goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: yoga-like_abana on February 27, 2011, 11:23:01 AM
-
Thoughts....?
Post them here!
-
Hoax
-
I'm for it
-
Is scientology a religion? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHpjcZNM8_k
-
This is weird. I am an agnostic and have been to church just a handful of times over the last 10 years. I woke up this morning and decided to go to church
for the hell of it. I put on a shirt and tie and drove to St. Isidore's.
As I was parking my car, I noticed that everybody walking into the church had jeans and hoodies on. :horrorsurprise:
I felt overdressed and drove home. I was going to change and go to 11 a.m. mass, but then I decided to wager on the West Virginia-Rutgers game instead.
Maybe next week.
-
Cons: Tithing, standing up and singing, being forced to go to church when younger, some dood is "watching" over all of us, etc.
-
This is weird. I am an agnostic and have been to church just a handful of times over the last 10 years. I woke up this morning and decided to go to church for the hell of it. I put on a shirt and tie and drove to St. Isidore's.
As I was parking my car, I noticed that everybody walking into the church had jeans and hoodies on. :horrorsurprise:
I felt overdressed and drove home. I was going to change and go to 11 a.m. mass, but then I decided to wager on the West Virginia-Rutgers game instead.
Maybe next week.
Actually those other people were underdressed, and you could have walked in there standing tall, looking sharp, and feeling good about yourself. But you were too big of a pussy to do that. :lol:
-
Hoax
-
This is weird. I am an agnostic and have been to church just a handful of times over the last 10 years. I woke up this morning and decided to go to church for the hell of it. I put on a shirt and tie and drove to St. Isidore's.
As I was parking my car, I noticed that everybody walking into the church had jeans and hoodies on. :horrorsurprise:
I felt overdressed and drove home. I was going to change and go to 11 a.m. mass, but then I decided to wager on the West Virginia-Rutgers game instead.
Maybe next week.
Actually those other people were underdressed, and you could have walked in there standing tall, looking sharp, and feeling good about yourself. But you were too big of a pussy to do that. :lol:
Damn, you're right. :cry:
Another reason why I didn't go: I wasn't sure how much to leave in the "collection basket." Forgot to search that online before I left the house. I planned on giving $10 or $20, but really had no clue. Come to think of it ...
MODS!? MOVE THIS POST TO TIPPING THREAD!
-
I've never donated at Mass before. But then again, I don't take in any income. 10% of 0 is 0, so :emawkid:.
-
I would love to read the bible someday if they made it a lot shorter and easier to read. With pictures and stuff.
-
did you go?
-
did you go?
hasn't messaged me back yet :frown: must not be an attractive option anymore.
-
Like the idea of religion...don't like that there are too many of them and some of them conflict with others.
-
My little church in my little hillbilly town is headed for the greatest schism of all time over the ordaining of queers. The pastor didn't speak to or look at me today because my family are known liberals. First hand evidence of the pettiness that is symptomatic of the people who take this crap too seriously.
-
The pastor didn't speak to or look at me today
WHAT?!?! LOVE THY BROTHER! FORGIVENESS IS DIVINE! JFC don't they get it? I'm angry about this. :chainsaw:
Wait WTF were you doing near a church?
-
This is weird. I am an agnostic and have been to church just a handful of times over the last 10 years. I woke up this morning and decided to go to church for the hell of it. I put on a shirt and tie and drove to St. Isidore's.
As I was parking my car, I noticed that everybody walking into the church had jeans and hoodies on. :horrorsurprise:
I felt overdressed and drove home. I was going to change and go to 11 a.m. mass, but then I decided to wager on the West Virginia-Rutgers game instead.
Maybe next week.
Actually those other people were underdressed, and you could have walked in there standing tall, looking sharp, and feeling good about yourself. But you were too big of a pussy to do that. :lol:
Damn, you're right. :cry:
Another reason why I didn't go: I wasn't sure how much to leave in the "collection basket." Forgot to search that online before I left the house. I planned on giving $10 or $20, but really had no clue. Come to think of it ...
