There are those who believe that hell is an existence without God. That when the Final Judgement comes, those who refused God will find themselves still with eternal life, but without hope of redemption or God's grace. To me, that would be worse than the popular concept of hell as a "brimstone and fire, eternal torment at the hands of demons" kind of place.
There is an interesting commentary here: http://gracethrufaith.com/ikvot-hamashiach/the-outer-darkness/ if you are interested.
Cheers.
Well, here we go, a "religion" founded on technology. This should make a few folks around here a little less testy. Religion based on science and technology, and by association, facts.
Kopimism: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16424659
You can even join online: http://kopimistsamfundet.se/
From the article:
It was founded by 19-year-old philosophy student and leader Isak Gerson. He hopes that file-sharing will now be given religious protection.
"For the Church of Kopimism, information is holy and copying is a sacrament. Information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore copying is central for the organization and its members," he said in a statement.
"Being recognized by the state of Sweden is a large step for all of Kopimi. Hopefully this is one step towards the day when we can live out our faith without fear of persecution," he added.
Wikileaks just needs the right canon ... 
Enjoy.
Alan, again, nothing personal intended. I thought I was addressing the larger "fact vs. faith" dispute. No harm done I hope...
However, considering some of the other posts being done now, this thread has run it's useful course for me. As it has nothing further to offer, I'll say, "adios" folks ...
Cheers
@unknownuser said:
you accept, unquestioningly, everything that is in the Bible...OT and NT...as fact, for no better reason than it's in the Bible. If you can't see the irony in that, there is little point in you having a discussion with anybody.
Tell you what, when you can prove to me, conclusively and irrefutably, that "facts" are more important than "faith", then I'll give up my faith convictions and live in a totally "factual" secular world.
The Bible is full of allegory and parables. It's faith, not fact that people need to find God. The Christ could have told people the "direct facts" about God, but he chose to speak in parables to the masses. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matt 11:15. The Christ said this on a number of occasions when we finished His parables. Why? Because for men to find God, they need to discern it in their hearts because it requires faith to accept Him. Even when the Christ spoke more directly to his chosen disciples concerning His parables, they had a hard time with some of it. If they had trouble, and they were right there in His presence, it's easy to understand why we, so many generation apart from Him, have issues.
Concerning the events, wars, famines, Jerusalem trodden underfoot, false Messiahs, etc. all I can say is it's not the events themselves but the timing that is important. It's in Revelations, but you'll have to take in on faith ...
Cheers.
@unknownuser said:
You have your facts awry!
It's quite possible TIG! But I assure you, it's from ignorance and not malice ... Thank you for the corrections. 
@unknownuser said:
Scientists are unlike theists, who seem to ignore anything that might mean they have to change one iota of their dogma. Scientists love to find they got it a bit wrong, as it means they can get nearer to a truth.
I'm sure (subjectively, as I lack proof) that not all scientists are happy to get something wrong, and not all theists are resistant to change. Faith, like science, does not seem to reveal itself "all at once" to those who seek truth. Scientists and those of faith are similar in this regard, we both seek "truth", the difference being the answers we seek lay in different domains. Scientists test empirically, I test spiritually.
As far as dogma, well, the Christ gives ample warning about it in John and Luke. Those are my guidelines and I'll leave it at that ...
Cheers
@unknownuser said:
As long as you ignore the old testament then.
You know, for the most part I do. I use it for reference to some of the things spoken of in the New Testament Gospels, especially Isaiah and Daniel.
The Old Testament was really a history of God's interaction, if you will, with Israel, the Jews. As a gentile, I'm more concerned with New Testament teachings because it was at that time that God's promise was extended to us ...
Cheers.
@unknownuser said:
I must say that Jesus guy does seem like someone I'd like to know, not worship.
One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was from a friend of mine long ago. He told me, "just read the Gospels like any other book you might read..."
That would be my advice to you as well.
Cheers.
@unknownuser said:
Facts don't change, Jason. Our model for interpreting those facts might change along with, perhaps, our perception of those facts...but facts themselves are immutable.
Um, that's an interesting statement. I read it several times before it hit me: the logic is circular. You can't establish a "fact" based on a mutable set of rules. "Facts" per se, are based on observation and interpretation, which are in turn based on our current ability to accurately test, measure, reason, etc. If the methods of determination are flawed, so are the "facts" ... ie; you can't establish absolutes from mutables ...
Merriam's Dictionary defines one use of the word "fact" as "a piece of information presented as having objective reality."
I maintain that it's "subjective" and what is "reality" anyway? If our model for interpreting "facts" changes, then "facts" aren't "facts" at all.
To wit, Einstein established the "fact" that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. In September of last year, a group of scientists found subatomic particles that move faster than the speed of light. So the "fact of the speed of light" is not a fact at all, only the interpretation of data constrained by our current level of understanding, which encompasses our ability to test, observe, etc. Of course, the new findings are subject to change as well ...
I assert that what we know currently as "facts" are nothing more than mutable conditions that we evaluate and call "facts" until proven otherwise.
Cheers.
Wow, where does the time go? It hardly seems 30 years since the C64 hit the market in January of 1982. I still have mine, wrapped up somewhere in storage. I just couldn't part with it when I bought my first 286-based PC. I even owned a "suitcase" version, the SX64 for awhile.
Here's a link for those who may suffer a sudden pang of C64 nostalgia: http://www.reghardware.com/2012/01/02/commodore_64_30_birthday/
Cheers
@unknownuser said:
Christianity is all about fear.
