Mockingbird

Where do you get your information? Are you saying that this information is incorrect? Must we play games, B? Where did you get this information? (is that worded better?)

Where do you get your information?

I'm not sure I get it... Your answer to my question (which was, What do you think a person earns by living the kind of life that Christ lived?) is that "living a good life is its own reward." What exactly does that mean... "its own reward"? Also, what aspects of Christ's life do you think were worthy of emulating?

That's just one aspect. That in and of itself does not prove its claims are true. The genealogies, verifiable locations, and testimonies just lead one to believe that it is real and truthful rather than a made up myth as some claim. The intent was not simply to tell an elaborate tale. Right, Paj. The fact that so many of the people, places, and events are verifiable should lead the objective-minded reader to the conclusion that it isn't fiction. I'd challenge anyone believes the bible is just myth to read the book of "Acts" and then report back with evidence of myth they find.

You almost got it right this time.

And what do you think a person earns by living this kind of life-- a good reputation? the satisfaction of having "made the world a better place"? eternal life?

Uuuuummmmmmmm, yes. And to think otherwise is natural.. just incorrect. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

very good question.. why dont you start asking Christian "leaders" that? Religion, however has a great deal to do with politics, and power.. and "Paul" recognized this as he went about creating his religion.... Religion, yes. Zen, I hate to say it, but I can't totally disagree with you on this one. But your comment on Paul is pretty outlandish. Granted, in the context of today's culture, some of his statements concerning human relationships would sound as outlandish as I found yours just now! But his doctrinal teachings on the person of Christ and soteriology, and even sanctification, are simply enlargements on Christ's own teachings. Paul didn't "create" a religion... I disagree with your choice of both words, "create" and "religion." I think that Christianity is a way of life, a new life, a life given to Christ, a very personal thing between an individual and Christ-- NOT a religious system. NO NO NO!!! Not that man hasn't tried, and in many cases succeeded, at turning it into a religious system, and a political one at that. But that is a distortion of the simplicity which Christ taught. He said, simply, "I came from God to reconcile man to his Creator, by my own death, to bring each one back to God as that one puts his faith in Me and his life in my hands." Do you see how personal and how simple His message was? Religions (those ghastly men you like to observe/study) only COMPLICATE the message to the point that it is unrecognizable. I wish you'd focus more on discovering God and studying the life of Jesus-- Zen, I just don't see how studying man's interaction with divinity will bring you any closer to truth. I sorta' know, just to a degree, where you're coming from. I'll bet you've been quite disallusioned in the past in your "christian" learning. My experiences haven't been all peaches and creme either. I don't believe you couldn't be wrongER about the origin of insight and wisdom contained in those pages. Give me a hint as to what more there is to discover about God outside of Christ and outside of what I learn of Him through experience and scripture. How do you know this? Is this what He has told you? Obviously, I disagree and believe that God is in the details and DOES lead us along into an understanding which the god of this world has blinded us to so that we can't see until God intervenes and gives us light and understanding. I'm a nonconformist at heart, (which is why I would make a very poor catholic)... I removed myself from the herd mentality long, long ago, and as I mentioned above, my relationship with Christ is personal... definitely not cookie-cutter. Be sure to make plans for some dz hopping in Texas, OK? I promise not to argue about religion... or real Christianity. We could just jump from an airplane together. (Boy, that would've sounded funny to me a couple of years ago!) Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Is that what I said, jakee? Do you read or merely scan and then jump to conclusions? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

God's "word" can indeed be found in the bible. And yes, I'll repeat that nothing can be learned about God by looking at man-made religions. If you want to dismiss the bible as merely man's words, feel free. From that viewpoint, the two statements ARE ironic. But if you want to have a grown-up conversation, you will debate the issue rather than laugh it off. Again, possibly a moot point. We have no place to begin a discussion if there's no point of agreement from which we diverge.

Jack, your contempt is showing.

Congratulations on twisting my words to suit your humor. Not very intellectually honest, but then most aren't. Isn't it a great feeling to be generalized?

