Online gaming as a virtual boot camp for profiteering and appropriation? I think that's a singularly human, specifically Western, initiative. Nobody is bound to listen to God, whatever God may be. We can fight against the mystery some of us call God, which basically means grabbing what we can while we can, or we can follow where trust in God leads us. For us to do that we need to do more listening prayer, more critical thinking, more study, more self-criticism, more commitment... and approach it all with much less fear than most of us are up for.

We cannot understand, let along control "God"; God cannot control our immediate little actions but we get pretty unhappy when we screw up. And we wouldn't be the first species to end its purpose in extinction (I just wish we didn't seem in such hurry to get there).

 I think games like Farmville etc teach us about stewardship of assets, something God      wants us to know.  Of course the games don't include tithing but after that, it follows a Godly principle:   

 

He who is trusted with little will be given more. Proverbs is also full of bits of wisdom concerning finances. The whole bible in fact.  Saving for tough times, that is biblical. (Joseph in Egypt interpreting the Pharoah's dream of seven fat years followed by seven lean ones. So during the fat ones, put some aside for the lean ones that are sure to come.) That particular situation may not be in Farmville but it does show biblical money concepts and prudence and frugality.

 I think that before we started cultivating and things like that God knew of all the possibilities of what could happen depending on the different decisions we make. It's crazy to think back to how it was and see how the world is now, I don't think it was ever meant to be like this. When people had farms and just provided for their own families, not getting money in return, I think thats how it should have been for in the bible it says God always provides. And since so many people try to provide for himself, it has led to his original provision to be destroyed. When the world was falling from God in the bible and he had to send Jesus because things were getting out of control because of the free will he gives us. And I think of course God is still adding to what we have made of the world today. His light is evident every day amidst the devestation in the world. He is continuing to work in the hearts of his followers to make change and he is bringing more and more people to him.

<3 God is everywhere, what an amazing God :)

I don't know....

From the beginning did God plan to have his earthly son crucified on a cross, or was that an inevitability that unfolded with a desperate situation so that there was no alternative?

If Adam had behaved rather than alienating man from God, would Jesus life and ministry have been necessary?

Jesus reconciled man to God as part of a family plan - is that ongoing? 

That's the "sun".

 

Actually, people in North America and Europe are leaving religion faster than they are flocking to it.

So amazing, that if you remove the assumption that God exists, nothing changes.

 

There are power brokers who probably like the status quo of cheap labour in Asia and a WalMart/consumption-based economy in the "developed" world.  I don't pretend to know exactly why the world has evolved into what it has.  Suffice to say there are political and economic forces at work, but I don't see any small group of people playing the entire world on a set of strings.

SRM ...welcome  ...nice to meet you....

Don't mind Chasen too much ..... usually the same old same old comments....

I don't feel he means any harm but is more here to try and "enlighten" us rather than to dialogue.    You will find there are those here with entrenched viewpoints that wish to convince rather than consider......

In any event ...welcome and I enjoyed the viewpoint you expressed.

Hugs

Rita

This is a great discussion. I like the comments.

Instead of me just writing aboot it or talking aboot it, I encourage everyone here to try this out for themselves.  All it requires is an inquisitive mind (esp. be willing to fiddle) and some patience (be sure to read the instructions).

 

CLICK HERE

I dialogue on this site most every day.  Just because nobody has given me sufficient reason to believe in any god, does not make that lack of response my fault.

 

And I'm also here to keep this place light.  So many people try to make religion sound so serious and profound.  Somebody has to point out the inanity of it all.

 

To be more scientific, I think it would be more true to state that you CHOOSE to write that way?

 

In fact, "serious and profound" and "inanity of it all" and even "keep this place light" are things that can be considered, in a sense, category mistakes.  They are all CHOICES by you and not by some outside force or agency or identity.  Note that I'm not saying that you're wrong.

 

You do know you can choose how to write?

 

Why not choose to take this opportunity to learn?  Note by this I am not saying 'to believe what is being said here'.  Why not, instead of assuming, ask questions of people?  Or just collect data and read.

