USA . . . war on the horrizon? The Sequel (Golden Rainbow)

I have created this thread in response to a rather extensive discussion that has made its predecessor grow far too long.

Although the title of this thread probably won't reflect the subject matter of the discussion, I have kept it to indicate its connection with the previous thread and because it is a subject title that should cause little controversy (as opposed to the discussion, which may).

The original discussion begins around about here in the old thread. I am continuing it here.

Hope that makes sense.

Three rather long posts coming up, which is why I've taken so long to respond. I hope you don't mind, but I've moved it to a new thread to reduce the amount of scrolling required!

Why the debate about God's relationship to Science is important

What I mean is, why does the debate of a God that created the universe vs evolution, the big bang theory and all of that good stuff seem to be mutually exclusive in most peoples' minds?

Ah! Yes, that makes more sense. I must admit that I have some sympathy with the argument that the Big Bang, evolution, etc., are merely tools used by a Creator God. It is certainly less anti-science than the extremists who insist that Genesis is literally true and the last thing I want is for people to decide that science (and rationalism) is not the best way of understanding our existence.

From my point of view, I get very frustrated with religious people who take some theory of physics and seize upon it as evidence for their particular belief system. Usually (not in your case, I am very glad to say), they have completely misunderstood the scientific theory. I'll give you an example: Some time ago, I saw an interview with a Buddhist Monk who argued that his belief in Karma was supported by Newton's Third Law [every action has an equal but opposite reaction]. At first glance, this might support the idea of Karma - if you act badly, the universe will push back and treat you badly in response.

However, when Newton formulated his Laws of Motion, the mathematical notation we use today was still in its infancy and most laws had to be expressed in rather flowery language. Newton was writing in Latin, but the translation reads: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. Most people (including this Buddhist Monk) are more familiar with the modern statement which is far more direct and less flowery. This doesn't change the fact that the Third Law only applies to the action of bodies (meaning objects, particles, etc.) in motion (it is Newton's Third Law of Motion, after all) rather than the conscious actions of human beings.

I am sure that a number of people watching the interview would have been swayed by the Monk's appeal to the Third Law and, not having a deeper understanding of it, been persuaded that the Monk's view of Karma had been justified by Science. I'm not saying that half the Christians watching immediately converted to Buddhism, but there may have been a handful that worked an element of Karma into their Christian view of the world as a result of that interview.

Now, back to the issue at hand. In principle, I have no problem with religious people accepting scientific views of the world and adjusting their belief system to match. However, it is a different matter when they misrepresent science to support their beliefs. This is not usually done maliciously, but through a lack of understanding. It's compounded by the fact that scientists are not usually particularly eloquent at expressing their position and explaining the science so that the non-scientist is able to fully understand it.

So, why does the debate of whether a God created the universe using the Big Bang and Evolution seem mutually exclusive with a universe that 'just happened'? It probably isn't. But people who believe in a God will be on the former side of the debate, and those who don't believe in God on the latter. It is no longer a debate about how the universe came into being, but a debate about whether a creator God exists, and you cannot appeal to science (at its current level of advancement) to prove God's existence or otherwise. The proof is not yet there either way.

The thing that worries me about whether God created the universe is that it removes ignorance from the equation. Science thrives on ignorance. I'm not saying that ignorance is a good state to be in, but it is the starting point for science. Scientists must first admit ignorance in order to work out a new theory to fill the gap. I'll argue this from an historical perspective:

Newton's Laws of Motion worked supremely well for us for centuries. There was nothing to suggest that they were not absolute laws that cannot be broken. At least, until the beginning of the last century. Einstein tried to apply Newton's Laws to light (which, at the time, was thought to be made up of particles, photons - that's a whole topic in itself, confusingly light is both a particle and a wave) and found they broke down. Suddenly we had a whole new area of ignorance which became the focus of Einstein's work.

My fear is that, with all the gaps plugged by God, scientific enquiry risks grinding to a halt. Or worse, to be utterly opposed by more extreme elements in a Religion. It is a fear that was shared by the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (though he is on the other side) - as science advances, these gaps shrink and God is threatened by being left with nothing to do and nowhere to hide. This is the worst aspect of Religion, in my opinion, that we should be satisfied with not knowing or understanding because God did it. And that is why there are two sides to the debate and why the debate continues.

Archaeology and the Great Flood

I think the reason why we end up on opposite sides is simply because we must be interpreting the evidence differently, and God only knows why that is.

Indeed. My position is that there is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of a God or Gods. In the absence of evidence, I leave a question mark (the area of ignorance that science seeks to fill eventually). You have filled that question mark with the Christian God based on your interpretation of the Bible which you sought to justify in your previous post. I will try to deal with your points one at a time.

They have found pieces of pottery throuhgout the Sinai Peninsula in the Judeo style.

Which proves that Jews produced pottery and lived on the Sinai Peninsula. It says nothing about the truth of their beliefs. That said, I assume you mention this more as an introduction to what follows, than evidence that their beliefs are correct.

There is evidence of a massive world-wide flood all over the world.

It is true that most indigenous peoples and religions have a story of a Great Flood sent by a deity as an act of divine retribution. The Jewish story of Genesis is neither the earliest or most recent example.

If this is considered to be evidence of the Judeo-Christian God, then you must try to prove that their version is more true than the other versions, or that the Bible is generally true, so that we must accept this part based on the veracity of the rest of the book (which still falls short of absolute proof).

I can't find any convincing evidence of a World-Wide flood, perhaps you could point me towards some. However, there are plenty of hypotheses for the origin of the story in Humanity's greater consciousness: see this Wikipedia article.

Some of the earliest stories are thought to have originated because of ancient observations of fossilised seashells and fish far inland and on mountains. Plate tectonics is a far simpler and better explanation of how they got there than a great flood.

Another problem is that you would need to explain where all the water came from, and where it all went to cause a flood sufficient to cover the entire planet, but that could then drain away again without leaving a layer marking its occurrence in the deposits under the Earth's surface. I remain to be convinced of any Great Flood capable of covering the entire planet.

