Why Scutfargus is interesting?

[zeusbheld]

Some people test God in prayer all of the time. This does not mean that God always gives a "yes" answer to every person's prayer. But...well, let me give you an example:

In Dallas Theological Seminary, a few of the administrators and teachers were praying for funds. One of them prayed (this is not an exact quote): "God, we know that you own the cattle on a thousand hills. We need some of that wealth now in order to survive." He was quoting a Scripture which says that the cattle on a thousand hills belong to God.

Within a couple of days, a Texas rancher came into Dallas Theological Seminary and give them a substantial offering which he had gotten from selling some of the cattle on his ranch. God does listen to us.

My suggestion has been to a number of people is this, sit down with the book of John and test God. Tell Him, "I don't know if You are real or not; but if you are real, then speak to me through your Word." And then read. If you are willing to listen, God is willing to talk to you.

this sort of test regardless of the outcome is not what i'm talking about by testable. testable are things that make specific consistent predictions that are utterly measurable and repeatable.

this is a qualittatively different kind of experience. not an apples-to-apples comparison.

what you are describing are EXACTLY what i have categorized as a mystical experience. NOT a scientific test. science is descriptive, it will never tell you that God does or does not exist. only how things operate.

[melasinsh]

this isnt a religious site it's a dating site.

Oh please, this has already been debated on a topic posted by OutOfOrder by a very similar name. It is her assertion as well as the assertion of many others this is indeed a "dating site" NOT.

I think with your vehemence and disdain for polite discussion you shall succeed in reinforcing her contention and possibly driving away paying members.

[zeusbheld]

this isnt a religious site it's a dating site.

Oh please, this has already been debated on a topic posted by OutOfOrder by a very similar name. It is her assertion as well as the assertion of many others this is indeed a "dating site" NOT.

I think with your vehemence and disdain for polite discussion you shall succeed in reinforcing her contention and possibly driving away paying members.

if you were to take a careful look around the site, you would see that the vast majority of members who log on regularly NEVER post journals and NEVER post in the forums.

i have no interest in using this site for dating purposes, and a great many people dont. but... what do you think the rest of the people, the other 20,000 or so, on here are doing? do you think they are so entertained by "polite discussions" in the forums that they log in regularly to read stuff like this?

[melasinsh]

Obviously, some of the things which are really being discussed in this thread are:

What is the nature of faith?

...

What is evidence? Do we require photographs? Do we require eyewitess accounts?

I have to confess that I must applaud scutfargus for being the second person to recognize what the posted topic was...

ZBH even admitted he did not read r36's posted topic nor did he care to. Instead he chose to read a posting of mine standalone which meant that posting was read and interpreted clearly and completely out of context followed by MAG and Loburt...

I would like to know more about this "rape of physics..." Can you point to the lines posted in this thread and the proven laws of physics which lead to this rape...???

[melasinsh]

What is so interesting about this thread is the way robbie36 posts the question, actually a long-winded assertion, and never comes back to respond.

Is he really interested in any of this???

Is he in fact the court jester???

It seems he likes to post argumentative and/or controversial issues and sit back to see the pot simmer or boil.

It seems he is indeed the winner of his game.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

What is so interesting about this thread is the way robbie36 posts the question, actually a long-winded assertion, and never comes back to respond.

Is he really interested in any of this???

Is he in fact the court jester???

It seems he likes to post argumentative and/or controversial issues and sit back to see the pot simmer or boil.

It seems he is indeed the winner of his game.

Anyone who is -intelligent- enough will know that...

Some PPL have a life to live & some other things to be sorted out there in the real World ... TF is NOT their priority

[WiCKeDBiRD]

PS. --->>> Mmmmm its NOT a crime .. if One does NOT live life through TF.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

Got to admit that I am flattered to have my own thread. WHen I am a little less busy, I will tell you all about how I was brainwashed.

Even.. my -Scutfy- Darling .... seems to have some other things to do besides TF. 8) :wink:

[Loburt]

You're right, bjay, it's not our business. Until he starts prosletyzing. When people start prostletyzing, then it becomes other people's business.

