I'm so glad I didn't become Amish like I planned. Seriously, I had Amish friends ready to take me in. (Before I was married of course) :)

Awesome, I'm practically a native then. :lol: ETA: ROTFLMBO, I originally typed "naive" instead of "native" I think that's telling!

All I know about Auburn is "War Eagle!" :laugh: Can anyone who lives there, has lived there, or knows the area tell me what to expect if my family and I suddenly moved there? Thanks!

It was for me. Even when the fear of Hell evaporated (along with the hope of Heaven), the sadness of never seeing my loved ones again scared me a bit. The upshot of that is I actually care a whole lot more about them now. I try to to appreciate life more. I feel the same way toward others. I sort of feel a little ashamed by that. As a Christian, I was supposed to love beyond anything else. However, I guess it wasn't so critical. I only have a limited span of love and help and caring, and they only have a little span in which to receive it. The transience makes it more beautiful. Even the concepts of going to nothingness was scary. I read something that comforted me a lot--I can't remember the exact quote, and I can't find it :( But it was to the effect that "I was not sad or lonely or scared before I was born. I will not be those things after I die." A similar quote attributed to Mark Twain (I don't know how truly, though. :)) " “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.â€This is a very moving video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOXMjCnKwb4 It kind of gets me in the gut, though. You might not want to watch it in a down time. Or, you might! It might be very uplifting. :) Lots of us have grieved the loss of faith -- of faiths that were the foundations of our lives -- you are not alone. **hug**

Whoa! Holy cow, Spy Car. I've never even asked myself that question. That's an assumption I've just always made without even considering/realizing it!

Awww. Yes, hers is a sad story. I fear the worst. I don't hate God though, as I don't believe in him. Most of the people who claim to believe in Him, as well as my friend, seem to love that god all the more when accepting this explanation, though. At least that's how it appears on her blog posts and comment threads and FB. Lots of different beliefs about this deity. This is just one view, and a view that is apparently giving my friend and her religious friends and family a great deal of comfort in this very difficult time. My heart just breaks for them.

Thin mints! Yayayyay!

The "Is Jesus God?" question is merely begging the question if there is not evidence for God, as you claim. Or...perhaps it's not "begging the question," but it's clearly some sort of formal logical error. (I'm not always terrific at these :)) To answer your question (quoted above), maybe he shouldn't be held to the same standard because, maybe, he is not simply a human? No other person is claiming to be God. Well, some are, but they haven't gotten very far. This character is/has, however. I wonder why? Because Christianity happened to come along when it did. Here are a number of scholars' response to that question. (And they don't even mention the enormous evangelistic pushes, the forced conversions, etc. that are also related to Christianity.) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.html So, people liked what Christianity offered, and were willing to embrace the beliefs to belong. As you and TexasMama have both basically acknowledged here, belief that Jesus is God is not based on objective reality, there are other draws. There are people who want to believe that pyramids were built by aliens, and so they do. Doesn't make it true. Your argument here is similar to saying, "Lots of people have claimed to be Prophets, most haven't gotten very far, but Mohammed has. He must be a Prophet then." Just one more example of subjective reality, the bandwagon fallacy, and confirmation bias. (Of these fallacies, I'm certain. :)) Thanks for replying, Rainbird. I hope you won't take my response to be a personal attack. I used to be an Evangelical Christian and a missionary for years. I enjoy responding to these sort of ideas/apologetics in the same way I enjoy going to my high school reunion and visiting old friends and ideas (and I do!) ETA: And, do, enjoy those darlings! I miss my baby days. It was actually when my children were getting just a bit older than that that I started really wrestling with my faith (and eventually abandoned Christianity) because I wanted my children to embrace the best ways to understand the world around them and that didn't include subjective reality.

I'm a big fan of snakes. One of my favorite memories as a 13 year old was finding a nest of mating garter snakes and picking them up by the handful to horrify my friends.

Ahh, that's where we differ. I believe objective reality is very important, and I don't privilege Jesus, Mohammed or anyone else to be beyond honest, academic _objective_ inquiry. If I did, I'd probably be Christian (if I didn't subject Jesus to objective reality) Muslim (if I didn't subject Muhammed to objective reality) etc. Most religious faith falls to where people choose to not apply objective reality. I apply it to everything as best as I can, ergo. I'm not religious. :) I actually admire you for saying you don't apply objective reality to your religious beliefs. I wish more people would do so.

True, but when compared with Jesus, the range of difference of "understanding" of who Lincoln was is pretty limited, whatever we think about his policies and work. People approach knowing about Jesus in a completely different way. When it comes to Jesus people ask friends, pray, read religious books, meditate, fast etc. to "get to know who he is better." I think all of these things are a poor way to learn about a presumed historical personage. They are not a reliable way to determine objective reality. We don't do this sort of thing with Plato or Abraham Lincoln or really any other non-religious figure. If we did.... we'd probably get a lot more variation, including magical religious ideas because that's how were approaching it. Jesus/Plato/Abraham Lincoln are whatever you experience them to be in faith? No. Just no. Edited to make sense! LOL!

LOL! Perfect questions. You clearly understand the concept now! There are books upon books that "explain" just these things you bring up here. I'm sure you'll be knocking yourself to read them post haste. ;)

Ah, yes, that's part of the trickiness of the Trinity. God is Trinity (according to Trinitarian Christians--including Catholics), Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and all are equally God. Don't mean to lecture you here, just info.

Ha! I remember the first time I got that response. I was in college and trying to evangelize a Jewish student. It stunned me that she wasn't grappling with Jesus' identity. I realized years later that if a Muslim asked me what I thought about the Prophet Saleh, I'd have the same response. Saleh is important to Muslims, not to me, and I give him no thought at all. :D Good memories, Mom-ninja!