The story of Noah's ark runs into further complications when you take into account the distribution of species following the subsidence of the flood. Conventional thought (and most Biblical scholars) suggests that if Noah had saved all species, they would have spread out after the flood from the landing site of the Ark (usually given as Mount Ararat in modern-day Turkey). Given that no human civilisation, nor other species, had the capability of building such an Ark before, say, 6000 years ago, you would need to explain how the creatures managed to get across to the Americas and spread over the rest of the Earth's surface in such a short time. Some argued that man must have taken them with him following his migration to all the continents after the destruction of the Tower of Babel, but why did Native Americans take rattlesnakes, but not horses? Particularly given that horses are ideal for carrying more than a human can bear.

More liberal thinkers argue that the Great Flood was more localised and the story of the Ark (and its later discovery on top of Mount Ararat) exaggerated down the Ages so that the Ark didn't need to be so large, carry quite as many species (and their feed) and stay afloat for quite so long. But that then takes the story out of the divine retribution category and into a local response to local flooding, the story being exaggerated as it was passed down orally from one generation to the next.

To me, this indicates that the early Judeo-Christian tradition was heavily influenced by widely-known ideas from other traditions and does not prove that their tradition was any more correct than others. Unless convincing evidence of a truly global flood arises, rather than a local one that may have spawned an Ark and an exaggerated story, I cannot accept the Judeo-Christian version any more than the Greek, Polynesian or Incan versions.

Same with the Bimini Road in the Carribean.

I doubt that the Bimini Road was man-made. It is equally possible to be the product of natural forces. Take a look at this article about the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland. This is a natural phenomenon that was long thought to be man-made (well, Giant-made as its scale was too great to be human), a road linking Ireland and Scotland (there are similar structures in parts of Scotland).

Similarly, according to this Wikipedia article about the Bimini Road, there is a possible natural explanation for it. Regular patterns in rock formations are often used as 'evidence' for design (be it by man, or God), but are usually the product of well-understood crystal formations reoriented by fault-lines and earthquakes to point vertically, rather than horizontally.

The Origin of Life, aka abiogenesis

The "spark" of life had to have only come from God. I just do not at all see how a bunch of amino acids and proteins can come together to form life. It just simply makes no sense to me.

Just because you cannot see the natural explanation for something, does not mean that there isn't a natural explanation. I admit that we do not have convincing evidence for the 'spark' of life, but that is just another of those areas of ignorance that we scientists are so fond of (it keeps the grant money rolling in)!

If it were true, then where would the line between life and non-life be? I don't think I could ever get my head around that.

Hmm, difficult one, this. Organic molecules can arise naturally without life, although it is true to say that they are much much much more common if there is some life around to produce them. But organic molecules are not life (usually just a by-product of it). For something to be defined as life, rather than non-life, then you must look to something that can 'reproduce' in some form or another. Once you have something, even a very simple something, that can copy itself, then Natural Selection can take over and you get gradually more complicated life (over the next few billion years).

So, what we need is a primaeval soup of non-replicating organic molecules that, given a one-in-a-billion chance, get the opportunity to form something that can replicate itself. The current candidate is RNA and there are some interesting experiments being carried out to see if RNA can spontaneously form given conditions similar to those of the early Earth. Take a look at this article on Wikipedia for more.

We are still short of convincing evidence, but it's a rather elusive goal. What scientists are trying to recreate in the laboratory, are conditions that existed on Earth over a massive surface area for a period of hundreds of millions of years. On Earth life only had to start once, somewhere on that surface, sometime during those millions of years. In the lab, we can't wait that long and we would rather have something that fitted in a test tube rather than extends over the whole planet!

To return to what I was talking about in my last post about chance and the origin of life. If we apply the Anthropic Principle to our planet, we can argue that there are literally billions of similar planets in the universe (remember the billions of stars with billions of planets orbiting them). We can look at distant stars and see that they are made up of the same mixture of elements that ours is (search for Spectroscopy to find out how); we know that other stars have planets orbiting around them; so it is not impossible that we have a few hundred billion planets covered in this primaeval soup. That gives life plenty of space to form in (and makes it damn hard to recreate in a sufficient quantity in the lab).

So, we lack conclusive proof, but it is far from impossible.

Creation of the Universe with or without a God

Same goes for the cretion of the god-less universe. One of the biggest laws of physics (I believe was one of Einsteins theory) is that matter is neither created nor destroyed. If that is the case, WHERE would all of this matter come from to begin with?

You're close: Einstein's Theory of Relativity states that matter-energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This does not mean that there is a fixed amount of matter and a fixed amount of energy in the universe, but there is thought to be a fixed amount of matter AND energy. The two can be converted according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2. Remember what I said about the universe having equal amounts of matter and anti-matter? Well, that is far more matter than there is in the universe today - it annihilated to produce a whole lot of energy.

BUT, that still doesn't explain where this matter and energy came from. The truth is, this is another one of those issues where I have to say, I don't know, or rather humanity doesn't know (yet). There are theories relying on multiple universes (which also helps to explain some of the weirder aspects of Quantum Physics), but that only pushes the question further away - how were these multiple universes created?

At the moment, we can describe the universe (all of creation as we know it) using six numbers. These six numbers govern the strength of the fundamental forces which govern all the physical laws of nature (motion, gravity, nuclear fission and fusion, and thus chemistry, biology, etc.).

So, given that energy can be converted into matter, and both matter and energy are governed by the four fundamental forces which, in turn, are governed by these six constants. To produce existence as we know it, you need an input of energy, plus these six constants which have to be set to particular values for the universe to evolve the way it has.

There are suggestions that black holes spew out matter-energy into a new universe with slightly different values for these six constants. If they were too different, then the new universe would be unlikely to be able to form black holes to produce its own daughter universes. We then have an evolution of universes situation which is governed by Natural Selection ultimately to produce a universe with the six constants set to the values we know and love. There is even some evidence for multiple universes but it is far from convincing at the moment (the Cosmic Background Radiation might be slightly warmer in one direction than the other; this might suggest that our universe was spawned off another).

