Ed and God

Cosmo

timsinclair wrote:

I find this 'whats true for you is different to whats true for me' attitude frustrating. Truth is not subjective. If you are an atheist and you believe in evolution, your belief necesarily requires that my faith is based on a very big lie, conversly If I am right that God created the world as is recorded in genesis 1 & 2, this requires that your belief is based on a very big lie. Only one can be true!, stop hiding behind this 'i'm so tolerant I would never criticise your faith so dont criticise mine' facade. Epistemological relativism is philosophical suicide, if you are an atheist, its ok if you think I am deluded, I wont be offended, this is the only basis for honest discussion. Peace

...
The truth is... you could BOTH be wrong. The truth **could** be that neither you or aetheist is right and we all haven't got it all figured out... the way we BELIEVE we've got it all figured out.
The truth is ABSOLUTE. Belief is subjective. The thing about religion... it is based upon belief... and belief is NOT truth.
That being said, if you, in your heart of heart truely believes in Christian Doctrine... it is your truth. It does not make your truth absolute. There is nothing wrong with belief... faith in God and Hope for resurrection. The truth is... it isn't the truth from where we exist at this time... in this place.

timsinclair

Collin wrote:

I've already addressed the problems of allowing the supernatural into science, you chose not to address them. The video I showed also explained it quite clearly.My suggestion that ID broke the rules because god is not testable does not show me misunderstanding of ID. It shows your misunderstanding of science, and basically evolution as well. So, if you could, please comment on the problems of bringing god and the supernatural into science. Because as long as you don't understand what science is, we'll be stuck.

Yes Collin, I nave watched your videos and I have also read Forrest and Gross's book 'Creationism's trojan Horse and Kenneth Miller’s exposition of the TTSS as a possible precursor for the flagellum, along with most of the other anti-ID books. However as far as I can tell you haven't read a single pro-Intelligent design book, you certainly haven't referred to any. I suspect that, like many atheists, you have been happy to let the movement be defined only by its critics. For anyone who wants to read the other side of the story regarding the Dover trial:

http://www.discovery.org/a/2879

Again, science flourished in a time when supernatural causation for life and the universe was the mainstream view among scientists. Science would not fall apart if it were to once again give this view a place at the table, it would return to its roots. I think it would be beneficial if we suspended this debate until you have read at least one ID text, preferably Philip Johnson's 'Darwin on trial' because you are still unwilling even to cede the point that your position also requires faith, just as mine does. The fact that Darwinism rests mainly on a philosophical belief in naturalism/materialism, rather than any empirical evidence, was admitted by leading evolutionist Richard Lewontin, even before Johnson’s book. I will quote it again Collin, because you have now ignored it twice and I am interested to see if you can do it a third time.

”We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its 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 counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

After Johnson’s book, however more leading evolutionists have ceded this point:
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/ruse.html

timsinclair

COLLIN wrote:

I've yet to see evidence ID is actually anything else than creationism. Did you see the video on "intelligent design" textbook Of Pandas and People. It clearly shows they just replaced the word 'creationism' or words related to it with word 'design'.

If you read any ID literature, you would see that the reason ‘creation’ was replaced with ‘intelligent design’ is precisely because most people seem to wrongly associate the word ‘creation’ with the movement known as ‘young earth creationism’, which is a religious/scientific movement that uses the Bible and does not pretend that it doesn’t. ID, on the other hand, does NOT use any religious text in any of its arguments and I would like to see you show me one example of it doing so. After initially being misunderstood by its broad use of the word ‘creation’, ID theorists decided to clarify their differences with young earth creationism by settling on the term ‘intelligent design’. The ‘guilty by association’ tactic, employed by those wishing to slander ID is therefore baseless.

COLLIN wrote:

And ID cannot be more scientific than the theory of evolution because it's not science. It's not science because it allows supernatural explanations, it makes no predictions and cannot be verified through repeatable experiments. Furthermore, they did come up with a few 'scientific' ideas, these have been debunked and disproved, however.

