lindyhopper

Biggest irony of the night: I counted three different actresses refer to someone or a character portraying a strong woman, or an actress that applauded a studio for picking up the story of a woman (Geisha), or as Reese said of her Grandmother and June Carter ... "a strong woman," "a real woman." Then "It's hard out here for a pimp." Real hard smackin' around his "bitches and hoes" who are selling their bodies so he can pay his rent. "You ain't knowin'." For the rest of the show I thought it was better than many I have seen. I thought all of the movies were great choices and was glad crash won it. Loved Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Almost Famous, but haven't seen the new Capote flim yet. Glad Reese Witherspoon won as well. Best quote of the night IMO by John Stewart: "I think it just got a little easier out here for a pimp." Thought Stewart did a great job.

I like that John. Freedom in the not knowing. There is comfort and freedom in ignorance. The old saying "ignorance is bliss" isn't all that bad. Not in that you are stupid or that you are permenantly without knowledge of anything, but it is an absolute joy to realise that you have the opportunity to learn in any and every direction. Then after all that learning we learn that we are still mostly ignorant and that is crazy and exciting.

As far as I know, the bird is still the word. If it has changed please let me know.

Wow! Unbelievable. Well, not really. Lets see there are ten items (actually nine since two are gender specific) on the list and seventeen months of "checking in." Fuel, clothes (both casually nice and suit or dress), snacks are all things that can be taken care of the week before departing if not the night before. I know, I know, I procrastinate. I usually wait untill just before taking a trip to pack. I'm irresponsible that way. So that leaves tuition money, hotel reservation and money, spending money, Home Studies and going to a "household fellowship" regularly to report back about for 17 months. When I did my home studies, it was something that could be done in about one week of on and off "studying." That was in 93'. I know I should have REALLY studied because somehow over the previous 13 years of my life of hearing all that stuff taught over and over and over and over again just didn't make it sink in. That one year of real studying would have done the trick. So there you have another week. "Regularly attending a household fellowship" isn't really something you should have to "report back" back about since you are seeing these people at least twice a week for fellowship anyways. Why report to another person telling them you went? So that leaves us with tuision MONEY, hotel reservation and MONEY, and spending MONEY. You know the song "money, money, money." So what it comes down to is they want to make sure that you have the money to get them their money. They don't want you pulling out at the last minute and asking for a refund. Apparently, they are having problems with getting "canidates" to the AC. As usual, when they are having those sorts of problems they resort to more control. I love the line about your goal being to become an Advanced Class Grad! That is funny....yet most likely true. The classes are marketed and pushed in a way that it isn't really about what you are going to learn or how it will bless you. Those are just marketing ploys. The real deal is setting it up in a way that you just want to get to the next level...the next class....the next nametag....the next whatever. And please...."beyond your wildest dreams?" How rediculous is that?

That story is too funny, JL. I don't know if this guy was the one who started the whole "SOMEBODY sit and interperet" thing but it happened a lot. I was never in a long drawn out battle but when someone called on "somebody" there were usually several people that would start and usually people would bow out graciously and let who was usually the loudest person go ahead. I always thought this approach was pretty lame. I mean, wasn't God supposed to be directing the leaders to call on one individual or another. So if the leader wasn't getting a "go" from God for Bobby or Shela to sit and interp. then maybe he didn't want it to happen at that point. Or maybe the leader was just being lazy. And how was that "decent and in order"- a bunch of people fighting it out to see who was that "most spiritual" or something. And it seemed offly rude to me for those individuals who just kept on speaking without pause over everyone else. It was uncomfortable at times. It just seemed like a stupid way to run a meeting if you ask me. I was also *%^#*ed at those same people talking over me in conversations after fellowship, like they just had to get what they had to say out there because it was so important that they had to cut me off. One night I had enough, I shouted and cussed a bit at a few people who kept doing it. They got the point.

Della- where? Home of the first Swedish settlement.