 

Do you remember the old saw aboot give a woman a fish and feed her for a day, teach a woman to fish and you feed her for a lifetime?  You have an INVALUABLE OPPORTUNITY here to feed people for a lifetime by, instead of telling them they're wrong or absurd or whatnot, you can give them opportunities to learn for themselves.  Be a Feynmann, it's in everyone, it just takes more time and effort than the donkey laugh.

Which explains why, for example, the Queen's School of Religion enrollment is growing .... how exactly?

For someone who believes in science as the dogma of life, you have an inordinate penchant for equating apples and oranges. Leaving "religion" is not the same as forsaking faith.

But we've had this conversation once or twice haven't we?

There is significant evidence suggesting that, for example, the DNA that powers the genetic diversity of every living thing is in large part the same in all things, with the differentiation happening because different elements are activated in different combinations. Not only are we 99.99% identical to apes, for instance, we're 50% (or 20 or 60 or whatever) identical to a palm tree or a blue whale.

 

For life to exist in this universe in any form whatsoever, the parameters established in the first microseconds of the Big Bang/Creation had to be exactly so.

 

That doesn't make Zeus-god real for me - it does, however, make the transcendent aspect of the panentheistic Theos all the more awesome.

 

I don't in any way believe that it was orchestrated, from the beginning of time, that I'd be sitting here typing this tonight. I do believe that "Purpose" and "Meaning" are part of the original equation. How and when we actualize that is totally up to us.

 

Something I'd like to take from this bit of yours is that I think that if someone says that there is no inherent meaning and purpose to life or if there is an inherent purpopse and meaning in life aka 'G_d's Law', then what those two groups are doing is taking Meaning and Purpose out of the human arena.

 

In those two cases, we aren't involved.  It ignores the Human Condition.

 

Oh c'mon, crazyheart. God is not some kind of FarmVille player. Restaurant City maybe, but not FarmVille.

Inanna, did you just learn about "category mistakes", and feel the need to use the term in a sentence?

 

Look, I have learned quite a bit here on WC.  I've read more bible passages in the past year than the rest of my life combined.  But what is there to learn?  The Christian god is just one (or three) more god(s) invented by man in an attempt to explain the unexplainable, or in the worst cases, to control a population with fear.  There is no reason or evidence to believe any of this is real, and that's a good thing.

 

So yes, I choose to write the way I do.  Religion is, as I have stated before, the ultimate "straight man".  Probably because it takes itself so seriously, while stating the most ridiculous things.

 

 

If one, as I do, regards "God" as the self-generative totality of being, in a unitive state of synthesis, then God evolves ITself as IT goes and there is no pre-design.

 

However, in awareness of that, we can be God's co-evolvers and evolve, in intentional co-creation with God and each other, our universe in an ever more godly direction.

 

"For those who think there is no God, who are the CEO's who are orchestrating this whole thing?"

 

I believe in a Creative Being (God) that is constantly evolving, just as humans  are changing and evolving.  The sad truth is that this God-Being is not in control - humans are.

 

Some truths:
Corporations that control world's food

by Charlie Kimber

EVERY DAY 25,000 people die directly from starvation. Many thousands more die from diseases because their bodies are weakened by malnutrition. The multinationals and bankers wreck the economies of countries in Africa and Asia where those people starve. But there are firms which are also directly responsible for who lives and who dies, who eats and who wastes away.

As in every sphere, a handful of corporations dominate the world food market. What should be a basic human right has been turned into a source of fabulous profit for a few. The blizzard of brand names hides the truth about who controls food. Few people know that one of the world's biggest food firms is a tobacco company (Philip Morris) that makes vast profits from spreading its killer drug across the globe.

Just two companies (Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland) control three quarters of the world's grain trade. Four huge multinational corporations (Philip Morris, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and Sara Lee) control 70 percent of the world's coffee market. Only three companies (Cargill, ADM and Philip Morris) account for over 80 percent of the world cocoa trade.

Five agribusinesses (Astra-Zeneca, DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis and Aventis) account for nearly two thirds of the global pesticide market, almost one quarter of the global seed market and virtually all of the genetically modified seed. These are the top ten firms that preside over a world where 850 million are malnourished and others are obese through eating unhealthy food.

