Why did Hitler survive ALL assassination attempts?
Why can't science and religion just get along?
- Thread starter Infinitus
- Start date
Why did Hitler survive ALL assassination attempts?
As far as I am concerned God isn't a liar because God doesn't exist.
You also are dismissing the beliefs that I have. I have said that I am a non-theist Quaker but are unwilling to see that I reached that state by doing a lot of "soul-searching" and research. You seem to be unwillingly to look at other beliefs other than you own whereas I have looked at and researched many religions. Why isn't my Quakerism acceptable to you?
One doesn't have to carry out every scientific experiment themselves to believe that something did or did not occur. I believe the findings of qualified geologists whereas the "scientists' that say that there is proof of the Flood tend not to be qualified geologists.
I can accept that the story of Noah might be based on a large, regional flood but that flood wasn't worldwide. I believe that there are some truth behind most myths and legends.
You also are dismissing the beliefs that I have. I have said that I am a non-theist Quaker but are unwilling to see that I reached that state by doing a lot of "soul-searching" and research. You seem to be unwillingly to look at other beliefs other than you own whereas I have looked at and researched many religions. Why isn't my Quakerism acceptable to you?
One doesn't have to carry out every scientific experiment themselves to believe that something did or did not occur. I believe the findings of qualified geologists whereas the "scientists' that say that there is proof of the Flood tend not to be qualified geologists.
I can accept that the story of Noah might be based on a large, regional flood but that flood wasn't worldwide. I believe that there are some truth behind most myths and legends.
So you have never ran into the super natural I take it. Well, others have. The evidence is there as plain as day for you to find. Just Google it. It is practically endless. In fact, there are many phenomenon that not just one person has shared but groups of people have given witness to. So they really can't be personal mental disorders then. I mean, can you honestly say that demon possessions are a disorder?
I mean, if the exorcist was not even close to being real at all. Then why would it scare you in the first place?
Unless of course it didn't have any effect on you whatsoever.
Well, I think Luther Sloan has answered the OP in spectacular fashion.
Well, I am not going to continue to debate the facts with you guys when you clearly have already made up your mind. There is no way for me to convince anyone here unless that person takes that first step of faith (and asks God into their heart).
So Peace be unto you all.
And may God bless you, my friends.
So Peace be unto you all.
And may God bless you, my friends.
I am saying that what those people ran into, if they ran into anything real at all, was of this world i.e it was natural not supernatural. If demons do exist they are a natural phenomena, if "God" does exist he is of this world (and therefore not a God in the Christian sense of the word), if the "Devil" exist he is also natural.
Movies that scare me (or at least upset me) are movies like "Hotel Rwanda" or "The Killing Fields".
It didn't scare me. Not one iota.
Movies that scare me (or at least upset me) are movies like "Hotel Rwanda" or "The Killing Fields".
Individuals suffering from a particular mental illness often suffer from many of the same symptoms. That's why mental illnesses are able to be diagnosed and categorized at all. If we're talking about a group together at once, well then consensus is a very powerful thing, as is conformity.
Well, when and if anyone here is ready: please give the Bible (God's Word) a chance is all I am saying. You may be surprised how heart filled and powerful it will make you feel. Despite what others might have said against it or what your personal views on life you might believe right now.
Many of us have given the bible a chance. The difference is that the majority of people interpret it differently than you. They don't believe that all parts of it should be taken literally but accept that some parts of the Bible should be interpreted symbollically or allegorically.
Well, all I can say to that is seek out the truth of things on your own in more detail. Ask God to help you even.
In fact, I wouldn't be here talking on the other side of the fence if I didn't 100% believe that what I am saying is true. I can't prove that to you, though because that is not how it works.
If you do decide to go on this journey for truth.
I wish you nothing but the very best.
In fact, I wouldn't be here talking on the other side of the fence if I didn't 100% believe that what I am saying is true. I can't prove that to you, though because that is not how it works.
If you do decide to go on this journey for truth.
