break away – institutionalized fear, and not allowing thinking out-of-the-biblical-box.
May God forgive my heresy. Pray for me… : o
(Hi, Bock – long time. Still as offensive as ever!)
If God, in his wisdom, asked you to sacrifice Biffo, or Thierry Henry – using a baseball bat – would you do it? Of course you would. And you'd do it with a clear conscience, knowing that God and the scriptures were on our side, going forward.
I don't know what a Biffo or that other thing is – guess it's some cute little 4-legged creature (generically using "creature", not related to "created"). But if I was SURE that it was God telling me to do it, I think I would. But it would take a LOT for me to be that sure. (And I think that you might, too). But I can't see how it would be with a clear conscience – like Abraham supposedly had (even if he was and he did it and he did, that does't make it right). It would be somewhat of a sacrifice
Good observation – yes, I'm very conflicted. Here and there, and neither here nor there. Very hard. I'm getting rejected by many members of an online atheist forum because I'm not atheist enough for them, even though I'm basically not doing any of the religious things I used to do. But I'm still holding out the possibility, so they don't like that.
You know, that's not just a joke – they really ARE! The Athies can be as sure of themselves as the Fundies are. Of course, being sure of a negative until proven otherwise is better than being sure of a positive that doesn't seem to have much evidence. But it's still sure where you really can't be sure. But you do have to act based on SOMETHING, so the A's seem to have it in their favor.
Some 1 loves U when I was a young man I used to KNOW everything. The older I get I realise that I know nothing . My Grandfather not alone believed ,he Knew that God IS and Holy Mother Catholic Church is the one true and only religion. All others are heretics and bound for hell’s fire for all eternity. My brother in law KNOWS that there is no God for a fact. Neither of them ever gave me a convincing argument. I do not know anything.
Gary – even if you think that you don't know anything, you must still act based on a decision as to what reality is.
For simplicity, taking the two options you mentioned (grandfather and brother-in-law – basically theistic and atheistic), you have to act as if one or the other is true. For example, do you believe in the salvation of JC (belief here being the action)? If you act according to theism, then yes (assuming the Christian theistic option for now); if according to atheism, then no. Whatever you "know" (or don't), you have to do SOMETHING.
I'm assuming that you're approach is closer to the atheistic one, even though you haven't heard anything convincing about that either. Because the default position is that if you can't show me why I should believe in God, then I won't. God would then be adding an unnecessary entity in violation of Occam's Razor.
I didn't say "be" – I said "do" and "act". I'm going to have to act like I believe or like I don't, even if I don't know which position to really hold.
Here's another example. Many Christians believe that Armageddon is the preparation for a future Kingdom of God on earth. So the faster we get to A, the sooner we'll get to KoG. Some may even look forward to nuclear war to get there. So what should I do – be a peace maker or a war monger (assuming for the argument that peace=atheism and war=theism)?
I'm sure that there are better examples – can't think of one off hand.
Some 1 loves U “Cogito ergo sum” René Descartes (1644) famous phrase “ I think therefore I am” springs to mind. We must accept as a given that we are not figments of our own imagination, nor is the rest of the World. The next question is where did this all come from? Theists believe from God, Atheists from the big bang. As I understand the “big Bang” theory “if into an absolute vacuum a quantity of material is introduced it will be split down to its sub-atomic particles. Breaking the atomic bonds. Resulting in the mother and father of all energy release” The problem as I see it is where did the material come from? In my opinion we have three options , Believe in God , do not believe in God, or question , until someone comes up with some solid empirical evidence one way or the other.
Just an opinion open as always to correction.
Gary – what you mean is, "I think – even though I don't know – therefore I am" (don't know it in Latin!). I don't understand your point with it, though.
The real question is not "where did it all come from", but "so what?". It only makes a difference if a God would want you to do something that you wouldn't do if there was no God. Supposedly, He does (that's the difference between theism and deism – whether God intervenes or not). If you're supposed to do something because you believe and you don't, then that's bad (according to the belief, that is – it might be good in general – like not being a suicide bomber for Allah).
So if you hold the middle position of weak agnostic (I don't know, not I can't know) as opposed to either theism or atheism, you're still going to have to act either like a theist should or your not (there's more "should"s being a theist than an atheist).