MODS!? MOVE THIS POST TO TIPPING THREAD!
I think Rake is on to something here. Tithing should be like tipping. You have a good week, maybe you give the big guy a little something extra. Having a down week, maybe he didn't earn it.
-
Like the idea of religion...don't like that there are too many of them and some of them conflict with others.
I don't think I could ever choose a religion. There are more than 100 religions. Odds are that only one of them, if any, are right. How on earth could I possibly pick one, knowing full well that geography often dictates what you believe in?
It's like I told the Mormons who visited my house one day: "You are going to feel mighty stupid when you are wrong."
-
Like the idea of religion...don't like that there are too many of them and some of them conflict with others.
I don't think I could ever choose a religion. There are more than 100 religions. Odds are that only one of them, if any, are right. How on earth could I possibly pick one, knowing full well that geography often dictates what you believe in?
It's like I told the Mormons who visited my house one day: "You are going to feel mighty stupid when you are wrong."
And religions (especially Christianity) always try to dodge the "What happens to non-Christians" question when it's clear that the Bible says they all go to hell. "God would probably save Ghandi since he was a good man" when really he wasn't a Christian and is probably burning in hell right now according to the Holy text. I guess nice guys finish last :frown:
-
Like the idea of religion...don't like that there are too many of them and some of them conflict with others.
I don't think I could ever choose a religion. There are more than 100 religions. Odds are that only one of them, if any, are right. How on earth could I possibly pick one, knowing full well that geography often dictates what you believe in?
It's like I told the Mormons who visited my house one day: "You are going to feel mighty stupid when you are wrong."
And religions (especially Christianity) always try to dodge the "What happens to non-Christians" question when it's clear that the Bible says they all go to hell. "God would probably save Ghandi since he was a good man" when really he wasn't a Christian and is probably burning in hell right now according to the Holy text. I guess nice guys finish last :frown:
That's way over my head. I have LBIQ.
-
My little church in my little hillbilly town is headed for the greatest schism of all time over the ordaining of queers. The pastor didn't speak to or look at me today because my family are known liberals. First hand evidence of the pettiness that is symptomatic of the people who take this cac too seriously.
Did you go speak to your pastor and get ignored by him/her? Or are you saying that because the pastor didn't specifically seek you out after service that you know for a fact it was because you are liberal? I didn't know it was a pastor's responsibility to individually speak to every member of the congregation every single Sunday. That might be asking a bit much.
-
The pastor shakes hands and exchanges a greeting with everyone as they exit the narthex. This bro looked past my family and didn't say a word.
-
The pastor shakes hands and exchanges a greeting with everyone as they exit the narthex. This bro looked past my family and didn't say a word.
Sounds like you're one of those dumbass ghosts who thinks they are alive and can't figure out why everyone looks right past them. Have you considered the idea that you're dead? If you are dead you probably have some unfinished business to attend to in this realm. Like maybe solving your own murder or reconciling with a lost love. Good luck.
-
The pastor shakes hands and exchanges a greeting with everyone as they exit the narthex. This bro looked past my family and didn't say a word.
The ordaining of homosexuals is something that gets determined at a much higher level of the church hierarchy than a single congregation. I highly doubt your pastor has a grudge against you for it. I know I wasn't there, but I'm guessing you are reading into that a bit too far in drawing conclusions.
-
Sounds like you're one of those dumbass ghosts who thinks they are alive and can't figure out why everyone looks right past them. Have you considered the idea that you're dead? If you are dead you probably have some unfinished business to attend to in this realm. Like maybe solving your own murder or reconciling with a lost love. Good luck.
Who are you talking to Cole (_33)?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fblog.moviefone.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F09%2Fsixthsense-%282%29.jpg&hash=213b9902cd5dd92642814f4c5adec97a23ff4f41)
-
Cons: Tithing, standing up and singing, being forced to go to church when younger, some dood is "watching" over all of us, etc.
