Ed and God

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Ok... Ok...Chill.
I am not saying that you came to naturalism, read about it as a philosophy and adopted it. Absolutely not. What I am saying is that naturalism is the underlying philosophy of the Evolutionary worldview that you have read about and adopted. Evolutionists do not often admit that their worldview is based on a philosophy, but it is and sometime they do admit this as I pointed out in the quote from leading evolutionist Richard Lewontin, which you have not commented on:

'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'

This is faith, and once you accept the evolutionary narritive, all things that are not strictly natural (ie angels) become, not just unproven, but ridiculous - not even worthy of consideration. Naturalism becomes the unconcious software that filters all that we see, hear, and read. You say that you do not believe in naturalism, if this is true then you would be willing consider non-natural causes for life and the universe but from all you have said, this does not seem to be the case. Correct me if i'm wrong.

To me it's pretty simple. Science is an effort to understand the history of the natural world and how the natural world works. We use observable physical evidence as a basis. We gain knowledge by the observation of natural phenomena and through experiments that simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.

Science doesn't prescribe a world vision, a way of life you should follow. It merely tries to explain natural phenomena based on research.

The reason why god isn't "allowed" in scientific explanation is fairly simple, I mentioned this before as well, but you didn't answer it.

We cannot measure god, we cannot test god, examine god... Science doesn't say god doesn't exist. Not at all. Science doesn't mention god (I know you'll probably post something about Dawkins, but you should know he doesn't represent the scientific world, he wrote a book with his conclusions in it, that's all).

I considered non-natural forces as the cause of life and the universe, and came to the conclusion it was not possible.

I'm open to the proof you have of angels. And I'm sure you could make a lot of people happy if you could also give some evidence of vampires and ghosts and unicorns. There is no evidence for any of these things. The only thing you have is faith that they exist. I don't have that faith, and if they do exist, I will change my mind and admit I've been a fool. Just show me some proof.

Please answer this question; do you believe in amphisbaena, cerberus, centaurs, bennu...?

so, let's allow faith in science. What do you get? Well, data with any, any possible explanation you can think of. You gather all your information, all your data and you say god is the cause of it all. The muslims will say it's allah, hindus will say it's brahma, some will say the cause is the flying spaghetti monster, some will say it's blue chicken-like aliens and some will attribute it all to zeus or ra. Unless of course you have evidence it was really god of the bible, which you don't.

Point being, it's philosophy. It doesn't bring us any closer. You just add a layer of conjecture and philosophy to science.

I don't see the point of allowing things you cannot observe, cannot know, cannot see, cannot measure, cannot be sure of into science as explanations.

You want to turn science into something it's not. My guess is it's because science has become the dominant factor in our lives. Religion is losing grip. Science books results, it's because of science you and I can communicate, it's because of science we can heal a broken leg, we can see and fight tumors, we can cure several diseases... We can fly over to any country, we can go there by boat... the influence of science is ubiquitous. I think religion now wants a piece of it, want to come back into people's lives through science. The sad part is they don't follow the scientific method. They create their own rules and pass it off as science.

Also, think about the consequences this would have in medical science.

timsinclair

catefrances wrote:

so youre telling me what? that the animal world paid for the sins of man? that animals got it into their brains to rebel against a God they have no knowledge of and in doing so became sinful?

First of all. Lets be clear, the Bible presnts a universe that is anthropocentric, that is, the whole universe, including the animal Kingdom and the stars, is made for us. I know this is the opposite to the evolutionary view, but please give it some consideration. This means that what man does, effects the whole cosmos, not just the animal kingdom. Adam and Eve's rebellion against God had consequences that are far reaching, in fact because of their sin, the whole universe will one day be destroyed, something put so well by Bono in 'The Fly': 'The Universe exploded cos of one man's lie'. The effect of our rebellion on animals was, I think, to illustrate to us the seriousness of what we had done. After the fall, death and bloodshed have become more and more part of the world. Animals degenerate into carnivores, become extinct, the struggle for survival begins. However, the Bible also makes it clear that when Humankind's relationship with God is restored, the earth will have one last period of peace (1000 years) wherein the effects of the fall will be reversed and 'the wolf shall lie down with the lamb'.

how did the carnivores become carnivores then? are you telling me those sharp teeth used for tearing apart flesh were originally used for munching on grasses and such? or did the teeth evolve over time so that once the lion, for example, turned into a meateater its teeth adapted to be used for such?