Seeing the World in terms of “right and wrong “ “black and white” in my experience does not work. There are always shades of grey. If you now know for an irrefutable fact that God does not exist , well done, please show me the evidence. If not I shall continue to question. You are of course at liberty to believe what you wish. I personally do not know. Subject to clear evidence one way or the other.
Well, there's no grey regarding whether or not God exists. He either does or doesn't. Whether we can know is another question. But my point was that even if you don't know, you have to act as if God exists or doesn't. Or might. Can't you give an example of something about which you would say "I do (or don't do) x because I don't know if God exists or not", which you wouldn't do if you either believed or didn't believe in God?
It's not a value judgement. It's just the difference between saying "I don't know, but I could if you show me evidence" (like what Gary is saying) and "It can't be known".
It admittedly IS enjoyable being a fundie – being sure of oneself, that I'm doing the right thing. Problem is, I'm not anymore. This is NOT fun, even if it's more realistic.
Some 1 loves U have you read the work of Nietzsche? German philosopher who declared that “god is dead” but gave no alternative. Religion has nothing to do with logic or evidence, either one believes or one does not. However I am of the opinion that it is perfectly acceptable to go through life questioning . The “on or off” attitude is a way to go and works well in binary math. It is not my way with life.
I know that that covers it all, Bock. Making progress towards what? I think you're also missing my point.
“you have to act as if God exists or doesn’t. Or might.”
There is more than one way to act there. You'll act differently whether you believe God exists or not. And if you only think that he "might", you'll act differently than those two, or at least differently than one of them. My point is that a person ACTS in a way that demonstrates which of those three belief options they hold.
Let's try this example, that I saw mentioned in an atheist forum recently. There was a girl who died because her parents prayed for her instead of getting her medical treatment. So if I am in their same situation and I
1. Pray only – that shows that I'm (their kind of) a theist.
2. Get her medical treatment only – that shows that I'm an atheist.
3. Do both – that means that I don't know – or am the kind of theist that also holds by medical treatment.
My point is that many of our actions are like this, in that they show what we really believe, even if we claim not to know one way or the other.
Bock I must admit we have become very “heavy” in this thread. Some 1 loves U I am afraid neither Bock nor I can calm your demons That is up to you. “to be or not to be that is the question“.
Posts can take on lives of their own. Light starts can turn heavy. I admit that I made it heavy – but then nobody came for 4 days to lighten it up again.
You both don't seem to really be trying (or succeeding) in understanding what I'm saying. I'll try again.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gary seems to be acting like an atheist, even if he claims to think like an agnostic. ASLTW.
To be or not to be is NOT the question. You already are. The question is "what are you going to do now that you are?".
How will a tutorial in rational thought help this? I'm not advocating a belief in God here, that you probably think is irrational. Gary already admitted that he has no evidence either for or against God, which means that he's open to both possibilities. How does he act differently in that case, than if he did hold one or the other alternative? This has nothing to do with my demons.
If you don't want to continue with this, or just make fun of me for continuing, then we don't have to continue. I thought someone would be interested – guess not. But thanks for the video anyway.
So it started out as a joke. So? You want to continue it as a joke, even though I'm discussing it seriously. Fine. Gary also took it seriously. He introduced the agnostic option after my theist/atheist dichotomy. And he changed his position (which is OK):
#15: "Believe in God , do not believe in God, or question , until someone comes up with some solid empirical evidence one way or the other."
#18: "If you now know for an irrefutable fact that God does not exist , well done, please show me the evidence. If not I shall continue to question. You are of course at liberty to believe what you wish. I personally do not know. Subject to clear evidence one way or the other."
#22: "Religion has nothing to do with logic or evidence, either one believes or one does not."
He started by accepting evidence either for or against God, but in the end, he denied that evidence can demonstrate God. (Reading him again, maybe not – maybe he just means that religion as it currently stands is based on belief, but it could be based on evidence if some would show up).
So we're having a serious discussion about it, although he seems to have given up. We'll see.
Do you still not understand my point? Do you want to?
Some 1 loves you I do not know what time it is where you are but it is after two in the morning here. You seem to me to have been a believer in God and now are in doubt. If God exists then you shall live your life loving your neighbour as yourself and doing unto others as you would have them unto you. The white side If on the other hand God does not exist you shall screw your neighbour until they bleed. When you have reached the top you will shit on the lower orders. When you need a new liver you shall have an eighteen year old harvested for same. After a thousand years or so you will simply cease to exist. The black side.