Pro: not wanting to commit suicide because nothing in this life matters in the long run and most of life is a depressing mess.
-
Anything to keep the poor from killing the rich...which is why it was invented.
-
Cons: Tithing, standing up and singing, being forced to go to church when younger, some dood is "watching" over all of us, etc.
Pro: not wanting to commit suicide because nothing in this life matters in the long run and most of life is a depressing mess.
Wut does that have to do with religion? Blind leading the blind?
-
Cons: Tithing, standing up and singing, being forced to go to church when younger, some dood is "watching" over all of us, etc.
Pro: not wanting to commit suicide because nothing in this life matters in the long run and most of life is a depressing mess.
Wut does that have to do with religion? Blind leading the blind?
:facepalm:
-
Cons: Tithing, standing up and singing, being forced to go to church when younger, some dood is "watching" over all of us, etc.
Pro: not wanting to commit suicide because nothing in this life matters in the long runand most of life is a depressing mess.
Only if 60-100 years isn't long enough to be "the long run"
-
Who cares how long it takes.
Your ass is going in a box sooner or later and no one is going to give a crap how rich you were or if you were nice or not a mere generation after you bite it. MMMMMM makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
-
Cons: Tithing, standing up and singing, being forced to go to church when younger, some dood is "watching" over all of us, etc.
Pro: not wanting to commit suicide because nothing in this life matters in the long run and most of life is a depressing mess.
Wut does that have to do with religion? Blind leading the blind?
:facepalm:
So w/o religion you would feel like committing suicide?
-
Who cares how long it takes.
Your ass is going in a box sooner or later and no one is going to give a crap how rich you were or if you were nice or not a mere generation after you bite it. MMMMMM makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Thank god I won't be aware of that after I die.
-
Thank god I won't be aware of that after I die.
yeah, but you get the next 1 day-60 years to think about it. :emawkid:
-
I am all for it as long as your religion doesn't make you kill people or you aren't one of those assholes that insists that your religion is the best and that I am an bad person for not thinking so.
-
I've found that people who are certain there is no god are extremely smug.
I've found that people who are certain there is a god are extremely smug.
I don't like either of these types of people. In addition to being smug, they're also usually really naive.
:twocents:
-
I like it when members of one religion call the origins of another religion crazy.
-
You all should investigate, everything, much, much more than you have.
You should start immediately, you may not have a lot of time.
-
You all should investigate, everything, much, much more than you have.
You should start immediately, you may not have a lot of time.
:horrorsurprise:
-
Maybe go beyond googling, for example.
-
I worry that God(s?) thinks we are trying to punch him (her/them) when we fist pump?
Best to do the sideways fistpump obviously. :emawkid: <respectful of all-powerful beings
-
You're either dumb, unaware, or lazy if you haven't made it at least a top 5 goal to seek an answer for 1. who you are and 2. why you're here.
No offense, all.
PM with questions.
-
Who cares "why" were here? We just are. I don't need some God to help me figure out "why".
-
Heaven sounds really nice.
I wonder what happened in Heaven in 1998. I have an idea...
But I always kind of thought that I would enjoy the company of those in hell better.
:ck:
-
I would love to read the bible someday if they made it a lot shorter and easier to read. With pictures and stuff.
PM me with how it ends when you're done. Thnx.
-
I would love to read the bible someday if they made it a lot shorter and easier to read. With pictures and stuff.
Well they certainly have children's Bibles which would probably be exactly what you are looking for. But seriously a viable option for a lot of people is to check out the audiobook version of the Bible and listen to it in your car, thus you wouldn't have to take the time to sit down and read it which is a rather daunting task.
-
Nicname's religious/ thiestic time line
0-3 no idea
4-12 or so - Christian unquestioning
12 or so - 26 - began questioning eventually developed into agnosticism
26 and to current - came to believe (to me personally) that christianity (outside of some crap that I think was developed by the church ie. people) is pretty much the most fullfilling way to live life.
