b)No, and any one who tries to tell you otherwize is selling something.
Well, since there are many different religions who claim that they are the only true one, and that all others burn in eternal torment. It is logical to assume that everybody will suffer eternally. Hell must be one large place!
There was this great thermodynamics problem that a student used this exact reasoning on. He said that since every one goes to hell, then hell must be expanding wit hevery soul in order to make room. Since its constantly expanding the heat must strech out over it (or something like that, Im not in thermodynamics) and thus if hell has bee nconstantly expanding since its creation, it must have long since frozen over.
Man I butchered that badly
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
<strong>I think it goes like this: if there is no heaven, then we have to make this world the best place it can be.
What I don't get is if there is a heaven, and you've already made it there by believing in God, then what motivation is there to improve life on earth?
Maybe I don't understand exactly how you get to heaven, but I thought you did it through a decision to accept Jesus as your savior, not necessarily by doing good deeds for others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. For the most part. We (humans) cannot "do" anything that makes us go to heaven or not go to heaven. In fact, to spin the topic even further into a tailspin and get people really up in arms it is even said in the Bible that we cannot choose by ourselves to accept Christ. Christ chooses us first and draws us to him. Then we choose whether or not to answer his calling. The good news is, he calls everyone. The bad news is, you can choose not to answer as many of you do on a daily basis.
I think we can completely throw out the Bible and nebulous concepts like faith (see my reply to MarcUK above). They've really got nothing to do with questions like whether there is an afterlife, IMHO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? How can you throw the bible out when it comes to questions about an afterlife? That makes no sense.
"The Blue Meanie wants to know if there is an afterlife. we on the boards can obviously figure this out without any help from something like the Bible as it has nothing to do with the subject." Is that what you are saying? the Bible talks about the afterlife quite a bit. Give it a read, you will see. Even if you don't believe it is the inspired word of God (it is) you cannot throw it out as much of the afterlife thinking is derived from it.
14 What good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead... 19 Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do... 20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone... 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Yes. But that is not all there is to it. I really don't want to get into a works or faith argument. It takes nothing from us. Jesus did everything on the Cross. All we have to do is accept. The works and faith come through that acceptance and praying for God to change our hearts concerning him. Read Ephesians 1 and 2 for more on this.
& And if so, does it depend on subscription to dogma and fixed religious belief?
The Blue Meanie's answers would be:
A) Yes
No, absolutely not
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What certainty the Meanie can offer to the questions of the Soul. Of course we feel free in this contemporary intellectual ghetto to loudly proclaim a universal absolute negation, but one would be a bigot (a narrow-minded intolerant one no less) to state a universal positive affirmation.
Of course I can cheerfully affirm with absolute certainty that my belief is correct and that alternative views with thousands of years of experience grappling with these hard questions can be dismissed out of hand. But wait I'm a Christian, Oh God, I'm intolerant! I'm a Muslim, well, tougher call, I'm intolerant... or misguided. Oh, and either way I'm a dullard, or naive, or have turned off my brain. But if I am agnostic/whatever I'm tolerant and probably quite clever to boot.
Now then,
in reply (since I jumped on you, it is only fair that I put my answer out.
A) Yes
Yes (I'd rather get there by a God who made a positive choice throughout History to redeem humanity (ie the Jewish/Christian tradition) than a god/life force/The Force/ground of being whose primary mode of relating to his creation is indifference). There are Several reasons why I believe tis so, but the divide is more about world view than facts and I frankly don't have the time to waste my breath (fingers?) in a most likely futile discussion/flame fest.
Don't have to answer since I said no for A. Woohoo!
One of the things I've always felt neglected in the proof of religions is that there is always an assumption that humanity has the faculty of rational thought born into them. We don't. Our thought processes are the result of cultural reinforcement, not logical thought. When presented with ideas, we're not given to rationally think through ideas (unless we're educated to do so), but to accept or deny based on the cultural sentiments of one's given society or culture. Those cultural sentiments can be any number of irrational or rational things. it doesn't matter. What they do is bind the community together with a common set of sentiments, which in the end makes the community stronger, and that's what matters.
In today's world, what makes us stronger could be forcing us into rationality since a rational culture (on the surface) would seem much more capable of doing things to defeat the culture that they are in conflict with.
Now the the answer to "why" or "what's the meaning of life" is relatively simple to this athiest. It's subjective. It's defined by the individual. In saying, moreover forcing, that one's system of belief is the end and be all is more a function of ego than the truth.