If there be no God then there is no Heaven and no Hell we are at liberty to do whatever we want.
That my friend is not the way the world works. The world is controlled be Humans. For the most part stupid one’s. I did not make fun of you . I have attempted to engage in a reasonable discussion . You seem to have ignored my point of a third way.
Some1 — Looks like they just won't do what you tell them.
I repeat This post started as a joke, and it isn't up to you to instruct people what it should be now. If you're serious about questioning your old ways, I suggest you begin by not telling people what to say or what to think.
Gary, the "making fun" charge was directed at Bock. I said that you and I were having a serious discussion about it, and that you've introduced the Grey option, but that you seem to be ignoring my question, which is: how do you ACT differently being an agnostic than you would being either an atheist or a theist? You again only gave the two extremes:
Yes God: White, Love neighbor, do what God wants, H&H
No God: Black, Screw neighbor, do what I/humans want, No H&H
What about Maybe God: Grey,… ? Do what people say God wants just in case, as in Pascal's Wager? Then you're acting like a believer. Screw until evidence to the contrary? Then you're acting like an atheist. Something else in between? That's what I'm looking for, for you to describe to me. Bock is right – you still aren't telling me.
You're right – I have been a believer for many years and am now in strong doubt, getting stronger all the time. And I want to know what to DO about it. Atheists have told me to SOGOTP – come up with evidence already, or shut up. So I'm looking for evidence. There is some claimed out there – like Bible Codes. But even if they're true, they could have been just put there by advanced Type 3 ETI beings – see:
Some 1 loves U There is no website ,no religion ,no cult, no one , that can or should tell you how to live your life. That is totally up to you. May I suggest that if you are uncomfortable with your current life then change! If you are living a lie in fear of God and Hell’s fire than I can not help you find a way out. The current thinking on “hell” seems to be that you put yourself there. Your life is yours for the living of it. I am of the opinion that we only get one bite at the cherry . What if there be a God , and you get to the “presence” and he says “I have checked the books and find you have wanted all your life to do X,Y and Z . but you did not in fear of me. You stupid soul I gave you free will! Get out of my presence!!
This thread is annoying Bock and it is his site. I must admit I am getting a tad tired of it myself.
Live long and prosper.
Some 1 loves U a final comment. The answer to your question is very simple. You are looking in all the wrong places for it. The answer is within you and you alone.
Q.E.D.
kinda gives a new perspective on the tale all right. see i always thought that this tale showed , that god did not see and know all; or else he did and was a prick for mentally torturing abe. maybe, as this clip suggests his just incompetent? personally i think his a prick, telling abe to kill his son, and then saying, nah i was only kidding. what a wanker
That, for me, was a very heavy 4 minute video. Being that I'm currently struggling with, and moving away from biblical belief, but with the apron strings still attached (I know some of you are probably LOLing about that), it also put that pivotal story into perspective for me.
They got the main points of the story pretty right – Isaac is a grown man, not a boy; God apparently rested on the 8th and 9th day also (I never thought of it that way!); both Abraham & Isaac were ready willingly to do it; etc.
There were some mistakes, though – for example, God didn't ask him if Abraham would complain if he thought that the commandment was wrong; Abraham assuring God that he wouldn't actually complain (he did already earlier, about God's wanting to destroy Sodom and Gemorah); the next New Idea of cutting off the "skin around your son's…" (that had already happened years ago when Isaac was a baby); God's not remembering Isaac's name – and Abraham preferring the new one of Ivan; God not remembering what the foreskin is called; them doing it right away (they walked for three days to Mt. Moriah to do it, and Isaac didn't even know what they were going to do until later on); their physically "seeing" God as an Old Sky Man (if anything, it's an intellectual perceiving); an angel told him to stop, not God; He didn't say "wait, wait!", but rather "Abraham, Abraham!"; it was a test for Abraham to know how far he would go, not for God (God already knew, like He knows everything [?]); and of course, so much humor (even though Isaac in Hebrew actually means "he will laugh!"), etc.
You're probably amazed – and amused – at how much I know the story in detail. But it's one of the most important stories in the OT for believers.