CARGILL and ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND (ADM) control the world's grain trade and much more. They show exactly how food multinationals operate. They, not our governments, decide the price of staple foods. It is these corporations that decide who will live and who will starve. If you log on to the website www.e-adm.com you can see the prices of a vast array of agricultural products which are being traded-including pork bellies, soya beans, rough rice, cocoa, cotton, oats, wheat and others. There are fortunes to be made from starvation.

"He who controls the food, controls the world" is a United Nations tenet.

Evidence is accumumulating that the long-range goal of the emerging One World Government (Big Brother) is to control not only our food, but the water we drink and the air we breathe.

 

So how do you explain the unexplainable? What do you make of it? If you can't explain/quantify/define it, then it does not exist? Early science also made absurd claims based on the limited knowledge we had at the time- remember when the earth was flat?? Science has and continues to evolve just as our methods, tools and knowledge do. Religion is also dynamic and ever evolving*. Granted religion has been misused and is full of holes, just like the theory of evolution is. Why the need to give one supremacy over the other? To me the notion of dismissing either or both of these approaches is just a futile, irrelevant exercise. Humans are logical and emotional beings. Both religion and science serve the same purpose, they help us make sense of the world around us. That's reason enough for me. You say religion takes itself so seriously but you seem to take this debate very seriously too. In the end it's just a personal choice, and personal choices (althoug they have positive or negative repercussions) are neither good or bad, they just are. 

Cheers! 

*Have you heard of the charter of compassion? I think that's how religion is evolving and moving away from the outdated notions and dogma.   

 

Golden Rule...

I totally agree with your outlook...It seems that the Universe is pro-complexity...

and that human conscioiusness is pretty much the most complex of entities...

you don't have to to go far if you are on a mystery search...

thanks for the insight...

hehe sorry I was very vague.. By God's light I meant the act of good. And although it seems like a nightmare that more people are abandoning truth today, it is also evident that he is making his true followers stronger, and still people are being saved. If you remove the assumption that God exists, we would fail to exist.

 Awh thanks RitaTG!
I am excited to be on here to find answers to my questions and share my view..
I look forward to talking to you more!
Thanks for the feed back :)

*SRM

Perhaps you haven't learned much at all then, since it sounds as though, like the religious fundies, you choose to interpret your learning only in a way the supports your previous beliefs.

 

"Learning" requires a willingness to see perspectives other than your own, whether in faith or science.

 

Well put!

and, since I haven't seen your handle here before, welcome to the café

 

Charter for Compassion. I couldn't agree more.

Hello Golden Rule,

I'm the new kid in town... Just discovering the joys of virtual discussion groups. Another difference b/w religion and science is that in many, many religious groups there is still a very strong resistance to change. Differing points of views are perceived as threats. Not quite the favourable conditions for evolution. Science doesn't have to compose with that and that is perhaps why we've seen such huge leaps in new technologies, discoreries as opposed to the slower, more segregated mutation of religion. Would you agree?

 

It isn't as if scientists never differ.

 

Hi don_t fit the mold:

 

Well said! And welcome to wonderCafé!

 

Religion, like any other societal institution, evolves. And, as in natural evolution, the past is not left  behind but is encapsulated and carried forward into the future: development through envelopment. New insights are built on old insights as the cathedral of the human spirit soars ever higher.

 

It is the same in science. Ensteinian physics grew out of Newtonian physics and modern Quantum physics grew out of Ensteinian physics. "I have been able to see far because I stood on the shoulders of giants," said Einstein.

 

Science is not dogmatic but always wide open to new insights. Dogmatism and absolutism are the enemies of religion, and will do it in—unless things change and religion opens itself to new insights and remains open.

Hello, DFTM.  I get the impression you're addressing me.

 

I say, "We don't know yet, and some people with lab coats who don't get invited to the best parties are working on it."  I don't chalk it up to "God" because God is not an explanation - it's a hypothesis that would require a great deal of explanation in its own right, and there just isn't any evidence in favour of that hypothesis.

 

I'm not that old, and while it's difficult to compare the modern scientific method with the wild guesses of ancient Greeks, I'm glad that doesn't stop you from trying.