Sharp teeth and claws do not mean that something is a carnivore. Look at the razor sharp teeth of a fruit bat or a giant Panda, yet they are completely vegetarian. My pet Iguana Vinny tears strips off my wrists with his talons and another iguana once bit a chunk out of my back through two shirts!! yet iguana's are vegetarians. Nevertheless, animals have the ability to adapt to different food souces in order to survive, we think of Pirhana's as frenzied carnivors but most kids of Pirhana's are vegetarian, only a couple of types have been forced onto eating flesh. I expect you are thinking, well isnt that evolution then? well no! Evolution requires the generation of new genetic data, adaption does not. Adaption is the ability of a species to vary it's size, colour, etc. by selecting (natural selection) from genes that it already posesses, so as to meet the challenges of a new situation. Ameba to man evolution requires new genetic data for natural selection to use, there is no known mechanism that can produce this.

Now, before you start throwing examples at me, I know that many animals have elaborate defence/attack systems (DAS) that seem to be designed for only one purpose. I am also aware that, if all these systems came about by adaption, my argument against evolution is seriously undermined. I dont have the answer for each case, some of this systems could have had a different purpose that we cannot imagine, the spider's web for example was always thought to be purely for catching insects until someone discovered a species that catches and eats pollen in its web. The sharp teeth and claws of a Lion or a T-rex, could have been origionally designed for cutting through tough vegetation, only becoming weapons after the fall. But even if all these DAS systems did not have another original purpose, this is still not inconsistent with the Biblical narritive. This is because the Bible says that God had already planned the crucifixion of Jesus 'before the foundation of the world', therefore he already knew that Humankind would rebel against him before he made us. With such forknowledge, God may well have included DAS systems in the genetic code of each kind of animal to be used when necessary. The instructions for these systems could have been included in a latent or masked form and only began being expressed after the fall in Eden.

vedderfan10

timsinclair wrote:

Well spotted wilds. It was during Faithfull that I heard Ed say 'hats off to belief, faith in something bigger'. Then afterwards, when the song had ended, he withdrew his comment, saying 'i said faith in something bigger, I dont know about that, how about faith that it will all work out.'

Again, "Faith in Something Bigger" is a Who song...Ed's a who fan...and what? are you so weak that you can't have faith in yourself, that you have to rely on someone else to work it out for you? Try to understand that not everyone has the same belief system that you have and your ramming it down people's throats the way you seem to be - that only dissuades people from your beliefs. And quit soudning all pious and superior. I thought this was a thread about "Ed and God", not you and god.... (and yes, Pious was the name of a few popes, I am aware of that).

EVERYONE is entitled to believe they have a soul - but because they don't have the same belief system as you, you scoff at that very idea.

And no athiest ever started a war....Oh, yeah, and what about the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church SANCTIONING the sexual abuse of children???? In the name of god, they did that. The churches purposely brought in pedophiles, acting as representatives of god, to abuse these children!!!! But I guess they could say that "god made them do it" and that "god will forgive" and the religious folk would be OK with that...

suffragette

some of the most spiritual people I know would not describe themselves as "disciples of god," me included.

remember that one of Ed's favorite who songs is "The Seeker."

(If someone already mentioned that, all apologies.)

timsinclair

Vedderfan10 wrote:

Again, "Faith in Something Bigger" is a Who song...Ed's a who fan...and what? are you so weak that you can't have faith in yourself, that you have to rely on someone else to work it out for you? Try to understand that not everyone has the same belief system that you have and your ramming it down people's throats the way you seem to be - that only dissuades people from your beliefs. And quit soudning all pious and superior. I thought this was a thread about "Ed and God", not you and god.... (and yes, Pious was the name of a few popes, I am aware of that).

