Choosing a faith

You keep repeating that point concerning false equivalents. I'm not claiming an equivalence at all between the two as we essentially hold divergent view which are based on our beliefs. Both of us believe that our individual beliefs are more rationally true.We both agree that the animals didn't go into the ark two by two. I doubt either of us really care about whether an ark even existed at all, except in my case the whole story taken as literally true leaves in my view a distorted picture of the Christian faith. Certainly our culture influences what we believe. In my case I was agnostic for about 20 years and then came to the conclusion that there was value and truth to be found in Christianity, which does not mean that other beliefs are completely wrong. I would however have a problem with other beliefs that don't see the "Golden Rule" as being fundamental which does give me issues with the more militant side of some forms of Christianity.Christian doctrine has evolved over the years and I would suggest that right now the church is evolving due to a its shedding much of the Greco-Roman influences that made their way into the church in the time of Constantine, and for a period of time after that. Sure. Neither of us "know" but we do have our beliefs. Actually I agree with that. However I would say that I believe that the "still small voice of God" is a non-physical reality that has gradually influenced us over the centuries, and is resulting in a progressive understanding of the nature of God and what it means to our lives. I contend that our understanding will continue to evolve until such time as we manage to blow ourselves up, create a virus that dooms us or find novel new ways to end civilization.

Thanks for your post. I did read the whole post including the link. My physics background is based on reading authors such as Brian Greene and what posters on this forum have written so I am fully aware that I am opening myself up to consider ridicule..I'd like to run a couple of thoughts by you.
Firstly even though I am a Christian style theist, I'm not convinced that God created the universe, or the world for that matter. I do believe that God is responsible for the existence of life, and that one aspect of the life created, through a long series of processes, resulted in beings that perceive their world in a specific entropic way.This is ultra speculative but it seems to me, that as the universe as we perceive it, is expanding away from us to the point that there is an event horizon beyond which we can not perceive anything as it's speed away from us exceeds the speed of light.As we know our measurement of time is based on relative motion and if we move at the speed of light time stands still. With all that in mind it seems to me that we could consider the universe to be infinitely large or conversely infinitely small. This leads me to think that the universe could also be considered infinite.That goes back then to my thought that God worked with what always was to bring about creatures that perceive the world in a 4 dimensional way, as an emergent property of a greater infinite universe.I kinda doubt it, but do you think that makes any sense at all? AbE: Here is a bit from an interview of Roger Penrose.

quote:

---

Roger Penrose : Yes I think physicists would agree that the feeling of time passing is simply an illusion, something that is not real. It has something to do with our perceptions.

​

Narrator : Illusion or not, our perceptions emerge somewhere between the cosmic scale of Relativity where the flow of time is frozen and the quantum scale, where flow descends to uncertainty.Our world is on a scale governed by a mixture of chance and necessity.

​

Roger Penrose : My view is that there is some large scale quantum activity going on in the brain.Physics does not say that Quantum Mechanics takes place in small areas, but also take place over larger areas. I think this has to do with the consciousness. I think we need a new way to look at time, not either Quantum Mechanics or Relativity.

​

Narrator : If Quantum Mechanics is taking place in the brain then the same randomness of outcome and unpredictability might explain our ability to make sometime random choices. Opening up the future to the possibility of change would provide the first step of restoring to physics the flow of time it currently denies.

​

Physicist : I don't think time flows, I feel that time flows, but I feel we can only understand this if we have a better understanding of how consciousness works. I think human consciousness probably has the secrets as to how and why we think of time as going by.

​

Roger Penrose : I don't think we have the tools, I don't think we have the physical picture to accommodate these things yet. We're not very close to it.

---

So this "still small voice of God" is influencing us into more nightmares? Can it not influence us away from this evil?

I'd say that it is, just not as quickly as we would like, but don't forget that it is just one voice amongst the many voices that lead us to be only concerned with ourselves.

Well then he's not very good as a communicator.If you believe there are so many voices that god's gets lost in the din then that's on him. If he can't bother to be clear when he wants to steer us off the cliff you suggest then his unclear directions to salvation are also suspect, yes?

No. Firstly I don't see the ultimate goal as being salvation. IMHO our job is to be good stewards of the world we live in and the life on it. As for as the next life is concerned I'll leave that to God but the Biblical message is that ultimately God's heavenly dimension and our earthly dimension unite with the renewal of all things.I do believe however, that the life we freely choose to live here does impact the life in a renewed existence.If it was all that clear we would lose the natural ability to choose between love of self and love of the other.

"Freely choose"? If life it is then there isn't much choice. Here or ... where?And your belief appears to be wrong. You only get one existence. You're saying that if god were clearer we would not love ourselves and by extension, could not love others?We already have the ability to love ourselves and others. We don't need a god for that and we don't need a god to take it away. Please keep your god away from earth.

Frankly for me it boils down to believing that we die physically here in our 4 dimensional universe, but that our consciousness lives on in a renewed physicality. I'd say that is just a bit obtuse. I'll give you an extreme example. History has shown us men who have sent troops into battle to kill others and risking their own lives in order to gain power for themselves. That's self love.
We have also seen those who will throw themselves on a grenade in order to save the lives of others. That is love of the other.The difference is about sacrificing someone else's good to benefit the self as opposed to sacrificing the good of the self to benefit the other. I certainly believe that God doesn't take it away, and in fact has given us the ability to love the other as well as the self. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you, and don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you. Firstly, it's too late as He is already here and secondly I don't have that kind of influence to be able to do that.

Oh, come on, GDR, he's your fantasy. You can make him do anything you want. We already have both in this species mixed in measures in every being. This is a normal part of the human condition. No god necessary.

Yet when we look around at people who say they are Christian, most of them do not seem to be practicing this stewardship.

Well, I do see it as being a call for all humanity, and I suppose that Christians aren't much or any better at it than any other group.

For one thing, most Christians who give the matter any thought prefer to pay more attention to where it says we should have dominion over the earth and its animals.For another, the world will end soon -- any moment now according to all the signs of the End Times (which have been present for a couple millennia at least) -- so why bother to practice stewardship over something about to become a cinder (AKA "why polish the brass of a sinking ship?").Stewardship and End Times theology appear to be incompatible.

Yes, quite right.Back in my teenage years, I did look into the end times. And it seemed clear that Peter and Paul were both expecting it to come within their lifetimes.Either it was bad theology, or the end times had already happened and nobody noticed.

That's true. However, that view isn't actually Biblical and was a result of the early Platonic influences that crept into Christianity where after death we would be saved from an evil world and enter into some form of non-physical spiritual existence.Those views are fairly rapidly being shed with the actual Biblical view of a marriage between heaven and earth and a renewed creation. The Lord's prayer has us pray "Your Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven".As Christians we are called to be good stewards of the planet and all life on it. I agree.

I agree that they anticipated Christ's return in their near future but then people have always done that. However, Biblically they did not associate that with the end of the planet. That view came later. Also, since the reformation the passages that warned the Jews about what the results of a violent revolution would be, have been taken as being about the demise of all existence.Mind you, in many ways the end of things as we know them might well come to a form of Armageddon, but it will be us doing it one way or another, and not God.