 

Yes, and we know more because of science, not because of religion.

 

Good to see.  And it only took, what?  2000 years?  Continental drift moves faster than religion does.  And religion typically only shifts on a position long after society has.

 

What Christianity has, is a book.  That book was in flux for the first few hundred years of its existence, but is now pretty much static.  It says some good and ethical things, and some incredibly immoral and stupid things.  It also states that it is the Word of God, so no matter how much people try to view it as metaphor, fundamentalists will always be able to point out that the bible says it is the Word of God, and pat themselves on the back for their excellent use of circular logic.

 

*facepalm*

 

OK, I'll bite.  Please identify these "holes".  I look forward to the links to The Discovery Institute.

 

 

Then you're easily satisfied by any answer provided to you.

 

What has religion discovered?  What diseases has it cured?  It is true that religion tries to worm its way into the scientific arena all the time, but every time it does, it fails spectacularly.  The Vatican is against condoms in Africa.  Christian Scientists think you can pray away illness, and die as a consequence of simple infections.  Blind faith in something for which no evidence exists is a bad thing.

 

Religion does take itself seriously, which make for great setup lines.  There is nothing of substance behind the claims of religion, and most people, even most religious people these days, know that.  That's why you can use religion for humour now - because we're sort of on the brink between religion being taken seriously, and not.  Back when everybody believed in God, you couldn't get away with the stuff I write and say.  If, at some point, the majority of people do not believe, then mocking religion will just be like beating a dead horse.  But right now, the majority of people at least "kinda" believe, while in the backs of their minds they realize how crazy it all sounds.

hi. and feel free to call me David if you prefer.

Well this is one of the best places to cut your teeth on, as the saying goes. We have our extremists - from atheists like hansen to literalists like ac - who find any opinion that isnt' theirs isn't worth listening to, but for the most part we're a pretty laid back bunch.

 

Well, true enough in one sense. There's an awful lot of inertia in any area of human thought however. We have, currently, this rosy-glasses view of "science" that perceives those in the industry as guided solely by "concrete facts" with a willingness to discard the old the moment the new is "proven." That's not human nature.

 

Take, for example, the current dust up regarding Zamboni's venous angioplasty treatment for MS. Seems like a pretty obvious case of something new that should be readily adopted by a "scientist" dedicated only to the advancement of science - in this case medical.

Such is not the case.

 

So, for me, the claims of those whose religion is science that they aren't controlled by tradition is a tad self-serving.

 

Science travelled hand-in-hand with faith for a long time, and as you said in your earlier post, one is not exclusive of the other. Karen Armstrong's book the Case for God makes the complementary nature of logos and mythos quite handily. [/quote]

You need to take your medication hansen. You're starting to ramble on like poor old brett used to. I swear, you're start yelling "hand 'effin palm" any minute.  

Strange how many people seem to disagree with you, a reality that even you admit.

DFTM, welcome to the cafe. You will love it like the rest of us. As you can see, conversations go where they will. Happy to see you aboard. Drop into Social when the going gets tough. CH

Umm...okay?

 

That's fine, but it wouldn't matter if everyone believed, or nobody believed - neither would prove the claims of the bible are true.

 

chansen quote:

"we're sort of on the brink between religion being taken seriously, and not."

 

I think your right about this! Today I met an elderly lady I know who invited me to her religious service next week. She told me it starts at 11:00 but she goes at 12:00 because she doesn't want to hear the God stuff. She goes for the big feast that is served afterwards.  I thought that was pretty funny! She wasn't joking.

Good for her.  And that story points out the potential future role of churches in the community, as religion is taken less seriously in the future and I'm out of a hobby.  The preaching is divisive by nature - it will only appeal to a subset of the population.  It's the social aspect that can be inclusive to everybody.

