Lest we forget

[TomOfSweden]

Smiles - still not convinced it is not a side track, since to me it is actually a subsequent debate.

I do think it's part of the same issue. As far as I'm concearned, what we are discussing is whether believing in the supernatural is smart or stupid. As I see it there's two distinct parts of the issue.

1) Is there such a thing as the supernatural?
2) If there is, how does it work?

More issues can be introduced like, if there is one or more conciousnesness governing the supernatural is it intelligent? And if it is, how intelligent? With that I mean, knowing everything doesn't help if you can't draw the correct conclusions.

Once one has decided that there is a supernatural element, unless one just wishes to sit feeling smug and do nothing about it, it is logical to try to understand it better. And I fully agree, the mere existence of the supernatural does not evidence one creative force, let alone a God as is understood by Christians, and most certainly does not support that faith nor any other.

Yes, but how can you? Does god control everything, or just a little? What laws govern the supernatural? It's only possible to reason about the nature of the supernatural if you beforehand define the premises, (just as all christian scholars have to do). But if you can't, (which is the reality in which we live) then you can never ever make any claim on the nature of god what so ever. It just gets silly. Any conclusion will be an argument from ignorance. Mathematically there is one chance among the infinite that the the christian theory of the universe is correct. If you in spite of this make any claim what so ever about the nature of the universe, then you are ignoring the premises. You would then be pretending to have a plausible explanation when you have no such thing. There are a number of interesting theories backed by pretty numbers on the nature of the universe. Christianity hasn't even got that.

I use the term faith as opposed to religion, because to me they are two different things. Faith is focused on the supernatural and my relationship with it, religion is about manmade interface between myself and the supernatural.

I'm only interested in discussing faith in the supernatural. I've got no problems with religion. I think, I and the rest of humanity need plenty of guidance in life. I have no problems with religions giving guidance. But for me personaly, if the whole religion hinges on a premis that is impossible to back up then I would stay far away from it.

In an attempt to understand it is foolish not to look at what established faiths offer as understandings.

Considering the history of mankind I beg to differ. The more people believe something and the longer they have believed it the greater chance people accept it as truth no matter what, (I've seen and read plenty of research on this and I'm sure I can dig it up again if nobody here belives me). This means that we should be even more critical toward any philosophical system that is old, like christianity for example

I have looked at some, but most certainly not all, and have listened sympathetically to adherents of those faiths. In each case I considered the logic and completeness of the faith, and tested it against my experience. I do not believe that this is the place to post why I believe other faiths which I have looked at to be wrong. That statement in itself will have upset some people, and I hasten to stress that it is just a statement of my own personal belief.

I do however think it is acceptable to say that I think Christianity is right, (and TDS, if as mod of this forum, you wish to edit this post, please do not hesitate to do so). My personal journey to faith included initially rejecting all established churches since the religion and tradition masked what I have come to accept as the truth.

Again, you can't use logic and reason about the nature of god, because you don't have any material to work with. If there is a god you or anybody else will never know what god wants. That is cold hard fact. Considering the vastness of the infinite, chances are pretty good that all religions are wrong. That's cold, hard statistical facts.

Tom, I know you reject the bible, and apart from giving some either inaccurate or misleading statements regarding its date, depending on how you interpret what you say, you give no evidence for it being wrong. Having stepped away from established churches I looked at the explanation of the supernatural as explained in that series of texts. I looked at it in the same way that I looked at other faiths, with a completely open mind. The difference is that it made logical sense to me, and matched with my experience.

Eventually, and that is after a degree of challenging of myself and the texts, decided that for me, the Christian faith was the truth and decided to embrace it. I remain analytic in my study of it, but can only say, that for me, the more I discover, the more it makes total sense.

I've admitedly mostly used wikipedia. It's all the data I have access to here. The books I've read on it have all been lent and returned from and to the library. As far as I know I haven't written anything inaccurate. I might have been off by a half a century or so, or been wrong on proportions. And we are talking history here, which means that all facts are at best pretty ify, no matter what camp you're in. But I haven't written anything I can't back up with some sort of source. And compared to most other texts in the world, we actually do know quite a lot about how the bible came to be. We do after all have the meticulate records of the Vatican to access. There's no shortage of research that's been done in the field.

I have not seen the film to which you referred, so cannot make an observation on whether it is propaganda or not. To me, propaganda is something which encourages someone into a blind acceptance of something as fact. That I believe to be wrong. I do not accept that it is wrong to use literature, whether on paper or on the screen, as a means of encouraging thought. As a teenage I was inspired by the Isaac Asimov books, they triggered my imagination and encouraged my interest in some sciences, but I would not say that was propaganda, just positive use of a media. Without having seen the film you mentioned I would not like to say whether I believed it was doing more than offering Christianity as a possible explanation.

Propaganda is just about spreading information very agressively. Like a political campaign for instance. I have no problems with propaganda as such. Christianity makes quite a number of unsubstantiated claims, and I think it's bad hammering in guesswork as truth.