Damnit, Bliss, thanks a lot for getting that horrible Cher song stuck in my head. no, is the short answer. I do think there is value in being possitive many times and at times no value in being negative. although I do think there is value in being negative at times and no value in always being positive. I do not believe in a your believing makes it so sort of thing, but I do think that what you believe affects you physically at times one way or the other....more because it directs your actions....not 100% of the time though. I do cringe when I here "I'm believing for this or that" from family or old friends and especially when they say "I am believing for you for this or that" as if them believing FOR ME will help me. UHG

Yeah that really sucked. I went in to college when it was still ok to take out school loans. Then that changed and I was questioned regularly why I had loans for school. Hadn't I heard all those teachings? Unfortunately I didn't have all that ABS to pay for MY schooling. I couldn't afford it, even with my 11K/yr in scholarships and grants. I was going to one of the best art schools in the country and doing really well there, but quit after my second year for fear of what all that debt might do to me spiritually. $*@!E! But of course if I hadn't of left at the time many things would have changed and I'm happy as I am now and all that. So even though it still *%^#*es me off, I guess I can't complain.

I understand what you are saying there, Mark, even though I disagree. Taking that comparison you just made, I would say then that for those that truly want to know God then they should expose themselves to as many "formulae" as possible and learn as much as you can from each. I say that as in "letting it (the formula) speak for itself" not take what matches with my current belief system. That isn't what happens though most of the time, is it? What usually happens is that we stick with what is the cultural norm or family tradition, even if that norm is a formula from one group of people that hovered or were pushed around the Mediteranean and Asia Minor, which was written about 2000- 3000 years ago and take that as "the Word of God." They take that formula as a sole source to God and toss the others into a pile labeled "hogwash." What usually happens is that people accept it because it works for them or makes sense to them or is easily explained to them or explained away. This does not make something "the word of God." I know that would be a lot of reading but not any more than studying the same book everyday of your life. Perhaps one might learn more! Maybe not. BTW, Personally I think the Catholics have one of the best perspectives on all this. Yall seem to focus more on the good actions and morals of an idividual in identifying a "godly" person and not what books they read or what title they put on the god box. I believe the last pope said something to the effect that there are Christians that don't know they are Christians or don't acknowledge themselves as such, because they live Christian values.

Thanks Mo, So I guess I am a phycological egoist. I don't think I use it in a circular way and I hope ya'll can see that and I don't think that this view is totally non-falsifiable. First while we may not be able to measure "good feeling" quantitatively across the board for everyone, we all do have our own internal gauge of a good or a bad feeling and at least the the lack of one or the other. I also don't esspecially like the term "good feeling" in this regard. I am not talking about strictly things that make you feel good but things that don't make you feel bad, or a satisfying of a value you have. It may not be able to be measured but it can not be ignored. For example, some of the tenets of the Christian faith are: "Do unto others as they would do unto you" (note the command to do this in a selfish fashion) , "you reep what you sow," and "love your neighbor." If someone believes these things it is apart of their psyche. You can't ignore it when considering their motivation for doing a good deed. Even if they don't feel like it or it doesn't put a smile on their face it is still satisfying their belief and within that belief, satisfying their "father.'' It is the same with a kid who does what their parent tells them to do when they don't want to. They may not feel good about it, but on some level they feel better than they would if they had not done it and recieved the consequences. So even if the motivation is out of fear, it is still self serving. All the religions I can think of have similar tenets and we cannot ignore this when considering one's motives. I am not saying this is neccessarily a conscious desicion either. I think it can be something learned early in life and can become second nature without special feelings attached. That said I do think most people are like you, Mo, and perform altruistic acts for the warm fuzzy side effects. No apology needed. It is a natural thing to do. I should not have said that your concept is not true, sorry for that. I do not percieve it to be true and I would very much enjoy an example of a truly selfless act with absolutely no reward whatsoever, be it material, psychological, eternal, spiritual, whatever. This has been a concept I came up with by way of observation and personal honesty. It is good to see that I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion. I thought the wiki-article gave a good example of conscience (and then morals) evolving out of selfish origins but I think that it may not be such a conscious decision on a personal level but almost a survival instinct. Although, on a social level I would say the "psychological barriars" the article spoke of is similar to what I said earlier about a god being an invention to both explain the unknown and enforce moral obligation and causing people to be more "cooperative agents" in society. So Oak, What is your motivation for dropping a 50 in the Salvation Army bin? I would not put "expectaion" in the altruism definition. Altruistic acts and other good acts are not always performed with an expectation but rather as a reation to internal "triggers." By acting out of empathy or sympathy I quell the feelings or beliefs that trigger that responce. "I feel your pain." That expression can be quite literal. By soothing the pains of others we soothe our own. Again I don't see this as a bad thing but as a win-win situation, as a very healing experience for all involved and that is always a great situation to be apart of.