I still struggle with things, but I definitely enjoy life a lot more now from my current perspective.
-
Nicname's religious/ thiestic time line
0-3 no idea
4-12 or so - Christian unquestioning
12 or so - 26 - began questioning eventually developed into agnosticism
26 and to current - came to believe (to me personally) that christianity (outside of some crap that I think was developed by the church ie. people) is pretty much the most fullfilling way to live life.
I still struggle with things, but I definitely enjoy life a lot more now from my current perspective.
:surprised:
-
26 and to current - came to believe (to me personally) that christianity (outside of some crap that I think was developed by the church ie. people) is pretty much the most fullfilling way to live life.
Good way to put it. I was atheist for a while because I didn't know how to separate what the Bible says, and what people say. It's pretty incredible how many things get translated inaccurately to the common public.
-
While playing darts at Fat's tonight, I had a turn that spoke to my spiritual side. The first dart: a triple 6. The second: another triple 6. The third, while not another triple, was also a 6. For those not keeping score on their own, that was a 666 for the first dart, a 666 for the second dart and a 666 for the three darts together. Altogether the three darts totaled 42 points (42 of course being the answer to life, the universe and everything. For the uneducated: Hitchhiker's Guide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)#In_The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy)). All of this was obviously a reaction to my posts in this thread, as well as my thoughts and words in the last few days. In light of this fact (no pun intended), I am now a born again Christian, and have committed myself to the one and only Lord, Jesus Christ.
:dubious:
Darts part is totally true
-
I don't like rules. I like meditation/hypnosis stuff. The mind is more fascinating to me.
-
26 and to current - came to believe (to me personally) that christianity (outside of some crap that I think was developed by the church ie. people) is pretty much the most fullfilling way to live life.
Good way to put it. I was atheist for a while because I didn't know how to separate what the Bible says, and what people say. It's pretty incredible how many things get translated inaccurately to the common public.
Both of these are good calls. JMHO.
"The Church" throughout history has done all types of messed up stuff. But when people without accountability do things for long periods of time this kind of stuff tends to happen, "religion" or otherwise.
-
Did you never notice that the sky is all the way to the ground?
-
I would love to read the bible someday if they made it a lot shorter and easier to read.
Read the New Testament. It's 250-300 pages depending on print size.
It's the most important part. Read an ESV or NIV translation for an easy/accurate read. Or even The Message for a modern take.
(New Testament = Matthew through Revelation)
-
I would love to read the bible someday if they made it a lot shorter and easier to read. With pictures and stuff.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F514Ke5T7TAL._BO2%2C204%2C203%2C200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click%2CTopRight%2C35%2C-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg&hash=767f68d610613ebece828b5be595f29a7288022e)
It's actually really good.
-
I would have liked to have been a part of the group that decided what books would and wouldn't get in the bible. First of all, the new testement repeats itself over and over (except for the parts that disagree with the other parts) and then Revelations is tossed onto the end as a huge WTF. Everyone has had bad dreams, they are fun to talk about. But, slapping some random d00d's nightmare onto the end of the new testement is a pretty shitty decision on the part of the decider guys. I would have also left out the poetry. It's fine, or whatever, but doesn't really vibe with the whole story of God thing imo.
-
I would have liked to have been a part of the group that decided what books would and wouldn't get in the bible. First of all, the new testement repeats itself over and over (except for the parts that disagree with the other parts) and then Revelations is tossed onto the end as a huge WTF. Everyone has had bad dreams, they are fun to talk about. But, slapping some random d00d's nightmare onto the end of the new testement is a pretty cacty decision on the part of the decider guys. I would have also left out the poetry. It's fine, or whatever, but doesn't really vibe with the whole story of God thing imo.
This really goes overlooked IMO in regards to what was put in and left out. Talk about being able to shape history with decisions to either omit or put in various books into a text.
-
we’re walking around in it. We’re in the sky. There is sky and there is ground and we’re somewhere in between. That is where we live.
