But why couldn't your statement equally apply to New Age healing techniques? Consider: you dismiss [or] discount the possibility that these thousands of other [New Agers] might actually have experiences which do corroborate the existence of supernatural effects. And again, the numbers are strangely off. You used the phrase 'thousands of Christians'... in context of a global body hundreds of millions strong. Faith ultimately comes from God, no? He is the author and perfecter of faith? If this is so, then why is He so bloody stingy with it? Why is the gift given to so few? Even given the hypothetical acceptance of miracles--putting aside skepticism for arguments' sake--the relative lack of miracles on the whole still does not make sense. One must come to some sort of account for the 9,999 believers out of every 10,000 who get no satisfaction when they ask in good faith. If one writes them off as spiritual weaklings, one must then ask where is God, the author and perfecter of faith, in all this. Why is He holding back from His children? By your own words, and Christ's words regarding faith as small as a mustard seed, it would seem the church has failed to grasp the bounty of miracles promised to it. Preachers routinely seek to rouse their flock by lamenting the lack of spiritual fervor. But then they turn around and make reference to an omnipotent God who is the source of all good things, including faith. Put plainly: if the church sucks, is it not God's fault? How could it be otherwise? Yet both sides of this coin are played over and over every Sunday, with nary a connecting thought. If miracle-inducing faith is tantamount to spiritual training, then 99.99% of believers have failed in their training. If miracles are a divine gift, then one must ask why that gift is given to such a relative few. Is there a quota of some kind? Divine favoritism in the extreme? The simple, occam's razor type answer to this inquiry is to write off the existence of miracles as hallucinations and statistical flukes. This is a useful path because it kills all the mystical birds with one stone. It also has the virtue of consistency, because the same measuring stick applies to Wicca and Voodoo and Zoroastrianism etc. alongside the other mainstream options. Furthermore, there is the simple observation that all the religions can't be right, unless God is a prankster; that increases the odds that all the claims are flukes, coming as they do from a crazy array of faiths. (One could argue that miracles are a pan-faith phenomenon I suppose; but one would hardly be a Christian with that view.) And again, why is the occam's razor path not ruled out by hard statistical evidence? You know, evidence a guy can take to the bank... evidence that an actuary can't ignore. Why does evidence of such indubitable quality and caliber not exist? A standard response is that the existence of such hard-edged evidence for miracles might preclude the need for faith... but doesn't the notion that miracles routinely happen already preclude the need for faith? Does God routinely make himself known through burning bush type events in this day and age... or not? Sometimes the concealment argument is used--God must hide himself for the sake of faith--and sometimes the plain-as-day argument is used, that God's miracles are bright and shining for anyone who cares to look. The propositions contradict each other, and yet routinely appear in the same venues every Sunday, alongside the previous conundrum. The one last available goto, that God is in control of all this contradiction and just messing with people's heads, makes Him into a devious jerk. What else do you call someone who yanks people's chain on a whim... including His own unprivileged children? p.s. I might have missed it, but I don't think you answered my question. Do you believe Reinhard Bonnke's claim?
ah. thanks a lot! now i get it. i attended some bible lessons quite a while back organised by similiar people. in the first hours it was quite interesting but than they had charles darwin on the program and the leading guy seriously took out a book with a picture that showed a fly and a bee. and he said that no one has ever seen a fly become a bee and therefore darwin is wrong. that was too much for me. i think george bush should be convicted for crime against humanity for his invitation of those amazingly narrow minded fundamentalists. on one hand american who believe dinosaurs lived 6.000 years ago, on the other muslims that think they finally get laid by a dozen teenagers. did someone say dark age is over?
i learned as well that you better not argue with them it is like brainwashed scientologists, they are brain dead. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6812164614976718979&q=scientology this guy does not get it, even when they try to convince him to commit suicide) very sad how spiritual hunger can be abused and diverted. but finally no one gets lost. they just waste some time until they find out. and actually i prefer this thread to suicide bombing ... (i am just glad that the muslims have the copyright for the virgin thing ...)