As far as the nature of believing and knowing goes, maybe this is where our disagreement begins. In the first place, "As defined..." In my experience, dictionaries are not at all consistent when it comes to defining words like belief, faith, truth, knowledge, etc. So if you hope to have a meaningful discussion about these things, the meanings of these words need to be agreed upon. In the second place, therefore, I'd take issue with this choice of words: "...without anything objective to back it." If one has NOTHING objective to back his feelings, this would not be faith or a "belief", but a feeling-- a hunch, a gut feeling, or maybe even you could call it intuition--- but NOT faith. Faith (conFIDence) is based on evidence. (Note, I didn't say "proof." "Proof" and "evidence" are not synonymous.) Evidence is what feeds one's faith. I hope this makes sense; I just rolled out of bed a few minutes ago and the sleep is still in my eyes. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Cool, then you owe me a jump ticket. But I'll take cash. So Paul's "sermon" was politically motivated, huh? What does "divinity" have to do with politics? I don't think you're going to find out anything about divinity by looking at man's religions, as that would be on a par with looking at man himself, who intrinsically holds no answers. He was meant to, I believe-- I think that's why God made man in His image-- to reflect God. But that was forfeited long ago, as anyone can see. Why not go to the source of divinity? Is it because you don't know the source? or is it because you're only willing to believe what doesn't pose any discomfort or threat? This isn't an accusation... if there's another option, let me know. I think that if you really want to know the truth, even if it hurts, God will see to it that you discover it. In fact, He has made us that promise. But then again, if you don't believe in this God, or you don't believe His promises can be found in the bible, then it's a moot point, isn't it?

Semantics. You do not believe there is a God = you believe there is no God. Whatever you want to call it, you are still expressing what you believe to be true, the statement that there is no God. You can't prove it's true, and you can't prove it's false. You can only believe it to be true or false... opine, feel, whatever. But NOT "know." Since this line of discussion is not leading anywhere, I'll withdraw the comment, if that's allowed...

Did I ask you for evidence you examined which support the story of Jesus? No. I asked you for the evidence you examined which led you to believe that it's "extremely unlikely that God exists." Are you being purposely evasive? We get nowhere in a conversation if you evade the question. I have to get ready for bed. Sorry, no time for games right now.

Belief in no god is a belief. You can't call it "knowledge" or be certain unless you have proof. There is nothing "self-evident" about the belief that there is no God, as there is about gravity (to use one of your examples), so you can't call it ("God doesn't exist") a "statement of fact."

You must've misunderstood my follow-up question. You said that you "arrived at the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that god exists" by "examining all the empirical evidence and forming a logical conclusion based on it." What was the empirical evidence you examined which led you to believe that it's extremely unlikely that God exists?

Absolutely not, of course I believe J.S Bach, Charles Darwin, Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Winston Churchil etc etc etc anyone else???? Now as you correctly pointed out I have not seen, or met any of these people, but how is it that I believe that they existed, and what makes them different from Jesus????? Lets take caeser as an example, Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artefacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. Caesar was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes in his commentaries. He wrote not for posterity but to have an immediate impact on the power players in Rome as he schemed to advance his own career. So, you only believe in people whose appearance can be known? and about whom a complete history has been written? If I gave you a name that you could Google, and your search turned up an obituary or a blog or... anything, would you believe that person exists or at least existed at one time? If I told you about my grandfather and you had no one's word on it but mine, would you believe he existed? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

I wish I was. But alas Im not.. however I have arrived at the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that god exists, and like my previous post this is by examining all the empirical evidence and forming a logical conclusion based on it. However I will admit that I could be wrong. "Extremely" unlikely. That's an interesting description. Not just "unlikely," but "extremely unlikely." You say you examined all the empirical evidence? Could you give me an idea of some of the empirical evidence that you examined? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

So you don't believe in anything other than what you can experience or see, huh? I guess you don't believe in J.S. Bach or Charles Darwin either. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

MB perhaps you can address a couple of my questions??? neither Paj or Michele seem upto the task? Then we can discuss this post... So you don't want to answer my ONE question? but you want me to answer 10 (or whatever) of yours? If I answer yours, will you be upset if I put as little thought into my answers as you did with Michele's? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

So, you think you have no beliefs, huh? Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

What is this "believing something without proof" business? If you have proof of something, do you believe it? or do you know it? You're confusing "proof" with "evidence." Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

You're over-generalizing about religious people. There are probably some like you describe, but I doubt they are in the majority. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"