Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I would like to open this thread up, to an additional line of thought. What does Earth have -- in the way of religion -- that might be of interest to an outsider? Buddhism might be of interest to an ET. There is nothing species specific about the Buddhist teachings. A Buddhist monk could have a discussion with anyone, about the nature of suffering and releasing desire. What about the various religions of Earth, would an ET find interesting?

I'm not in a position to argue. For now, I'm going to say maybe. If the aliens show up, we can ask. We have all seen drawings of the "Greys". They do look a lot like the classic goblin.

This is good. I think we have similar values. Values is the word. Not beliefs. IMO We value love, friendship, kindness, honor, ethics, wisdom, doing what's right, etc. These are the things that we find meaningful. Belief? Not so much.

God, the All Knowing, would know in advance, every change that God will ever make. That means there's no change. Worse, the All Knowing, would know, in advance, every thought that God will ever have. That means that God has no free will. Clearly, the people who created this doctrine of All Knowing, had not thought it through.

Yes. Now Dan wants to argue Scripture. Been there. Done that. All very tedious and useless. You know the game. No matter what I say -- I lack understanding. Or something is out of context. Or the translation is defective. Or I lack the Spirit. Or it's explained away by more Scripture -- which sure looks like a blatant contradiction. It's a true exercise in futility. Worse, Dan always makes the final pronouncement. I hate God. Or the Bible. Or I have no spiritual awareness. I believe in nothing........ I've been in that swamp too many times. I'm not going back.

Yes.

I am not going to argue Scripture, with you. As you said. "Folly". That is your rabbit hole.

It is all speculation. It's also interesting. Back in the 1960s and 70s, there was a major fad in America and England. Young people were going to India to find themselves. That was when the Beetles and Mia Farrow, found Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. That's when Transcendental Meditation became big. How's that for a template? They could be looking to us to save them. Or they could be like Jehova's Witnesses. Not dangerous. Only very annoying. Knocking on every planet in the neighborhood. Or they could be like the Mormon's. Very friendly. Another template: Think of the Jesuit invasion of Japan. Buddhist monks travel to distant places, spreading Dharma. That sort of thing could be fun. Not so much, if they are spreading the True Faith, by the sword, like Islamists. Or they could be Atheists. It's all speculation. TO SERVE MAN

Now, now. Cherry picking is it's own skill set.

I never said that you were stupid. I said that your mind is very, very rigid.

If I said Atheism offers no hope, no inner peace, is a waste of time, is the cowards choice, and leads to no where, you would probably consider my perspective of atheism to be disparaging. See how the ball rolls both ways? Cut the crap. That has always been your opinion, and you have not been shy about stating it.

It's part of a larger pattern. This doctrine that God is not all knowing -- that God can be surprised. Dan also keeps insisting that Noah's Flood was a local event. (All the animal "kinds" of the world, had to be saved from extinction. Over a local disaster.) That the Lake of Fire results in permanent extinction. Not the eternal torment that Christianity has preached for 2,000 years. Dan is not preaching standard doctrine. I don't know if he's making this crap up as he goes. It looks like it. To me, it looks like heresy. Not the standard Evangelical teachings.

That is the strength of Polytheism. When the Greek and Roman cultures met, their gods also met. From what I can see, both cultures, and their gods, did just fine. I think that when people are prepared to coexist, their gods also get along.

So much for God being all knowing. This is heretical at the most basic level.

In households with at least one dog and at least one cat -- the dogs and cats often become close friends. It's the old nature vs. nurture argument.

Yes.

Dan, you made a flat declarative statement, that there were no downsides to becoming Christian. I named three. You call this disparaging? "disparaged my faith" When you insist on calling on Atheists to take up your faith. When you further declare that doing so, has no downside. Atheists are going to point out the downsides. This is not disparaging. This is refusing to take your crap. The time for Atheists to roll over and just take it, is past.

Speculations on Alien Life and Religion

Back to a look at evidence. No matter how often faith and prayer fail.......

This is not complicated. Every idea that I put forth, gets filtered through Dan's belief system. What emerges is not recognizable. It was never my intention to turn Dan into an Atheist. Or an Agnostic. I did try -- very hard -- to get Dan to understand, what those words mean. It was a vain attempt. It was also my conceit. I used to think that I could explain anything, that I understood -- to anybody. I was mistaken. No matter. I have learned a valuable lesson. Life goes on.

If God were all powerful. If God cared. A way could be found. People couldn't do it. God could. If God were not all powerful. If God could not be bothered. If people were behind all of it. We would have a situation, that looks like what we have. If God, the all powerful, all good, all knowing, all caring, involved with Humanity -- were really the force behind religion -- what would the world look like? Not like this. If people were behind all of it -- what would the world look like? Exactly like this. Is this proof of God's non-existence? No. God could still exist. Still, call it circumstantial evidence. Of course, if we only care about faith -- and belief -- and ignore the obvious.........

Within the English translations alone, there is tremendous variety in wording. Each difference in wording, has great change in meaning. www.BibleGateway.Com Have fun.

I want to be clear about my message. Dan is not stupid. His mind is very, very rigid, but this is not stupidity. It is a limitation. I don't expect someone with sever arthritis, to engage in gymnastics. I don't expect Dan, to understand Atheism. Or Atheists. I have been slow in understanding this. I used to think that Dan was playing evil mind games. No. I was mistaken. He has limits. I don't know who said it. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. The attempt is doomed to fail -- and it annoys the pig."

Yes.

I was responding to your insistence, that there is no downside to faith. I listed three downsides. You responded. Alright. Your responses. Is there a downside? Several. It means NOT living an authentic life. Why would I live a life, predicated on someone else's beliefs? Living what you believe to be true is as authentic as it gets. It's time consuming. Life is short. Too short to spend all that time in Bible study; worship services; prayer; etc. If you cherish something, you don't consider it a waste of time. It means being a coward. If existence in Heaven is the carrot --- then the Lake of Fire is the stick. I refuse to be afraid. I refuse to be intimidated. No matter how we play with words, this is a terrorist threat. At that, rather a childish threat. There's no stick (Lake of Fire) to believers, so no downside. Believers believe Christ was right, so following him is doing the right thing, and there's nothing cowardly about doing that which is right. 1. Living what you believe to be true is as authentic as it gets. I am living my truth. You are insisting that I live your truth. No. You don't understand my perspective. 2. If you cherish something, you don't consider it a waste of time. I am still responding to your insistence, that there is no downside -- for me -- to take up your faith. The downside is that I take my short life -- and waste much of it -- living your life style. That is one big honking downside. No. You don't understand my perspective. 3. Believers believe Christ was right, so following him is doing the right thing, and there's nothing cowardly about doing that which is right. I am still responding to your insistence, that there is no downside -- for me -- to take up your faith. My doing so -- out of concern for the Lake of Fire -- comes close to defining cowardice. I am not afraid. I will not allow you to make me fearful. You have tried. For this, I cite your telling me, that Christ returning will be "unpleasant" for me. Again, you don't understand my perspective. Further, there is your continued insistence that I believe in nothing. No. I don't have your beliefs. That is not believing in nothing. Your inability to understand even this, is telling. No. You don't understand my perspective. Clearly, you don't understand any point of view -- about anything --which is not yours.