Okay, now itâs time to get trippy. Check this out yos. What if weâas in, the mass of humanity âweââare like ants on a cosmic ant farm? What if we are the equivalent of a laboratory lark, a casual experiment conducted by an overwhelmingly advanced alien race? A race so advanced that they can wholly create our reality, and control it, without giving indication of their presence? Consider that, while such a scenario is fantastically improbable, the fact that it is possible says something in itself. (It is just as possible, in fact, as the benevolent creator scenario⦠and maybe even more plausible, as the 'benevolent' qualification is removed.) The fact that life might be nothing at all⦠the fact that life might be a ruse or a prankâ¦. an alien childâs science fair experiment⦠all these possibilities speak to the same singular truth. And that truth is that you are not meant to find meaning outside yourself; you are meant to find meaning within yourself. That is the only logical answer that covers all the far-out possibilities. It is the only logical answer that suffices in the face of a prankster God, an alien God, or even no God at all. It is a valid answer independent of cosmic inquiry. It applies whatever the situation. If you find meaning within yourself⦠if meaning is an emergent property, just as your own consciousness is an emergent property⦠then it matters not whether we are ants on an ant farm, or the brainchild of a benevolent creator, or the result of a cosmic fluke. What really matters, in all these cases, is the ability to find meaning within oneâs self. Meaning as emergent property, folks. The message is clear, and ubiquitous in its application: if you donât get the âBig Answerâ via cosmic inquiry, then maybe you are supposed to come up with the Big Answer yourself. (And when you do that, you wind up getting the Big Answer after all. By ceasing to look, you find. Itâs like a zen koan.) The most powerful paradigm in all of history is the paradigm of evolution. Evolution is the mechanism by which complex life forms arose⦠by which sentient thought arose⦠by which contemplative inquiry and philosophy itself arose. The very concept of âmeaningâ is emergent. Reason itself is, quite literally, emergent â at least as far as humanity is concerned. Evolution is the vehicle by which emergent properties are manifestedâ¦. and evolution continues to do its work. As man discovers new knowledge, embraces new technology, explores new paths, the process of evolution accelerates. The future is emergent. To better grasp my point of meaning as emergent property, try this thought experiment on for size. A recent article in Discover Magazine, titled âDNA is not destiny,â highlights the startlingly prominent role of environment in epigenetic considerations. Meanwhile, biotechnologists like Craig Venter are getting ever closer to the next stage⦠unlocking the metabolic pathways necessary to create life in a petri dish. What this means, in a nutshell, is that it may soon be technologically possible to induce rapid-scale evolution in other species. At some point, man could have enough knowledge to apply genetic mutations and environmental nudges in such a way that an already intelligent species, like monkeys or pigs or parrots, grows smarter with each successive generation. Here, then, is the fascinating question. What happens when the trigger trips⦠when the parrot or the monkey or the pig passes the over the sentience threshold? What happens if / when (maybe âwhenâ is more accurate) man successfully brings about new sentient life on this planet? By sentient I mean more than just conscious as animals are conscious⦠I mean self-aware. Able to contemplate⦠to question⦠to philosophize. What kind of philosophical conversation does a scientist have with a creature whose intelligence⦠whose very sense of self⦠was evolved in that scientistâs lab? âWell, now that weâve trained you to communicate and taught you some basics about the world, itâs time for you to understand where you came from. These are your ancestors â they arenât as smart as you are. We created you⦠in terms of your capacity for thought, your contemplative essence⦠right here in this lab, near where you live. Your residence is next door to your place of origin. You see, look at these photos and data. Here is your lineage. Your ancestors grew more intelligent with each successive generation. Your parents werenât quite bright enough to get to this stage, but you⦠you were a breakthrough.â Now imagine that you are this sentient creature⦠this smart pig, or monkey, or bird. What do you say in response? âThank you, oh benevolent man, for giving me the gift of consciousness and contemplative thought?â or perhaps âThanks a lot you freaking assholes⦠I would have been happier without this burden.â Imagine we created a whole generation of these self-aware creatures. Say that they are pigs. Imagine we have this new generation of sentient pigs, and theyâve gotten far enough along to have their own language⦠and we let them loose on a lush island somewhere. What happens next? Do they further develop their own civilization and culture? Do they invent religions? Do they worship the lab-coated men who created them as Gods⦠or curse them as Demons? Would the science lab where they were born be recast as some kind of Eden? Would the real story eventually be forgotten, an elaborate myth to take its place? Why wouldn't all that stuff happen? What would prevent it? Again, imagine you are one of these pigs. You are one of the original generation. You know the island well, but you also remember where you came from: a lab in South Korea. (Or maybe New Jersey.) What do you do? How do you handle it? Where do you find meaning? Maybe you take refuge in myth, and teach that myth to your offspring. But if you cannot bear to jettison the truth, then your only recourse is to find meaning within yourself⦠in the same place where all sentient beings can find it. In the same place where their consciousness resides. Meaning as emergent property dovetails with consciousness as emergent property, regardless of eitherâs origin. This scenario is wacky as shit, but itâs not so far out of the picture. On a philosophical level, the inquiry sheds light on manâs own sublimely ridiculous experience. On a biological level, look at how quickly our knowledge is advancing. After all, if man can recreate everday miracles in the lab⦠if he can figure out the right biological pathways to turn inert carbon into teeming life⦠if he can figure out DNA and epigenetics to the proper extent⦠then evolutionary development of lower life forms into contemplative life forms becomes merely a chain of steps. We can take this observation, turn it on its head, and recognize that manâs advance to thinking, contemplative creature was merely a chain of steps also. The difference between man and beast is one of degree, rather than kind. Who started the chain of dominoes? Who took the key first steps? Again, it doesnât so much matter. What matters is reason and meaning as emergent property. That is a universal construct.