In any case, that only pushes the question further away (it's called an infinite regression, I think). The question is either: What created the universe; or what created the multiple universes? You could argue that God created this universe. In other words, God tweaked the six constants until the energy he put into the universe turned into the universe we know today. You could equally argue that God created the multiple universes designed to ultimately produce a universe with the six constants we know today.

For simplicity's sake, I will ignore the multiple universes argument - it messes too much with my head. Better to simplify the question and ask what created the universe - God, something else, or nothing?

You would answer 'God', I would answer 'something else or nothing' [if nothing else, that puts chance on my side - I get two of the three answers ;-P ]. I don't have proof that God didn't create the universe, but I remain to be convinced that there is evidence that He did create the universe. In any case, if God did create the universe, what created God? We're back to the infinite regression of the multiple universes argument above. You could argue that God didn't need a cause, but if that's the case, why does the universe need a cause? Why can't the universe exist and that be that? Furthermore, if He exists and didn't need a cause, that still doesn't mean that it is the Christian God any more than it could be Zeus, Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

So, thus far we have not reached any firm conclusions. I agree that the evidence and arguments we have discussed allow for an interpretation of God's existence; I hope you would agree that they could also be interpreted to deny God's existence.

One last comment on the infinite regression idea. The following is taken from A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking (quoted from this Wikipedia article:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"<!-/Quote-!>

Religious Scientists: Einstein, Hawking

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion, but they conceal the fact in public, because they are afraid of losing their incomes.<!-/Quote-!>

Bertrand Russell

Einstein was not Christian. At least, not by the time time of his death. Try to find Nobel Prize winning Christians (in the scientific disciplines) and you'll find fewer than ten out of the hundreds that have won them. For those scientists who are claimed to have undergone a deathbed conversion, I would be very sceptical. Even Richard Dawkins has suffered reports of a deathbed conversion and he is still very much alive!

Here is another quote from Einstein suggesting that he is not Christian (furthermore, he was Jewish and had to flee Nazi oppression so it is doubly unlikely that he was Christian - very few people change religion during their lifetime):

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.<!-/Quote-!>

Quoted by Richard Dawkins

He may have been a deist, someone who believes in a God that reveals himself in the harmony and order of what exists, but does not concern himself with the fates and actions of us humans. This suggests he believed that a God created the universe, and then took no further interest in it. It is also borne out by his opposition to Quantum Physics which suggested that the universe is inherently probabilistic - this was the cause of his much quoted phrase "God does not play dice". Whether his ultimate acceptance of Quantum Physics lead him away from deism towards his death is unclear.

I am less familiar with Hawking's view of God although I strongly suspect that it is more along the lines of Einstein's deism than Newton's Christianity. Thanks for the link to his site, the article "Does God play dice?" is certainly very interesting and is a very good introduction to Quantum Physics and its relation to Relativity.

Last couple of points on your post

LMAO!! That's actually TRUE?? See, I have great common sense. I made that up, because I thought of what happens to a glass of water when you dump it on the ground.

Be VERY wary of making things up when discussing philosophical and scientific points. There may be someone like me reading who can point out horrendous errors. You're very lucky you got away with it this time. The analogy with a glass of water is wrong - the water will drain away into the soil or cracks in the pavement, or it will evaporate. The expansion of the universe will eventually make it impossible for the fundamental forces to bind atoms together ultimately resulting in conversion of all matter into energy. This is a fundamentally different process.

The sun's rays would not even have been able to penetrate the cloud cover, it was so thick. Look at Venus right now.

Even the surface of Venus is not completely dark. There are near continual flashes of lightning.

The moon controls the tides, which is a HUGE, but lesser, factor in how life works on earth.

Actually, there are a number of theories that suggest that the moon is nearly vital to maintain life on Earth. Tides create pools of water which are replenished on a regular time-scale which act as crèches for various creatures. It also keeps the planet on a much more even tilt. All planets wobble to a greater or lesser extent - Uranus is effectively lying on its side as it orbits the Sun meaning that its poles are pointing towards/away from the Sun for much of its year. The Earth would be doing something similar were it not for the influence of the moon. If that were the case, I don't think complex life could have evolved if parts of the planet were alternately baking and freezing, not to mention the extreme weather conditions that would develop due to this temperature imbalance.

Hope this post makes sense. I kind of thought about all this in my own mind a long time ago, but have never actually been able to put it into words, until now. Since you broke it up all nice like that, made it much easier to explain my position.

It does, and it is admirable that you have taken the time to think your position through. In my opinion, a lot of the problem with extremist elements in ALL religions stems from the fact that many people do not bother to think their position through clearly. I wish, rather than the Religious Education lessons I had at school (which were more like Religious Indoctrination lessons), we had been encouraged to investigate, debate and argue the points carefully. Fortunately, science and history lessons taught me well in that respect.

Moving the debate on

I think we could be here until the ends of the Earth discussing individual points about the validity of the scientific claims and interpretations in the Bible. I would like to move on to a slightly more general discussion on the same subject.

Yes, the Bible contains a number of accurate scientific ideas, as well as a number of vague ideas that can be interpreted in such a way as to be believable. However, it also contains a vast number of patently false scientific ideas, some of which were already known to be untrue at the time of writing.

The Flat Earth theory that I mentioned some while back, for example. The Ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round (well, close to - it's an 'oblate spheroid', i.e., a slightly flattened sphere) so it is not unreasonable to assume that the idea would have spread to much of the Roman world by the time the New Testament was written. Why did the NT writers not correct the Flat Earth idea (or have I missed it)? To be fair, very few people believed that the Earth was flat until the 19th Century (few thought that Columbus would fall off the edge when he set off for India the long way), but since then a number have used the infallibility of the Bible as 'evidence' for a Flat Earth.

Jesus is also well-known for cursing fig trees:

Matthew 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Mark 11:13-4 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever.

Aside from being a rather ridiculous thing to curse a fig tree for, Jesus was passing it in April well outside the fig-season. This is the prompt for the wonderful parody site for Fred Phelps: God Hates Figs.