Hi, Sparkly. Can I ask for clarification here. Did you mean to say that you didn't know that Jesus was divine to Christians? (Even for Catholics!)

Thanks for the reply, Tibbie. I do really think there is something to the "I hear you...this is what I understood you to have said" framework for discussions. It's positive to know one is understood. :)

As you are perhaps one of the only people you know who is a True Christian in your mind, I'm surprised your aren't aware of the concept of a Theophany and some of the interpretations of "The Angel of the Lord" being an incarnation of Jesus in the Old Testament. You'll have to forgive me, but for the sake of my digestion and my continued enjoyment of this thread, I am blocking you, Jasperstone.

It's also true that if he is the son of God he could also be an egomaniac ;) I have friend who is a very passionate Evangelical Christian. She has a lovely husband and young kids. 2 years ago she got a terrible form of cancer and had to have a total pelvic exenteration. That is, she had her uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, vagina, rectum, bladder and all externals removed and has 2 ostomies. (You might try to avoid "images" if you're Googling this). She had a year of recovery and has PTSD on top of it and has maintained her religious fervency throughout. It was recently discovered that her cancer has returned in other places that are likely untreatable. She is much loved and many people post encouraging words and religious posts to her which seem to buoy her. At the same time, the number of posts that say she is surely blessed and a special gift of God and that she is suffering in this horrible way is because God know she will give him the most glory in all of her trials, takes my breath away. Making a person suffer so horrifically in order that people worship me harder would be possibly one of the most egomaniacal things I can imagine. At the same time, it's probably the way I would have viewed it when I was still a Christian. It just takes a totally different mindset. God's glory is the most important thing--no matter how he gets it.

Oh, I completely agree with you. If Jesus, in fact, did all the things and said all of the things that is recorded in the books that are collected in what is in the Christian Bible, I would agree that he was evil. As is, I don't believe he really did those things. I have no idea what he did so I can make no claims about whether he was good or bad. I think a lot of things that have been done in his name are really quite evil, though there have been good things done in his name. Based on what he has inspired, I tend to think that his legacy (based on the mythology that has grown around him) is somewhat more negative than positive. As to the man himself, I have no idea. I do not accept the Bible as a reliable accounting of him. It's because I don't believe in the Bible that I don't think he was, necessarily, evil. Those non-Christians you are referring to, who have respect for Jesus, probably don't believe in the literal word-for-word interpretation in the Bible and are culling for the most charitable things about the fellow.

There absolutely is such a thing as being an agnostic atheist. I'm one. Unless one is claiming certainty in knowing something (gnostic), then one is likely agnostic about any faith claim. Here's a little graphic that I don't know how to show in the post. :D http://papapipi.com/agnostic-vs-gnostic/

I think that there was possibly a Jesus of Nazareth who was an itinerant rabbi--possibly apocalyptic end-of-the-worlder. I don't really think I know much of who he was or what he really did. I used to be an Evangelical and believed the Bible word-for-word as well as that is possible. (The story of Jairus' daughter contained one of those with apparent contradictions I didn't know what do do with.) When I started reading the gnostic gospels (believing they were rot, but interested in them, nonetheless) I started looking at all of the things attributed to him If I believed that Jesus caused a tree to wither and never bear fruit again (for not giving fruit out of season), why was it impossible to believe that he hadn't also caused clay pigeons to come to life*? If he made sure a Cananite woman debased herself calling on the prevailing prejudice of the day before he'd heal her daughter why could he not *curse a boy with death? (*Both stories in the Gospel of Thomas) It became easier when I subjected the Jesus story to the basic standards I held other historical or mythical figures. I don't think Jesus performed any more miracles than did any of our legendary figures. Itinerant rabbi--possibly--is all I've got.

Hello all! I've started reading Beak of the Finch, and in addition to being fascinating, I just laughed so hard at a passage in it that I started crying. It's really so readable, and I'm getting so much out of it. Just eye-opening! My husband who has a Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology has actually commandeered it, but as he's almost already half-way through with it, I think I'll have it back within a day or two. Anyone feel free to post here and we can discuss it together. I'll post something on chapters 1 and 2 in the next couple of days. Has anyone done one of these (book reading thread) before? Is there a specific format we should follow? Best, Amy

I made a resolution LAST year to read more non-fiction, and I failed miserably. I'd love to read this book. I've just placed a hold for it in my library interlibrary loan system. I should have it in a few days. Anyone else want to read it with me and do a book-thread as we read, sort of book-group style? Teannika? Anyone? P.S. Here looks to be the development of new species scientists are watching right now. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/science/in-bedbugs-scientists-see-a-model-of-evolution.html?_r=0 (I think it was referred to in a previous post--pardon if I'm just relinking here. Bedbugs! YAY!)

Functionality for what? You seem to have some "function" goal in mind--just because these gears serve a function now--that these gears were not "functional" before their form now, and couldn't have served any purpose (this one or another one) before they reached this magical moment in their development. Or, perhaps these served the same function, but less efficiently in previous stages of cog development. If you pursue this "mechanical aspect a bit more [to see] if [you] can understand what is necessary to be in place for functionality" you've still got it completely backasswards. I think the videos that Albeto linked would be a good start.

Honestly, I don't think either one of us have the scientific background to say that statistics and probability that evolution is "disproven." We do have the VAST preponderance of scientists in the world who aren't relying on statistics and who do understand the biology who are convinced that evolution is the best system to explain the development of the species and biology as we see it and who aren't a whit moved by whatever statistics you're talking about. You really, really need some sort of academic grounding in some basic biology because you're trying to explain your understanding of this idea, and we keep telling you that you're not in the ball park. I think it's great if you're trying to read academic and scientific sources. Once you can understand the basic concepts you may be able to get a better handle on this.