You shouldn't call stuff crap just because you can't understand a straightforawrd explanation. Getting all nasty because your reasoning picks itself apart, is not my fault. Why not try a little humility it may do you good. I did not say anything about Einstein's meaning, merely the context it was said in. A philosophical statement not a scientific one. Comprehension is obviously still being blindsided by your religious hellfire-wall. Time is determined from the point of the observer. Einstein's science proves time all the time. Are you near a black hole jem? Obviously your reasoning is, so it will observe the measurement of time quite differently to what the rest of you does on earth. (that is if you are on planet earth, which is hard to tell by the confusions you present). From the point of view of your reasoning, on its inane journey at the speed of light through the ludicrousness which is your argument , there may well be degrees of no past present or future. None at a singularity. The only way Einstein's statement is made unclear is by religious contortions the like of which you indulge in . Neither determinations of time would be illusions within their own circumstances. Either one may on casual consideration be an illusion to the other, when the circumstances of each are not understood. In the way you obviously do not. As far as debating -no past present future for God leaves predestination and free will rendered meaningless- because of your argument time is an illusion ... ....is what's meaningless - you muppet. Time an illusion?... then so is distance . All is illusion?.. confirms God is illusion.
The trouble with Ted: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4588998?source=email http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/43849/ This man presided over a body of 14,000 believers. Not one of them had the spiritual insight to see that ol' Ted had a problem? p.s. is YOUR pastor a drug addled sex fiend? Inquiring minds want to know...
Just like no one realized Bill Clinton had a problem with Little Girls. BTW, Ted didn't preside over anyone. He was head of a loose association of ministries which holds no one accountable. Not that it makes it any better, but hypocrisy doesn't recognize political boundaries. It is an equal opportunity offender.
You've got to be kidding me. First, politics has nothing to do with this... second, Bill Clinton's apologists (of which I am not one) never claimed to have spiritual insights not of this world -- as believers DO claim. That's the rub. Political hypocrisy? I never voted for Clinton, nor defended him publicly. Thats' really a pathetic stretch man.
You just complained about the 99% of the Christians not having sufficient faith to get healed, and then complained about the 14,000 strong group that could not discern truth from error or the difference between inner moral character and outward appearances. Perhaps you have answered your own question? You know and I know that Christians and the electorate are both gullible. Some believe the news media bias, and some believe in people simply because they say they are Christians. MAN is right about the close-mindedness in fundamentalism and the tendency to see every question or inconsistency as a threat to the foundations of faith. I don't think God is afraid of honest questions; and faith which cannot endure questions and challenges is not faith at all but fear masquerading as faith. One of my favorite characters in Scripture is Jeremiah, who accuses God of being an 'deceitful wadi' {that is a brook that should have water in a time of rain}. He wasn't afraid to let it all out. And many are the complaints of the Psalms about the unfairness of life and people not understanding God's dealings and his blind eye towards injustice. They are the Soul Music of the 800's BC. And Ecclesiastes is the first existentialist philosopher. If the scriptures record such questions of faith, questions of God's justice, and questions about God's reliability, and even approves of those who ask the questions, why would anyone think God is afraid of doubts, or condemns those who ask the tough questions? So, am I surprised at the exposure of sin in leaders? No. I have seen enough charlatans who think "godliness is a means of gain," who fleece the sheep with stories, emotionalism, and flights of fancy. The question is, why did you take delight in it and bring it up? The whole thing is a shame, just as is the fall of any leader. Human beings are prone to pretense and religious leaders put Jesus to death because he rocked the economic and political system of his day; and they did it all under the cloak of religion. The scriptures are full of examples of the rich and the powerful persecuting the social prophets and putting them to death, while the wealthy people keep up outward devotion to religion and keep on stuffing their faces with the bread of the poor. So, my answer to you about Bonnke is that I don't know anything about the man or his ministry except hearing of him. I have an inbred reserve and my suspicion level goes up when someone uses claims of miracles to make money. I am sure that if Jesus were walking around today doing what he did then, he would not be paying for air time and begging for donations; but I am also sure the news media would be following on his every move, recording it with film and print; trying to find either fault or flaw or proof of his power. I also think, the media would probably end up on his side, because he tended to challenge the political, religious, and economic power centers of the day. I will get to your other issues in another post. I've been thinking about what you said, and how to respond.