Chansen--Wrote --Good for her.  And that story points out the potential future role of churches in the community, as religion is taken less seriously in the future and I'm out of a hobby.  The preaching is divisive by nature - it will only appeal to a subset of the population.  It's the social aspect that can be inclusive to everybody     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi- Chansen ----I Did not know you where a Prophet--Could you tell us more.We That walk in the way know what is coming.But it is nice to here God speak through one who said I don't believe.God Bless  airclean33

Hi - David I hope your day goes well. You had said you would like some of what I'm on . It"s called the Holy Spirit, are you sure you would like some? God Bless airclean33

Never said I was.  But the trend is away from religious belief, as the number of people who describe themselves as non-believers, atheists or agnostics has doubled over the past 15 years or so.  Among young people, the numbers are even more skewed towards non-belief.  Eventually, it just won't be sporting to mock religion, so I'm trying to make the most of the opportunity I have left.

In all seriousness, you do come across more like somebody with a dependence issue, than a language barrier.  If you say the only drug you're on is religion, then having seen the effects of religion, I can't disagree.

 

How is that possibly "Good for her."?? She's taking advantage of the church. She's getting her belly filled, but missing out on filling her spirit. There are plenty of social organizations if that is all one is looking for. The church has a unique mandate of also serving one's soul.

That's what friendship is for.

 

You perhaps prefer imaginary friends.  This lady prefers real ones.  She wants to talk to real people - not pray to make-believe gods.  Besides, in many areas, churches are some of the only gathering places.

Ummm.... well, since the context of the comment was your obviously incorrect statement that hansen is supportive of my perspective, I'm having trouble seeing how the Holy Spirit figures in.

 

As to "being sure I'd like some" - since what you call the "Holy Spirit" is, in its original intent, the immanent Presence of God in all things, I'm quite satisfied with what I have.

 

I find it sad when people talk about that aspect of the Divine as if it were some sort of pie to be parcelled out only to people invited over for dinner.

 

Be Well

David

We're nourished by community. That was one of the primary traditional roles of a church. It's only in the last few decades that church has become something that we do once a week for a couple of hours. If you asked someone who was part of a congregation in the 30s, 40s, 50s, even into the 60s, what being "involved in their church" meant, I'm fairly certain that Sunday morning service would be pretty low on the list.

 

Where? I do not believe this to be true.

 

Have you been outside of the city?

 

Do you have an answer to my question or not.

Good morning  David --You say I'm wrong about  Hansen then two post above you , He defends you? David what I said about the Holy spirit wasn"t bad. Of couse God is in all living things. For God is Life it"s Self.The Holy Spirit is the Mind of God David.An  I always want to know more about God. Like you said to Hansen take your medication.As far as I know all that would come to Gods  Dinner can.I did not write the Rules God did, after all it"s His house. God Bless David  have a good day. airclean33

 

You don't think churches are some of the only gathering places in some rural areas?  That is a self-defeating position.  In farming communities, there are churches that stand by themselves at intersections, with nothing around them.  I can certainly see local people dropping by the social events, even if they skip the worship services because they don't agree with them.

 

I know you're in Toronto, but you must have driven the countryside at some point.  I pass churches like this all the time.  I designed the structural renovation of one in Stouffville into a very quaint home, and that's just north of Markham.  As you go further afield, it's even more common to see churches that are central to a general farming area, but close to no central community.

You consider his post some sort of defense of me??? lol

So now you're back to your claim of knowing the only "true" interpretation of "the Rules".

 

But to continue your analogy of God's "House" ac, I'm quite sure that, as the old joke goes, when you get there you'll keep the door to your room tightly closed so you can pretend that only those who agreed with you got there.

 

If you hear a party going on outside, that'll be the rest of us enjoying the comeraderie of a universe if diverse perspectives sharing our experiences. Feel free to topen the shutters a bit and join in.

Hi- David You know I have never  have believed as you do. If I am wrong David I will still be were you are . If I'm right and the only way to God is Jesus. This may be a good time to answer, Crazyhearts- Thread David . What was Gods Plan? I personality I don't know , But I do know I'm in it. That is all any of us should want.In John 3-16 God said He Loved us  The World , and would send his son to die for us . I  Believe this and always will.When we leave this flesh. It is not the end but the beginning. You are right David, it dose begin with a party . But I'm not sure you ment this kind, it's a wedding Rev- 19- 7x9 God Bless David--    airclean33