Matthew 4:8 The devil kidnaps Jesus and takes him up to the top of the temple, and then to the top of "an exceedingly high mountain," high enough to see "all the kingdoms of the world." I guess the earth was flat in those days.

More Flat Earth nonsense.

Matthew 13:31-32 Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. And since there are no trees in the mustard family, mustard seeds do not grow into "the greatest of all trees."

Matthew 27:45, 51-53 When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the land." And when he died, there was a great earthquake with many corpses walking the streets of Jerusalem. It is strange that there is no record of any of these extraordinary events outside of the gospels.

Romans 10:18 Paul says that everyone, even in his day, had the gospel preached to them. Even the Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders?

1 Corinthians 15:36 Paul shows his ignorance (and God's) of biology by saying that only dead seeds will germinate. Actually, a seed must be alive to germinate.

Hebrews 1:10 God set the earth on a foundation; therefore, it does not move. (More Flat-Earth-ism)

James 3:7 James says that, even in his day, all beasts, birds, serpents, and sea creatures had been tamed by humans.

There are also huge questions about the story relating to Jesus' birth (aside from the non-scientific idea of a virgin birth). Supposedly there was a census being conducted which is why Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem. Although censuses were conducted around that time, nobody was ever asked to return to their city of birth - that's not how censuses were conducted. It is also inconceivable that there would be no records left from this census - if every town and city had to send their data to the capital, then that should mean there were two copies (they would have had to retain one in case the one they sent got lost en route). Surely a few must survive, even if not the one's returned from Bethlehem? We have found none.

Now, bearing in mind the historical inaccuracies in the Bible, the dodgy science and the need to re-interpret a lot of it, why do you believe in the Christian God rather than any other? The Qur'an is also full of seemingly correct science (see The Quranic Teachings for example). Have you fully considered the teachings of the Qur'an before deciding to follow the Christian Bible? (The Qu'ran is full of scientific errors as well, see The Qur'an and Science).

Given that the Ancient Greeks were aware that the Earth was round, whereas the early Christians and Muslims were not, does this not support the existence of Zeus and his pantheon of Gods?

My fear is that you have taken Pascal's Wager but only considered the Faith that you were brought up in. Your interest in science would lead me to believe that you were more of a deist along the lines of Einstein than someone who believed in a specifically Christian God. Whether or not you believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God (as you said in your first post), you have decided that the Christian version of things is the one for you. Why?

I only made it through about 30% your post (TLDR syndrome here) but I thought I'd chyme in for the hell of it.

As for my beliefs, I believe in God. I'm really not too sure what/who god is, because I disagree with basically every established religion out there. Spirituality, or a belief that there IS something greater than us out there, is as much faith as you're going to get out of me.

I kid you not, I hold NOTHING in as much contempt as I do someone who quotes the bible in an argument in order to prove their point or someone who makes judgement on me because I don't blindly share their beliefs and customs.

Where science trumps religion is thus:

Science methodically attempts to theorize and prove based on cause-effect, mathematics etc. Religion largely takes old stories written thousands of years ago by men who usually had only their own interests in mind and present them as fact.

Zet, I read through all of your posts. I have not the time right now to give any arguments, point-by-point, like I have been. I will reply soon, in the next day or two. I have to get to the gym before they close and I have a school project to work on.

Hopefully by Sunday I can reply.

The only response I want to give for now is about this:

"LMAO!! That's actually TRUE?? See, I have great common sense. I made that up, because I thought of what happens to a glass of water when you dump it on the ground.

Be VERY wary of making things up when discussing philosophical and scientific points. There may be someone like me reading who can point out horrendous errors. You're very lucky you got away with it this time. The analogy with a glass of water is wrong - the water will drain away into the soil or cracks in the pavement, or it will evaporate. The expansion of the universe will eventually make it impossible for the fundamental forces to bind atoms together ultimately resulting in conversion of all matter into energy. This is a fundamentally different process."

Sorry. I know I should not be making any assumptions, especially when making arguments with someone who is far superior in scientific knowledge than I am.

I was also thinking more along the terms of dumping a glass of water into an empty swimming pool. The water would be about 6 inches deep in a glass, but would spread out to nothingness in something as large as a swimming pool, with a liner so it cannot seep into the ground. It would eventually evaporate, but before it does so, it does spread out just to make a small portion of said pool a bit damp. And if you were to put...say...a few seeds or something in the glass, they would certainly spread apart from one another. That was what I have always attributed to what they mean by "the universe is expanding" theory and some of the problems it would create for anyone who is alive to see the universe just kind of "float away." Only in the universe, the "seeds" (planets and starts and such) would, themselves, tear apart as well, whereas seeds in a glass being dumped in a pool would not, and I do understand this.

As for the whole "multiple universes," and "where did God come from" thing, if it makes YOUR head hurt, imagine what it does to me! which is why I did not want to go there to begin with. I would just rather assume this is the only universe (even though I understand this may not be correct in any way), just for simplicity sakes. Especially considering this is the only universe with any significance for us meer humans, as far as we know. Or may ever know.

Also: The Wiki is a great source of info, and will take it for granted that it is correct, knowing the things published were written by random people. But for simplicity sake, especially with all the links to outside sources at the bottom of the pages, I will consider everything in these articles to be true, in order to give your arguments more credence. I rather enjoy this debate.

Also, the whole Bible thing with the mustard seed, and fig trees and things, I'll get into that with my other post. But for now, I just want to tell you that, again, the Bible should not be taken literally all the time. Jesus constantly used parables, which are stories that are not literally true, in order to describe the order of things, such as morality, healing, and beliefs and such to regular people with no prior knowledge of much of anything. I think all these stories handed down through the generations are used in much the same way. I would like to explain the fig trees and others when I get the chance. But for now:

Ciao!

Ok, so I am not going to the gym. My sister-in-law ended up getting hurt, and my twin had to drive her to the hospital. Nothing serious, she was playing softball, and is the catcher. The batter swung the bat, slipped out of her hand, and caught her on the wrist. I guess there is a small hair-line fracture. I don't like to work out without him. It just isn't the same....