I wish you nothing but the very best.
What would be the point of asking a being I don't believe to exist to help me?
If your God exists than why would he demand that people believe in him by faith alone. I will believe in God when he proves himself to me not the other way round. If he exists he has the power to prove himself to everyone easily. It would be far easier for him to prove his existence to me than for me to find him among the myriad of beliefs and religions of Humankind.
If a God does exist I think he would be more universal than just the Christian God. If I end up finding God it is far more likely to be the Pantheistic God.
If your God exists than why would he demand that people believe in him by faith alone. I will believe in God when he proves himself to me not the other way round. If he exists he has the power to prove himself to everyone easily. It would be far easier for him to prove his existence to me than for me to find him among the myriad of beliefs and religions of Humankind.
If a God does exist I think he would be more universal than just the Christian God. If I end up finding God it is far more likely to be the Pantheistic God.
What we have seen here is that for some believers, faith trumps science. Even when there is no question at all (evolution, age of Earth, the certainty that there was no world-wide flood) some people will not alter their beliefs. They will deny facts are facts. For these people, science will always be at odds with their beliefs.
Unfortunately, fundamentalists are usually the faces of a religion. In the USA, they are the ones who wage war on science education, attempt to legislate in the bedroom, bomb abortion clinics and constantly attack church-state separation. These are the ones we have to constantly battle against so the stereotype becomes that all religious people are like that.
Unfortunately, fundamentalists are usually the faces of a religion. In the USA, they are the ones who wage war on science education, attempt to legislate in the bedroom, bomb abortion clinics and constantly attack church-state separation. These are the ones we have to constantly battle against so the stereotype becomes that all religious people are like that.
Something I've definitely considered, myself, and I'll address below. I think the "bad" designs had a purpose in their time, and a purpose in our time. I also believe that they are observable to us so that we can understand the process by which we were shaped--like freeze-frames from our own past.
Actually, God is quite open about that in the Bible. First, He does not need to eat--the meat of the sacrifices, when not burnt, was eaten by humans, not by God, and no pretense was ever made of this fact.
But sacrifices were intended, much like spiritual disciplines that modern religious adherents undertake, to invoke a certain state of mind, a certain remembrance, and the act was utterly meaningless without that. (Not only have Christians stated that, but Maimonides makes the same point in his writings.) One of the most famous statements occurs in Psalm 51: "For Thou dost not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; Thou art not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise."
That appears many times, not just in things like Proverbs which speak of His opinion (ex.: "Doing charity and justice is more desirable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Proverbs 21:3) ), but also
Micah makes a blunt statement here about how the institution of sacrifice ended up being turned into just that, by human hands, instead of a meaningful act.
I have to say, I personally find that blunt honesty quite refreshing...here the prophet in question out-and-out says that humanity unnecessarily complicated an institution.
This last page contains first-person statements by God reaffirming this--that the sacrifice itself was never supposed to be the end, as people made it, but the state of mind and spirit that it was supposed to evoke.
http://bible.cc/hosea/6-6.html
Just my personal take, I don't think there was a "first" or "second" idea...I think it was all part of the plan, all along. We learn something from what has gone before us, and I think there is beauty to be found in them even though they lived in a different time than ours. Even the "mistakes" in evolution teach us something about the world we live in--what works and what doesn't, how different traits fit into this world. I truly believe that the wonders of the world are there for us to discover and to learn about.
Well, if TV or God forbid, YouTube, is your metaphor, I can see where you might get that idea.
Human production standards aren't exactly high and they're not getting any better.Nature, however, offers something far better. Just take a look at pics from the Hubble Telescope, or pics of whatever your favorite natural site in the world are, and imagine having an infinity of such wonder. And that's just what we see. I can't even begin to imagine what wondrous patterns would reveal themselves on levels even beyond the subatomic or on macro-levels we cannot take pictures of. And that's just through the visual representations we have to make for ourselves for eyes that respond to only a narrow set of wavelengths, and tiny little snippets. There is an infinite plethora of views available, each with something that is truly, genuinely beautiful. And that's just one sense we've addressed and one KIND of beauty.