EVERYONE is entitled to believe they have a soul - but because they don't have the same belief system as you, you scoff at that very idea.

And no athiest ever started a war....Oh, yeah, and what about the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church SANCTIONING the sexual abuse of children???? In the name of god, they did that. The churches purposely brought in pedophiles, acting as representatives of god, to abuse these children!!!! But I guess they could say that "god made them do it" and that "god will forgive" and the religious folk would be OK with that...

Hello.
yes this thread started as a thread about ed and god but we've got a little side-tracked. Me and Collin got sucked into an evolution vs creation debate and i'm quite enjoying it. There was a lull a while back so I tried to get back onto Pearl Jam and posted my views on 'Insignificance', but didn't get a response. I will paste it below, what do you think? I am not a Catholic, I have no denominational ties. I also disagree with much Catholic doctrine and practice. OK so Faith in something bigger is a who song! are you saying that Ed decided to start talking about the who during 'faithfull'? If he was just refering to the who song (which wouldn't make much sense anyway) why would he retract the statement after the song had finished? No atheist has ever started a war???????? are you kidding? Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, to name but a few.

p.s. Dont mean to sound pious or superior. Plus, when did I scoff at other beliefs?

Anyway, back to Pearl Jam

---

Another song that I think is relevant to this thread is insignificance. I think those who are familiar with the apocalyptic literature from the Bible will agree that this song sounds very much like a plea to God for mercy in the coming apocalypse. I love the image of someone in a bar selecting a 'protest' song on the dukebox and dancing 'with irreverance' as the great disaster strikes. Its so reminiscent of what Jesus said 'people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man'. the first chorus is interesting in saying 'the full moon is dead skin' and reminds me of wht revelation says will happen at the apocalypse: I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. 'The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red'. the song seems to call out to God for forgiveness, rather like Jesus did on the cross (forgive them father they know not what they do) saying 'please fogive our hometown, in our insignificance'. Any comments?

timsinclair

suffragette wrote:

some of the most spiritual people I know would not describe themselves as "disciples of god," me included.

remember that one of Ed's favorite who songs is "The Seeker."

(If someone already mentioned that, all apologies.)

No, they didn't. I actually liked PJ songs a lot more when Ed was a seeker. I think music is more interesting when it is asking questions, as John Lennon said 'music should reflect the questions of our generation, not try to answer them'. I think PJ music lost somthing when Ed became a committed atheist.

Please understand, I'm not trying to say that i'm more spiritual than anyone else, saying that I have submitted to a higher authority is not a boast. I am not saying i'm a master, i'm a servant. Disciple means 'student', I am just trying to learn from him and pass it on.

slightofjeff

timsinclair wrote:

No, they didn't. I actually liked PJ songs a lot more when Ed was a seeker. I think music is more interesting when it is asking questions, as John Lennon said 'music should reflect the questions of our generation, not try to answer them'. I think PJ music lost somthing when Ed became a committed atheist.

To bring this back to your Pearl Jam discussion, I'm not 100 percent sure how "committed" Ed is to atheism. I would consider him skeptical ... agnostic maybe ... but I think, even on the latest album, there are lyrics that would leave the door open -- maybe not to a God in the Judeo-Christian tenor, but at least something bigger than us. Something spiritual.

timsinclair

Collin wrote:

To me it's pretty simple. Science is an effort to understand the history of the natural world and how the natural world works. We use observable physical evidence as a basis. We gain knowledge by the observation of natural phenomena and through experiments that simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.

I agree 100%

Science doesn't prescribe a world vision, a way of life you should follow. It merely tries to explain natural phenomena based on research.

Science doesn't, but Evolution does. Evolution is used to justify abortion, genocide, racism etc. There is evolutionary psychology, evolutionary religion, it tells us who we are, where we came from and where we are going. It tells us that we have no-one to answer too so we can create our own morality. It tells us that it is ok to trample on other to suceed. It's evolution baby!!