Anyway, I have time to make my response now.

First off: your entire first post. I do not have much to say except that, no matter what I say about proof/evidence for a God, will not sway your beliefs to mine, nor do I intend to try to do so. And your views and interpretations of the so-called "evidence" about God, will like-wise not sway me towards yours on the subject matter. We seem to be at completely opposite ends of the spectrum on that. And seems, like-wise, from your previous posts, that we are from opposite ends in our political views as well. But that is ok. You say tomahto, I say tomato. Neither one of us is going to be "right" in the others' view on that.

As for the "Great Flood," the earth, remember, goes through many cold and warm periods. Maybe, during "The Great Flood" the earth happened to have been passing through a particularly warm period, and so the ice caps could have been melted away, thereby leaving very little dry land in the world. Places like the Himalayas, and the Rockies would have been paradise-type islands.

Now, that point is only made for the possibility that such an even COULD have been possible. Do I believe the earth was that compeletly covered in water: Of course not! Maybe the caps were not totally melted, and so left more vast lands than merely islands, dry. I believe Noah's Ark actually did exist, but, like you had mentioned, could have ended up being totally exagerated. I also do not see how it is possible a boat could have been filled with all the species of the world, no matter how well the engineering was. I believe the boat DID carry, what could have seemed, to have been a great many species. I also do not know about the whole 40 days and 40 nights on the boat. But I do believe the purpose could have been the same: a group of people...in this case, the ancestors to the Jews, could have built such a vessel to escape some sort of calamity that God was bringing to the Earth.

I guess you could consider myself to be one of those "more liberal thinkers" on in that regard.

I don't really want to get into the whole "God-created universe," vs "godless universe that just happened with mulitple universes," thing again. I just say that God is a computer programmer, and intervenes in human affairs from time-to-time. Mostly when He just feels like it. He is so eternal, that us humans who happen to live in times in which God does not intervene (mostly in the past 2000 years) seems like He takes no interest in the human race at all. Which, I guess, is the reason for sending His Son to save us, because maybe he is getting tired and saddened of constantly having to berate us evil humans all the damn time.

"Actually, there are a number of theories that suggest that the moon is nearly vital to maintain life on Earth. Tides create pools of water which are replenished on a regular time-scale which act as crèches for various creatures."

Something happened to that crA-ish kind of word.....

But you go on explaining about lightning on Venus. Lightning is HARDLY day-light...sorry, but I do not know what you were insinuating on this point, and I kinda think you missed my point on that particular subject.

The Earth...being Venus-like...of course would have a ton of lightning, but can hardly sufficiently be called REAL light, as compared to the light from the sun. My point is that, at some point in time, sunlight finally filters through the immense cloud-cover, and finally brings potentially life-supporting energy to the planet.

And about the moon have nearly the same effects as the sun in supporting life: I went back and read the part of Genesis where God divides the day form the night, after reading what you posted about the moon being nearly the equal of the sun in supporting life, and was quite surprised:

The Bible does not seem to favor the sun over the moon...or day over night, if you read the text. So your "theory" would seem to corroberate with the Bible on that point! Jeez, there are always new surprises in The Book, when one continues to study it.

I guess that is why many scholars, both Cristian and secular, study Scripture their entire life. There seems to be always something new that pops out.

Now: to get to the MEAT of my post. (I am going to use caps on key words, in order to emphasize my points. I apologize if this irritates you.)

The fig tree that Jesus cursed, is because the tree did not have any fruit for him, despite the fact that is was not the season for fruit. Fruit is VERY VERY representational, both in the Bible, and in literature in general!

Like I have said in the above post, Jesus uses parables in his teachings all time. His parables are not LITERALLY TRUE, they just REPRESENT the truth.

Actually, I was searching on Google for a better way to explain this, since I always seem to write things that are confusing, and not clear enough. That is one of my huge downfalls in a debate. I know what i WANT to say, but just can't seem to be ABLE to say it.

So, heres the link to the fig tree thing.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark11b.htm

It is VERY short, but does a great job in describing the Fig Tree thing.

I am going to the final thoughts of this for a second, because I happened to have found this quite interesting:

"The second thing to note here is that incidents like this in the gospels were part of what helped fuel Christian antisemitism. Why should Christians harbor warm feelings towards Jews when they and their religion have been cursed for not bearing fruit? Why should Jews be treated well when God has determined that they should reject the Messiah?"

For those who believe the Apocolypse will happen (I have yet to find my true beliefs on this subject), this very passage here is proof positive that the apocolypse is going to happen soon.

Christians are SUPPOSED to treat Jews with contempt. It is in God's plans, whatever they are. That fact that Christianity, even more so after John Paul the II became the Pope during the Cold War, is beginning to not only respect the Jews, but actually WELCOMING them, and considering them to be our BROTHERS can be taken as a sure sign to some that the apocolypse is, indeed, at hand.

I don't really intend for that last message to go much further. I just found this very interesting as I was reading that passage. But if it does...it does....Just kind of intrigued me a bit.

I know that Fred Phelps thing is mostly just satirical, just to get a few laughs, and you probably just posted that in jest. I have no idea. but in case is was not, I wanted to provide further insight into those particular areas in Matthew.

Actually, this is a very interesting section on about.com. It pretty much sums up the beliefs of the Non-demoniational Christian, such as myself in plain, simple arguments against agnosticism.

The mustard seed:

The Bible makes it VERY plain that says, right off, that the mustard seed is used as a metaphor:

Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God LIKE? and whereunto shall I resemble it?
It is LIKE a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

– Luke 13:18–9

And again:

And he said, Whereunto shall we LIKEN the kingdom of God? or with what COMPARISON shall we COMPARE it?
It is LIKE a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

– Mark 4:30–2

Again in Matthew:

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is LIKE to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

– Matthew 13:31–2

And in Thomas:

The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what Heaven's kingdom is LIKE." He said to them, "It's LIKE a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, but when it falls on prepared soil, it produces a large plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky."