Now the the answer to "why" ... is relatively simple to this athiest. It's subjective. It's defined by the individual...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is what I was getting at with my question. MarcUK said it was ridiculous to not try and make the world a better place. Given his worldview that was a non sequitur. I disagree with both of you in your atheism but yours is at least more honest.
There isn't necessarily a contradiction, just perhaps an argument that lives are altered by such a belief.
One possibility, amongst a million others, is that the whole idea of an afterlife is merely a fable thought up a long time ago to make sure the kids ate their greens, brushed their teeth, and didn't murder grandpa.
There's a code of ethics that one has to adhere to if you want to see the afterlife in most religions, and the offer of eternal life would be enough of a carrot to many people to persuade them not to stray.
I'm not suggesting it's a bad thing at all, in fact I'd gladly support any form of bribery that would stop people needlessly killing each other.
As for Jamie's reference to worm food, seems to me I can be safe in the knowledge I'm doing some good once I'm dead, even if it's just taking my place further down the food chain. Now if you'd said cat food... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Some well-expressed points, Belle. Personally I tend to want to get away from the traditional idea of reward and punishment in the afterlife. I see it just as the next stage in existance
<strong>Now the the answer to "why" or "what's the meaning of life" is relatively simple to this athiest. It's subjective. It's defined by the individual. In saying, moreover forcing, that one's system of belief is the end and be all is more a function of ego than the truth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is why I dislike being referred to as a "close-minded" atheist, unwilling to believe in theist theory (Couldn't resist the expression).
I'm very open-minded about it. I'd be happy to be persuaded one way or another if the evidence presented fulfilled my requirements.
It?s not a particularly compelling or well-presented website, but I have read the three books written about him by Joel Martin and Patricia Romanowski ? (in order of publication: ?We Don?t Die?, ?We Are Not Forgotten? and ?Our Children Forever? - best read chronologically), and I found them (and I?m a cynical newspaper journalist, remember), to be cogent and intellectually rigorous. I quote from the blurb of the first book:
?George Anderson, the most publicly tested psychic medium in history, knows first hand that death is not to be feared but understood- a life transition well within our comprehension. For over twelve years, Joel Martin documented evidence of Anderson?s powers in thousands of radio, television, and private psychic readings. Anderson repeatedly astonished believers and skeptics alike with the accuracy with the accuracy of [his] ?other side? communication[s] revealing personal events, shared experiences, and names and places for which there is only one possible source: the living consciousness ofthe deceased.?
Huh? How can you throw the bible out when it comes to questions about an afterlife? That makes no sense.
"The Blue Meanie wants to know if there is an afterlife. we on the boards can obviously figure this out without any help from something like the Bible as it has nothing to do with the subject." Is that what you are saying? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, that?s exactly what I?m saying. The Bible may make a few vague references to the afterlife but so what? So do the texts of all the other religions. How do we know who?s right? Doesn?t it make more sense to just throw out all these dusty old tomes and think for ourselves?
You are obviously a committed Christian, and I respect that if it?s a force for good in your life. But personally I would tend to see the Bible as a vague, jumbled, self-contradictory collection of writings by various authors, not the infallible Word of God. There is evidence to suggest that the Bible texts was heavily edited in the first few centuries AD - by the Emperor Constantine amongst others. And in The Blue Meanie?s humble opinion, it just contradicts itself too often to be credible. Ever notice, for instance, the extent to which the gospels (which were written decades after the death of Jesus) differ from each other even though they?re recounting about the same life?
What certainty the Meanie can offer to the questions of the Soul. Of course we feel free in this contemporary intellectual ghetto to loudly proclaim a universal absolute negation, but one would be a bigot (a narrow-minded intolerant one no less) to state a universal positive affirmation.
Of course I can cheerfully affirm with absolute certainty that my belief is correct and that alternative views with thousands of years of experience grappling with these hard questions can be dismissed out of hand. But wait I'm a Christian, Oh God, I'm intolerant! I'm a Muslim, well, tougher call, I'm intolerant... or misguided. Oh, and either way I'm a dullard, or naive, or have turned off my brain. But if I am agnostic/whatever I'm tolerant and probably quite clever to boot.
Now then,
in reply (since I jumped on you, it is only fair that I put my answer out.
