The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

If we came into existence by ourselves, how is it that we have no control over death and life?

It follows that if we are so great and mighty and there is no God, then, logically, we must have control over life and death.

Not so?

Thankfully you are not a scientist because that is the most failed logic I've read in a while!

1. Having no God does not mean we should be great and mighty. You will only understand scientific concepts if you get the idea out of your head that you are NOT the most important thing in the universe!

2. Being great and mighty does not have anything to do with being eternal. Even a Sun so massive that it would take a jet 1100 years to go around it once, so great and mighty, can die.

I still ask the question: Who created the laws of physics? Or did they come into existence by themselves?

Laws = Creator!

Failed logic again. What logical rational did you use to postulate that the laws of physics need a creator? What about anomalies? What about things that only exist once or in one place in the entire universe, or things that are rare like blackholes with gravity so strong it sucks in light. Humans can be an anomaly.

[Humes]

Alyuh men have stamina, yes.

Real stamina.

[Yeo]

nehnehneebooboo, bluefete, yuh just get called feeble minded. LOL...

I'm still chuckling over this....

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

[VexXx Dogg]

Who created god?

The great and eternal God does not need a creator.


He always was and always shall be.

The concept of infinity (which we acknowledge in maths) is best understood by considering God.

In a similar train of thought, can the same not be said about the universe?. The concept of infinity can also apply directly to the universe and everything in it - without factoring in God into the equation.

Did you come into existence by yourself? Did your parents? Did anything in the physical world come into existence by itself?

This would imply that like an eternal God, there always was (in the physical realm).

If we came into existence by ourselves, how is it that we have no control over death and life?

It follows that if we are so great and mighty and there is no God, then, logically, we must have control over life and death.

Not so?

Similarly, did God come into existence all by himself/herself? I reiterate - who created god? You said he willed himself into being, so why cant the great universe also be created from nothing?
Suppose we are arguing the same point? Suppose God IS the universe?

Man is not great, man is but a speck of dust in the universe. It exists beyond what modern science or religion or man can fathom. If we ever encounter another race from a distant planet, they will pwn us badly. We are still bound by OUR own laws of physics. There are physics which man cannot understand just yet.

[bluefete]

nehnehneebooboo, bluefete, yuh just get called feeble minded. LOL...

I'm still chuckling over this....

Me too.

[bluefete]

exactly!
you finally understand
well done!

Me likes this random physics that randomly made us superior to all else on this planet.

[Chimera]

suppose..God is really..a big zaboca tree..and everytime we pick a zaboca, he dies a little

on the flipside, if God is a big zaboca tree, the jesus followers gonna rush the tree and eat all the zaboca, you know how they into that "eat the flesh and blood of Christ thing"

[bluefete]

Thank you Duane. You see- God is using you and you don't even know. That pic goes very well with the article below.

Now! See what I was telling you about Hollywood & Its Agendas?

Why does Disney hate parents? Ever noticed your favourite films always kill off Mum and Dad

By Sonia Poulton
Last updated at 1:57 AM on 3rd September 2010


Last week, as the rain lashed outside, my daughter and I settled down for an afternoon of family nostalgia. The type that Walt Disney films excel at.

The kind that has given Disney a special position in our house. To us, the brand suggests a world of family values and bygone traditions. A place where, no matter the adversity faced, good WILL triumph over evil.

Disney films speak to our heart and embroider the lives of our children with a sense of security in an uncertain world.


Toy Story 3: The film features Andy who is brought up by a single mother

So it was, this rain-soaked day, we laughed and cried our way through a hat trick of Disney favourites: the heart-rendingly beautiful Bambi, the gloriously regal Lion King and the eternally charming Finding Nemo.

But later, I realised something else that binds Disney films, other than good old nostalgic charm: an absence of parents.

Bambi, abandoned by his father before birth, experiences the hunting and subsequent shooting of his mummy. A tragedy that still reduces me to uncontrollable sobs four decades after I first saw it with my own mother.

That's not all. In the Lion King, Simba is implicated in the death of his father and runs away in a vain attempt to escape his misery.

While Nemo - the rebellious fish - is the sole survivor of a violent barracuda attack on his mother and siblings and spends much of the story estranged from his father.

The realisation that these three films all drew on a parent-less theme made me reel. Surely it was only coincidence?

Apparently not. For Disney, that most child-friendly of organisations, appears to have something of a parent problem.

Since its formation in the Twenties, Disney's output has featured a steady supply of dysfunctional and broken families.

Orphan: Mowgli in the care of Baloo in the Disney film The Jungle Book 2

Dumbo, like Bambi, still devastates audiences, as the fatherless baby elephant is separated from his mother after she is locked up for her apparent psychosis.