But my point is that the parody kind of shows how parodous the story is. Believers hold that this was the ultimate demonstration of sacrifice and submission to God; others say that it shows how insanely far believers will to to do what they think a God, Who probably doesn't exist, wants them to do. I am now leaning towards the later, after having believed the former for a long time. It's hard to break away – institutionalized fear, and not allowing thinking out-of-the-biblical-box.
May God forgive my heresy. Pray for me… : o
(Hi, Bock – long time. Still as offensive as ever!)
Hey – no more comments – not even a short one from Bock. Was it something I said? Leaves you speechless? : p
You seemed so conflicted, I suppose people decided to stay quiet while you figured things out.
If God, in his wisdom, asked you to sacrifice Biffo, or Thierry Henry – using a baseball bat – would you do it? Of course you would. And you'd do it with a clear conscience, knowing that God and the scriptures were on our side, going forward.
It wouldn't be a sacrifice
Signs of Life!
I don't know what a Biffo or that other thing is – guess it's some cute little 4-legged creature (generically using "creature", not related to "created"). But if I was SURE that it was God telling me to do it, I think I would. But it would take a LOT for me to be that sure. (And I think that you might, too). But I can't see how it would be with a clear conscience – like Abraham supposedly had (even if he was and he did it and he did, that does't make it right). It would be somewhat of a sacrifice
Good observation – yes, I'm very conflicted. Here and there, and neither here nor there. Very hard. I'm getting rejected by many members of an online atheist forum because I'm not atheist enough for them, even though I'm basically not doing any of the religious things I used to do. But I'm still holding out the possibility, so they don't like that.
What do you expect to happen when you try to discuss anything with fundamentalists?
You know, that's not just a joke – they really ARE! The Athies can be as sure of themselves as the Fundies are. Of course, being sure of a negative until proven otherwise is better than being sure of a positive that doesn't seem to have much evidence. But it's still sure where you really can't be sure. But you do have to act based on SOMETHING, so the A's seem to have it in their favor.
is this possibly the first case where the defence, "the voices made me do it" was used?
Some 1 loves U when I was a young man I used to KNOW everything. The older I get I realise that I know nothing . My Grandfather not alone believed ,he Knew that God IS and Holy Mother Catholic Church is the one true and only religion. All others are heretics and bound for hell’s fire for all eternity. My brother in law KNOWS that there is no God for a fact. Neither of them ever gave me a convincing argument. I do not know anything.
Gary – even if you think that you don't know anything, you must still act based on a decision as to what reality is.
For simplicity, taking the two options you mentioned (grandfather and brother-in-law – basically theistic and atheistic), you have to act as if one or the other is true. For example, do you believe in the salvation of JC (belief here being the action)? If you act according to theism, then yes (assuming the Christian theistic option for now); if according to atheism, then no. Whatever you "know" (or don't), you have to do SOMETHING.
I'm assuming that you're approach is closer to the atheistic one, even though you haven't heard anything convincing about that either. Because the default position is that if you can't show me why I should believe in God, then I won't. God would then be adding an unnecessary entity in violation of Occam's Razor.
You don't have to be either one. You can say that you don't know.
I didn't say "be" – I said "do" and "act". I'm going to have to act like I believe or like I don't, even if I don't know which position to really hold.
Here's another example. Many Christians believe that Armageddon is the preparation for a future Kingdom of God on earth. So the faster we get to A, the sooner we'll get to KoG. Some may even look forward to nuclear war to get there. So what should I do – be a peace maker or a war monger (assuming for the argument that peace=atheism and war=theism)?
I'm sure that there are better examples – can't think of one off hand.
Some 1 loves U “Cogito ergo sum” René Descartes (1644) famous phrase “ I think therefore I am” springs to mind. We must accept as a given that we are not figments of our own imagination, nor is the rest of the World. The next question is where did this all come from? Theists believe from God, Atheists from the big bang. As I understand the “big Bang” theory “if into an absolute vacuum a quantity of material is introduced it will be split down to its sub-atomic particles. Breaking the atomic bonds. Resulting in the mother and father of all energy release” The problem as I see it is where did the material come from? In my opinion we have three options , Believe in God , do not believe in God, or question , until someone comes up with some solid empirical evidence one way or the other.
Just an opinion open as always to correction.
Gary – what you mean is, "I think – even though I don't know – therefore I am" (don't know it in Latin!). I don't understand your point with it, though.