A) Yes
Yes (I'd rather get there by a God who made a positive choice throughout History to redeem humanity (ie the Jewish/Christian tradition) than a god/life force/The Force/ground of being whose primary mode of relating to his creation is indifference). There are Several reasons why I believe tis so, but the divide is more about world view than facts and I frankly don't have the time to waste my breath (fingers?) in a most likely futile discussion/flame fest.
Peace</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah, we?re not having a flame fest, are we, guys? This is a friendly bar room debate...
I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that I'm being intolerant. If so I refute that. If you reread my other posts, you'll find that I'm not criticising other people's beliefs, just expressing my own ideas and perspectives.
Yes, that?s exactly what I?m saying. The Bible may make a few vague references to the afterlife but so what? So do the texts of all the other religions. How do we know who?s right? Doesn?t it make more sense to just throw out all these dusty old tomes and think for ourselves?<hr></blockquote>
So where are you going to get this information from your arse? After all there is no science that will prove it for you, just what others have pulled from their arse if it did not come from another book somewhere else. Like, say, the Bible...
[quote]You are obviously a committed Christian, and I respect that if it?s a force for good in your life. But personally I would tend to see the Bible as a vague, jumbled, self-contradictory collection of writings by various authors, not the infallible Word of God. There is evidence to suggest that the Bible texts was heavily edited in the first few centuries AD - by the Emperor Constantine amongst others. And in The Blue Meanie?s humble opinion, it just contradicts itself too often to be credible. Ever notice, for instance, the extent to which the gospels (which were written decades after the death of Jesus) differ from each other even though they?re recounting about the same life?<hr></blockquote>
Nope never noticed that actually. Show me the contradictions that you speak of. The gospels were written from 4 different perspectives. And for different emphasis. One takes it from the scholar point of view, one takes it from a medical point of view, one from a fishermans point of view and so on. They all say the same thing, but from people having different backgrounds and their take on what was happening. they all line up. They just noticed things differently. There are no inconsistencies in the way you are making it out.
Nope never noticed that actually. Show me the contradictions that you speak of. The gospels were written from 4 different perspectives. And for different emphasis. One takes it from the scholar point of view, one takes it from a medical point of view, one from a fishermans point of view and so on. They all say the same thing, but from people having different backgrounds and their take on what was happening. they all line up. They just noticed things differently. There are no inconsistencies in the way you are making it out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
On the contratrary, there are plenty of contradictions - what about all the incidents that are mentioned in one gospel but not the other? And how is people 'noticing things differently' consistent with the idea of divine inspiration? And what about the evidence for editing of the Bible texts? (Passages quoted in letters from one church father to another that are no longer found in the current Bible; historical records of the Council of Ephesus, etc)
It is interesting to note how thin the veneer of tolerance is here - as soon as I start mentioning things like reincarnation you start throwing words like "arse" around. It's a short step from that to wanting to burn The Blue Meanie as a heretic...
PS - I'd like to repeat that I respect your views a Christian as long as they are a force for good in your life and not:
a) a reason to belittle or mock other peple
& b) an excuse to switch off your brain and stop thinking for yourself
[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Which is why I dislike being referred to as a "close-minded" atheist, unwilling to believe in theist theory (Couldn't resist the expression).
I'm very open-minded about it. I'd be happy to be persuaded one way or another if the evidence presented fulfilled my requirements.
Can the theist population say the same?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Belle - if you're really interested, try the first of the books about the medium George Anderson I referred to in my reply to MarcUK above. Guaranteeed to contain evidence and no exhortations to any particular religion....
Well, if that's the case, then I respect your views that little bit more. I have found that people who throw such armour-plated opinions around often don't really know what they're talking about. I suppose all I'd want to say is much the same as in my rambling reply to MarcUK above - that the worm food scenario is just your opinion. The situation might not be as clear-cut as you think it is.And as for the roses in your garden, well I know this is a deliberate reductio ad adsurdam, but at the risk of a few jibes I'm going to stick to my convicitions here. I don't think there is a flower heaven in the sense that you mean it, but yes, a rose contains life force (if that's the right phrase), just like Jamie and The Blue Meanie and Canadian elks and Pacific sea anemones, and life force is eternal IMHO. So I would say yes, some aspect of the rose will survive you pulling it out of the garden.
I think if you're going to believe in life after death, the only logical stance is some kind of afterlife all living things, not just people as so often assumed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I notice Jamie has not replied to this. Does this mean he thinks The Blue Meanie is crazy?
Comments
a)Ya, your living it (reincarnation baby)
b)No, and any one who tries to tell you otherwize is selling something.