– Thomas 20

Quoted from Wiki:

The Complete Gospels notes for Matthew 13:31: "The mustard seed's smallness was proverbial, but it hardly grows up to become a tree." and for Luke 13:19: "Jewish law prohibited the growing of mustard seed in a garden. Mustard is a shrub, not a tree." The Jesus Seminar, which produced the Complete Gospels, rated this saying as one of its 15 red sayings. John Dominic Crossan has proposed that this parable[1], and others, are intentionally provocative. He points out that in Mediterranean climates, such as Galilee, black mustard is a managed weed. The analogy may be that the "Kingdom of God" is ubiquitous, persistently in our presence in the here and now. It also satirizes the aggrandized simile of temporal power as a mighty oak or cedar It would be obvious to state that the Kingdom of God is like the mighty Lebanon cedar which also starts from a small seed, but instead Jesus says it's like the mustard weed. Does that mean the kingdom is something people try to control?

Crossan claims this is part of the Historical Jesus' style, rather than taking literal quotes from the Bible and commenting on them, HE USES THE PARABLES TO GENERATE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TOPICS WHICH JUST HAPPEN TO BE PART OF THE BIBLE. Crossan also points out that by TEACHING IN PARABLES, RIGHT FROMT HE START JESUS WAS OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION, WHICH HE WOULDN't HAVE BEEN IF HE MERELY TAUGHT SERMONS AND DIRECTLY TOLD THE PEOPLE WHAT TO THINK AND HOW TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE. Evangelical scholars would dispute Crossan's hermeneutic, seeing it as faulty in that it would in their understanding distort Jesus' intent in using parables.

I happen to agree with Crossan on this point. I very much dislike Evangelicals anyway. They are the ones that shove Christian beliefs down other peoples' throats, using all kinds of flowery words, but are, themselves, only human as well, and thereby, seeming to be hipocrites by others. I would rather try to come to an understanding with others' beliefs, and explain my own position, as well as try to spread Christianity through actions, rather than words. That is rather an impossible thing to do on a forum, which is why I have no intentions on trying to "convert" you, or anyone else for that matter. I am just merely stating my position on things. Besides, if I were to preach, I would ALWAYS start out with "What Would Jesus Do?" Or "What does the Bible say that Jesus Said?" I do not try to tell other people what they should or should not do. Besides, I do not preach anyways.

I also happen to believe that if humanity has survived as long as it has without completely killing ourselves off to discover all the great things that science has discovered, we were meant to make these discoveries. Maybe God just wants, desperately, to reveal ALL of his great works, and the immense complexity that went into them, to us humans, and any other intelligent creatures that may be out there. (I do not reject the idea of life on other planets out of hand at all.) Which is why Jesus would WANT the Bible to be open for interpretation. Maybe it is His way of teaching us to be more open-minded towards other people's feelings. That would go perfectly hand-in-hand with loving one another. And all of His other great teachings.

If nothing else, even atheists, such as yourself, can learn a thing or two in the Bible. Even if it only from the Wisdom Books. You may not believe in the Bible, but you cannot completely reject the Wisdom and insight it can provide.

This is VERY apt here: Proverbs, 24:3:

By wisdom a house is built, and through understanding it is established; through knowledge its rooms are filled with rare and beautiful treasures. (From the NIV).

This verse here seems to be convincing towards Crossan's view of Jesus' teachings.

I like the language used in the NIV. It is, by far, much more beautiful, and I happen to take the meaning a lot easier.

About the Quaran, and why I believe what I believe over other religions:

Well, first off, I reject the Quran right off hand from what I have heard is written in the book. Mostly because I hear from other researchers/scholars and others of that type how Muhammed's teachings are not consistent with the Christ Jesus. The Muslims take Muhammeds word as being SUPERIOR to the Christ's. Any mere human prophets whose word is taken over Jesus, I immediately take as false.

Now, a couple of things here about this:

I have not read the Quaran. I should, and probably will at some point. (Is it printed in English? If not, I will end up never reading it, and will only HAVE to go on what scholars say about it.) And since I have not read it, my opinion on this subject cannot be taken too seriously.

I am sure there are many things I could learn from the Quran, as there are for any religious text, just like there are things for OTHER people to learn from the Bible.

I almost fall into the whole "radical religious" person on this matter. But one can only read so much in one's lifetime anyway, especially if one is in college, trying to start a new career, and thinking of making a family someday. So, it is what it is I guess.

The Jews: I know a lot about Judaism. The ONLY difference I kind of clash on with the Jews is, of course, VERY obviously, the issue of Jesus as Messiah. Other than that, our history goes hand-in-hand with the Jews, and I would welcome any Jew into my home any time...Well, I would welcome any human being, of any nationality/religion/non-religion into my home, for conversations with others' can be quite....interesting....

There are many, even more liberal, Christians who believe that Jesus actually STUDIED Buddhism, for his teachings of morality seem to be very consistent with the Buddhists. I just do not happen to agree with that too much myself. There is always the possibility this is true, I just think the chances are quite slim.

Moonbox:

"I kid you not, I hold NOTHING in as much contempt as I do someone who quotes the bible in an argument in order to prove their point or someone who makes judgement on me because I don't blindly share their beliefs and customs.

Where science trumps religion is thus:

Science methodically attempts to theorize and prove based on cause-effect, mathematics etc. Religion largely takes old stories written thousands of years ago by men who usually had only their own interests in mind and present them as fact."

You would do well to actually READ the Bible if you were to try to debate with a truly non-denominational Christian, such as myself. You will get slaughtered with any scientific data/ Bible quotes that they can find. If nothing else, like I have already mentioned in this post: Even the Wisdom Books can teach quite a bit to even non-believers.

I'll let you know that many non-denominational Chritians study, or HAVE studied science in their lifetimes. Likewise for Muslims and Jews I am sure.