I’ll ignore the first part of this because it is sounding more and more like a broken record. Wow, you have admitted that ID has come up with a ‘few’ scientific ideas. This is a breakthrough, ok so if ID is ‘not science’ how is it that they have come up with scientific ideas? I expect that by ‘debunked and disproved’ you are referring to Miller’s exposition of the TTSS. Well, I expect that you have not read Behe’s response to Miller, so here it is:

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm

timsinclair

COLLIN wrote:

The whole idea that science is dominated by an atheist elite is just a christian conspiracy theory. Just look at the video I posted earlier. The person who criticizes ID is professor Kenneth Miller, a roman catholic. He even expressed criticism about Dawkins, whom he thinks uses science as a tool to promote his atheist worldview. This disproves your theory. Sorry, tim.

Ok so do you think that evolution proves your atheism?
Yes, there are quite a few Theists among the Darwinian ranks and no, I don’t think it is a conspiracy against Christianity as such. However, I do think that the Darwinian elite, whether atheist or theist has a LOT to lose from the rise of ID, the foundations are crumbling and they are mighty pissed off. Its almost laughable to hear Daniel Dennet keep saying ‘there is no scientific controversy over origins’, when the Discovery Institute has a list of over 700 pHD scientists who ‘dissent from darwinism’, this list has gained 100 signatures since I last looked at it about a month ago. Here it is if you want to see it:

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Dawkins actually mockingly lists the three theistic evolutionist scientists in the UK in his last book ‘The God Delusion’. He actually calls other Darwinians who tolerate religious people in science as ‘the Nevil Chamberlain school of Evolutionist’ (i.e appeasers) and then, rather hypocritically, points people to Millers critique of Irreducible complexity. The few theists who are part of the Darwinian community, are those who are willing to compartmentalize their knowledge, to keep ‘science’ in a completely different part of their brain to ‘religion’, they can go to Church on Sunday and worship God – then give a lecture on Monday about how life and the universe came about by blind chance. Stephen Jay Gould proposed that science and religion should be ‘Non Overlapping Magesteria’ (NOMA) so that no conflict should be allowed to arise between the two. This is intellectual suicide, and on this point, I agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins.

Just so you don’t think I am ignoring any of your posts Collin, I want to again illustrate your lack of understanding of ID by your use of this quote from an ID advocate as some kind of expose:

COLLIN wrote:

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."

Whilst some kind of theory of origins may develop in the future, ID has never claimed to have any answers about HOW life appeared. This is why I say that it is MORE scientific than either young earth creationism or Darwinism. It doesn’t try to interpret fossils or ice cores through a philosophical paradigm, as we both do. Rather the movement simply looks at the nature of living biological systems and devises legitimate tests to assess whether or not they exhibit signs of design. This is all ID does, and all it has ever claimed to do. Sure, it claims to have found evidence of design, but that does not make it a religious movement. ID has no religious premise, only profound metaphysical implications that many cannot accept because they violate their atheistic philosophy. Perhaps when you have read some ID texts, and know what ID is claiming and what it is not, we can continue this discussion. Peace.

timsinclair

Welcome to the thread sweetpotato. I just wanted to comment on your statement:

it's got to stop. both sides need to live and let live, and stop trying to convince- or annihilate- the "others". it's suicide.

Typically, when two opponents are having a public debate, as Colin and I have on this thread, they are trying to appeal to the uncommitted middle, the audience, rather than convincing the opponent. I think Collin is keen to do his bit in demonstrating to the pearl jam masses that Intelligent Design, and especially Creationist like me, are a danger to science, and to society, and I respect him for his passion to do so. I also, would love everyone to see things my way but I would be content for a few people to see that their is a legitimate debate to be had here. Atheists like Richard Dawkins refuse to debate with creationists or Intelligent design advocates because they do not want to give us the credibility that such a debate gives us. I have enough self-awareness to know that my world-view is a mixture of knowledge and belief, that I interpret the world through the prism of Biblical belief. it would be easy to say that my beliefs are FACTS and Collins are nonsense, but this kind of rhetoric is futile. All facts, especially those relating to the origin of life and the Universe require interpretation through a paradigm. We dont have to learn the darwinian paradigm, we learn everything WITHIN it, it is the unquestioned assumption accross many academic subjects and relentlessly indoctrinates us through TV and culture. Likewise, the more I read the Bible, the more it becomes the guiding paradigm through which I interpret the world. I hope that some reading this thread will also begin to question the assumptions about origins that society has taught us and be brave enough to investigate movements like Intelligent design for themselves before passing judgement.