[robbie36]

What is so interesting about this thread is the way robbie36 posts the question, actually a long-winded assertion, and never comes back to respond.

Is he really interested in any of this???

Is he in fact the court jester???

It seems he likes to post argumentative and/or controversial issues and sit back to see the pot simmer or boil.

It seems he is indeed the winner of his game.

Well as you ask I will tell you exactly how I read Scutfargus.

My theory 'based on evolution' is that man has basically evolved with too large a brain. A bit like peacocks have big pretty feathers and mate with peahens who like peacocks with big pretty feathers so producing even bigger and brighter and totally useless feathers. I think man was basically born with a brain that thinks too much.

Our brain takes the basic instincts such as fear and greed, selfishness and unselfishness etc and has a tendency to go from one extreme to another. Now if a human is in survival mode he is too busy just surviving and reproducing to worry too much.

We also spend much of our time building our own belief systems and comparing them with society. We are all trying to build our own 'faith' systems inside our head - building our own 'God' which is different to every other persons. I also believe that some people allow their internal belief systems to break down completely that they just believe in the on-going society's belief system.

My best guess is that this is what happened to Scutfargus. If we believe in 'evolution' then there isnt much more than our own basic instincts. Our brains let us copy ideas 'memes' from human to another and we desperately feel a need to communicate with other humans (talk as well as think). We also feel the need spend much time rationalising the current perception.

It is why the internet is in many respects the new religion. It connects the 'I' (the computer) with virtually the sum of human knowledge. You can access anyone anywhere (via email) or a sum of much of humanity's knowledge base via google for instance.

Religion bascially 'quietens the mind'. By all means study it - learn to meditate but dont take it all too seriously.

As for the 'stupid' stuff - my take on Scartfargus is that is a very intelligent person who holds some stupid and irrational beliefs.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

I find scut interesting because, according to his profile, he is a god-fearing lesbian... if he wasn't trapped in a republican texan man's body that might turn me on.

It is also interesting that there might be a relationship between the shape of his head and his unflinching beliefs. I saw a documentary on NOVA about a boy who suffered severe head trauma in a car accident. After the accident, he had these powerful experiences of "god"...so strong that he would pass out. His experiences were so authentic that he started "worshipping god." It shows a real lack of ingenuity to explain such cases away with words like "stupid" and "brainwashed." Such sophmoric arguments are about as useful as quoting from the Bible.

Although the existence of God cannot be proven, there is no denying the experience of god. Humans in every corner of the planet have been experiencing god for millenia, long before organized religion, long before anybody had a need to brainwash anybody.

Just as we cannot say with certainity that there is a god, we cannot say with certainity that scut has not experienced god. Although some might suspect his head is malformed or traumatized in some fashion, we have no idea why he Believes. It may be neuro-chemicals, it may be epilepsy, it may be psychotropic drug abuse, it may be GOD, it may be stupidity. Its none of our business really. Although I have no reason to believe Scut, I am not going to rule out the possibility that someday my brain might be rewired in a different way, stimulating beliefs that resemble his.

Heaven forbid.

Being a very self-centred myself.. I kind of like your attitude.

Some of your way(s) of thinking sounds so familiar ... really 8) :wink:

[scutfargus]

humanism and evolution ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Agreed. Evolution is one of the basic tenets of humanism and I can testify that humanism is essentially what is taught in US schools.

[scutfargus]

Got to admit that I am flattered to have my own thread. WHen I am a little less busy, I will tell you all about how I was brainwashed.

Even.. my -Scutfy- Darling .... seems to have some other things to do besides TF. 8) :wink:

Yes, and a very sad state of affairs, if you ask me. I am just going to have to get my priorities straight.

[scutfargus]

My best guess is that this is what happened to Scutfargus....

My best guess as to what happened to Scutfargus was, I read a lot of books at a time when I was not caught up in believing this or that; I had no personal stake in the things that I did believe. Therefore, I was able to do this reading with an open mind.

