Kevin's Watch

Everything depends on the individual interpretation, doesn't it?

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Well, it sounds good, doesn't it? But what about all those people whose baser instincts and desires are kept in check only by their fear of eternal damnation?

And if everyone lived for today only--no one would put aside any money for their old age. No one would worry about recycling or pollution. No one would bother to pay their utility bills because TODAY they want to go to Outback Steakhouse or jump on a plane to Honolulu.

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

No countries= no order. No federal/state programs to build roads, take care of the sick and elderly, ensure that the strong do not bully, enslave, rape, or kill the weak.

The strong might live in peace. I suspect the rest of us would live in fear.

Believing there is no Heaven or Hell and eliminating cultural boundaries will not make the entire population suddenly altruistic and pacifistic, will it?

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

One what would be my question.

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

I'm imagining no possessions....in Minnesota...in the winter. Sleeping naked in the snow doesn't sound like much fun to me.

I'm still finding it hard to imagine that not believing in a spiritual world and eliminating nations would eliminate greed and hunger or make people regard each other as brothers.

Some people certainly would. Others would just see everyone weaker or less heavily armed than them as prey.

Unless of course we all are given lobotomies to make our imagined world less....emotional.

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Well, "dreamer" would be one word to describe it, I guess. "illogical and unrealistic" would be others.

And again...one what?


It is a very pretty song. But it's kinda like hoping to meet a unicorn in the woods so you can touch the silver horn and be healed of cancer. It's probably better to report in for the chemotherapy. Even though that is neither as fun or painless as being healed by a unicorn would be.

Heh heh heh

I'm really not this negative. I just thought I'd do a little devil's advocating just because I was in the mood to do so.

Time out!

I've just been sitting idly by enjoying reading all of the posts and different opinions / idealogies in this thread.

I just wanted to chime in and mention that I think Cho's post was very extremely well put and thought out...

Oh well...back to the bickering...

Play ball!

LMAO! Great post Cho.

--A

Definitely a great post, Cho. But really--when dreaming, must we really look at the logistics?

Lord Mhoram.....while I am Depeche Mode fan, and enjoy their music, I always got the impression that Personal Jesus was talking about 900 numbers--expressing your deepest sexual desires to someone who would listen because that's what they get paid to do.

I don't know what Wilder is really talking about, though.

I remember in the late 80s, early 90s there was a pretty big swing in the dial-a-preacher market. *shrug*

ur-bane wrote: Lord Mhoram.....while I am Depeche Mode fan, and enjoy their music, I always got the impression that Personal Jesus was talking about 900 numbers--expressing your deepest sexual desires to someone who would listen because that's what they get paid to do.

I always thought it was a riff on Prince's I Would Die 4U.

ur-bane,

At face value, let's just say it's relevant to the discussion.

Good post Cho, heh. An very true. But I fear I must confront you on one part...

ChoChiyo wrote:Well, "dreamer" would be one word to describe it, I guess. "illogical and unrealistic" would be others.

You say that poem is "illogical and unrealistic", (Which it is, though it's a nice poem, it is illogical) yet that argument can be put forward in regards to the existence of God in my book. Doesn't the very belief in God defy logic?

Oooh Darth......stirring up the controversy again, eh?

Certainly those who believe in God would take a stance that not believing in God defies logic. I think that one's a dead end street.

ur-bane wrote:Oooh Darth......stirring up the controversy again, eh?

Certainly those who believe in God would take a stance that not believing in God defies logic. I think that one's a dead end street.

It's not really stiring up controversy ur-bane, I'm not tryng to cause an argument... I'm simply stating facts. Logic is something that can be supported by facts. The existence of God can make no such claim; people might say that "it's only faith or belief that matters" - a reputable assertion - sadly however, it does matter when debating the physical existence of God; belief in a chimerical being means that belief is ineffectual.

Perhaps the reason I seem to be stiring up controversy is in the blunt manner in which I display my arguments, in which case, forgive me; but just because the arguments appear to be insensitive, doesn't take away their substance.

Darth Revan wrote:belief in a chimerical being means that belief is ineffectual.

I really like that!

--A

I know Darth...hence the little winky smilie.

But I personally do not think that logic is the only pattern which we can attribute to existance. Therefore it is not the only element to be used in a determination of the existence of God.
We can only view things from our perspective(s).