The moggies in the Aristocats - a personal childhood favourite - are also fatherless. Neither Ariel (The Little Mermaid) or Belle (Beauty And The Beast) have a mother.

Even more recently, fans worldwide have delighted in the final instalment of Toy Story, as Andy - the film's main character - is raised by a single parent mother.

Not to worry, though, in the total absence of his father, Andy's key male influence is a wooden cowboy.

And it's not just Disney's cartoon output that is subject to this parental peculiarity; its non-animation TV shows and movies are, too.

On Disney's TV channel, the popular Hannah Montana - played by the precocious Miley Cyrus - learns the teenage ropes from her single parent father because her mother is AWOL.

On the big screen, The Game Plan chronicles a ten-year-old girl searching for her long-lost father after the untimely - although not entirely unpredictable - demise of her single parent mother.

And the Grammy- nominated Enchanted captures Giselle, an archetypal Disney princess, adapting to the harsh environment of New York as a motherless young girl.

By this point in my research, I was becoming increasingly disturbed by the absence of parental role models in the world of Walt Disney. And there was more.

Some Disney characters aren't even fortunate enough to have one parent and are orphaned before the opening credits are over.

Baby Tarzan was abandoned in the jungle after the savaging of his parents by a leopard. And there's Tod in The Fox And The Hound and Arthur in The Sword In The Stone, who are left to pursue their destinies without parents.

Fatherless: Dumbo devastates the audience when he becomes separated from his mother in the 1941 hit

I wonder, is this distinct lack of parental care in Disney productions used for dramatic effect?

Is it there to give the main protagonist an opportunity to face their personal challenges without the guidance of a parent - or is there more to this?

Might the death of Walt Disney's mother - and the lifelong guilt this left her son with - be the catalyst for the death of parents in Disney?

In 1938 and riding high with the proceeds from his first big screen movie Sleeping Beauty, Walt bought his mother, Flora, and his father, Elias, a house in LA as a golden wedding anniversary present.

Within days of moving in, Flora complained about the stultifying temperatures coming from the central heating boiler and her doting son arranged for a swift replacement.

Days later, Flora died from asphyxiation caused by the new, poorly-installed, boiler.

Might Walt Disney's misplaced guilt over his mother's death have led him to airbrush parents - mothers in particular - out of his works?

And has that motivation, after his death in 1966, become a Disney blueprint?

Certainly, it would explain the types of folk stories and fairytales that Disney has acquired for adaptation, even when there are numerous other traditional tales that feature a mother and father.

The company animated Cinderella (no mother), Snow White (no mother or father, but a wicked stepmum) and The Jungle Book (orphaned Mowgli, raised by a bear and a tiger).

But perhaps most audacious in this regard was the purchase of J.M. Barrie's epic Peter Pan, where the boy-child not only had responsibility for a whole island of orphans (The Lost Boys) but Wendy's parents socialised constantly and left their children in the care of the family dog.

There is a third way to explain Disney's apparent downer on parents.

Might the company - and its output - be a true reflection of our disparate society and the obvious disintegration of the traditional nuclear family?

Or might it be the other way around? Might Disney have played its own part in the demise of family values given that we - and our children - have fallen for this wholesome entertainment for decades?

Have we subconsciously imbibed this airbrushing out of parental figures from its films?

If nothing else, Disney stands accused of failing to honour that most sacred of bonds - that of the mother and the father to their children.

Now, that is hardly family entertainment, is it?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... z0yUP6bts5

BTW: Walt Disney was a 33 degree Grand Inspector General in the Lodge!!

So, everything I pointed out in Avatar was just my imagination going wild.!! Huh?

[Chimera]

grand inspector? he use 2 inspect the lodge piano?

[bluefete]

suppose..God is really..a big zaboca tree..and everytime we pick a zaboca, he dies a little

on the flipside, if God is a big zaboca tree, the jesus followers gonna rush the tree and eat all the zaboca, you know how they into that "eat the flesh and blood of Christ thing"

[bluefete]

If we came into existence by ourselves, how is it that we have no control over death and life?

It follows that if we are so great and mighty and there is no God, then, logically, we must have control over life and death.

Not so?

Thankfully you are not a scientist because that is the most failed logic I've read in a while!

1. Having no God does not mean we should be great and mighty. You will only understand scientific concepts if you get the idea out of your head that you are NOT the most important thing in the universe! Why not? Your logic does not follow. If there is no God then we should be all powerful and be able to live forever. Given that we would have evolved out of nothing!

2. Being great and mighty does not have anything to do with being eternal. Even a Sun so massive that it would take a jet 1100 years to go around it once, so great and mighty, can die. Therefore, this sun could not have come into being by itself.

