and other than those words (not recorded by him but attributed to him by other well past the date they were stated) what evidence do you have that it happened or that it happened as recorded?
And “basically” what he said? What did he say? why do you need to use the word “basically” if you know what he said? Or are you interpreting what was said to meet your needs?
It was what you said raizncain that you quoted, but some one else pointed out that is was me.
You are a perfect human being like me! They say it is human to error so i say (tounge in cheek) I must therefore be a perfect human because I error a lot.
It is in Matthew Chapter 16( and before the crusifixion).Verse 27 and 28.
That would be the ‘promise’ that he would return - not the “basically” part that pchaos is alluding too - pchaos should (atleast) be able to back up his biblical cites with something more than “basically”.
I assume that you are referring to the 4 points above, which refer to events in nature which just occur. And I suppose you are going to extend the argument to include our very own existence.
No, I cannot prove that things don’t just occur. However, I just attribute that to my own limitations and not God’s. But however, many things that mankind thought just occurred, over time have been established by scientists to have a cause. For instance, people thought that apples just drop from a tree. But Newton established that the fundamental force of gravity caused the apple to fall.
Some scientists are arguing that there’s a scientific basis for God. I’ll have to admit that I don’t have a scientific mind so I’m not even going to even try and explain it.
But I do tend to be philosophical, so let me take that approach. Sometimes I wonder how God and natural events appear to an ant, or a squirrel, or some other animal. I suppose it’s difficult if not impossible for us to put ourselves in their shoes. But needless to say, to their senses (the animals) these natural events and God appear a lot different.
Now suppose, mankind is not at the top of the evolutionary scale. In other words, there is a being that is more intelligent and more perceptive than we are. This being could be in our dimension or possibly in a different dimension. Now for this higher level being, it’s possible that natural events and God appear differently than it does for us. Maybe for them God makes a physical appearance. Who knows? I’m just speculating.
But for this speculation to have some basis. All you really need to establish is that we are not at the top of the evolutionary scale and that really is not that difficult to believe.
Snipped for clarity.
I too tend to be philsophical.
Now suppose.. No, Imagine there’s no heaven. It’s easy if you try.
Yes, it’s possible for you to imagine there’s no heaven, but why would you bother. Why would you want to imagine a world and a universe that has no reward at the end of the line…instead why don’t you look at the world the way my church friend did at the age of 21. He said, “Heaven is in the Heart.”
Can you disprove him? Doesn’t that feel better. Why would you want to imagine a lesser universe.
No, I’m asking you to try. Really it is easy. don’t be afraid.
No bother. Really.
Because it is reality and you will be free from worrying about all those rules and commandments you are only just guessing at.
The only rule is really simple. Try and be a good person.
Why? Because it makes you feel good.
Who cares it is ‘only’ an instinct of a social animal called human.
I guess you have a certain need to feel smug and pretentious. Must be religion playing with you.
Let it go, man, let it go..Imagine there’s no magic, no spirits, no gods, no heaven.
Because it isn’t any lesser.
It doesn’t diminish wonder at the universe and how it all works. A butterfly is still beautiful. You can still love people. Be free.
Why would you want to imagine an empty promise?
What charity is there in works that are only done for a “reward at the end” and not in doing them because they need doing without regard for reward?
What makes you so smug, why do you think that you know more than a 21 year old. I’m sure that he wasn’t just talking about a reward at the end of life. When he’s talking about, “Heaven is in the heart,” it’s pretty clear that he’s saying that being good is it’s own reward.
It’s pretty clear that he’s saying that love is it’s own reward. It’s also clear that he’s not speaking about narrow self-interest. He’s also talking about love of others. Possibly, he might say that God is also in the heart.
You’re having quite some trouble sticking to points at hand, don’t you?
YOU are the one going on about a reward at the end!
remember?
[QUOTE=pchaos]
Why would you want to imagine a world and a universe that has no reward at the end of the line…
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but that is my view. Note that my friend placed Heaven in a very symbolic and tangible place within the individual. He did not say heaven was in the sky or heaven will reveal itself in the future…
I personally believe that there will be a reward at the end, but I also believe that we will be rewarded on an intermittent basis before the Second Coming.