JohnWesleyHarding27

opps

writersu

Cosmo wrote:

...
Intelligent Design is NOT science as Science is defined:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
...
Intelligent Design = Creationism.
That is a truth... no matter how you try to spin it.
...
The bottom line is... You believe that you and Ed were on the same page... which happened to be YOUR page, not Ed's. You were disappointed as you discovered that Ed is and was never on your Christian path towards enlightenment. Nothing wrong with that.
I think that if you had simply listened to what Ed was saying... he wasn't or isn't telling you to follow him... just to have a listen to what he has to say... this thread would be non-existant.
Some of us don'tfeel the need to follow anyone or anything or any religion. Some of us want to find out on our own because the journey and discovery is interesting to us. Some of us will find our own paths towards truth... be it God or our own personal spirit. we don't need nor want anyone to lead us... because the only thing we truely know is... they don't know where they're going either.

I am lost at first; you are quite intelligent and I got confused reading the beginning here.......

but I do agree with you at the end, for what it's worth. Like I totally am right there with Jesus and God, but religion? Well, sorry but I do not think they really meet with Them. Religion too often is pompous and arrogant and Jesus is humble and loving and forgiving. so on that, noting our inidvidual paths and all, I agree because my path is quite unique although I count myself as a Christian.

DangDang

MrFadedGlory wrote:

Once again everything is open to interpretation but I believe The Seeker was looking for LSD (or some form of psychotropics). Severed Hand is more closely related to The Seeker more than God IMO.

I always thought the Seeker was looking for his skin.

DangDang

Here's my 14 cents (after inflation), simply stated and probably inappropriately so but...

You mean there's a chance that my eye just "happened"?
Oh, and that eye just "happens" to see?
And that sight just sends 15 million neurons a-zapping.
Good thing the cosmos made sure all those cells eventually came together--making sure to be at the right place at the right time and all!
Good thing for all of us that that "Chance" happening happened!
Good thing those 50 trillion cells were randomly destined to wind up RIGHT HERE (and typing)

Equally as intriging is the "invisible Man in the Sky" (Carlin quote).
Our grappling minds had to come up with SOMETHING!


Truth is that we are simply incapable of understanding either way.
Either way makes no sense! Our brains are so not there.
I liked the idea of Intelligent Design because it nestles comfily in the middle.

It's Cropduster Baby!

There's just one word that I still believe......

Einstein said "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Yes Collin, I nave watched your videos and I have also read Forrest and Gross's book 'Creationism's trojan Horse and Kenneth Miller’s exposition of the TTSS as a possible precursor for the flagellum, along with most of the other anti-ID books. However as far as I can tell you haven't read a single pro-Intelligent design book, you certainly haven't referred to any. I suspect that, like many atheists, you have been happy to let the movement be defined only by its critics. For anyone who wants to read the other side of the story regarding the Dover trial:

http://www.discovery.org/a/2879

I've read more ID sites and watched more ID videos than you can imagine, my friend.

Again, science flourished in a time when supernatural causation for life and the universe was the mainstream view among scientists. Science would not fall apart if it were to once again give this view a place at the table, it would return to its roots. I think it would be beneficial if we suspended this debate until you have read at least one ID text, preferably Philip Johnson's 'Darwin on trial' because you are still unwilling even to cede the point that your position also requires faith, just as mine does.

Read post #169. And I said I will read it if I find it. I doubt I will.

The fact that Darwinism rests mainly on a philosophical belief in naturalism/materialism, rather than any empirical evidence, was admitted by leading evolutionist Richard Lewontin, even before Johnson’s book. I will quote it again Collin, because you have now ignored it twice and I am interested to see if you can do it a third time.