I still ask the question: Who created the laws of physics? Or did they come into existence by themselves?

Laws = Creator!

Failed logic again. What logical rational did you use to postulate that the laws of physics need a creator? What about anomalies? What about things that only exist once or in one place in the entire universe, or things that are rare like blackholes with gravity so strong it sucks in light. Humans can be an anomaly.Even blackholes are subject to the laws of gravity. And anomalies, likewise. So, who created the laws to keep things (even anomalies) in their proper places? Why are we so perfectly positioned from the Sun. Is this a random occurrence of events? Or did particles of physics randomly come together for this fortuitous event?

[bluefete]

^ LOL I was waiting on this.

bluefete have you read his book? Or ANY of his books?

Stephen Hawking is a genius. He has no interest in money, not like he can do anything with it.

This is but one small statement in his research that spans blackholes, mulitverses, quantum physics and even string theory to name a few. The media is publicizing THIS statement in his book only because it is controversial. The media can easily agitate feeble minds.

Before you go calling Hawking a madman, I suggest you read his book in its entirety.
Otherwise you are just blurting out uneducated comments

BTW: Mr. Hawking himself could have made this statement to stir up interest in his new book.

[Rainman]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

It is random bluefete.
That might be a scary thought for some people so they comfort themselves with whatever story they feel most comfortable with

[cacasplat3]

multi-part post:

if God is infinite i.e. exists before all, and after all......what was he doing before he created the Earth a few thousand years ago? playing with his thumbs? i find it hard to believe he was just sitting in the dark for soo many years doing nothing.........








and another thing, they say God knows everything(omniscient), that includes our thoughts and the future. and everything that happens is part of God's big plan(so i've been told).......so does that mean he knows what i will do tomorrow, or the day after that? does that also mean he knows the wrong things i will do? if he knows the wrong things i will do, then what's the point of judging me? after all, those wrong things were part of his big plan.......then it means we are just living in a world that has been pre-planned and we are just doing what was planned for us, and at the end God will judge us based on the actions we did during our life which he planned.....and that means that he knows my fate even before my existence on this earth..........sounds a bit creepy that God will put soo many puppets on earth to live and suffer(as many do) just to die and be judge according to what he planned for us before.......

i look forward to a response that acknowledges free will.........

My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.

-David Attenborough

[MG Man]

good quote
Attenborough is one of my alltime favorite documentary narrators
His 'Trials of Life' still rates as one of the best

[Jonathan]

As far as I'm concerned...

[d spike]

The company animated Cinderella (no mother), Snow White (no mother or father, but a wicked stepmum) and The Jungle Book (orphaned Mowgli, raised by a bear and a tiger).

But perhaps most audacious in this regard was the purchase of J.M. Barrie's epic Peter Pan, where the boy-child not only had responsibility for a whole island of orphans (The Lost Boys) but Wendy's parents socialised constantly and left their children in the care of the family dog.
So, everything I pointed out in Avatar was just my imagination going wild.!! Huh?

Yup. Quoting another paranoid mind only serves to show that paranoia is not rare.
Just as you quote material without knowing whether it is true or not, save that it serves your purpose, so too does your source. (Like minds, I dare say!)
The dear lady is quick to pass judgment on that masterful story, The Jungle Book, watered down and sugar-coated by Disney. The fact that she claims Mowgli was raised by a tiger, when Mowgli was actually hunted by the tiger - whom he grew up to hunt in turn and later slay - shows that she didn't know the story, or paid it no attention... how then could she really and truly judge it? And if this is how she judges a film (by either not knowing it, or not paying attention while viewing it) how then can one trust her judgment? Does her voiced opinion carry any weight?
No. To quote the Jungle Book, in giving an apt description of these failed critics: Like Ikki the Porcupine, full of stories half heard and badly told...

The question of whether Art reflects Life, or Life reflects Art, is a valid one. To query whether Disney's successful use of parentless children (in order to heighten the level of conflict between the child and others/environment - which makes the story more thrilling and interesting) has a direct influence on people's views of family life is, however, ridiculous. Rather, wouldn't it highlight the importance of family as a buffer between the child and the world - this being obvious by its absence and the resulting consequences?

[d spike]

I fail to see how all these articles about Hawking, GM wheat, Fish with multi-purpose fins, and bashing Avatar and now Disney, have anything to do with one's best encounter with God. (The fact that the OP has changed the phrase at the end of the title multiple times, but not the title itself, shows that he still considers this relevant.)
Perhaps he is one of these folk whose best encounter with God is to bash all those who seem not to do so.
How odd...



