Comments | stephen27: ramblings

stephen27

ramblings

Oct 02, 2007 01:08

There is a poem that I came across in a book I was reading a few months ago that has stuck with me so I thought I would write it down:

Between the probably and proved there yawns
A gap. Afraid to jump, we stand absurd,
Then see behind us sink the ground and, worse,
Our very standpoint crumbling. Desperate dawns
Our only hope: to leap ( Read more... )

Comments 12

jeska789 October 2 2007, 22:31:37 UTC

I laughed when you mentioned my name at the end, because this whole post reminds me of an intense debate we had not long ago. Unfortunately, as I have told you, I really don't believe in any of that stuff anymore. I want to. Badly...but I can't ( ... )

itzmattu October 3 2007, 00:07:07 UTC

"Now I understand accountability, and the importance of choices. God will not take care of you. You will take care of you. I told you that I know that there is a higher power, simply because of the sheer miracle of life and the incredible way that everything works so systematically, perfectly and totally complex…but your battle on earth is yours alone--until that one day you get to go and be with Him forever."

Doesn't a Christian hold their accountability and choices higher than that of an Atheist? An Atheist can say, "Who is to judge the choices I make, I am who I am and will do what I wish without consequence." However, a Christian sees their choices and acts as direct representation of their relationship with God, and knows that one day they will have to answer to the very person that created them. Just a thought.

And not to be disrespectful, but how can you say you view your battle on earth as a solitary one, yet hope to be joined with God when you die?

One final point... Roman Catholics believe a variation, actually a ( ... )

itzmattu October 3 2007, 02:01:06 UTC

Interesting website for Catholics interested in Christianity: http://www.dokimos.org/catholic/

itzmattu October 3 2007, 01:55:00 UTC

Edited for complete grammar failure!I've studied the Bible a lot over the summer, and as you know I am a lover of the sciences myself. However, I would hold firm to my belief in God before believing any scientific "facts" trying to disprove it. Of course I have my reasons for this and to sum them up, it is due to the fact that Mankind as a whole is too proud in their accomplishments, so much so that we cannot accept our guarantee to be wrong in so many things we "know". Some whatever hundred years ago, did we not think the world to be flat? Yet through much debate and disbelief, we were forced to believe otherwise. Did we not once think the universe revolved around us? Galileo and many other geniuses of their time helped to change our minds, through much turmoil and resistance ( ... )

stephen27 October 3 2007, 22:48:25 UTC

Hey yeah I think you would like that book too Matt. One of the main points in it is actually that we shouldn't have to believe Christianity over science or vice-versa, because as it argues, they are not actually at odds. Just a note, I think when Jess mentioned accountability, that she meant it as far as being responsible for what you do with your life, not as in being held accountable or not to somebody else. True, an atheists wouldn't necessarily need to hold themselves accountable to a higher power, but just from talking with Jess another time, I don't think thats what she meant.

On another note, I really need to get going building that website (tho I have got the basic design down) and I'll have to show you some of what I've been planning. Not looking forward to monthly bills tho!!

jeska789 October 3 2007, 23:04:33 UTC

If I may clarify...

When I mentioned the word accountability, I did mean for responsibility of ones actions, but I didn't stress any importance on another power for these choices or mean that an athiest's choices were less than that of a christian. I believe that accountability is based on the bio-psychological concept of conscience, which in actuality has little or nothing to do with religion (although a christian's morals can be greatly influenced by religion just as an athiest's and christian's morals can be based on family values, social norms, and personal feelings). An athiest can even make choices of a higher morality than a christian if his conscience and morals are to a higher standard. It would be absurd to assume that athiests don't feel or don't have morals and make erratic choices because they feel they have no one to ultimately answer to, because we're all guided by something whether it be religion or otherwise.

Hopefully this makes more sense. This is insane lol.

itzmattu October 4 2007, 04:27:27 UTC

No you may not clarify, post ignored ( ... )

LJ made me seperate into multiple parts stephen27 October 3 2007, 05:06:43 UTC

Hey Jess, you know I’m not insulted by your position. You have a lot of valid and well thought-out concerns with Christianity. I noticed right off the bat that you find a lot of problems with the Roman Catholic Church and the amount of power it holds in the world. You’re absolutely right, power corrupts, and sadly the Catholic Church has used its power for control in parts of its history. I want to draw a little attention to the history of that and of the formation of the Bible however ( ... )

Part 2 stephen27 October 3 2007, 05:09:09 UTC

I know you’ve talked about everything you have learned from your science classes and how that has caused you to realize that the Bible couldn’t be true. But I am missing your connection there. How has learning about the natural world and the way it works disqualified the spiritual aspect of reality and the supernatural ( ... )

Part 3 stephen27 October 3 2007, 05:09:45 UTC

There are other ways of looking into that matter, and I’m not going to get into them all now, but one powerful pointer to me is the existence of a universal sense of morality that all humans share. There is always a ‘standard’ that we inherently utilize in arguing, living and judging. This standard does not always tell us to act in our best interest however, and we fall short of it on a regular basis. Evolution doesn’t explain this sort of thing, to make sacrifices without any return. It defies the drive of individual genes to perpetuate themselves. I believe that this is the first clue in the natural world towards a greater understanding of life beyond the material ( ... )

Re: Part 3 jeska789 October 3 2007, 16:41:54 UTC

Wow, that was the longest endorsement I've ever read on LJ :-p. In all seriousness though, you bring up a lot of points that challenge what I have said, and they make sense. Them making sense still does not make me believe in this stuff, but more like brings it into a different perspective (I love love love new perspectives ( ... )

Re: Part 3 stephen27 October 3 2007, 17:10:58 UTC

I'm just gonna say one last quick thing in regards to your point about the Old Testament stories changing over time. We actually have very early manuscripts of all of these documents and historical authenticity and dating are very rigorous fields today. I don't have time to get into it, but just take my word, that there is really no debate about whether what we have in our Bible is what was originally written. The translations we have are taken from multitudes of copies of the original document, which remarkably have practically no flaws or differences from each other (transcribing was an intense job back then). This is the process all historical accounts go through, not just the bible.