The reason why God isn't "allowed" in scientific explanation is fairly simple, I mentioned this before as well, but you didn't answer it. We cannot measure god, we cannot test god, examine god... Science doesn't say god doesn't exist. Not at all. Science doesn't mention god (I know you'll probably post something about Dawkins, but you should know he doesn't represent the scientific world, he wrote a book with his conclusions in it, that's all).

Yes, I agree that God is not readily available to be observed and experimented on. However the natural world is, and science should be willing to look for signs of design - which would infer that a higher intelligence exists.
I say 'should' because there are two historical events which are both crucial to this question, and totally unobservabe - namely the beggining of the Universe and the beggining of Biological life. I say 'should' also because, not only are these events unobservabe, they are highly mysterious since they seem more and more to defy any naturalistic explanation. the beggining of the universe does this because the laws of physics dictate that matter/energy CANNOT be created or destroyed by natural processes, hence we should consider that the event may have had a supernatural cause.

The beggining of life does this because we now know that the simplest single-celled organism, capable of replicating itself, is far too complex to have arised by a chance grouping of non-living chemicals. We used to think that the cell was 'simple' but now that we can observe what goes on in say- repoduction, we know that it requires, not only DNA (the most efficient information bearing system in the universe) but a host of biological machines that manufacture the messenger RNA strands and carry them about inside the cell. On top of this the cell has to survive in barren planet where nothing else lives, find a way too gain and use energy, propell itself, remember that evolution cannot be invoked, this is the first living thing, evolution only works (allegedly)within the reproductive process.

The increasingly apparent impossibility of this is why Dean Kenyon (author of the influential evolutionist textbook Biochemical Predestination), one of the top scientists in this area has abandoned evolution and supports Intelligent design. Methodological naturalism is fine for most areas of science, however origins science should be open to the possibility that these mysterious events were not purely random but the result of a designing mind. Most of the great scientists of the past used naturalism in this way, not as an absolute, only as a useful tool for operational science. This is why Newton wrote more Theology than science and Einstein said: 'religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind'.

I'm open to the proof you have of angels. And I'm sure you could make a lot of people happy if you could also give some evidence of vampires and ghosts and unicorns. There is no evidence for any of these things. The only thing you have is faith that they exist. I don't have that faith, and if they do exist, I will change my mind and admit I've been a fool. Just show me some proof. Please answer this question; do you believe in amphisbaena, cerberus, centaurs, bennu...?

No, I do not believe in those mythical creatures because they do not form part of any rational, defensible, worldview that can take account of what we observe in the world. Sorry, I cant prove angels to you but they are part of a rational belief system that is in harmony with what we see in the world, thats the difference. A lot of people would be happy if I could prove the existence of Angels, a lot of people would also be happy if you could disprove it because if God and his angels dont exist, we can do as we please-there is no sin, as Ed says on 'Push me pull me' "if there were no Angels would there be no sin?"

timsinclair

slightofjeff wrote:

To bring this back to your Pearl Jam discussion, I'm not 100 percent sure how "committed" Ed is to atheism. I would consider him skeptical ... agnostic maybe ... but I think, even on the latest album, there are lyrics that would leave the door open -- maybe not to a God in the Judeo-Christian tenor, but at least something bigger than us. Something spiritual.

I hope you are right slight.
But I have to say I don't share your optimism on that point.
Can you think of any newish songs that might suggest it?

slightofjeff

timsinclair wrote:

I hope you are right slight.
But I have to say I don't share your optimism on that point.
Can you think of any newish songs that might suggest it?

"Come Back" seems to point to some sort of afterlife ... or at least the hope in some sort of afterlife. Must be an open door.

I know there has been some debate about Marker in the Sand, but I think that song definitely recognizes the possibility that there is a God up there overseeing all this mess. Whether the "calling out" bit at the end can be interpreted as a plea to God, or a protest ... it still is an attempted conversation with God.

I don't know if you'd consider "Riot Act" newish ... but "Can't Keep" is a VERY spiritual song that tends to point to life after death. "I will live forever ... you can't keep me here."