OK, thank you. Now that we all understand metaphors, similies, and hypocatahooha, lets take the next step. Not all metaphors work. How does this one work? This is how I see it. A drivers license is a form of ID that verifies who you are as well as numerous other things about you. Why does it verify it? Because I have several other forms of ID that I used to get it and an objective source has verified them to be legit. So lets just say there was a time before God could drive. Where is his birth certificate, SS card, and two other forms of valid ID. I would like to make sure that his driver's license isn't a fake. Is there a water mark so to speak? I can match a face to the name on mine, always helpful. Where is his? Do you see the problem people are having with this? It is a metaphor that doesn't work.

I don't know how to say it any other way. Not at all the point I was making. Well, perhaps it is making my point. You are UNABLE to come to this discussion with a neutral POV to start from.Anyways. This concept isn't true. Is there no "reep what you sow" with your god? Are there no eternal rewards? Is there no satisfaction in doing what you believe is right and true? There are NO truly altruistic acts, with or without a god. NONE. Everything good has it's reward. You know this whether you know it or not. only two pages ago: Why morality with God? Perhaps the rewards of eternity? Perhaps the rewards in this life as well.

Disingenuous at best? I'm sorry, I'm really not following you here, or you me. I was not calling God unjust. I was explaining to you that it is more likely that you and other theists would be the ones starting with a presupposition that is biased- not the non-theists, at least not all of us. I say this again because your belief system and therefore your life, or your perseption of life (this one and the next), have so much hanging on God being just and loving. How is deciding not to give you eternal life when you have done everything your God tells you to do- "life"? I think you were thinking I was talking about me. I was not talking about "outcomes." No, I was talking about God not doing things he promises a believer- granting eternal life, forgiving, answering prayer,etc. just because he might feel like it that day, being unjust, which it would be. If you go according to the "laws" He has set down, then judging you justly would entail granting you his promises (or not withholdig them- however you want to look at it). So if God was unjust, He would not be fair, loving, and one to be trusted really. As would be a belief system that hinges on these tenets and you may or may not get a "promise" on anygiven day based on the whim of said god. So it would be the direct opposite of what you now hold to be THE truth. As an agnostic, I don't hold many if any things as THE truth and so the good or bad things of a supposed god would not threaten my beliefs in anyway, therefore it wouldn't be likely that I would presuppose that a god I don't believe in to be just or unjust. Calling that disingenuous is what is called...being disingenuous or to be more fair, just totally not understanding what I was saying. So what about the rest of my post? If we are no longer playing along can we at least admit that there are other sources of morality and that good morality is a good thing regardless of who things theirs is better and that you and others have other personal reasons for believing in a god that we can't touch and just leave it at that? I mean we did seem to make some progress by going from "if there is no God and no eternal life, then why morality" to "well God's morality is a higher standard." So can we move on to "good morals can exist without a god?"

Grease Lightning, it's right there in your back pocket. You just have to bend over and try to stick your head up yo...... What I mean is, you have to have the eyes to see and the ....well, the flexibility of a carny. Ok ok, step back people, I'm joking. I'M JOKING! Don't all kill me at once. :wub:

I don't think that Oak was saying that God had betrayed him.

