Peak Religion

[sentiententity]

Justness - I don't believe humans are in a position to challenge whether God is just or not. We don't have the full knowledge of any situation in the way that He does.

This doesn't answer any of my points previously, but then they aren't answerable without losing the argument. It's just a fairly breathtaking example of the respect for authority ("because I say so") that I pointed out was a feature of religions in an earlier post. It is one of the features of religious thought that allows the religion to maintain its power structure over people without going to the trouble of providing a convincing picture of reality.

You might think a speed camera you never saw but caught you is unjust, but you wouldn't try arguing it didn't exist.

Well that was depressing to read...this thread is now over 130 postings and we've got nowhere: if you want to make a claim, show us some evidence! No religion (including Islam as well as Christianity) has done this. Missing a speed camera is not in the same league and you (ought to) know it. Apart from anything else, we all know plenty of speed cameras exist, understand how they work and can go and look at one, touch it, smell it, even kick it any time we like. What you are saying is that "we all know (having seen many of them ourselves) that Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Anansi and the rest of the gods exist, and we are picking on poor old Christianity's god". Not so.

Myths and Mythology - if you think miracles and supernatural events are impossible, then of course it looks like a myth. If you think they are possible, then there's no problem with any of it.

Do you actually believe the Adam and Eve myth? Does that mean that you believe the universe is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? That people walked with dinosaurs? That the last two centuries of astronomy, chemistry, geology, archaeology, physics and biology are tripe when compared with the collected myths of a pre-science tribal people?

"Deal with reality or reality will deal with you" (Dr Colin Campbell) - no problem with this quote - the reality I see includes God, so I could use the same quote to warn someone of the consequences of not believing in God, as well as not believing in PO.

There is evidence for Peak Oil - a lot. Are you claiming that the oil was put there by god, since if the universe is only a few thousand years old there would not have been time for it to form?

I do not "believe" in Peak Oil. I accept Peak Oil as a theory which has demonstrated its utility (in the case of the USA, it correctly predicted the local peak, for example) and corresponds well with what we know about geology (and economics). No "belief", in the way that one must believe without evidence in an invisible (at any wavelength), inaudible, unfeelable, unsmellable, untastable and otherwise undetectable god is required. Indeed, if all Peak Oil had going for it was faith, I would dismiss it until some evidence turned up.

s.

[Andy Hunt]

I dunno, I am not really expecting to have any kind of body after I die really.
...
It isn't even important to me whether Jesus was physically raised from the dead, if he was then brilliant, he must have been 'plugged in' to some serious energies. But even if he wasn't, the truth in his words lives on, and that is enough for me really. It was what he said rather than the things he purportedly did which are really important to me, personally.

I know we come from different backgrounds Andy, but I still think the fact that Jesus was raised is essential. With your permission, I'll quote from one of the Apostles (I know you said you don't read them...):

1 Corinthians 15:12-23
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Well if we get a new body after death then that is a bonus, certainly.

But I think we both agree that Jesus was raised - even if it was only in spirit, it is still valid to me. Like the Buddhists, I think that consciousness supports physicality rather than the other way around, so an eternal life in spirit is one I can deal with. But I agree that if Jesus did indeed physically raise the dead, then of course it would be possible for him to physically raise himself also.

I don't agree though that faith is pointless without a physical resurrection - even Jesus himself said that he was sceptical of people following him because of the miracles he performed, and not because of the teachings he gave.

All things are possible . . . however unlikely. And it would be great to get a new 'astral' body after death. But the eternal truth of his words and the spirit in which they were spoken is enough for me. Anything else is a bonus.

I think we can agree to differ on our slightly different perspectives on this.

[mikepepler]

Sentiententity, I'm not here to "win" or "lose" arguments, I am simply explaining what I believe. If I've not explained it to your satisfaction, sorry, but as I said earlier there is a spiritual element to faith, and I've tried to communicate that to you (and anyone else who's interested), but have obviously failed.

You clearly have a lot of questions about God. What I'd like to ask you is IF they were all answered to your satisfaction, would you then convert to Christianity?

If so, then I'd be more than happy for us to meet up for a day to discuss things. But if you're only interested in winning an "argument", and are determined not to change your beliefs, then I'm not sure there would be any point.

Obviously, its perfectly OK for you to be determined not to change your beliefs, as I'm the same. I'm happy to discuss my beliefs, but my personal experience of God means that I can not change them, because to do so would be denying what I know to be real. I'm just sorry there's no way I can "prove" it to you. I suppose it's a bit like what Morpheus said in The Matrix:

Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

In the same way, although I can (and have) talked about the God that I know, He can not be understood unless you meet Him personally.

Sorry if that sounds like some kind of spiritual mumbo-jumbo, but there isn't a genuine Christian around who bases their faith purely on words or historical facts - a personal relationship with God is what ties it all together and brings it to life.

[mikepepler]

I think we can agree to differ on our slightly different perspectives on this.

I'm sure we can - but I look forward to shaking hands with you in your new physical body in 100 years time!

[Andy Hunt]

I think we can agree to differ on our slightly different perspectives on this.

I'm sure we can - but I look forward to shaking hands with you in your new physical body in 100 years time!

If I'm first at the great cosmic real ale pub I'll get 'em in!