Again, I don't know Ed, and have no way of knowing what's going on in his mind. I just know that many of his lyrics still seem to suggest a sort of searching.

timsinclair

Yeah. I guess there are some glimmers on those songs. 'God what do you say?' on Marker in the Sand is clearly a shout to God but its tempered by 'God is nowhere to be found, conveniently'. You are right about 'come back', no doubt there is some hope for meeting the deceased friend again 'there must be an open door for you to come back'. I actually sing 'You are' as if to God, it makes sense this way but i'm doubtfull that this is how its meant. I reckon the most positive, spiritually, on the last 2 albums is probably 'Thumbing my way'.

Evolution and Atheism tend to dominate the intellect, but not the spirit. When Ed is absorbed in music, I think he's more open. This is what I am talking about when I keep refering to what Ed said during faithful, and how he withdrew it when the song was over.

slightofjeff

timsinclair wrote:

'God is nowhere to be found, conveniently'. .

Yeah, that is the line that the Ed-is-definitely-an-atheist folks cling to.

I've always interpreted that line to go with the one before it, about both sides killing in His name.

God being nowhere to be found just means he has nothing to do with the killing and these killers. It doesn't necessarily mean that He doesn't exist at all.

That's one way of interpreting it, at least.

vedderfan10

slightofjeff wrote:

Yeah, that is the line that the Ed-is-definitely-an-atheist folks cling to.

I've always interpreted that line to go with the one before it, about both sides killing in His name.

God being nowhere to be found just means he has nothing to do with the killing and these killers. It doesn't necessarily mean that He doesn't exist at all.

That's one way of interpreting it, at least.

Yes, that's one way....but I always took it to mean that the two sides are "representing god" - killing in his name, so where the hell is he? He's allowing it to happen rather than bring his message of peace and love and stopping it. They're doing for god, so where is god? He's gotta pick a side, doesn't he?

"Leave your hatred upon the cross" is one of my fave lines from that album, too.... Comatose...

Anyway, I just wanted to say that PJ music and a lot of Ed's lyrics speak to my soul and spirit, inspire and disappoint, elate and anger, raise my awareness, and make me want to be a better member of my community (local and global), and god doesn't even enter into it. And honestly, if Ed does or doesn't believe in god - that's not any of my business...He's got some very religious friends (and so do I), but I'm sure he takes it all in stride...(as most would, although one of my friends almost became a non friend when she visited me before my husband and I were married and she requested that he not come over while she was there because she did not approve of pre-marital sex...fine. I approved of it...and since it was my house...well, there was a lovely hotel down the road. She eventually realized that people just have different beliefs).

But Timsinclair, I got from your very first post that you seemed to idolize Ed and used him as a spiritual guide. You must know how much he believes that there are "no fucking messiahs in rock"...He's just a guy with some amazing talent that people can relate to...Just a guy...

timsinclair

But Timsinclair, I got from your very first post that you seemed to idolize Ed and used him as a spiritual guide. You must know how much he believes that there are "no fucking messiahs in rock"...He's just a guy with some amazing talent that people can relate to...Just a guy...

Well what you 'got' from my first post bears no similarity to anything I said. What did I say that indicates that I idolized Ed or used him as a spiritual guide? If this were true I would have been 'guided' into atheism. What I actually said was that I used to be amazed at how ed's lyrics reflected my own search for God, that why it connected so much with me. Have I ever suggested that Ed is some kind of Messiah figure? where do you get this bullshit from? I actually got into trouble for descibing Ed as 'lost'.

OCD4PJ

What ride? What god? come on people we don't know if there IS anything like that and I side with Eddie. To me he has the right idea. I don't think you should spend your life worrying about that stuff...we have no proof of ANY of it...so PLEASE be open-minded to other ideas. And hey, mabey to you Ed's lost, but to others YOU might be lost.

slightofjeff

timsinclair wrote:

Yeah. I guess there are some glimmers on those songs. .