-
If you want to read something, you should go to my book recommendation thread.
There's a lot of stuff out there that's a lot better than the bible.
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=3492.0
-
For religion. Without it our society would be very drab and utilitarian. Or chaotic. Not sure which, don't want to find out.
-
For religion. Without it our society would be very drab and utilitarian. Or chaotic. Not sure which, don't want to find out.
This is true.
-
For religion. Without it our society would be very drab and utilitarian. Or chaotic. Not sure which, don't want to find out.
This is true.
Maybe. Hard to say for sure.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramahansa_Yogananda
The Second Coming of Christ
The Divine Romance
Man's Eternal Quest
Great books...
-
For religion. Without it our society would be very drab and utilitarian. Or chaotic. Not sure which, don't want to find out.
This is true.
Maybe. Hard to say for sure.
yeah but the basic premise of the major religions is to follow the rules and be nice to people and stuff.
-
For religion. Without it our society would be very drab and utilitarian. Or chaotic. Not sure which, don't want to find out.
This is true.
Maybe. Hard to say for sure.
yeah but the basic premise of the major religions is to follow the rules and be nice to people and stuff.
Morality wouldn't change if religion didn't exist.
-
For religion. Without it our society would be very drab and utilitarian. Or chaotic. Not sure which, don't want to find out.
This is true.
Maybe. Hard to say for sure.
yeah but the basic premise of the major religions is to follow the rules and be nice to people and stuff.
Morality wouldn't change if religion didn't exist.
disagree.
-
For religion. Without it our society would be very drab and utilitarian. Or chaotic. Not sure which, don't want to find out.
This is true.
Maybe. Hard to say for sure.
yeah but the basic premise of the major religions is to follow the rules and be nice to people and stuff.
Morality wouldn't change if religion didn't exist.
disagree.
Morality wouldn't change, but people wouldn't give a flying hoot if they lived immoral lives.
Morals exist beyond religion, they are related but not tied together. IMO.
-
I don't buy that people wouldn't care if they aren't moral without religion. I would say over half of my friends are agnostic/atheist/whatever and I can't see a discernible difference in their morality because of it....I think I could actually do a break down of it and show an adverse relationship using just my friends but they are weird. I mean, ultimately religion (at least christianity) just gives you a built in excuse (born sinful) and easy way out (repent/believe in Jesus).
-
I don't buy that people wouldn't care if they aren't moral without religion. I would say over half of my friends are agnostic/atheist/whatever and I can't see a discernible difference in their morality because of it....I think I could actually do a break down of it and show an adverse relationship using just my friends but they are weird. I mean, ultimately religion (at least christianity) just gives you a built in excuse (born sinful) and easy way out (repent/believe in Jesus).
Just depends on what morals you are talking about. I don't think the big ones would change (golden rule, killing, stealing, etc).
Athiest/agnostic don't exist without religion. They don't believe in any of it or whatever, but they still live in a religious society, thus it's tough to judge anything based on their behavior.
-
chicken/egg SD. I took it as there was never religion.
-
small sample size here, but i can say that since "becoming" agnostic I have had one hell of a time not raping the crap out of people/animals/the environment.
-
Everyone, everywhere conforms to basic morality. It is in us and proof that there must be something going on beyond simply our societies, etc.
People are born under morality and act as such. If I steal a man's food, he won't like it, he will feel wronged, no matter how he typically acts or feels. This is true no matter what background a person has or where they live or believe.
A big bang did not form this.
-
Mods, please re title this thread as "Psychopath Poet Warrior Guy Bait Thread"
TIA
-
Everyone, everywhere conforms to basic morality. It is in us and proof that there must be something going on beyond simply our societies, etc.
People are born under morality and act as such. If I steal a man's food, he won't like it, he will feel wronged, no matter how he typically acts or feels. This is true no matter what background a person has or where they live or believe.
A big bang did not form this.