”We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its 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 counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

After Johnson’s book, however more leading evolutionists have ceded this point:
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/ruse.html

[/quote]

I don't completely agree with him, as I'm sure many scientists wouldn't. I'm sure many would as well. Science has its limits. This isn't a secret. No scientists will claim that science can solved everything. But you are turning this quote into something that it's not. You use it to dismiss a small branch of science, namely a part of biology.

Either way, you still haven't answered my question. What about the consequences of allowing a divine foot in the door?

No, it would not bring science back to its roots. Or maybe it would, it would put science back in the Middle Ages. Next to chemistry we'll have alchemy, next to astronomy, we'll have astrology. Next to modern medicine, we'll have voodoo, energy healers, people selling raspberries to cure cancer. It appears you want that.

Also, even if Lewontin is right, this does not mean ID is even remotely correct. Don't forget that little fact.

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

If you read any ID literature, you would see that the reason ‘creation’ was replaced with ‘intelligent design’ is precisely because most people seem to wrongly associate the word ‘creation’ with the movement known as ‘young earth creationism’, which is a religious/scientific movement that uses the Bible and does not pretend that it doesn’t. ID, on the other hand, does NOT use any religious text in any of its arguments and I would like to see you show me one example of it doing so. After initially being misunderstood by its broad use of the word ‘creation’, ID theorists decided to clarify their differences with young earth creationism by settling on the term ‘intelligent design’. The ‘guilty by association’ tactic, employed by those wishing to slander ID is therefore baseless.

Oh please. They took the exact same book and changed nothing. Nothing expect that little word. The entire thing is the same. Defintion and all. You're grasping.

Wow, you have admitted that ID has come up with a ‘few’ scientific ideas. This is a breakthrough, ok so if ID is ‘not science’ how is it that they have come up with scientific ideas? I expect that by ‘debunked and disproved’ you are referring to Miller’s exposition of the TTSS. Well, I expect that you have not read Behe’s response to Miller, so here it is:

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm

I put the quotation marks around scientific. Like this: their "scientific" ideas were debunked and disproved.

You should not make such allegations, I did read it and I read Miller's response too. Have you?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Ok so do you think that evolution proves your atheism?

No, I don't care. God could have created evolution too. Like I said a million times before: I don't know, I don't care. To me there is no god, there will never be a god. If there does exist one than I was wrong.

However, I do think that the Darwinian elite, whether atheist or theist has a LOT to lose from the rise of ID, the foundations are crumbling and they are mighty pissed off.

Foundations are crumbling, eh? False. The science is hard to disprove, I think at one point ID may have tried, but it seems they've given up and started a smear campaign. One that is working in religious countries.

Its almost laughable to hear Daniel Dennet keep saying ‘there is no scientific controversy over origins’, when the Discovery Institute has a list of over 700 pHD scientists who ‘dissent from darwinism’, this list has gained 100 signatures since I last looked at it about a month ago. Here it is if you want to see it:

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

I completely agree with this. Any scientist, any evolutionary scientist, any average person would agree with that. This is not new. This is not special. Evolution is debated exstensively within the scientific community. There are many things, such as the importance of certain mechanisms, they disagree with.

The few theists who are part of the Darwinian community, are those who are willing to compartmentalize their knowledge, to keep ‘science’ in a completely different part of their brain to ‘religion’, they can go to Church on Sunday and worship God – then give a lecture on Monday about how life and the universe came about by blind chance. Stephen Jay Gould proposed that science and religion should be ‘Non Overlapping Magesteria’ (NOMA) so that no conflict should be allowed to arise between the two. This is intellectual suicide, and on this point, I agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins.

Again there you go: the few... There could be thousands. You don't know. You're pretending like there are only five scientists how believe in god.

Whilst some kind of theory of origins may develop in the future, ID has never claimed to have any answers about HOW life appeared.This is why I say that it is MORE scientific than either young earth creationism or Darwinism.

In the first step of the scientific method we have observation, operational definitons and measurements and counting.

In the second step you formulate hypotheses. You give a hypothetical explanation for your observations and the other things in step one.