Well, for what it is worth... one more go. I think what this comes down to is two ancient views of man. One being that man is inherently good, the other being that man is inherently bad. Mo you seem to have the view of the later. Personally, I have the view that a human can be either. Of course there are genetics to throw into the mix, which isn't entirely understood yet, but it seems that in terms of personalities those genes are more like triggers, which can be set by environment (nurture). I think that the vast majority of the time a child brought up in a loving family will, without future jading, exhibit loving qualities like empathy, sympathy, and compasion. I know it is this way with my young (godless) children. Then on the other hand, a child raised in a hateful environment, without future love, will exhibit hateful qualities like bitterness, malace, and indifference toward the wellfare of others. There have been many many studies done confirming this. So it really starts with your genetics and then your upbringing, then as you get older society plays more of a role in how those early values stick. Reality takes hold for each individual. Then that nature and nurture kicks in again in determining how you react to the stimuli of reality. You see it everywhere, people in dire circumstances overcoming and rising above what was for them a challenge and for others an impossibility. Then you see people like many of us here in the US who have what much of the world only dreams of yet are unable to get past the littlest of things. This is all with or without a god or gods (pick your favorite flavor). What I am saying is that empathy, sympathy, and compassion are not qualities that descended from on high. They are values that come out of or are in responce to love. So then comes the arguement of "love- huh, good God, where did it come from?" Well, we could look at the cold hard facts of chemistry or we could speculate. Check out the lastest National Geographic for some interesting articles on the "science of love." Remember speculation does not make it so. Without getting too evolutionary on your a$$e$ it basically comes down to this: The selfish "me and mine" concept (really just the ME concept) has evolved over time and evolves with each individual starting with survival and if nurtured in a loving way ends up with a genuine care and value of life and love. The multifarious variables that change and occur differently for everyone change the outcome in an equal number of variant, ranging from the extreme to the near identical and everything in between. THIS INCLUDES the three lastest changes in our discussion 1- Helping your enemy may turn them from an enemy to a friend. (The real lesson in the parable or whatever it was, not specifically food or water.) This could be called negotiation or a smart pre-emptive act of good will to save you and your people as well as them and their people. 2- Helping those in need regardless of your personal gain. 1) There is no such case in which you do something good for someone else and you get nothing of benefit in return. There is always a reward, be it physical or mental (even if it is the elitist satisfaction of having the "higher standard." There is ALWAYS a reward. Plus, if you have empathy, sympathy, and compassion you both genuinely care and get the plessure of upholding a value you hold dear. This is for the theist and atheist alike. When was the last time you watched a person you didn't know get killed and felt nothing or maybe pleasure? Never? Hopefully. Me neither. When is the last time a man watched another man get kicked in the Bo Jangles and didn't wince in pain? If there is such a man, he clearly was born without testicles. So again these are not feelings granted us by a god. Sympathy is a small step from empathy. 3- "Going without, for those outside the group" Each person's milage will vary with this one but it comes out of the same motivation as #2. If someone feels strongly enough or is compelled enough- they will do the unthinkable both for the good and the bad. Plus, people's ideas of a need vary as well. We humans can run on very little at times. Clearly there are things we need in this country, even in spite our many excesses. Yet we take funding that can be used for those needs and help with the needs of our allies. This is not a strinctly "Godly" notion, but wise governing, as I have said earlier. If you say they are still "in the group" then anything else would fall into catagory 1 and/or 2. 4-(Added by me) 1-3 fall into the catagory of "moral elitism" when used the way they have been here. Good morals are good morals. We started out with "how can you have morals without God" and ended up with "yeah but mine are better." This in and of itself has questionable moral implications. I'm not pointing fingures just pointing it out. Doing good unto others will fall under a reasonable umbrella for most of the world. If everyone could just hang out under it a little more we would all be in a better place. Nit picking about who's moral standard is higher than the other doesn't do any good at all especially when most people (as you said, MO) don't even live up to it. I would even say that many people are unable to live up to it given their perticular cocktail of nurture and nature when mixed with their perticular reality. Or perhaps, just maybe, we could all get there some day, but the bar starts a little lower. Lastly... As Oak and Garth said one way or the other, the non-theists on this board have not always been such and come from a "have nothing to loose" stand point. So to say that we are starting with the presupposition that God is unjust, just isn't likely. What is more likely is that those that have much more to loose, like say ones faith in a loving God and eternal life, might start with the presupposition that God is always just and always loving. If God is unjust then that could mean that for any reason, he might not let you live forever or might for any reason not answer your prayer, or if he prehaps wakes up on the wrong side of his infinite bed tomarrow he may not allow you to live or may not forgive you. A lot hangs on him being loving and just 24/7 +/- time. So I would say you have it backwards. You see, we "assume for a moment that God doesn't exist" every moment of every day. It is a logical position for us agnostics to start with the assumption that if there is a god that it starts in a neutral postion and make observations before jumping to conclusions one way or the other. Since there are no observations to be made except on the beliefs of others, we tend to notice and accept discrepancies a little more readily than the already believing believer. We have no reason not to.

