But it is pretty factual that people do not walk on water and float up into the sky. It is also factual that there are tons of ancient myths involving supernatural powers etc. from a multitude of cultures. So I really don't see it. It is pretty obvious to me what it OT and NT really is.
i agree with this. science and faith are two separate things. they do not necessarily contradict each other unless the people involved make it a point to try to do that. newton didn't have a problem with balancing his faith and science. i think we all need to try to respect the two.
I found this an interesting (albeit long) read: http://www.meta-religion.com/Physics/Consciousness/science_and_religion.htm
I am not saying it is true at all of course, but what we know we can not do today is not what we can not do say 2000 years from now. Maybe Christ is just an Alien with really advance mental or technological power that we do not yet understand.
I am sick of people saying this. Just because you do not believe in a separate creating entity being, it does not mean you think everything exists because of random chance. It only appears that way. There are reasons for everything. His last paragraph is contradicting the first. Give me a break. The close minded view is the one that has complete attachment to the idea of an separate, independent "I". Of course there is something more, you are looking at it everywhere, and it is you.
Says the man who advocates eugenics and vigilanteism? Contradictions aside, your post is very well articulated. There is no black-and-white division between those who believe in god and those who believe only in evolution-inspired propogation of chance. The view of god, and how humanity interacts with the "divine" in the world is infinitely variable. Simplifying it to merely belief in god or belief in probability is pure strawman. Interesting thread by the way - good reading.
The wide variability of the context within the "more" is somewhat important. Moreover, the real shame here is that the incredible beauty of the "more" enigma is probably the most ignored facet of christ's teachings. Apologies Max, that I have not yet read velvet elvis as I intended. School, work, and a newborn child have me wishing I had the time to get back to my (ever-expanding) book list. But ths passage you quoted certainly has me interested (again)...
Well, there are lots of things once considered impossible that science latter found explanations for. Walking on hot coals is something that conventional used to say was clearly impossible, for example, but people did it and in the fairly recent past science has come up with an explanation for how they can do it. Some Eastern religions believe in things such as levitation, and various other physical acts that they perhaps accomplish though some kind of deep meditation but that have typically been considered impossible. So scientifically you can never really say never. There are many more wonders left to be discovered in this world. Secondly, the Bible is meant to be interpreted, so it’s difficult to talk about a literal interpretation of the Bible. With respect to my personal belief on the issue of whether Jesus walked on water, I do believe that Jesus likely literally walked on water, but I came to that conclusion through a long and circuitous route, one that took me on an exploration of spirituality. After that path of discovery I came to the conclusion that there were many more things possible than I had previously been aware of, or had been prepared to accept, which is not saying that you should accept that this is true on my say so. I’m just explaining to you my path. Before I’d done that if you’d asked me if Jesus could have walked on water I would have said that there was no chance that that could have happened. So I think it’s fine to question things, but when you say things are impossible I think that crosses a line out of good science. I think you should qualify your position more than that, imo.
Just a nitpick but this is a bad analogy. Walking on coals is not impossible, just incredibly painful (but science has explained all the mitigating factors that make it achievable). Standing on water is (physics-wise) impossible.
I don’t think that that’s exactly what he means. That specific line is probably too general for our purposes here. When talking to a Buddhist I think he would talk about the concept of the other. Please feel free to correct me if I’m not using the terminology quite right but in rough terms Buddhism believe that we are all part of the same whole, the same one energy, and that there is no “other”, no creator, no separate entity. Christianity believe something surprisingly similar, as I see it, but with one big exception. Christianity believes that we are all God’s creation, and that makes us all one in many of the same ways that Buddhism sees us as all one, but from a Christian perspective I believe that that one was created by another, by God, and that he did this for a reason, and that part of that reason is knowable to us.
My point is that there are unknown factors that we are not aware of at this time that can make the seemingly impossible possible. Walking on coals for the extended distances that some people do it was considered impossible by the knowledge of the day. If you put a hot coal up against flesh the flesh burns. That’s a “fact”. So the flesh on someone’s feet should burn off well before the end of such walks, but in these cases this didn't happen. In fact many didn’t suffer any serious burns at all. By the knowledge of the day this was impossible, but the knowledge of the day was incomplete and imperfect. Other factors were at play. I agree with you that given what we know standing on water is impossible, but the knowledge of our day is incomplete and imperfect as well. Could there be some other force at work in this case that we haven’t factored in? That is always a possibility, so scientifically you can never really say never.
I don't think he's saying those are the only 2 possible school of thoughts...having read Rob Bell quite a bit, I'm positive he's not saying that. He's saying those are the 2 extremes of the discussion.
Boy has this discussion gotten off track, we need to refocus on the mystical powers of Mormon underwear.
Both are still based on the idea that there is a independent you. Either the you goes on to something "more" or the you ceases to exist. The idea of something "more" is still very closed minded. It is closed to the understanding that what we are we are a part of here is quite incredible. I don't need something more. I find the universe to already be more than I could have imagined. I like being what I am and I find the thought of being a part of future forms of existence to be very exciting.
but you have your mind made up that's the way it is. so how are you more open-minded than anyone else who has their mind made up that's it's something else?
Only among the two notions of: 1. there's nothing but what i see; 2. there's something more. he didn't use the other possible explanations. but let me suggest that from what you say, you fit pretty squarely in the "something more" category. if the alternatives are something or nothing, i think you more like camp out in the "something" camp.
I guess. But both are looking at things the wrong way. And how could you want or need more than what is? The universe is pretty big and pretty darn cool. Just realizing it helps. Alienating ourselves from the rest of the cosmos causes quite a bit of suffering.