[Miss Madam]

Mike, I'd like to thank you for giving us your perspective. You haven't totally dominated this thread like you feared. Far from it. You're insights have been really valuable, and this is speaking as someone who is a confirmed and indeed curmudgeonly atheist. It's somehow nice to know that faith, and indeed the intellectual constructs to back it up exists in the world and to meet someone who can talk intelligently about what they believe, and why they believe it - is a breath of fresh air. Even if I don't share your views, it was fascinating to read your posts. Cheers for being so open and brave. Get us, Powerswitch is great, we can even discuss religion without descending into a total bun fight!

As I said before.... group hug!

[Miss Madam]

Gah.... I hate it when I mistype 'your' and 'you're'.... scuse the grammer. You know what I meant I hope...

[Adam1]

I think we can agree to differ on our slightly different perspectives on this.

I'm sure we can - but I look forward to shaking hands with you in your new physical body in 100 years time!

If I'm first at the great cosmic real ale pub I'll get 'em in!

Make sure you guys go easy on the booze...you don't want to abuse those "heavenly bodies" now do you?

I haven't really got involved with this thread but we seemed to have stayed a tad from the original topic - whether religion, as a phenomenon is also peaking.

I had a link on my signature for a while to the Nate Hagens piece which looked at the phenomenon of belief (in the most generic sense; i.e. broader than "just" religion) from an evolutionary psychology perspective. In particular, how we'd been naturally selected to believe, as it has helped to improve our biological fitness. I find it helpful, as it explains why peak oil is hard to accept for most people and it explains why religion - theological or economic - is so widespread.

[Adam1]

Mike, I'd like to thank you for giving us your perspective. You haven't totally dominated this thread like you feared. Far from it. You're insights have been really valuable, and this is speaking as someone who is a confirmed and indeed curmudgeonly atheist. It's somehow nice to know that faith, and indeed the intellectual constructs to back it up exists in the world and to meet someone who can talk intelligently about what they believe, and why they believe it - is a breath of fresh air. Even if I don't share your views, it was fascinating to read your posts. Cheers for being so open and brave. Get us, Powerswitch is great, we can even discuss religion without descending into a total bun fight!

As I said before.... group hug!

I second that.

[Andy Hunt]

I'm sure we can - but I look forward to shaking hands with you in your new physical body in 100 years time!

If I'm first at the great cosmic real ale pub I'll get 'em in!

Make sure you guys go easy on the booze...you don't want to abuse those "heavenly bodies" now do you?

The Dutch have a saying:-

In Heaven there is no beer - that's why we drink it here.

[mikepepler]

Cheers Cat

OK, as Adam says, to go back to the initial topic... here's my view, which I imagine some other Christians would support. But I stress it is just my opinion, and is based on a combination of knowledge of PO, my faith, current changes within Christianity and the random wanderings of my mind, before anyone wants me to justify my position.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if some or all of the following happen:
- interest in the spiritual increases, because when people are rich and comfortable it's easy to ignore, but when their material hopes for the future fade, some turn to the spiritual. This will translate to an increase in religion, of all sorts.
- there will be an increasingly authoritarian government, and it's interaction with religion will be complex. There could well be government sanctioned religion, and an underground too, much as there is today in China (for Christians and others too). This applies to the UK and other countries, though it will take different forms in different places.
- there will be a push towards ID cards, and ultimately to implanted RFID chips (I saw that bit in the Zeitgeist movie with Russo and Rockefeller...). Religions may well be divided on this, especially Christianity, where some may see it as "doing their duty" for the country, but others will see it as "the mark of the beast" spoken of in Rev 13:16-17:

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

- religious groups could become focal points in communities for building communities resilient to PO (OK, more of a hope than a prediction, we may just have chaos...)

I'm sure there was more, but that's all I can think of right now.

[sentiententity]

In Heaven there is no beer - that's why we drink it here.

This must be hell, surely?

s.

[Andy Hunt]

In Heaven there is no beer - that's why we drink it here.

This must be hell, surely?

s.

Reminds me of an old Star Trek episode, James Tiberius & crew land on a mysterious paradisical planet where there is no illness and everyone lives forever.

Then, after a while, they discover that there are no children, and no procreation.

On discovering the truth of the situation, 'Bones' McCoy pipes up, "well, bang goes paradise then . . . "

[RenewableCandy]

Cheers Cat

OK, as Adam says, to go back to the initial topic...
- there will be an increasingly authoritarian government...
- there will be a push towards ID cards, and ultimately to implanted RFID chips (I saw that bit in the Zeitgeist movie with Russo and Rockefeller...). Religions may well be divided on this, especially Christianity, where some may see it as "doing their duty" for the country, but others will see it as "the mark of the beast" spoken of in Rev 13:16-17:

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

I just hope there won't be the kind of apocalypse-thirsty nutters that actually want the RFID thing to happen because they genuinely believe that then they'll get their "I told you so" moment as all hell literally breaks loose...
On the other hand one thing religious organisations do quite well is have a go at reducing the difference between rich and poor (anyone here olde enough to remember the various activities of some of the CofE during the big wave of industrial shut-downs under Thatcher? Or the Liberation Theologians in South America?)

[Andy Hunt]

Saints preserve us . . . preferably in alcohol.