Agree with this 100%
-
Everyone, everywhere conforms to basic morality. It is in us and proof that there must be something going on beyond simply our societies, etc.
People are born under morality and act as such. If I steal a man's food, he won't like it, he will feel wronged, no matter how he typically acts or feels. This is true no matter what background a person has or where they live or believe.
A big bang did not form this.
None of this is true at all.
-
Everyone, everywhere conforms to basic morality. It is in us and proof that there must be something going on beyond simply our societies, etc.
People are born under morality and act as such. If I steal a man's food, he won't like it, he will feel wronged, no matter how he typically acts or feels. This is true no matter what background a person has or where they live or believe.
A big bang did not form this.
None of this is true at all.
disagree with all of this
-
Everyone, everywhere conforms to basic morality. It is in us and proof that there must be something going on beyond simply our societies, etc.
People are born under morality and act as such. If I steal a man's food, he won't like it, he will feel wronged, no matter how he typically acts or feels. This is true no matter what background a person has or where they live or believe.
A big bang did not form this.
not saying the big bang formed it, but i've always had a problem with this logic.
i don't have a very good answer or response to it, i'm just very uncertain that our morals are a result of a higher being. i have NO IDEA where they come from. just seems like something that was formed in me by my childhood. (and yes, a large part of that was religion, but is the true source of my morality religion? or is it just the religious upbringing i happened to have?)
-
I am, and have always been, the most morale of those I hang with. However, I am not religious at all.
Anyone who is able to analyse their own self and apply outwardly can be morale. Don't need some d00d in a funny hat and dress telling you what to do, how much money to give him, and who to hate.
-
Everyone, everywhere conforms to basic morality. It is in us and proof that there must be something going on beyond simply our societies, etc.
People are born under morality and act as such. If I steal a man's food, he won't like it, he will feel wronged, no matter how he typically acts or feels. This is true no matter what background a person has or where they live or believe.
A big bang did not form this.
not saying the big bang formed it, but i've always had a problem with this logic.
i don't have a very good answer or response to it, i'm just very uncertain that our morals are a result of a higher being. i have NO IDEA where they come from. just seems like something that was formed in me by my childhood. (and yes, a large part of that was religion, but is the true source of my morality religion? or is it just the religious upbringing i happened to have?)
obvious answer is evolution
-
probably so.
i guess? :ck:
-
If you want to get philosophical, try reading "Confessions" by Augustine (a saint if you're catholic).
Very interesting read. I don't agree with all of it, but a lot of it is interesting.
-
probably so.
i guess? :ck:
empathy is an excellent survival tool for social animals
-
For religion. Without it our society would be very drab and utilitarian. Or chaotic. Not sure which, don't want to find out.
This is true.
Maybe. Hard to say for sure.
yeah but the basic premise of the major religions is to follow the rules and be nice to people and stuff.
Morality wouldn't change if religion didn't exist.
Could not disagree with you more on this point. Well, that is to say that you equate religion with God. Would you say that Morality wouldn't change if God didn't exist?
-
Everyone, everywhere conforms to basic morality. It is in us and proof that there must be something going on beyond simply our societies, etc.
People are born under morality and act as such. If I steal a man's food, he won't like it, he will feel wronged, no matter how he typically acts or feels. This is true no matter what background a person has or where they live or believe.
A big bang did not form this.
not saying the big bang formed it, but i've always had a problem with this logic.
i don't have a very good answer or response to it, i'm just very uncertain that our morals are a result of a higher being. i have NO IDEA where they come from. just seems like something that was formed in me by my childhood. (and yes, a large part of that was religion, but is the true source of my morality religion? or is it just the religious upbringing i happened to have?)
I read an article last night that was pretty interesting talking about this subject: You Christians, if the transmission in your Camaro explodes, are you going to use prayer to reconstruct it? No, you'll call a mechanic. When your tooth hurts, you don't assume it's possessed by demons. You look for a cavity. Basic, everyday troubleshooting.