Bluefete, if the internet were to ban all those "hate the world" pseudo-christian sites... and the Daily Mail were to go out of business... where would you get your information from?

[bluefete]

I fail to see how all these articles about Hawking, GM wheat, Fish with multi-purpose fins, and bashing Avatar and now Disney, have anything to do with one's best encounter with God. (The fact that the OP has changed the phrase at the end of the title multiple times, but not the title itself, shows that he still considers this relevant.)
Perhaps he is one of these folk whose best encounter with God is to bash all those who seem not to do so.
How odd...



Bluefete, if the internet were to ban all those "hate the world" pseudo-christian sites... and the Daily Mail were to go out of business... where would you get your information from?

They are all variations on a theme. Each article quoted ties back into one of the science, knowledge & God themes. That is where God has sent me.

Now you deign to give me titles I do not deserve.

I asked tuners to share their best encounters with God. I ended up with some trying to bash God and casting doubt on his existence. Even up to today - See Mr. Hawking preposterous statement higher up on this page.

Strange, but tonight on the bus I was listening to a lady talk about the $5 / $20 / $100 /$500 / $1,000 lines in some churches.

Truly men have made a mockery of God.

It is easy to understand why Jesus used a bullpistle on them in his time.

[rossi]

Anyone read "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken???

[bluefete]

The company animated Cinderella (no mother), Snow White (no mother or father, but a wicked stepmum) and The Jungle Book (orphaned Mowgli, raised by a bear and a tiger).

But perhaps most audacious in this regard was the purchase of J.M. Barrie's epic Peter Pan, where the boy-child not only had responsibility for a whole island of orphans (The Lost Boys) but Wendy's parents socialised constantly and left their children in the care of the family dog.
So, everything I pointed out in Avatar was just my imagination going wild.!! Huh?

Yup. Quoting another paranoid mind only serves to show that paranoia is not rare.
Just as you quote material without knowing whether it is true or not, save that it serves your purpose, so too does your source. (Like minds, I dare say!)
The dear lady is quick to pass judgment on that masterful story, The Jungle Book, watered down and sugar-coated by Disney. The fact that she claims Mowgli was raised by a tiger, when Mowgli was actually hunted by the tiger - whom he grew up to hunt in turn and later slay - shows that she didn't know the story, or paid it no attention... how then could she really and truly judge it? And if this is how she judges a film (by either not knowing it, or not paying attention while viewing it) how then can one trust her judgment? Does her voiced opinion carry any weight?
No. To quote the Jungle Book, in giving an apt description of these failed critics: Like Ikki the Porcupine, full of stories half heard and badly told...

The question of whether Art reflects Life, or Life reflects Art, is a valid one. To query whether Disney's successful use of parentless children (in order to heighten the level of conflict between the child and others/environment - which makes the story more thrilling and interesting) has a direct influence on people's views of family life is, however, ridiculous. Rather, wouldn't it highlight the importance of family as a buffer between the child and the world - this being obvious by its absence and the resulting consequences?Yes, it would. On the surface. But what is the hidden message? In the same way you can make this rationalization, why can't the lady make her own rationalization? Maybe, it is time someone gave Disney a second look.

Take a look:

http://listverse.com/2009/05/10/top-10- ... -cartoons/

[bluefete]

Anyone read "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken???

I have. When I used to believe in aliens.

[bluefete]

It is random bluefete.
That might be a scary thought for some people so they comfort themselves with whatever story they feel most comfortable with

So you are here by guess then? I see.

[rossi]

Anyone read "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken???

I have. When I used to believe in aliens.

So what happened to your beliefs??

[bluefete]

Going Back to Beauty & The Beast for a minute:

[bluefete]

Anyone read "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken???

I have. When I used to believe in aliens.

So what happened to your beliefs??

Converted to normalcy after reading "Chariot of the Gods."

[16 cycles]

Going Back to Beauty & The Beast for a minute:

wow.....the maker of that vid is probably a pedo to be watching a children's film and the word 'sex' pops out at him in different scenes...

[zcarz]

so it is inconceiveable to think the universe can be created from nothing, but perfectly rational to think there is some divine presence that has no begining and has always been?
wtf bluey

The limitations of the human mind when it come to proffering a rationalization for God's existence.

The created can never understand the mind of the creator.

MGMan: You are so right. The universe was created from nothing. "And God said ... " And it was done.

Who created god?

The great and eternal God does not need a creator.

He always was and always shall be.

The concept of infinity (which we acknowledge in maths) is best understood by considering God.

Not as much a concept as it is a problem, considering God gets rid of one part of the infinity and introduces another. Many mathematicians won't even consider infinity nowadays, infinity doesn't really have a place in Maths... more of a paradox than anything else.