:lol: Yes, it is like asking a first grader how an alternate universe might exist. :lol:

Welcome back, what is it you do? If you don't mind me asking.

I was going to stop with this thread, but I can't let this pass. TL wrote: Statements like this quite frankly scare me. To think that without God morals are obselete is very scary. Morals are absolutely necessary for survival. In fact that is why we have them and in my opinion is why we have an idea of god...not only as an answer to the unknown but as an all seeing eye or eyes who enforce moral neglect and reward their adherance. It seems that the best way for us humans, with one foot in rational cognition and the other in animalistic reactiveness, need bounderies and rules (morals) to coexist with eachother. Even with your example of a society which has it's best interests in mind still requires morals within that society to function and prosper. Still your example isn't true. Throughout history you see that societies are never completely self sufficient, they need things that are not available in their neck of the woods, especially if we are talking about "abundance" of anything, and interaction is inevitable. So trade is necessary and since you don't trade with your enemies you need to have a standard of how to interact with other groups. The better you are at this, the better you are at surviving in the long run. The more enemies you make the worse off you are and the less likely you are to survive. As long as we have been somewhat small and week in comparison to predators we have needed eachother for survival, both in terms of protection and in terms of sustenance. So since we have needed eachother, we then need reasons not to kill eachother, the one main reason being that your survival depended on it. As interaction became more complex, so did the rules of interaction or morals. This requires comprimise or sacrifice as you put it. You spoke of needing to fortify yourself to secure your position to secure your more than adequate goods etc. This is absolutely the worst way of ensuring your survival. See above for better ideas. Of course you need some fortification but it can multipy by making allies. As allies last longer and longer a trust is developed and respect and a genuine care for them. As people are exposed more and more to other cultures and other people by way of honest alliances awareness of the value of life is enriched. This is all a very wuick outline, but you get the point. All this indicates that you need morals for survival. And YES! this is all born out of the "me and mine" concept. Which gets back to my ideas on selfishness and why it is not a bad thing. That is selfishness with a long term view. Your example IMO is more of a "short sighted selfishness" which generally ticks people off and does not have the intended benefit to the person or group in the long run. So in short that is NOT the problem I have with the idea of God or a god. Not at all.

Wow, so much for rails! Thanks for the posts, Mark. To go in another direction real quick...(Belle slap me if you want to) The way you described the passage: Makes me wonder about a few things. First the timing of these books. When was this written in relation to Pauls epstiles? He stresses being eyewitnesses and the the reliability of the scripture, not Pauls letters or perhaps in contrast to Paul and his letters. Also, the timing in relation to the incident Paul boasts of where he confronts Peter. Then later Paul says that everyone has left him or turned away from him or something to that effect. Yet, the Catholic church says that Peter is the first pope and from there they go on until the present. So, was there a point in which the Catholic church believes Paul went a different direction? Did Paul and the original apostles have a falling out at some point? Could he be among the "false teachers?" Obviously both the Epsitles (or at least seven of them) were included along with 1 and 2 Peter and the other apostles' writings....so am I way off base? Of course I could research this myself, but that would require more of an investment of my time than I am willing to put into it. Although, it is a sincere interest. Maybe this needs its own thread.