Another one: Man of the Hour ... it's not goodbye ... it's goodbye for now.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

First of all. Lets be clear, the Bible presnts a universe that is anthropocentric, that is, the whole universe, including the animal Kingdom and the stars, is made for us. I know this is the opposite to the evolutionary view, but please give it some consideration. This means that what man does, effects the whole cosmos, not just the animal kingdom. Adam and Eve's rebellion against God had consequences that are far reaching, in fact because of their sin, the whole universe will one day be destroyed, something put so well by Bono in 'The Fly': 'The Universe exploded cos of one man's lie'. The effect of our rebellion on animals was, I think, to illustrate to us the seriousness of what we had done. After the fall, death and bloodshed have become more and more part of the world. Animals degenerate into carnivores, become extinct, the struggle for survival begins. However, the Bible also makes it clear that when Humankind's relationship with God is restored, the earth will have one last period of peace (1000 years) wherein the effects of the fall will be reversed and 'the wolf shall lie down with the lamb'.

i have considered it. and ive discarded it. i am well aware how anthropocentric the bible is. and i wouldnt expect anything less from something written by mankind. mankind has always thought himself superior to the rest of life on earth and thusly has always put himself outside nature. his concern is primarily for himself at the expense of all the rest of nature. imo he is wrong to do this and it will come back to bite him in the arse. the earth will not be destroyed by mankinds destruction and lack of foresight, she will regenerate long after mankind has ceased to exist.

timsinclair wrote:

Sharp teeth and claws do not mean that something is a carnivore. Look at the razor sharp teeth of a fruit bat or a giant Panda, yet they are completely vegetarian. My pet Iguana Vinny tears strips off my wrists with his talons and another iguana once bit a chunk out of my back through two shirts!! yet iguana's are vegetarians. Nevertheless, animals have the ability to adapt to different food souces in order to survive, we think of Pirhana's as frenzied carnivors but most kids of Pirhana's are vegetarian, only a couple of types have been forced onto eating flesh. I expect you are thinking, well isnt that evolution then? well no! Evolution requires the generation of new genetic data, adaption does not. Adaption is the ability of a species to vary it's size, colour, etc. by selecting (natural selection) from genes that it already posesses, so as to meet the challenges of a new situation. Ameba to man evolution requires new genetic data for natural selection to use, there is no known mechanism that can produce this.

Now, before you start throwing examples at me, I know that many animals have elaborate defence/attack systems (DAS) that seem to be designed for only one purpose. I am also aware that, if all these systems came about by adaption, my argument against evolution is seriously undermined. I dont have the answer for each case, some of this systems could have had a different purpose that we cannot imagine, the spider's web for example was always thought to be purely for catching insects until someone discovered a species that catches and eats pollen in its web. The sharp teeth and claws of a Lion or a T-rex, could have been origionally designed for cutting through tough vegetation, only becoming weapons after the fall. But even if all these DAS systems did not have another original purpose, this is still not inconsistent with the Biblical narritive. This is because the Bible says that God had already planned the crucifixion of Jesus 'before the foundation of the world', therefore he already knew that Humankind would rebel against him before he made us. With such forknowledge, God may well have included DAS systems in the genetic code of each kind of animal to be used when necessary. The instructions for these systems could have been included in a latent or masked form and only began being expressed after the fall in Eden.

iguanas and pandas, both giant and red, are arboreal. those sharp claws are for climbing.

i see adaptation as evolution. i see this most prominantly in the flightless cormorants of the galapagos islands. having no predators to escape from, they have lost the defensive ability of flight. when i see them darting through the water i can not help but see parallels between them and penguins. it definitely makes me stop and think of what penguins were like once upon a time.

writersu

timsinclair wrote:

Hi Collin
Sorry to hear about your accident. Hope you are ok now.
I understand what you are saying, but none of the people who came up to you and told you what they had heard were eyewitnesses (primary sources), hence no serious historian would give them any credibility. Luke says that his sources were eyewitnesses, that is the difference. I think you also underestimate the accuracy of the Jewish scribal tradition. Before 1947, the oldest Biblical texts we had were those of the masorite scribes, the dead sea scrolls are at least 1000 years older. Did this show that the texts had 'evolved' over time? No.