To sum up, this universe is way, WAY more worth experiencing than Big Brother!
I think that was the point, actually--that it wasn't sustainable.
I am curious--where does personal responsibility come into the equation for you? Also, what keeps your notions of right and wrong from changing according to circumstances and popular opinion? This isn't snark--it's an actual question.
I definitely think something happened. I think we do ourselves a disservice if we discredit oral histories and the like. For instance, I'm curious to know if you've ever read about the Cascadia earthquake of 1700, which occurred at a subduction zone off the northwest coast of the US. This event was attested to by oral tradition, from the people who were living in the area at the time. It was then tied to a written Japanese record of a tsunami that could not be associated with any known earthquakes in the area. Catastrophes tend to be very well-remembered, and it's my belief that something definitely happened. If it was something large enough to have affected the entire known area, to whoever held this memory, then that person's entire world (and people didn't usually have the kind of geographic reach) is indeed flooded, and they would not have any reason to believe that they are lying.
(As another interesting incident of memories being passed down from prehistoric times that are possibly turning out more accurate than previously thought, it seems that certain Sumatran legends may well be memories of the Flores Man. I figure that one is bigger news in your area than the Cascadia quake.
)Has it ever occurred to you that some people of faith are "fighting the battle," as you put it? I've been on the receiving end of a lot of the same kind of accusations and mistreatment. Having been there I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of what author Phillip Yancey refers to as ungrace. I do not want fundamentalists to be the face of my faith anymore--having had the experience of affirming my belief in spite of certain believers' conduct instead of because of it, I know what it looks like from the "outside." I am not one for TV, maybe, but that's why it is so important to me to engage in conversations of this nature and why I refuse to simply keep to myself.
I'm tired of having my faith co-opted and that's why I will not sit down and shut up even though I know full well it's going to cause me to have both sides criticizing me. Far too many people, I believe, don't speak up because they know they're going to get that multifaceted condemnation. (It is SO easy for me to make one statement and get flamed by the right and the left for the exact same thing.) Far too many do not realize that there are others like them, and that they represent a much bigger portion of the demographic than they think they do.
In my own case, my writing is ultimately a part of this calling--to ease the pain that has been caused by fundamentalism and to embolden others who are not fundamentalists to speak up. The fact that one has to account for the fact that people like me vastly underreport ourselves (to borrow terminology used by pollsters when they poll on sensitive subjects) is not something that sits well with me...the truth should be more visible and we SHOULD be speaking up more than we do. That is something I accept responsibility for and try to do my best to act on, in hope that others will too.
If a person knows the difference between right and wrong than he is accountable for his action though he might be able to claim diminished responsibility in certain conditions prevail. He also should accept efforts to rehabilitate him even if that includes confinement.
If a person doesn't know the difference between right and wrong than society, as a whole must take responsibility for him. This might mean confining him to protect society, or it might include medical treatment.
I don't think that right and wrong do change that much. Hurting someone is wrong unless it is done with that person's consent, or if that person cannot give consent then the consent of someone working in the person's best interest. The one exception to this would be actions done in self-defense or in the defense of others. In such a case it isn't wrong to hurt an attacker.
'Sins' like homosexuality hurt nobody therefore cannot be wrong. Killing someone does hurt the victim, robbing someone hurts the victim, speeding or driving drunk could potentially hurt someone etc.
Where does one get that sense of right and wrong, though? As I think anyone would acknowledge, entire societies can go wrong just as a person can, and when they do, they are no longer valid benchmarks for right and wrong. So the benchmark must be something else. But how is it that we are able to say that they have gone wrong?
Who has to be hurt for someone to be wrong? Hurting another, in my opinion, should be obvious. But what about hurting oneself? Even if there are reasons why, if you follow a libertarian argument, that the government should not get involved in legislating things where people hurt only themselves and the effect doesn't spread, wouldn't self-harm also be a wrong?