Well, since there are many different religions who claim that they are the only true one, and that all others burn in eternal torment. It is logical to assume that everybody will suffer eternally. Hell must be one large place!
There was this great thermodynamics problem that a student used this exact reasoning on. He said that since every one goes to hell, then hell must be expanding wit hevery soul in order to make room. Since its constantly expanding the heat must strech out over it (or something like that, Im not in thermodynamics) and thus if hell has bee nconstantly expanding since its creation, it must have long since frozen over.
Man I butchered that badly
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
<strong>I think it goes like this: if there is no heaven, then we have to make this world the best place it can be.
What I don't get is if there is a heaven, and you've already made it there by believing in God, then what motivation is there to improve life on earth?
Maybe I don't understand exactly how you get to heaven, but I thought you did it through a decision to accept Jesus as your savior, not necessarily by doing good deeds for others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. For the most part. We (humans) cannot "do" anything that makes us go to heaven or not go to heaven. In fact, to spin the topic even further into a tailspin and get people really up in arms it is even said in the Bible that we cannot choose by ourselves to accept Christ. Christ chooses us first and draws us to him. Then we choose whether or not to answer his calling. The good news is, he calls everyone. The bad news is, you can choose not to answer as many of you do on a daily basis.
<strong>
I think we can completely throw out the Bible and nebulous concepts like faith (see my reply to MarcUK above). They've really got nothing to do with questions like whether there is an afterlife, IMHO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? How can you throw the bible out when it comes to questions about an afterlife? That makes no sense.
"The Blue Meanie wants to know if there is an afterlife. we on the boards can obviously figure this out without any help from something like the Bible as it has nothing to do with the subject."
<strong>
James 2:14, 17, 19-20, 24, 26 (NIV)
14 What good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead... 19 Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do... 20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone... 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
(Whole Chapter: <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JAS+2&language=english&version=NIV-IBS&showfn=on&showxref=on"; target="_blank">James 2</a>)
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. But that is not all there is to it. I really don't want to get into a works or faith argument. It takes nothing from us. Jesus did everything on the Cross. All we have to do is accept. The works and faith come through that acceptance and praying for God to change our hearts concerning him. Read Ephesians 1 and 2 for more on this.
<strong>
A) Is there an afterlife?
&
The Blue Meanie's answers would be:
A) Yes
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What certainty the Meanie can offer to the questions of the Soul. Of course we feel free in this contemporary intellectual ghetto to loudly proclaim a universal absolute negation, but one would be a bigot (a narrow-minded intolerant one no less) to state a universal positive affirmation.
Of course I can cheerfully affirm with absolute certainty that my belief is correct and that alternative views with thousands of years of experience grappling with these hard questions can be dismissed out of hand. But wait I'm a Christian, Oh God, I'm intolerant! I'm a Muslim, well, tougher call, I'm intolerant... or misguided. Oh, and either way I'm a dullard, or naive, or have turned off my brain. But if I am agnostic/whatever I'm tolerant and probably quite clever to boot.
Now then,
in reply (since I jumped on you, it is only fair that I put my answer out.
A) Yes
Peace
<strong>
Jesus did everything on the Cross. All we have to do is accept.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah ha, the answer to WHY.
Stand around doing fvck all, waiting to die. so this is why life is insignificant
One of the things I've always felt neglected in the proof of religions is that there is always an assumption that humanity has the faculty of rational thought born into them. We don't. Our thought processes are the result of cultural reinforcement, not logical thought. When presented with ideas, we're not given to rationally think through ideas (unless we're educated to do so), but to accept or deny based on the cultural sentiments of one's given society or culture. Those cultural sentiments can be any number of irrational or rational things. it doesn't matter. What they do is bind the community together with a common set of sentiments, which in the end makes the community stronger, and that's what matters.
In today's world, what makes us stronger could be forcing us into rationality since a rational culture (on the surface) would seem much more capable of doing things to defeat the culture that they are in conflict with.
Now the the answer to "why" or "what's the meaning of life" is relatively simple to this athiest. It's subjective. It's defined by the individual. In saying, moreover forcing, that one's system of belief is the end and be all is more a function of ego than the truth.
<strong>
Now the the answer to "why" ... is relatively simple to this athiest. It's subjective. It's defined by the individual...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is what I was getting at with my question. MarcUK said it was ridiculous to not try and make the world a better place. Given his worldview that was a non sequitur. I disagree with both of you in your atheism but yours is at least more honest.