Now, quite obviously, on certain subjects, my mind is now as closed as most of those posting here. I don't pretend any differently. But, I did study the evidence with an open mind before I believed in the things which I believe in.

I did believe in evolution originally, but I did not have the conviction which others here have; nor, was my belief system based upon evolution being true or false. That allowed me to read both sides of the evidence without having my mind made up to begin with.

But, far more important than this was believing in Jesus Christ. If I was on a jury, and a dozen people were paraded before me as witnesses and they all witnessed the same thing; and they witness this of a person that they knew; well, I would tend to believe their witness (more than I would believe the witness of one or two who did not actually know the person they were a witness to).

The 11 Apostles, for the most part, were cowards. When Jesus was taken in the garden, they ran. Peter hung around until he was recongized, and then he took off. Only John, of the 12 Apostles stayed for the crucifixion of Jesus.

These same 10 cowards, after they saw the risen Jesus, stood up for what they saw and believed. Most of them, except for John, died martyr's deaths. They did not die because they simply believed something, as some have done over the past several centuries in many different faiths--they died for what they actually saw with their own eyes. If they are lying about seeing the risen Christ, then these cowards were willing to die for that lie. That seems very unlikely.

Furthermore, there was a lot of literature still extent today from the first couple centuries; nowhere, for the first couple centuries, does anyone question the miracles or the resurrection of Jesus, even though Rome, as a whole, was very anti-Christian during those first two centuries. No one could dispute these things because too many people had witnessed His life; and too many people witnessed His resurrection. How can you philosophically argue at that time that Jesus rose from the grave, if there are 500 witnesses who saw Him and at least 11 of them were willing to die to prove that they saw Him?

To me, that witness of history is as powerful as the witness of any scientist or historian today.

[zeusbheld]

humanism and evolution ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Agreed. Evolution is one of the basic tenants of humanism and I can testify that humanism is essentially what is taught in US schools.

but evolution is descriptive, not moral.

assuming it is correct that evolution is one of the basic tenets of humanism, that does not mean that there is any dependency going the other way AT ALL. evolution does not have anything at all to do with humanism, unless you equate science with humanism.

however, i think that is FAR too broad a definition of humanism. even if in fact science does not exist outside of humanist beliefs, that doesnt mean it could not.

possibly secular humanism is what you are against, not evolution? if so, maybe if you could separate the two, you could approach evolution with a more open mind?

[SgtPepper]

Its all the devils work!

SATAN IS ALL POWERFUL AND IN THE ACENDENCY!

JESUS HAD BETTER WATCH HIS BACK!

[WiCKeDBiRD]

this isnt a religious site it's a dating site.

Oh please, this has already been debated on a topic posted by OutOfOrder by a very similar name. It is her assertion as well as the assertion of many others this is indeed a "dating site" NOT.

I think with your vehemence and disdain for polite discussion you shall succeed in reinforcing her contention and possibly driving away paying members.

if you were to take a careful look around the site, you would see that the vast majority of members who log on regularly NEVER post journals and NEVER post in the forums.

i have no interest in using this site for dating purposes, and a great many people dont . but... what do you think the rest of the people, the other 20,000 or so, on here are doing? do you think they are so entertained by "polite discussions" in the forums that they log in regularly to read stuff like this?

It takes One to know One.

MMmm ppl like to judge others by thier own set of values... whatever.

I cant be bothered though...

Life is too short to worry about what ppl think about ME.

No matter what... I do care for those who I do CARE.

from my Cupcake my Noochy's Headline

"We Don't See Things As They Are. We See Things As We Are." Anais Nin

-WB-

[DJTX]

Regardless of his beliefs and his potential desire to convert people. Despite all of the people who seemingly disagree with him - Scutfargus sure gets a lot of attention - probably more than anyone on this site. Ever think that is what people who try to convert you to their way of thinking want...

[scutfargus]

evolution does not have anything at all to do with humanism, unless you equate science with humanism.

however, i think that is FAR too broad a definition of humanism. even if in fact science does not exist outside of humanist beliefs, that doesnt mean it could not.