Having observed some of the threads we've both been in over time, it seems to me that you and I tend to get riled over the same things. I'm trying to get a sense for where that comes from, in diverse viewpoints.
Who has to be hurt for someone to be wrong? Hurting another, in my opinion, should be obvious. But what about hurting oneself? Even if there are reasons why, if you follow a libertarian argument, that the government should not get involved in legislating things where people hurt only themselves and the effect doesn't spread, wouldn't self-harm also be a wrong?
Having observed some of the threads we've both been in over time, it seems to me that you and I tend to get riled over the same things. I'm trying to get a sense for where that comes from, in diverse viewpoints.
I do believe that man has an innate morality (as I do believe that some other higher animals do). Morality is something that has evolved and it protects the species.
Deep down the majority of people know what is right and what is wrong. They can lie to others and lie themselves about what is wrong but deep down they do know. I exclude from these people who are damaged in some way or who were born without the ability to feel empathy (such as sociopaths).
Quakers have a concept which they call the "Inner Light". Christian Quakers call this the "Christ Within", non-theist Quakers see it as "The Good Innate in Man". Quakers believe that the Inner Light is within us all but some refuse to acknowledge it, while others (such as psychopaths) are unable to have contact with it. One just has to look to the "Inner Light" to know if something is right or wrong.
As for hurting oneself - if someone is mentally stable and an adult than he should be able to do what he wants to his own body. If he wants to pierce it or refuse medical treatment he has the right to. If however he suffers from a mental illness than society must stop him from self-harm.
Deep down the majority of people know what is right and what is wrong. They can lie to others and lie themselves about what is wrong but deep down they do know. I exclude from these people who are damaged in some way or who were born without the ability to feel empathy (such as sociopaths).
Quakers have a concept which they call the "Inner Light". Christian Quakers call this the "Christ Within", non-theist Quakers see it as "The Good Innate in Man". Quakers believe that the Inner Light is within us all but some refuse to acknowledge it, while others (such as psychopaths) are unable to have contact with it. One just has to look to the "Inner Light" to know if something is right or wrong.
As for hurting oneself - if someone is mentally stable and an adult than he should be able to do what he wants to his own body. If he wants to pierce it or refuse medical treatment he has the right to. If however he suffers from a mental illness than society must stop him from self-harm.
Miss Chicken:
But yet your wishing for a world for the way you want it to be rather than for what it is.
This is why your ideal world of how you want God to be does not exist:
1. In the beginning Man did have open communication with God with no sin.
2. However, one day Man broke the one and only important rule of not eating of the tree that contained the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This disobedience past down sin upon every man and women for future generations (when Adam and Eve ate of the tree that had the knowledge of good and evil). So sin was now in the world and there was a separation from God and Man because of it.
3. Sacrifices (blood) had been offered (as a temporary measure) as a way atoning for this sin (in the Old Testament).
4. Then in the New Testament: God (The Son) came down in the flesh of a man (i.e. Jesus) and died on the cross for man's sin. In other words: He shed his blood and atoned for our transgressions (that is a part of our very nature). The Creator died in the body of a Man for us. That is how much God loved us!
5. He did this so that way we could talk with Him and spend eternity with Him (if we chose to believe Him by Faith). Which is the only way it could have worked.
In other words: Man does not see God because of the situation that Man has already put himself into. Man is incapable of seeing or believing in Him because of Man's own sin (by nature).
However, we need not see God to know that He exists, either, though. God is evident and visible to those who truly seek after Him.
To quote Mr. Spock: "If I drop a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see the hammer fall to know that it has actually fallen.” The same can be said for God. He is there. If you take that step of Faith. I mean, is it really that hard to indulge your Creator and take Him at His Word?
Life is all about choices and the return on investment of those actions you take (whether they be good ones or bad ones).