<strong>
There isn't necessarily a contradiction, just perhaps an argument that lives are altered by such a belief.
One possibility, amongst a million others, is that the whole idea of an afterlife is merely a fable thought up a long time ago to make sure the kids ate their greens, brushed their teeth, and didn't murder grandpa.
There's a code of ethics that one has to adhere to if you want to see the afterlife in most religions, and the offer of eternal life would be enough of a carrot to many people to persuade them not to stray.
I'm not suggesting it's a bad thing at all, in fact I'd gladly support any form of bribery that would stop people needlessly killing each other.
As for Jamie's reference to worm food, seems to me I can be safe in the knowledge I'm doing some good once I'm dead, even if it's just taking my place further down the food chain. Now if you'd said cat food...
Some well-expressed points, Belle. Personally I tend to want to get away from the traditional idea of reward and punishment in the afterlife. I see it just as the next stage in existance
<strong>Now the the answer to "why" or "what's the meaning of life" is relatively simple to this athiest. It's subjective. It's defined by the individual. In saying, moreover forcing, that one's system of belief is the end and be all is more a function of ego than the truth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is why I dislike being referred to as a "close-minded" atheist, unwilling to believe in theist theory (Couldn't resist the expression).
I'm very open-minded about it. I'd be happy to be persuaded one way or another if the evidence presented fulfilled my requirements.
Can the theist population say the same?
<strong>
Edit: IF anyone has any external links on the Afterlife, that are scientifically based and not religious, please put 'em up
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: MarcUK ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, The Blue Meanie does have such a link - sort of- but it does involve reading some books(sorry!). There is, for instance, this guy:
<a href="http://www.georgeanderson.com/bio.html"; target="_blank">http://www.georgeanderson.com/bio.html</A>;
It?s not a particularly compelling or well-presented website, but I have read the three books written about him by Joel Martin and Patricia Romanowski ? (in order of publication: ?We Don?t Die?, ?We Are Not Forgotten? and ?Our Children Forever? - best read chronologically), and I found them (and I?m a cynical newspaper journalist, remember), to be cogent and intellectually rigorous. I quote from the blurb of the first book:
?George Anderson, the most publicly tested psychic medium in history, knows first hand that death is not to be feared but understood- a life transition well within our comprehension. For over twelve years, Joel Martin documented evidence of Anderson?s powers in thousands of radio, television, and private psychic readings. Anderson repeatedly astonished believers and skeptics alike with the accuracy with the accuracy of [his] ?other side? communication[s] revealing personal events, shared experiences, and names and places for which there is only one possible source: the living consciousness ofthe deceased.?
<strong>
Huh? How can you throw the bible out when it comes to questions about an afterlife? That makes no sense.
"The Blue Meanie wants to know if there is an afterlife. we on the boards can obviously figure this out without any help from something like the Bible as it has nothing to do with the subject."
Yes, that?s exactly what I?m saying. The Bible may make a few vague references to the afterlife but so what? So do the texts of all the other religions. How do we know who?s right? Doesn?t it make more sense to just throw out all these dusty old tomes and think for ourselves?
You are obviously a committed Christian, and I respect that if it?s a force for good in your life. But personally I would tend to see the Bible as a vague, jumbled, self-contradictory collection of writings by various authors, not the infallible Word of God. There is evidence to suggest that the Bible texts was heavily edited in the first few centuries AD - by the Emperor Constantine amongst others. And in The Blue Meanie?s humble opinion, it just contradicts itself too often to be credible. Ever notice, for instance, the extent to which the gospels (which were written decades after the death of Jesus) differ from each other even though they?re recounting about the same life?
<strong>
What certainty the Meanie can offer to the questions of the Soul. Of course we feel free in this contemporary intellectual ghetto to loudly proclaim a universal absolute negation, but one would be a bigot (a narrow-minded intolerant one no less) to state a universal positive affirmation.
Of course I can cheerfully affirm with absolute certainty that my belief is correct and that alternative views with thousands of years of experience grappling with these hard questions can be dismissed out of hand. But wait I'm a Christian, Oh God, I'm intolerant! I'm a Muslim, well, tougher call, I'm intolerant... or misguided. Oh, and either way I'm a dullard, or naive, or have turned off my brain. But if I am agnostic/whatever I'm tolerant and probably quite clever to boot.
Now then,
in reply (since I jumped on you, it is only fair that I put my answer out.
A) Yes
Peace</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah, we?re not having a flame fest, are we, guys? This is a friendly bar room debate...