If anything, believing and having faith in my God liberates me from fear. I don't worship God from dread of "going to hell and damnation for eternity", but because my God is about love, forgiveness and salvation. I'm not so proud or self-centered that I can't bow my head and thank Him for the many blessings He has given me, and continues to give me daily. I better myself every day because God, through His Scriptures sets pretty high standards and I want to have those as my goals as well ... Not because if I don't comply, it's a fear of "fire and brimstone" at the Hades Hotel ...
The real fear exists for me here and now. Look around. Famine, war, hatred, intolerance, ignorance, greed, violence, etc. This is hell ... I thank my Lord every day for the strength, serenity and courage to face it ...
John 8:31-32, "To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
Cheers.
@unknownuser said:
Where did I say that being a person of faith means you're a fruitcake? I explicitly said that all the churchgoing folk I know believed in both the Big Bang and Evolution...and believing in the Big Bang means that you are comfortable with a universe that is 13.72 billion years old, god induced or not.
There was no recrimination in my post Alan ...
No, I don't think the Biblical flood extended to the summit of Everest, (archeology and geology has given good evidence that the flood was actually more regional in scope, encompassing the region generally referred to as "the Cradle of Civilization") or that dinosaurs and man co-habitated (please, there is indeed a fossil record), or that the earth is 6000 yrs. old (again, carbon 14 dating and other methods have proven the earth is much older).
What I do believe is that Man was created as a unique being, one possessing a soul, or spirit, if the term is more comfortable. We were created in the image of our Creator, not in the physical sense but in the spiritual one, for what is God, if not spirit? We are exhorted by the Christ to worship God in "truth and in spirit" ... If one takes that in a literal sense, the answer is a simple one, to me at least ...
Cheers.
@unknownuser said:
And, back on topic, I'm not personally aware of a single one of them that has any problem with the Big Bang...or Evolution.
I had a conversation with some folks one day about evolution. It went something like this:
Them: "So, you believe in Creationism? God created the heavens and the earth and all that ..."
Me: "Yep."
Them: "But you also support the Darwinian theory of evolution?"
Me: "Yep."
Them: "Then you're confused? You can't have it both ways."
Me: "Nope. One does not invalidate the other and despite an outward appearance of chaos at times, the Universe is actually a pretty orderly place. Electrons spin around a nucleus, planets around suns and the galaxy around it's center. Everything has a purpose and evolution is not outside of that purpose. Now, if you read Genesis it says Man was made a living soul. Tell me what other creature on this planet has a soul other than Man? We're both corporeal and spirit and I prefer to be concerned more with my spirit. If God wants to create a platypus or komodo dragon, who am I to say otherwise?"
IMO, being a person of faith doesn't necessarily make one illogical, anti-science, naive, deluded or a fruitcake. If one looks at the Universe and our "reality", it's pretty clear there are physical laws, spiritual laws, and stuff we probably don't have the slightest inclination or understanding of ...
Cheers.
Lee Strobel's books are quite good. I've read all of his work, currently 5 books IIRC, and would recommend them to anyone ... His treatment of the material is probably amongst the most balanced and unbiased you'll find. It's also solidly supported by facts. Strobel goes to great length to talk with recognized experts, both secular and of faith, concerning the Bible and it's content.
Another interesting read is John McRay's "Archeology and the New Testament" ISBN 9780801036088. It's would be fascinating simply for its coverage of ancient places that have been found even if one disregards any biblical connection. If you like ancient history, I'd recommend it on that merit alone.
Cheers.
@unknownuser said:
You are being contradicted because you continuously fail to write anything that isn't an impromptu hodgepodge of sophisms, idées reçues and ideological sloganeering. Suggesting you're a priori right, doesn't a posteriori lend your musings the sheen of reason.
The pot calls the kettle black ... 
Happy New Year.
Cheers.
A Merry Christmas to everyone ...
No matter why or how you celebrate, may you find happiness and success in the New Year!
Earthrise. Taken by William Anders on the Apollo 8 mission, Christmas Eve, December 24th, 1968.
Cheers!
@unknownuser said:
It comes down to the quality of the evidence.
Quality of the evidence is subjective. One man's meat is another man's poison kind of thing. So we can rule this out as a qualifying or quantifying argument.
Cheers
@unknownuser said:
If evidence for the existence of God (or God's creation of the universe) were as strong as that for the existence of electricity, we wouldn't be having this discussion
Does "love" exist? It's as much part of this world as electricity, yet, I've never seen "it" ... Only it's manifestation.
Cheers
@unknownuser said:
Both of those were accurate to observations made with the then available instruments and known mathematical calculations.
Absolutely true. Hence the point of my quoting Men in Black (actual historical precision lacking as it may) and the egg "timeline". "Fact" as it may be, is predicated on the current knowledge and level of technology available at the time. As we advance our knowledge, and our means of observing and measuring "real things", our views, hypotheses, theories and facts change. So, what may be construed as accurate and "factual" today, may be revised at any time in the future.
@unknownuser said:
Science is not afraid of admitting it was wrong and revising its views unlike religion which can only change if that change is shoved down its throat.
Sorry boss, but "religion" and "faith" are two different things in my book. I don't have to be "religious" to have faith ... I certainly believe in the existence of God, but I don't belong to a "religion".
Cheers.
I love this quote from Men in Black:
@unknownuser said:
Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
1970: Eggs are good for you.
1980: Eggs are bad for you.
1990: Eggs are not bad for you ... new research supports this.
2000: Eggs are bad for you ... current technology has given us new tools to research this.
2010: Eggs might be good, or bad, we're not sure based on our current level of knowledge and technology.
2020: ...
So, for 40 years I've read and listened to "men of science" tell me about eggs ...
While one verse from John:
@unknownuser said:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Hasn't changed in 2000+ years ...
Cheers.