Happy Easter

Reed Lover:

First, I have no qualms whatsoever "in my heart of hearts."  Even if there are things I do not understand, or seeming contradictions that I cannot explain (with my all-too-human intellect), it must be remembered that "faith is the belief in things not seen, the substance of things hoped for."  That is why it is called "faith."

Re "fables" etc., your "selectiveness" is meant to bait, but ultimately the question of the Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark stories is, again, a matter of faith: perhaps less in the "details" (which is, after all, "where the devil is" ), but rather in the spiritual meaning.

As for not engaging in that discussion due to some notion of "disputation," again you attempt to bait.  There is nothing wrong with me (or any Christian) engaging in a discussion, even an ongoing one, about any Scriptural or faith-based matter.  It only becomes "disputative" when either I fail to remain "peaceful" in my approach, or the other person fails to remain at very least civil in theirs.

Peace.

Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: What...there is no Easter Bunny!! http://familyinternet.about.com/library/media/audio/highscre am.wav

...you made me shut off Arena so I could hear that scream!!

Glads to see all the great wits are on show today  damn, have to sort out my schpelling

maani wrote: Reed Lover: "Thought control?"  Au contraire!    If anything, allowing for "faith" is far more open-minded than assuming that our human intelligence and intellectual capabilities are adequate for knowing or understanding even 1/1000th of what is knowable in the physical universe that we can touch and see - much less areas like metaphysics and, yes, "spirit," which are more intangible and ephemeral.   Indeed, it almost seems that your (and others') dismissal of "things spiritual" - and particularly where "God" and "faith" are concerned - borders on "fear," and is a desperate attempt to maintain an "intellectual," "analytical," "rational" and "empiric" view of everything. If anyone is dabbling in "mind control," it is those like you who would "close off" subjects like God and faith out of an irrational fear that perhaps, just perhaps, you might be wrong about the whole thing. Peace.

Absolutely not!I have no fear of this subject physically or mentally.How can I be afraid of something that doesnt exist?If one cannot interact with something,cant see,taste or detect its presence in any way,causally or effectually then it is reasonable to suggest it is the product of imagination.

Why is it that whenever anyone questions something they are accused of being "frightened"?

This is just another form of control.

It is a phenomenom I have noticed with the gay community.Understand that this is not an attack on the gay community,but whenever someone speaks out against homosexuality they are often accused of harbouring latent homosexual tendencies that they are frightened of.This is merely a tool to prevent debate and criticism.

Read this and consider it:

You might be deluding yourself because you cannot accept Man's mortality.
The fear of death is unique to human beings.
The promise of eternal life is only open to human beings.
Go figure.............................

I am not frightened-you are!

Of course this is now an impasse because the argument would dissolve into pantomime.

"Oh no I'm not-you are"  "No you are" etc ad nauseum.

Just because your belief in God is deemed more noble than my disbelief,does not make it so.
I appear arrogant and dismissive to you, you appear smug and gullible  to me.So who is right and who has the right to decide?

maani wrote: Reed Lover: I was specifically addressing your accusation of "thought control."  To "control" is to limit.  So what is more limiting: believing that the rational, empirical universe is "all there is?"  Or at least considering the possibility that there is "more" than what we can see, feel, detect, etc.?  In his regard, there is no question - by any argument, semantic or otherwise - that the rational, empirical worldview is more "limiting" - and thus "controlling" - than one that has room for faith. As Hamlet says to his best friend, "There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."  Horatio's philosophy, of course, was the rational, empirical one. Even eminent scientists like Darwin, Einstein, Hawking, Gould and others are (or were) not prepared to completely dismiss the "spiritual."  Are you smarter, more knowledgeable than they are?  If they were open-minded enough to at least consider the possibility of God, faith and a spiritual dimension to life and the universe, why do you feel such an urgent need to protect and defend an ultra-rational worldview? This is what I mean by "fear."  Darwin, Einstein et al did not "fear" to consider the possibility of a "spirit world," despite their decades of extensive, intense scientific education, training, and work.  Yet you find it necessary to defend a position that even they would disagree with.  If you do not call this "fear" in the broader sense, then how would you describe it? Peace.

I do not fear to consider the "possibility of a spirit world"! Just as surely at some point in your life you considered a possibility that God did not exist,then became convinced convinced that he did,the reverse is true of me.

There is no merit in comparing my beliefs (or lack of them) to anyone else.Yes, obviously these people were/are far brighter than I am,but that does not preclude the possibility that there are non-intellectual reasons for their belief in God.I have stated frequently that I think there is a link between Man's belief in God and his fear of dying.There is no reason to doubt that the people you mention could succumb to this emotional response to mortality.Also your quoted Scripture passages suggest that one is to set aside one's intellectual notions and give in to spiritual thoughts.Furthermore, these people devoted their lives to their chosen sphere of excellence so probably have had little time or care to study theology or debate the issues of their beliefs.

As for my "urgent need to protect and defend an ultra-rational worldview" that's a bit of a cheap shot as you seem to have an "urgent need" to defend the opposite!