Step three, predictions. A useful hypothesis will allow predictions. Predictions are made by reasoning.

The last step is the experiments. This means all the previous steps should be testable. You test all the stuff from the other steps. When you find out you were wrong, you start over. When you find out you were right, you publish your research in peer-reviewed magazine. Other scientists will challenge your research, do the same experiment etc.

That is the scientific method. ID is at step one. That is why it is not science at all.

If you disagree, tim, you can easily prove me wrong, just provide me with the four steps.

timsinclair

Collin wrote:

I said I will read it [Darwin on Trial] if I find it. I doubt I will.

Well, its not that difficult to find. Perhaps you could try Amazon.com. Here you go, you can get a used copy for 99 cents.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-1779027-0330463?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=darwin+on+trial&x=12&y=22

COLLIN wrote:

I don't completely agree with him [Richard Lewontin], as I'm sure many scientists wouldn't. I'm sure many would as well. Science has its limits.

The problem is that so many scientists do NOT recognise the limitations of science. They think that it is ultimately capable of answering ALL questions about life and the universe precisely because they believe that ALL causes are natural/material.

COLLIN wrote:

"We [700 pHD scientists]are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

I completely agree with this. Any scientist, any evolutionary scientist, any average person would agree with that. This is not new. This is not special. Evolution is debated exstensively within the scientific community. There are many things, such as the importance of certain mechanisms, they disagree with.

Sorry Collin but you are wrong to suggest that the Darwinian establishment is open to the possibility that their theory is untrue. Your friends at atheism about.com sum up the prevailing view among Darwinists:

"No evolutionary scientist questions whether evolution (in any of the senses mentioned) occurs and has occurred. The actual scientific debate is over how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs."

THAT evolution has occured is a GIVEN in mainstrean biology, any criticism of it, however scientifically legitimate, faces ridicule and accusations of 'religious motivations' as the controversy over ID has shown.

COLLIN wrote:

Either way, you still haven't answered my question. What about the consequences of allowing a divine foot in the door?

Allowing non-atheistic possibilties for the cause of life and the universe would not destroy science, it would enhance it. Yes people could postulate all kinds of bizare causes, but this does not mean that science would have to regard them as plausible.

catefrances

oh collin, tim, i soooooooo dont care anymore. i believe what i believe. and i ignore everything else cause it makes no sense to me. i am at complete peace with what it is that i feel and believe. and i think thats what it comes down to.

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Well, its not that difficult to find. Perhaps you could try Amazon.com. Here you go, you can get a used copy for 99 cents.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-1779027-0330463?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=darwin+on+trial&x=12&y=22

Thanks. I hadn't thought about Amazon.

The problem is that so many scientists do NOT recognise the limitations of science. They think that it is ultimately capable of answering ALL questions about life and the universe precisely because they believe that ALL causes are natural/material.

Do you have any proof for this claim whatsoever. Did you interview the majority of scientists. I think not.

Sorry Collin but you are wrong to suggest that the Darwinian establishment is open to the possibility that their theory is untrue. Your friends at atheism about.com sum up the prevailing view among Darwinists:

"No evolutionary scientist questions whether evolution (in any of the senses mentioned) occurs and has occurred. The actual scientific debate is over how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs."

THAT evolution has occured is a GIVEN in mainstrean biology, any criticism of it, however scientifically legitimate, faces ridicule and accusations of 'religious motivations' as the controversy over ID has shown.

I agree with them and with the scientists. It has occured, it is a fact. They are debating about how it occurs, what's important in the process, what's not...

Show me legitimate scientific criticism of the theory of evolution.

Allowing non-atheistic possibilties for the cause of life and the universe would not destroy science, it would enhance it. Yes people could postulate all kinds of bizare causes, but this does not mean that science would have to regard them as plausible.

So, alchemy would enchance science how? Astrology would enchance science how?

Collin

catefrances wrote:

oh collin, tim, i soooooooo dont care anymore. i believe what i believe. and i ignore everything else cause it makes no sense to me. i am at complete peace with what it is that i feel and believe. and i think thats what it comes down to.