The real question is not "where did it all come from", but "so what?". It only makes a difference if a God would want you to do something that you wouldn't do if there was no God. Supposedly, He does (that's the difference between theism and deism – whether God intervenes or not). If you're supposed to do something because you believe and you don't, then that's bad (according to the belief, that is – it might be good in general – like not being a suicide bomber for Allah).
So if you hold the middle position of weak agnostic (I don't know, not I can't know) as opposed to either theism or atheism, you're still going to have to act either like a theist should or your not (there's more "should"s being a theist than an atheist).
BTW, maybe all of the material was always there.
There's nothing weak about saying "I don't know".
I think you enjoy being a fundamentalist.
Seeing the World in terms of “right and wrong “ “black and white” in my experience does not work. There are always shades of grey. If you now know for an irrefutable fact that God does not exist , well done, please show me the evidence. If not I shall continue to question. You are of course at liberty to believe what you wish. I personally do not know. Subject to clear evidence one way or the other.
Well, there's no grey regarding whether or not God exists. He either does or doesn't. Whether we can know is another question. But my point was that even if you don't know, you have to act as if God exists or doesn't. Or might. Can't you give an example of something about which you would say "I do (or don't do) x because I don't know if God exists or not", which you wouldn't do if you either believed or didn't believe in God?
Bock – I didn't make up the term "weak agnostic":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/strong_weak.htm
It's not a value judgement. It's just the difference between saying "I don't know, but I could if you show me evidence" (like what Gary is saying) and "It can't be known".
It admittedly IS enjoyable being a fundie – being sure of oneself, that I'm doing the right thing. Problem is, I'm not anymore. This is NOT fun, even if it's more realistic.
"you have to act as if God exists or doesn’t. Or might."
That covers it all. Atheism, belief and agnosticism.
You're making progress.
Some 1 loves U have you read the work of Nietzsche? German philosopher who declared that “god is dead” but gave no alternative. Religion has nothing to do with logic or evidence, either one believes or one does not. However I am of the opinion that it is perfectly acceptable to go through life questioning . The “on or off” attitude is a way to go and works well in binary math. It is not my way with life.
I know that that covers it all, Bock. Making progress towards what? I think you're also missing my point.
“you have to act as if God exists or doesn’t. Or might.”
There is more than one way to act there. You'll act differently whether you believe God exists or not. And if you only think that he "might", you'll act differently than those two, or at least differently than one of them. My point is that a person ACTS in a way that demonstrates which of those three belief options they hold.
Let's try this example, that I saw mentioned in an atheist forum recently. There was a girl who died because her parents prayed for her instead of getting her medical treatment. So if I am in their same situation and I
1. Pray only – that shows that I'm (their kind of) a theist.
2. Get her medical treatment only – that shows that I'm an atheist.
3. Do both – that means that I don't know – or am the kind of theist that also holds by medical treatment.
My point is that many of our actions are like this, in that they show what we really believe, even if we claim not to know one way or the other.
I might not be the only one missing the point. This post was supposed to be a joke.
Bock I must admit we have become very “heavy” in this thread. Some 1 loves U I am afraid neither Bock nor I can calm your demons That is up to you. “to be or not to be that is the question“.
Some time I must write a post about rational thought. It would probably clear up a lot of these arguments.
Posts can take on lives of their own. Light starts can turn heavy. I admit that I made it heavy – but then nobody came for 4 days to lighten it up again.
You both don't seem to really be trying (or succeeding) in understanding what I'm saying. I'll try again.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gary seems to be acting like an atheist, even if he claims to think like an agnostic. ASLTW.
To be or not to be is NOT the question. You already are. The question is "what are you going to do now that you are?".
How will a tutorial in rational thought help this? I'm not advocating a belief in God here, that you probably think is irrational. Gary already admitted that he has no evidence either for or against God, which means that he's open to both possibilities. How does he act differently in that case, than if he did hold one or the other alternative? This has nothing to do with my demons.
If you don't want to continue with this, or just make fun of me for continuing, then we don't have to continue. I thought someone would be interested – guess not. But thanks for the video anyway.
As I said, this post started out as a joke. Who else took it seriously?
So it started out as a joke. So? You want to continue it as a joke, even though I'm discussing it seriously. Fine. Gary also took it seriously. He introduced the agnostic option after my theist/atheist dichotomy. And he changed his position (which is OK):
#15: "Believe in God , do not believe in God, or question , until someone comes up with some solid empirical evidence one way or the other."