Maybe we just haven't discovered the type of thinking that would lead to proof of God. But if God were proven, where would that leave faith?

If God walked up to you on the street and started telling you (s)he was God, would you believe what you were being told? What would convince you?

ur-bane wrote:I know Darth...hence the little winky smilie.

But I personally do not think that logic is the only pattern which we can attribute to existance. Therefore it is not the only element to be used in a determination of the existence of God.
We can only view things from our perspective(s).

Maybe we just haven't discovered the type of thinking that would lead to proof of God. But if God were proven, where would that leave faith?

If God walked up to you on the street and started telling you (s)he was God, would you believe what you were being told? What would convince you?

Now you're side-tracking. You're leading the debate in a different direction; by asking "What if" questions.

Would it convince me? No, because I'd assume the person saying it was insane.

But that raises in interesting question, what if good was real, and he did exist in a corporeal manner? And we could speak with him? Would we indeed worship him?

I think not. We'd be pertified of him. In our usual prejudice way of dealing with anything that is different from our way of life (Not just different species, but even different people. The west was fearful of the black people, and so what did we do, we enslaved and supressed them) many of us would want him/her destroyed.

Only if they couldn't be convinced that it was really god. If they were, faith would cease, because faith is belief in the absence of proof.

--A

Maybe a bit of a side-track, but that "What if" question is very relevant to this discussion. Your answer is the point that I was making.
Even if God were right there in front of somebody (and a lot of people believe that He is, in fact, everywhere) and He told that person who He was, God would be nothing but a crackpot to the listener. He would not be believed. According to the Bible, He was crucified the last time He did that.

Well as I said earlier, we are getting side tracked. As matters stand now, and will stand forever, there is no proof. So all this hypothetical questioning of "what if God" means nothing.

If there is no proof of existence, then it does not exist. Otherwise I could say i believe in the Toilet God; Who created all toilets at the beginning of time; and who is there to tell me any different? (I know its stupid, but I'm just giving an example) I mean no-one can actually disprove that the Toilet God - Crapevoh, is not somewhere watching over, or indeed, from under us, guiding our sins, or rather waste away, so what's it matter?

What I mean is this: By Catholics way of thinking, I could believe in anything, merely on the basis that no-one can disprove that belief.

ur-bane wrote:Maybe a bit of a side-track, but that "What if" question is very relevant to this discussion. Your answer is the point that I was making.
Even if God were right there in front of somebody (and a lot of people believe that He is, in fact, everywhere) and He told that person who He was, God would be nothing but a crackpot to the listener. He would not be believed. According to the Bible, He was crucified the last time He did that.

Saying he is everywhere... he isn't, so he's in my computer? That must explain why it's running so badly...

but come on, look at the logic of it, God is *everywhere*? So he's in that bookstand over there? Actually physically in it? hardly, if God was a corporeal being, they'd be some trace of him; we would have proven his existance by now.

But look at the science of making a statment like, "he is everywhere", like many Catholics do, it doesn't work.

According to the Bible, He was crucified the last time He did that.

www.infidels.org/library/historical/rob ... bible.html

Reading that, I think we can discount anything the bible says.

I've always liked the idea of "faith"...Faith is how people in Denver buy flood insurance, or get info from the "make $4000 a month working from home ads", or even the old wallet inspector.
Its just a way for them to be taking advantaged of or blindsided .

But that's just it, Darth. Belief in God does not require proof. That is what faith is all about.
Logical or not makes no difference. People will believe or not believe regardless of what logic may suggest. Which is why I am saying that logic is not a determining factor when discussing God.

I am not agreeing/disagreeing with the existence of God. What I am saying is that logic obviously does not apply. (And I am sure that there are religious scholars out there that would present a better viewpoint than I. And some may be able to present an argument that it is logical that God exists.)

This is an age-old debate. One which will continue endlessly. Therefore, those who believe, more power to you. Those that don't, more power to you as well. I am not here to convert anyone to a belief or a disbelief.
I don't have a strong enough belief either way to argue effectively for either position. The one thing I hold to is that I believe man created God. That in no way says he does or does not truly exist.

Kins--blind faith is a great way to allow yourself to be taken advantage of.
But not everyone with faith is blind.

I'm not so sure about that. There is a big difference between trust and faith.