As always, I think there are a few assumptions made in order to get to "the Word of God is the Will of God." 1- There is a god 2- The Bible declares the God 3- The Bible is this God's Word 4- This Word is this God's will That aside I think there are some very interesting posts here. The Bible says (KJV) that "the prophecy of old came not by the will of man" but that "holy men of God spake as they were moved my the holy spirit." We were taught it was "God breathed" and came by "the inspiration of God." First question, what is the prophecy of old? Are we assuming it was the OT and only the OT historical version or prodestant version? The verse says spake, not wrote. I know that perhaps they had stenographers, but it does say spoke. Many theologians believe that many areas of the OT came first by oral tradition and then were written latter. Ever played "telephone?" Not all of the OT is prophecy- as in fore telling. Were we assuming that the "prophecy" in that verse was both fore and forth telling? Now what about "moved by" or "God breathed." Well, in TWI we were taught that it basically meant that men of God spoke the words of God, word for word, none of it was man's word. That seems to be another big assumption. Moved by could literally mean God took his "hands" and moved their lips and made them speak. Although, in TWI that would fall more under the catagory of possessed. It could also mean the same as "inspired by." Inspired by doesn't mean that at all in my world. As an artist, I get inspired by all kinds of things. This does not mean that the work I do is the will or the word or the work of my inspriation. That would be rediculous. Although it is my will to use that inspiration in my work, I have a choice to do so or not to. So, I get inspired by a lot of things but not all of it is put into my work. It is the same with writers and any other creative occupation/ hobby. So was there more inspiration never written? What is "the will of man?" Did we assume it meant the "words of man" because we were aready assuming the WORD of God = the WILL of God? Could it mean that regardless of what the men speaking wanted to say they decided to say what they were inspired by? Sometimes it is this way with art. What I origianlly started out to do could change if I am inspired along the way and decide to change it. So it is good to see that most here don't limit themselves to one book or solely books in general. Personally, I think there are things to learn from everywhere, whether it be nature, peoples actions, their words, the bible, books of all kind, etc. I know that all of my words are not my will and all of my will is never put into words written or spoken. Sometimes I am unable to but my will or my thoughts into either.

Don't hurt yourself there TL. I don't really understand what you're saying there, but here it goes.... I am not going to obey God. Ah! that was refreshing. Like taking an antacid. Unless you know me better than I know myself, I would say the last part of what you said is utterly false and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Actually, haven't I already more or less said that by saying "I don't believe in God." At least not in the sense you are talking about. Ok, I usually say, " I doubt God's existence," but that still means I don't believe in one. I really don't want that to make you feel unfresh or parched... that is just my view...not blaming anyone or non-existent entity...just how I see it. By all means though, have a refreshing beverage on me.

TL, And if the capital crime is worshipping another God, then there is something seriously wrong with the laws. This is were I see the God you are talking about as a dictator not a father. Being killed for worshipping a god or the wrong god is a classic dictatorial punishment.

I'm sorry, CM, I don't read it the same way. Mainly because the part that says "even so them also which sleep IN JESUS will God bring with him." That and the "will" part of that statement implys the future, not past tense. But we are getting into "are the dead alive now territory with that part of it. So, are you implying with this statement that you are a Universalist ? (Sorry didn't pay too much attention to that old thread) God brings everyone back from the dead for eternal life? That would make much more sense IMO, not total sense, but more. So killing them and bringing them back latter is like sending your kid to their room for a while? It is ok as long as you let them out at some point?

Cynic was right. Garth was wrong. I'm glad we cleared that up. Because I was getting a little upset thinking that God killed all those people just because he wanted real estate for the Isrealites. Now that I see it was for abominable customs, I feel much better. I'm all for killing for customs. Definitely a capital offence in my book. Especially, when considering what the OT God found to be abominable, like eating the wrong animals or eating the wrong ones on the wrong day. I mean when someone does something like that I think to myself, "Man I wish God would just smite the living sh!t out that guy!" indeed!