#18: "If you now know for an irrefutable fact that God does not exist , well done, please show me the evidence. If not I shall continue to question. You are of course at liberty to believe what you wish. I personally do not know. Subject to clear evidence one way or the other."
#22: "Religion has nothing to do with logic or evidence, either one believes or one does not."
He started by accepting evidence either for or against God, but in the end, he denied that evidence can demonstrate God. (Reading him again, maybe not – maybe he just means that religion as it currently stands is based on belief, but it could be based on evidence if some would show up).
So we're having a serious discussion about it, although he seems to have given up. We'll see.
Do you still not understand my point? Do you want to?
Gary? Anybody else? Whatever is fine with me.
Some 1 loves you I do not know what time it is where you are but it is after two in the morning here. You seem to me to have been a believer in God and now are in doubt. If God exists then you shall live your life loving your neighbour as yourself and doing unto others as you would have them unto you. The white side If on the other hand God does not exist you shall screw your neighbour until they bleed. When you have reached the top you will shit on the lower orders. When you need a new liver you shall have an eighteen year old harvested for same. After a thousand years or so you will simply cease to exist. The black side.
If there be no God then there is no Heaven and no Hell we are at liberty to do whatever we want.
That my friend is not the way the world works. The world is controlled be Humans. For the most part stupid one’s. I did not make fun of you . I have attempted to engage in a reasonable discussion . You seem to have ignored my point of a third way.
To do is to be
To be is to do
Do be do be do
Some1 — Looks like they just won't do what you tell them.
I repeat This post started as a joke, and it isn't up to you to instruct people what it should be now. If you're serious about questioning your old ways, I suggest you begin by not telling people what to say or what to think.
Gary, the "making fun" charge was directed at Bock. I said that you and I were having a serious discussion about it, and that you've introduced the Grey option, but that you seem to be ignoring my question, which is: how do you ACT differently being an agnostic than you would being either an atheist or a theist? You again only gave the two extremes:
Yes God: White, Love neighbor, do what God wants, H&H
No God: Black, Screw neighbor, do what I/humans want, No H&H
What about Maybe God: Grey,… ? Do what people say God wants just in case, as in Pascal's Wager? Then you're acting like a believer. Screw until evidence to the contrary? Then you're acting like an atheist. Something else in between? That's what I'm looking for, for you to describe to me. Bock is right – you still aren't telling me.
You're right – I have been a believer for many years and am now in strong doubt, getting stronger all the time. And I want to know what to DO about it. Atheists have told me to SOGOTP – come up with evidence already, or shut up. So I'm looking for evidence. There is some claimed out there – like Bible Codes. But even if they're true, they could have been just put there by advanced Type 3 ETI beings – see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
So they would have to be pretty good damn codes for it to have been put there by Omni-Everything God.
So in the meantime, I try to find The Light on www – WhoWhatWhy/WhenWherehoW? Maybe I'll even find it via Bock – Who knows (or doesn't know)?
Paralaxco –
"To do is to be
To be is to do
Do be do be do
Scooby Dooby Do
Yaba Daba Do!"
- Socrates, Sarte, Sinatra, Scooby Do, Fred Flintstone, as quoted among almost 3M similar ones in:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/avinashraj/2237876429/
You're in good company…
Some 1 loves U There is no website ,no religion ,no cult, no one , that can or should tell you how to live your life. That is totally up to you. May I suggest that if you are uncomfortable with your current life then change! If you are living a lie in fear of God and Hell’s fire than I can not help you find a way out. The current thinking on “hell” seems to be that you put yourself there. Your life is yours for the living of it. I am of the opinion that we only get one bite at the cherry . What if there be a God , and you get to the “presence” and he says “I have checked the books and find you have wanted all your life to do X,Y and Z . but you did not in fear of me. You stupid soul I gave you free will! Get out of my presence!!
This thread is annoying Bock and it is his site. I must admit I am getting a tad tired of it myself.
Live long and prosper.
Some 1 — do me a favour and take a hint.
Some 1 loves U a final comment. The answer to your question is very simple. You are looking in all the wrong places for it. The answer is within you and you alone.
Q.E.D.
Hint taken. Didn't mean to annoy anyone.
Thanks for the ride.