Well, at the very worst, the atheists are just applying the same common sense, real-world troubleshooting to the God question. At the creation of the universe and in the heart of mankind, they expect to find the same physical, tangible answers they'd find inside a burnt transmission. If they're wrong about God, they're only wrong in that they've taken the tried-and-true troubleshooting we all practice one step too far.
On the other hand...
Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true.
When some guy hustles you out of eighty bucks in an ebay scam, you don't nod and say, "Interesting! This fellow lacks the genetic predisposition toward equitable dealing that generations of sexual selection in favor of social behavior has instilled in the rest of us! A fascinating difference!"
No, you think what that guy did was wrong. You want justice. You think he should have acted differently.
Even though there's no "wrong" molecule floating in the air and there's no "justice" element on the Periodic Table. You don't think of the swindler as just a fellow animal who happens to behave differently than you. You think he should have acted some other way, according to an invisible ideal that everybody is aware of and knows they should obey.
When that "boob at the Super Bowl" incident happened a while back, I constantly heard atheists making fun of Christians and their puritan silliness over sex. "Come on! It's just meat! We're all just mammals! Sex is natural! What are you afraid of?!?!?"
Yet, the moment you find out that while you were on vacation, your girl got drunk and slept with the entire Chicago Bears...Suddenly sex is something to get upset about. Suddenly it's not just meat slapping against meat. Suddenly the exclusive sexual bond between you and your girl was important, was to be protected, was almost... sacred.
Again there's this invisible rule that was supposed to be followed, that everybody was supposed to be aware of, that can't be proven by logic. Whatever it is, wherever you think it came from, you can't deny that it's there. Your own behavior would make you a liar.
Well, at the very worst, the Christians are just taking that same moral impulse and applying it to the God question. At the creation of the universe, they expect to find the same invisible hand that pushes us to be fair and loyal and kind. If they're wrong about God, they're only wrong in that they've taken that absolute morality and put a face on it, made an idol out of it. Taken it one step too far.
You think of it that way, and the amount of overlap between the two of us is actually pretty striking. Right?
Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on_p2.html#ixzz1FHVSrZ67
-
For religion. Without it our society would be very drab and utilitarian. Or chaotic. Not sure which, don't want to find out.
This is true.
Maybe. Hard to say for sure.
yeah but the basic premise of the major religions is to follow the rules and be nice to people and stuff.
Morality wouldn't change if religion didn't exist.
Could not disagree with you more on this point. Well, that is to say that you equate religion with God. Would you say that Morality wouldn't change if God didn't exist?
That's exactly what I'm saying (and what a lot of people believe is already the case)
-
If God doesn't exist, neither does absolute morality.
If absolute morality does not exist, you cannot say boo to anything anyone else does that you find morally objectionable. Think Bush is a War Criminal? So what?
You can't even criticize Hitler, as his morality is just as valid as yours.
No thanks.
-
If God doesn't exist, neither does absolute morality.
If absolute morality does not exist, you cannot say boo to anything anyone else does that you find morally objectionable. Think Bush is a War Criminal? So what?
You can't even criticize Hitler, as his morality is just as valid as yours.
No thanks.
A lot of dumbasses are confusing laws and morals in this thread
-
If God doesn't exist, neither does absolute morality.
If absolute morality does not exist, you cannot say boo to anything anyone else does that you find morally objectionable. Think Bush is a War Criminal? So what?
You can't even criticize Hitler, as his morality is just as valid as yours.
No thanks.
A lot of dumbasses are confusing laws and morals in this thread
OK, just morals then.
Please tell me how Hitler is a bad guy under the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) idea of relative morality. Please. I'm rough ridin' overjoyed to hear this crap.
-
For religion. Without it our society would be very drab and utilitarian. Or chaotic. Not sure which, don't want to find out.
This is true.
Maybe. Hard to say for sure.
yeah but the basic premise of the major religions is to follow the rules and be nice to people and stuff.
Morality wouldn't change if religion didn't exist.