I noticed... I stopped caring quite a while ago!



edit: wait, that didn't come out right.

catefrances

Collin wrote:

I noticed... I stopped caring quite a while ago!

i just dont see that if you are dead certain in what you believe that anything could compromise that. as ive said before i was 11 years old when i became an atheist and in the ensuing 32 years NOTHING has made me question the conclusions i have come to. surely that has to count for something.

Collin

catefrances wrote:

i just dont see that if you are dead certain in what you believe that anything could compromise that. as ive said before i was 11 years old when i became an atheist and in the ensuing 32 years NOTHING has made me question the conclusions i have come to. surely that has to count for something.

I was 16 when I saw the godless light. I was 12 when the christian god stopped making sense. Then I was sort of agnostic, when I was 14 - 15 I read extensively about buddhism, hinduism, taoism, judaism... I really liked buddhism and taoism... I even was a buddhist for a short period of time... But I could not be a buddhist either because I don't believe in magical, mythical stories... both buddhism and taoism have them.

I sort of rolled into atheism. It became very clear to me that there was no god.

catefrances

Collin wrote:

I was 16 when I saw the godless light. I was 12 when the christian god stopped making sense. Then I was sort of agnostic, when I was 14 - 15 I read extensively about buddhism, hinduism, taoism, judaism... I really liked buddhism and taoism... I even was a buddhist for a short period of time... But I could not be a buddhist either because I don't believe in magical, mythical stories... both buddhism and taoism have them.

I sort of rolled into atheism. It became very clear to me that there was no god.

i was 11/12. i asked the questions and they were not answered. i was thrown out of religious class more than once and so i figured i had to sort it out for myself. ive done that. what speaks to me the most is that there has never been any doubt for me. i came to a conclusion and nothing anyone has ever said to me has made me question my conviction.

Cosmo

writersu wrote:

I am lost at first; you are quite intelligent and I got confused reading the beginning here.......

but I do agree with you at the end, for what it's worth. Like I totally am right there with Jesus and God, but religion? Well, sorry but I do not think they really meet with Them. Religion too often is pompous and arrogant and Jesus is humble and loving and forgiving. so on that, noting our inidvidual paths and all, I agree because my path is quite unique although I count myself as a Christian.

...
The last time I checked... Christianity was considered to be a religion. Did something change since then? And the doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus in the physical incarnation of God... and only through Jesus Christ, will mortal men find a path to God. That pretty much qualifies as a religion... I think. And to follow a path laid by Christianity... as a Christian... makes it sound like you are a part of the Christian religion. If I'm wrong, please, correct me.
...
The issue I have with religion is the attempt of religions to claim God as their own... exclusively. Religion is how Man created God in his (Man's) image. This way, Man can stake a claim in God and affix all of Man's pettiness and human characteristics and traits onto God. That probably explains why God in the Old Testament is sometimes as petty prick to people.
I ain't buying it. God is better than that. and the issue I have with the Bible (and other Holy Texts) is that it was written by Man, not God. Sure, it is Man... 'Inspired by God', but not by God Himself. Add the fact that the Bible was basically in the sole possession of the Church... that was governed by Men... of power... til about the 1600s... to me... it make me question it. Mostly because I do not trust the Church and the men who run it.
All of this Intelligent Design stuff is just another attempt to insert Christian faith into the sciences. Faith is NOT science. Run repeated and verifiable tests to prove the concept that all life as we know it sprung up at the same time... some 6,000 years ago (not the 3,000,000,000 years the fossil record goes back to) and I will consider it a possiblity. As for now, Intelligent Design is basically trying to portray the Bible as a science text... not the literary prose I see it as.
...
My choice is to eliminate the filter of religion from my life. To seek God on my own means.
As for Jesus... I love His teachings and do my best to follow His example. I am not sure of all of that Son of God/resurrection stuff because it could all be exaggeration, myth or legend that was created ofer the centuries. But, His message was one I accept.
As for the absolute truth... Does God exist? All I know is what I believe I know (which I know is NOT necessarily the absolute truth)... and the only thing I truely know is... no one else knows, either.