I too, would like to know what specifically convinced you of what Jesus said to his disciples. And also considering how wrong Jesus was about a long list of things, why would you consider he was right here? Contrary to religious conservative thinking, you can’t alter the outcome solely by wishing thinking no matter how much you want it to be.
It brings a smile to my face every time to hear how Asimov answered such a question:
Smug? for asking questions?
I don’t think that word means what you think it means - perhaps a quick look in the mirror would be helpful for you.
Secondly - why do I think I know more than a 21 year old? simply put, I have more than twice his life experiences to base my knowledge on.
[QUOTE=1 Corinthians 13:11 ]
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
[/QUOTE]
You are interpreting what he meant (might be right, he may have explained it to you ) but we are generally talking to YOU about what YOU think, feel or have written.
Which is becoming exceedingly obvious that you are making it up as you go along - since you can’;t be bothered to respond to the questions - questions, btw, that I do not ‘need’ answers to, but are designed to help you think thru your thoughts in a more critical nature - not my fault if they lead you to answers you do not like.
ETA - nice quote **razncain **- I’ll have to remember that one.
You can claim that, but there’s no human on earth who actually acts like they don’t think their life has some sort of meaning. Without meaning, there is no happiness, because all the things that could make you happy are meaningless. You have to assign meaning to them so you can be happy.
You may not think your meaning is supernatural in nature, but you do impose meaning on the universe. It’s what it means to be conscious. It’s what it means to be human.
And, simster, pussyfooting around by asking question rather than just flat out saying what you mean is what a lot of people think is being smug. You know the answer to the questions, yet you’re too high and mighty to say them, so that someone can then directly argue against them. By the very nature of asking those questions, you are taking the ageist view that, since you are older, you must be smarter.
And of course someone who is presented with new ideas to think about has to make it up as they go. That’s the entire point of presenting them with new ideas. And of course, when someone thinks about those things, they are, more often then not, going to line up with their general beliefs. That’s why they have those general beliefs–past experience shows that their specific beliefs tend to line up with those general beliefs, so those beliefs have become a general rule by which they judge all new beliefs. Morality is first inductive then deductive, just like every other type of knowledge.
Not worth hijacking further - asking questions is the opposite of smug -
“smug - Having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one’s achievements”
that I don’t ‘need’ his answers or feel that ‘my’ answers are correct is irrelevant - the point is to always ask - once he had responded to one of those questions - then we have something to discuss.
The only ‘ageist’ thing I stated was in response to his “what makes you think you know more than a 21 year old” statement - which, IMHO, makes it very clear that we are dealing with an individual who’s life experience thinks a 21 year old “knows all” - he needs to quit thinking he ‘has all the answers already’ and keep asking questions.
I don’t follow. Here are some things that make people happy:
I’m missing the meaning.
The promise of his return In his father’s glory with his angels didn’t happen at any time, if so it would seem strange that it was never mention in any part of the NT writings. Nor apparently did his mother or close followers think he would ressurect, because if they did, why would they go to anoint a dead body, or act surprised when told the body wasn’t there, or why Mary M didn’t recognize him…she thought he was the gardener?
I remember when I was twelve or so and decided to deviate from Sunday school readings of Psalms by plodding through Revelations. Yeah, they really water that one down during the elementary school years…
It was horrifying and fun.
Very controversial book. Still controversial in some circles. I’m almost convinced it was added to the canon because hey it’s an ending as opposed to more or less matching up stylistically with the other books.
I take it at face value - OK, a lot of species die off. We might be one of them. Eh, atleast we get to meet the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit “in person.” Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
As for theism vs. all else, trying to convince those at the opposite ends of the spectrum is fruitless. Some people sense a presence, some people figure we all got here somehow and don’t notice a lot of anything, and some find religion incongruent with everything. Alright, really generalizing there, but anyway, fruitless. It’s pretty difficult to argue with someone’s perception and interpretation of what they perceive.