I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that I'm being intolerant. If so I refute that. If you reread my other posts, you'll find that I'm not criticising other people's beliefs, just expressing my own ideas and perspectives.
<strong>IMO
a)Ya, your living it (reincarnation baby)
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yay, reincarnation! You are officially broadcasting on The Blue Meanie?s wavelength
Dude, dont get me started on some of my memories
I also find the whole Dali Lama (sp?) stuff TOO bizzare.
<strong>
Yay, reincarnation! You are officially broadcasting on The Blue Meanie?s wavelength
That's too bad...
Yes, that?s exactly what I?m saying. The Bible may make a few vague references to the afterlife but so what? So do the texts of all the other religions. How do we know who?s right? Doesn?t it make more sense to just throw out all these dusty old tomes and think for ourselves?<hr></blockquote>
So where are you going to get this information from your arse? After all there is no science that will prove it for you, just what others have pulled from their arse if it did not come from another book somewhere else. Like, say, the Bible...
[quote]You are obviously a committed Christian, and I respect that if it?s a force for good in your life. But personally I would tend to see the Bible as a vague, jumbled, self-contradictory collection of writings by various authors, not the infallible Word of God. There is evidence to suggest that the Bible texts was heavily edited in the first few centuries AD - by the Emperor Constantine amongst others. And in The Blue Meanie?s humble opinion, it just contradicts itself too often to be credible. Ever notice, for instance, the extent to which the gospels (which were written decades after the death of Jesus) differ from each other even though they?re recounting about the same life?<hr></blockquote>
Nope never noticed that actually. Show me the contradictions that you speak of. The gospels were written from 4 different perspectives. And for different emphasis. One takes it from the scholar point of view, one takes it from a medical point of view, one from a fishermans point of view and so on. They all say the same thing, but from people having different backgrounds and their take on what was happening. they all line up. They just noticed things differently. There are no inconsistencies in the way you are making it out.
<strong>
Nope never noticed that actually. Show me the contradictions that you speak of. The gospels were written from 4 different perspectives. And for different emphasis. One takes it from the scholar point of view, one takes it from a medical point of view, one from a fishermans point of view and so on. They all say the same thing, but from people having different backgrounds and their take on what was happening. they all line up. They just noticed things differently. There are no inconsistencies in the way you are making it out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
On the contratrary, there are plenty of contradictions - what about all the incidents that are mentioned in one gospel but not the other? And how is people 'noticing things differently' consistent with the idea of divine inspiration? And what about the evidence for editing of the Bible texts? (Passages quoted in letters from one church father to another that are no longer found in the current Bible; historical records of the Council of Ephesus, etc)
It is interesting to note how thin the veneer of tolerance is here - as soon as I start mentioning things like reincarnation you start throwing words like "arse" around. It's a short step from that to wanting to burn The Blue Meanie as a heretic...
PS - I'd like to repeat that I respect your views a Christian as long as they are a force for good in your life and not:
a) a reason to belittle or mock other peple
& b) an excuse to switch off your brain and stop thinking for yourself
[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>
Which is why I dislike being referred to as a "close-minded" atheist, unwilling to believe in theist theory (Couldn't resist the expression).
I'm very open-minded about it. I'd be happy to be persuaded one way or another if the evidence presented fulfilled my requirements.
Can the theist population say the same?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Belle - if you're really interested, try the first of the books about the medium George Anderson I referred to in my reply to MarcUK above. Guaranteeed to contain evidence and no exhortations to any particular religion....
<strong>
Well, if that's the case, then I respect your views that little bit more. I have found that people who throw such armour-plated opinions around often don't really know what they're talking about. I suppose all I'd want to say is much the same as in my rambling reply to MarcUK above - that the worm food scenario is just your opinion. The situation might not be as clear-cut as you think it is.And as for the roses in your garden, well I know this is a deliberate reductio ad adsurdam, but at the risk of a few jibes I'm going to stick to my convicitions here. I don't think there is a flower heaven in the sense that you mean it, but yes, a rose contains life force (if that's the right phrase), just like Jamie and The Blue Meanie and Canadian elks and Pacific sea anemones, and life force is eternal IMHO. So I would say yes, some aspect of the rose will survive you pulling it out of the garden.
I think if you're going to believe in life after death, the only logical stance is some kind of afterlife all living things, not just people as so often assumed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I notice Jamie has not replied to this. Does this mean he thinks The Blue Meanie is crazy?