So, unless you come to accept SOME of the teachings that you could possibly find in these books, what you say without any kind of scientific/religious backing (and if arguing with a scientist, religious writings have to be backed up with interpreting the text, in order to have a valid argument. The reason for having to interpret text, has already been covered in this post: We are SUPPOSED to interpret, and NOT take it literally. My largest opinions have already been formed, and the more minor ones are still being formed. Others probably will never be formed at all, due to the limit of my intelligence.)

At least I am willing to learn.

My main issue with organised religion is that it tends encourage blind faith in some instances when it's not appropriate. Conflicts in religious beliefs have also been the cause of many of the worst atrocities ever conducted by mankind.

Does this make religion "evil?" No. It's the people acting in the name of religion that are the problem.

People should be willing to die for their beliefs, but not to kill for them.

Belief in itself is a beautiful thing. It can inspire hope, love and drive us in our darkest hour. But then religion and belief/faith do not have to be one and the same.

I do not believe that Science and Religion are mutually exclusive. They both clearly play an important part in the nature of the collective human psyche. There is even room for some overlap between the two.

The realm of science should be in helping us understand the world and universe arround us. The realm of religion should be in helping us understand and explore within ourselves.

My own belief system doesn't hold much space for a diety. The deck seems heavily stacked against him/her from where I'm sitting. But who knows; maybe they're hiding a royal flush? We just can't see it.

Belief systems change. Religion evolves. Christianity takes many of it's most sacred events and beliefs from a whole array of pagan celebrations, and even a Roman event or two. The midwinter's celebration which we now know as Christmas seems the most obvious. Celebrations and feasting the winter solstice has been a common theme throughout human civilization since it first emerged on this little planet.

The place in the world where Religion and Science should meet is in that place between fact and faith where we can all find ourselves. It's that feeling of curiosity you get when you utter the phrase "I don't know."

That statement is the most important in all of science and religion. It invariably leads us to the question; "Why?"

And why leads us on to the one goal which Science and Religion do share. The search for truth.

Have any of you read Genesis in the original Hebrew? What you are disputing is the King James translation.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


The original Hebrew...

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

Thus we have a beginning. Not a singular earth centered creation but the entire universe being created from a specific point. I think creation would be a loud process so Big Bang is as good a term as any.

It makes no mention of how long this planet existed waste and void. Or how long the creation actually took, 6 billion years is as good a number as any.


The problem is not in God its in our limited ability to think outside our narrow comfort zone we call reality. As we are created beings and have a limited life span the idea of an uncreated creator who has always existed is difficult to really understand.

So we invented religion to explain this to ourselves. Bad idea. Anytime other people get involved in such a personal journey it turns out poorly.



I use the Bible as it is one of the words of God the vast bulk people are familiar with. The Torah, The Quran, and the Bible are so interrelated its difficult to seperate them in the first few chapters.

I would also suggest The Gospel of Buddha, The Tao Ching, The Bhagavad-Gita , Guru Granth Sahib, and the Masnavi.

Each has important lessons to teach.


Zeta its ok if you dont believe in the Creator...You just have not started looking yet

Wow, very good posts, both of those.

Seems both you, Zeta, and Guru have finally found the middle ground in this long debate between me and Zeta.

I never really believed the KJV, the NIV, or any other versions after the KJV saying how God created the Earth in 7 days.

I was always trying to figure out, for myself, what "seven days" actually meant. The only real conclusion I was ever able to come up with is that whoever wrote those versions wanted to explain where we got the seven days in the week, and why the last day (whether it is saturday or sunday, depending on the culture) is reserved for worship time.

I never once believed, even during my Catholic School Indoctrination Days, that the Bible literally meant "seven days." Weird how on the one hand I had a science class being taught by a nun (Sister Demontfort...aka: Sister Demon Fart LOL) in which she taught Earth Science. Plate Tectonics, the fossil record, the weather and all of that. And on the other hand, that very same school was teaching about creation, and how God literally created the Earth in seven days, and Adam and Eve were created soon thereafter.

Just made no sense, and confused this former seventh grader to no end. So I had to do my OWN reading, and come to my OWN conclusions in later years, which makes FAR more sense.

I like how you put it: that when everything was created by the Great Creator, it had to have been loud. That is so very true. Who says that when God, or any other Being by any other names, created the universe that it was silent? notice the Bible never once mentioned anywhere the creation of sound, or sound waves? It mentions light being created, but not sound. Maybe that is the very first thing that happened? Huh.

About the religions causing all kinds of undue hardships throughout human history:

While that may be true, it was here in America and Great Britain, around the same time period, in which harmonization FINALLY occured.

All the good Christians of these two countries realized, "Hey! There is no way Jesus would want to see us killing, and torturing others' because of their different faiths, or lack thereof." And so it started to become fashionable to condemn persecutions based on differing faiths. The United States would eventually pass many racial hatred laws after the Civil War. War crimes trials became huge during the 20th century.

And now there are massive protests around the world over events such as Darfur and Tibet.

Organized religion has played a key role trying to end what it started.

Pope John Paul II is one of my favorite heroes of all time, even though I do not consider myself a Catholic anymore. He did so much work in peacufully opposing, and putting pressure on, Communism, fascism, bring Catholics and Jews closer together in their relations. In fact, he even welcomed people of other faiths besides Jews and other Christians.

Anyway, I am just curious. Do you believe in any kind of after-life at all Zeta? Like ghosts and things, or do you think that when our bodies die, we no longer exist?

I am only curious. Death is one of the greatest mysteries of all. One in which science will never be able to determine what happens in death.

I'll let you know after I die.

I don't believe in the theological heaven and hell. But I believe in the soul. I believe that every living creature has one. But what happens to it when the body dies is anybody's guess.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Zeta its ok if you dont believe in the Creator...You just have not started looking yet.<!-/Quote-!>

I don't intend to start looking. If any all-powerful being wanted me to believe in them, they would have made me. If free will is truly something given by a God, then the fact that I don't believe in one suggests to me that that is the way they want it to be. If God does exist, he doesn't want my belief just yet.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I am only curious. Death is one of the greatest mysteries of all. One in which science will never be able to determine what happens in death.<!-/Quote-!>

True, perhaps. But I don't think religion could ever explain it fully either. When it comes down to it, even the book of God was written by man. And humans err. It's nature. And there have been far too many cases of religion getting the facts wrong in the past for me to put all of my eggs in the one basket.