Think about all the benefits of having God in your life. I know that if you talk to a lot of positive and kind hearted Christians, they can tell you how God has had a profound and loving impact on their lives.
Last edited:
Regarding other animals having morality...I think they have reflections of it too, even if not our degree of understanding, and that's one of the many reasons (other than respecting life in general) that I respect their place in the creation so much. Just as those that have gone before us are there for us to learn about the way our world is created (as I mentioned before, I think that the "wrong turns" in evolution teach us about how we were fashioned, and how different traits interact with the nature we were made to live in), I think that living animals also teach us something about how we should treat each other. I think that the response we have to our pets is an interesting one, and the reason the response is so powerful, and almost overwhelming sometimes, is because we recognize that unconditional love is how we should treat each other, but we fail to do so. Yet our pets understand it innately and demonstrate for us what we would be doing if we didn't overcomplicate it so. (I've had the experience of a cat knowing I was suffering chronic pain, a few years ago, and actually figuring out what was hurting and laying where her body heat would soothe the pain. This continued for months before I clued into the fact that there was actually an underlying condition. In her way, I truly believe my cat was trying to help me.)
I think where I have trouble with the idea of the be-all-end-all of morality being in the evolutionary process (why I do not just stop with biology and why I see spiritual meaning as well) is that it seems to me that consciousness and conscience actually don't get along all that well in pure nature. Chimps, for instance, are quite sophisticated beings, but second to humankind run the greatest risk (well, they would if we weren't constantly in their business, so to speak) of self-destruction in a war. The higher you go, the worse a species seems to be at maintaining equilibrium, and boy are WE doing a fine job of THAT. :sarcasm: It at least seems to me that for both to exist and be purified simultaneously, we need outside help. I do think the objective is for us to truly have both. (Which is contrary to what someone said about the objective being to keep us down--ignorant, that is.) I might use different terms than "Inner Light," but I do think that the spirit put within us is that outside help.
(And more--the Greek word "zoe" is also part of it...Life. But that's a whole other discussion!)
I think where I have trouble with the idea of the be-all-end-all of morality being in the evolutionary process (why I do not just stop with biology and why I see spiritual meaning as well) is that it seems to me that consciousness and conscience actually don't get along all that well in pure nature. Chimps, for instance, are quite sophisticated beings, but second to humankind run the greatest risk (well, they would if we weren't constantly in their business, so to speak) of self-destruction in a war. The higher you go, the worse a species seems to be at maintaining equilibrium, and boy are WE doing a fine job of THAT. :sarcasm:
It at least seems to me that for both to exist and be purified simultaneously, we need outside help. I do think the objective is for us to truly have both. (Which is contrary to what someone said about the objective being to keep us down--ignorant, that is.) I might use different terms than "Inner Light," but I do think that the spirit put within us is that outside help.(And more--the Greek word "zoe" is also part of it...Life. But that's a whole other discussion!)
Oh yes, absolutely. It's why I brought it up. Liberal and moderate Christians are always invisible in those struggles. It's always portrayed as the secular community against the Christians where the "Christians" are the fundie nutjobs.
That's partly the fault of the media who are motivated by their desire to sell a juicy story but the reason they can get away with it is because too many moderate (even liberal) Christians don't want to be seen as siding with the evil atheists.
Totally agreed on the media! Extremism on both sides gets ratings, just like on the Internet a flamewar draws a crowd. Someone being reasonable and polite does not get ratings. This is part of why I think that if word is REALLY going to get around, it'll be a combination of Internet and word of mouth, though there are those who have written books. Problem is, those books aren't getting the readership that the loud crowd has gotten, on both sides.
As far as I'm concerned, if I say something that is true or right, I should not have to "worry" about who else happens to see it. It is what it is. (And yes, there's a pun in there.
)
As far as I'm concerned, if I say something that is true or right, I should not have to "worry" about who else happens to see it. It is what it is. (And yes, there's a pun in there.
)Similar threads