From the 2003 Humanism manifesto:

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

My guess is, although I have not checked it out, that this has been a basic tenet of humanism from day one.

I have only recently discovered humanism; it had nothing to do with my thoughts about evolution. However, it does help to explain evolution's impact.

I suspect that most of you, if you went to a humanist website, you would decide, "Hey, that's me...this is what I believe!"

[zeusbheld]

evolution does not have anything at all to do with humanism, unless you equate science with humanism.

however, i think that is FAR too broad a definition of humanism. even if in fact science does not exist outside of humanist beliefs, that doesnt mean it could not.

From the 2003 Humanism manifesto:

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

My guess is, although I have not checked it out, that this has been a basic tenet of humanism from day one.

I have only recently discovered humanism; it had nothing to do with my thoughts about evolution. However, it does help to explain evolution's impact.

I suspect that most of you, if you went to a humanist website, you would decide, "Hey, that's me...this is what I believe!"

again: if humanism depends on evolution, it does not follow logically that evolution depends on humanism.

[dexlowe2004]

Humanism is merely a by-product of evolution, just another form that human nature has followed. How else could it be? It logically follows that it could not be the other way around, Scutfargus -- you're talking creationist crap, and I for one won't accept that.

[scutfargus]

Its all the devils work!

SATAN IS ALL POWERFUL AND IN THE ACENDENCY!

JESUS HAD BETTER WATCH HIS BACK!

So when are you going to post the words for, "You Gotta Serve Somebody" ?

[scutfargus]

Humanism is merely a by-product of evolution, just another form that human nature has followed. How else could it be? It logically follows that it could not be the other way around, Scutfargus -- you're talking creationist crap, and I for one won't accept that.

I went back to see what I wrote; I found this:

Evolution is one of the basic tenets of humanism and I can testify that humanism is essentially what is taught in US schools.

We disagree how?

[scutfargus]

The way i look at it, the experience of god is not much different than the experience of love.

Some people feel it, some people don't. Some people are looking for it, other people could care less. And even though it is an experience that cannot be understood, some people claim they do, and they try to peddle their idea on everybody else. But when you really look at it ... both experiences are just chemicals in the brain telling us to fill unfilled voids with something rigid, stiff and tangible.

(but since you can't, for example, tell our lovers that we enjoy their company only because our brains have misfired, we must go on pretending the experience is oh so real).

There are certainly people for whom spirituality and a belief in God is an experience; this is clearly the situation in the charismatic movement (which can be found not in just Assembly of God and Pentecostal churches, but in almost every denomination).

We also have the examples of the Catholic mystics (as will as the mystics from other religions, whose experience is often very similar).

However, that is not what I have proposed. Belief in Jesus Christ is a choice; it is a volitional choice. You might feel great, you might feel beat down, you might be lacking in feeling, you may have 1 or 100 emotions running through your system. You might be clearheaded, you might be hungover. You may be at the top of your game in life; you may have just lost your gf (bf), job, your house, your car and all of your friends. However, the key is never your emotional prelude or response; the key is your freewill. Now, there are times when you exhibit some positive volition and God has to encourage you to make that choice. That is why so many people believe in Jesus Christ during a low point in their lives. After all, when our life is great, we think that we had everything to do with that; when our life is crappy, we look up and shake our fist at God for making us miserable. Sometimes, it is that shaking of our fist which causes us to acknowledge God.

Be that as it may, no matter what the circumstance, believing in Jesus Christ or choosing not to believe is your choice, your volition, your freewill.

[eagle]

Be that as it may, no matter what the circumstance, believing in Jesus Christ or choosing not to believe is your choice, your volition, your freewill.

Didn't you once say that God knows those who will accept or reject Jesus, and he doesn't waste his time giving the Word to those who would not accept.

That is far from freewill. And to damn that person to hell? Why, scut, do you choose a system that provides no opportunity -- gives no choice -- to the majority of people who have lived on this earth?

he has faith and you don't need logic or intelligence to say ok i believe