My religious beliefs, whatever form they may take, let me explore who I am within my own moral framework. It's a poor way to explain the world around me, because blind faith leads to so many errors when understanding the universe. On the other hand, science and the ever expanding boundaries of knowledge explain the universe around me in a way I can see, understand and fully comprehend. But at the same time, it does nothing to help me through my inner troubles or develop as a person.

I think I may just go off and join the Q continuum. Gods, with a sense of humour. Can't be too far wrong.

Science was created by man. Far too many theories and postulations to be truth. Truth is self evident and needs no further validation.

I am not disputing its value in creating products for commerce. But in its totality science has created far more problems for mankind than solutions.

Truth is self-evident, my ass.

Those are axioms, not truth. Which are still very dogmatic, but necessary.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
- Oscar Wilde has spoken! Bow, heathens!

Three things cannot be long hidden: The Sun, The Moon, and Truth.

The Gospel of Buddha

Oscar Wilde > Buddha.

Pwned.

If truth were self-evident, then why did it take the Catholic Church until 1992 to accept the heliocentric nature of the solar system? (Sorry to pick on Catholocism, but is was the first that came to mind)

Some truths are self-evident. Many more are hidden and obscure. You have to look for them.

Science only creates problems in the wrong hands, like any tool in the untrained hand.

No, not all truths are self-evident, as zeta and JR have said.

Most people who believe in a god, believe also in an anti-god. That would be Satan's job.

The anti-god is pretty darn successful in hiding the truth form us mere mortals.

All truths ARE self-evident ONLY to God. But to us, they are not. Maybe they also are for those who have already died, but who knows?

So you DO believe in an afterlife, like souls and things? Where would they come from then, in a purely scientific sense I wonder.

Huh, that is kind of interesting...

You are confusing Religion and Faith.

The two are mutually exclusive topics.



Science creates a problem and then works to solve it. Its job security I suppose.

Your right. Catholicism is a religion. Christianity is a faith.

The difference:

Catholics have all these ritualistic ceremonies that seem to not mean anything to anybody.

Christianity does not go through all of that. Either you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, or you don't.

Christianity is a religion.

Faith is a universal human trait. It has no doctrines or dogma. It simply is.

Yeah, its biological.
It could only mean that, but the gene has been identified to support the claim, as if it wasn't enough.

And that's a kick on free will right in the kidneys, for future reference.

I see my point was missed. Quite sad really.

Not at all Zeta. I don't think we are looking at the same point in the conversation.

I was pointing out that any particular religion you can name is not Faith. All religion is a man created explanation of our existence. As such it is fallible and biased from a human centric point of view. Its acceptance of any other perceived truth would naturally be biased to protect its own perceived truths. Be it science, religion, or philosophy each path is equally reluctant to "share the spotlight" so to speak with the others. Each path requires faith but none are Faith.

Faith= belief in that which cannot be proven

Umm, Guru, Christianity IS a faith, not a religion.

I say Christianity, not Baptist, not Catholicism, not Protstantism, all of those are religions. TRUE Christianity...I mean the one in which you TRULY HAVE FAITH in Jesus Christ as being your Lord and Savior....THAT is Faith.

That is what Christianity is supposed to be all about. It is all about Jesus as Messiah. That is the fundamental difference between judaism and Islam.

The traditions are make religion, religion. I can also be the glue which binds the people of the same FAITH. They go hand-in-hand, really. But they are not the same, and are not to be confused with one another.

Where my faith, according to the definition used by Bob, comes from, is the fact that I have faith in Jesus Christ, that He can make all things better in the end.

That is the only faith I have. That is also the only faith that I need.

All that other stuff, such as the long debate between me and Zeta about Creation vs Evolution, is what I believe to be truths which can be proven through the use of science. I just happen to believe that there is mixture of both Creationism and Evolution. That they are not mutually exclusive. I have already pointed ell of this out throughout this thread. And have listed, point by point, why this makes sense to me.

The only thing I happen to take on what Zeta would called being "blind faith" is over the fact that I know in my heart that Jesus is the Son of God who died on the cross in order to cleanse our sins away. Everything else does not matter, and pales in comparison to my one and only Faith.

There are millions more Americans who are non-denominational Christians as well. It is actually a very fast growing movement.

There are two major non-denominational groups that are growing very quickly in this great country of ours. There is Evangelism, and then there are those who are opposed to Evangelism. There is no name to people like me. We do not believe in labeling ourselves other than just simply "Christian." We live our lives, and "preach" though action, not words. Well, not so many words anyway.

We do not get up in front of huge crowds wearing $1000 + suits and ties with $300 microphones, with $3500 LCD screen monitors using $1500 projectors projecting lyrics typed on a $2500 computer onto a $500 50 ft. screen. All the while singing touchy-feely songs, while each person only donate maybe a buck in order to support all of these overly flashy expensive technologies.

No, I would much rather become a teacher in a high school, maybe in Philly, or Pitt or somewhere. I would love to travel to Africa as part of an American Red Cross team during summer breaks. I would only drive a Hybrid car (if I can ever afford one) to get to work during the winter.

Now here I am bragging about what I want/plan on doing in the future. Now you can go ahead and label me as a hipocrite.

The point is, I would much rather have hope in a loving Father, who loves us so much, he is willing to suffer and die on a cross in order to relieve us of our sins so that we can get to heaven when our physical bodies die, than to think that when I DO die, there is no god, and either I am going to cease to exist all together, or just float around for the rest of eternity as a ghost somewhere. Or constantly having to be reborn and suffer through another lifetime full of hardship until I live "the perfect life," before I can achieve paradise. Or having to commit suicide killing a bunch of "infidels" to get to heaven.

I dunno, just seems the first priority is the best option IMO.