The Bible is a compilation of lots of different kinds of literature, history, prophecy, poetry etc. Some of these genres are more from God, and some more from man. Prophecy, for example begins with: 'Thus says the LORD:', while Paul sometimes says: 'Not the Lord but I say:'.In writing his gospel Luke was allowed to use his intellect. As a believer, I also think that Luke had a heightened sense of discernment as he evaluated the sources. That is a faith position, but even if you dont share it, his work should be taken as seriously as any other historical writing.

Regarding the utube videos, Very amusing but a gross characterisation of God and a misleading oversimplification of reality. The notion that the only evidence for God is the Bible is wrong and the suggestion that God requires belief in him on Biblical ground alone is false. Romans Ch 1 clearly says why, when we meet him, we will be short of excuses, and it does not even mention the Bible:

'For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.'

The evidence of design is all around us, if we have 'eyes to see', if we have not been blinded by naturalism. The second video uses 'scientist' to mean 'evolutionists' and ignores that many, many, scientists do not agree with Darwin, As I said before, there is a list of 400 pHD scientist who do not agree on the Discovery Institute website.
Peace.

I will begin by saying that I am humbly impressed with your knowledge of the Bible. I hope to learn more of it as I have been studying it for about four years.
Whenever anyone has any doubts, mostly myself, I look to Paul. He killed Christians and he also had a full knowledge of the Jewish faith. He didn't even know Jesus, but instead met Him as a spirit on the road to Demascus (spell check anyone??). For him to go through all he did and not waiver in his faith, surely would tell me He is the real thing.
Everyone has their own journey to go through and all are entitled to their own point of view. And while I would not argue with anyone to tell them they are wrong, I expect the same courtesy.
I don't know about this whole Eddie Vedder/God thing. Personally, it is his own right to decide. And he may change his mind, he may never.
I respect him as an artist and since I am not looking for spiritual guidance from him, his views can be his own, not mine. I may point out though that his writing is indeed a gift and to whom you could credit is your own decision. I credit mine with God. What I do with it is mine, though.

catefrances

timsinclair wrote:

Yeah. I guess there are some glimmers on those songs. 'God what do you say?' on Marker in the Sand is clearly a shout to God but its tempered by 'God is nowhere to be found, conveniently'. You are right about 'come back', no doubt there is some hope for meeting the deceased friend again 'there must be an open door for you to come back'. I actually sing 'You are' as if to God, it makes sense this way but i'm doubtfull that this is how its meant. I reckon the most positive, spiritually, on the last 2 albums is probably 'Thumbing my way'.

Evolution and Atheism tend to dominate the intellect, but not the spirit. When Ed is absorbed in music, I think he's more open. This is what I am talking about when I keep refering to what Ed said during faithful, and how he withdrew it when the song was over.

music is all about the spirit. it really requires no massive thought for it to move you.

marker in the sand imo is about how in conflict both sides claim God is on their side. and yet he fails to reveal himself. how can this be? if both sides claim that God is on their side they cant be both right, can they?


those undecided.. neednt have faith to be free

i take this line to mean that those who havent found the answer to whatever the question is needent think that salvation will be found only in God. that everyone finds their freedom in what sets them free. and that isnt necessarily religion as we know it, or even religion at all.

writersu

catefrances wrote:

music is all about the spirit. it really requires no massive thought for it to move you.

marker in the sand imo is about how in conflict both sides claim God is on their side. and yet he fails to reveal himself. how can this be? if both sides claim that God is on their side they cant be both right, can they?


those undecided.. neednt have faith to be free

i take this line to mean that those who havent found the answer to whatever the question is needent think that salvation will be found only in God. that everyone finds their freedom in what sets them free. and that isnt necessarily religion as we know it, or even religion at all.

No, I agree. Because somewhere in the deep end of the way we see life and the world has to balance us or it will destroy us. I have seen both believers and non believers who are too bent in their own thoughts to get anywhere past them. I feel God is THE GOD, Jesus, is His son, and I have His spirit in me should I allow Him in. Other than that, I am on my own and if I don't use what He gave me productively, then I am to blame not Him.