Could not disagree with you more on this point. Well, that is to say that you equate religion with God. Would you say that Morality wouldn't change if God didn't exist?
That's exactly what I'm saying (and what a lot of people believe is already the case)
IMO, for there to be morals there must be right and wrong. For there to be right and wrong there must be absolute truth. So who gets to say what is true/right and what is wrong/bad. I say the one who gets to decide this is the one that made everything. I believe that God made everything and therefore gets to set the rules. If no one or nothing made all this and we just happened to explode into the evolutionary process one day, then there is no truth, no right, no wrong and thus no morality. If I didn't believe in God, I would not be a "moral" person at all because I would have no reason to be.
-
there doesn't have to be a god to know that stealing somebody's eggo waffles is a pretty dick move.
-
there doesn't have to be a god to know that stealing somebody's eggo waffles is a pretty dick move.
Not in Spartan Society.
That would be something GOOD for a young man to do.
-
i'm just very uncertain that our morals are a result of a higher being. i have NO IDEA where they come from.
Look into it.
obvious answer is evolution
Evolution plants in us a framework for the way we behave, even when we subtract our environment and background?
You (or anyone) can't possibly believe that.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
You know what's laughable.
You. Avoiding hard questions.
-
there doesn't have to be a god to know that stealing somebody's eggo waffles is a pretty dick move.
Not in Spartan Society.
That would be something GOOD for a young man to do.
don't be a dumbass. people that don't believe in god let people steal their crap because they are confused about how to respond.
you are taught right vs. wrong by your parents/family, not because of religion.
-
there doesn't have to be a god to know that stealing somebody's eggo waffles is a pretty dick move.
Not in Spartan Society.
That would be something GOOD for a young man to do.
don't be a dumbass. people that don't believe in god let people steal their crap because they are confused about how to respond.
you are taught right vs. wrong by your parents/family, not because of religion.
You really don't understand that there are multiple cultures on this planet right? I mean, that's the only way you'd think my point was just me being a dumbass.
Stealing is not a "dick move" to every group on this planet, and I pointed such a group out. Don't be so butthurt.
-
obvious answer is evolution
Evolution plants in us a framework for the way we behave, even when we subtract our environment and background?
You (or anyone) can't possibly believe that.
Natural selection could definitely lead to a moral society. Communities that didn't have members killing other members of the community had a better chance of surviving than those that didn't. Therefore, morals became more likely to be passed on to future generations.
-
obvious answer is evolution
Evolution plants in us a framework for the way we behave, even when we subtract our environment and background?
You (or anyone) can't possibly believe that.
Natural selection could definitely lead to a moral society. Communities that didn't have members killing other members of the community had a better chance of surviving than those that didn't. Therefore, morals became more likely to be passed on to future generations.
humans, chimps and some high level apes have empathy. it's pretty great for us.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Why do they have morals? Why be a good person? Where does their sense of right and wrong come from?
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Why do they have morals? Why be a good person? Where does their sense of right and wrong come from?
A mixture of our society raising them with basic premises of right and wrong and evolution ingraining empathy into our chemistry. Sociopaths are wired differently not becuase god doesn't exist, but because that's how they were born.
-
Everyone, everywhere conforms to basic morality. It is in us and proof that there must be something going on beyond simply our societies, etc.
People are born under morality and act as such. If I steal a man's food, he won't like it, he will feel wronged, no matter how he typically acts or feels. This is true no matter what background a person has or where they live or believe.
A big bang did not form this.
None of this is true at all.
disagree with all of this
Man is not born with morals. He's born with nothing.
-
obvious answer is evolution
Evolution plants in us a framework for the way we behave, even when we subtract our environment and background?
You (or anyone) can't possibly believe that.
Natural selection could definitely lead to a moral society. Communities that didn't have members killing other members of the community had a better chance of surviving than those that didn't. Therefore, morals became more likely to be passed on to future generations.
Would you at least say that it is possible that our morals come from a Creator Being that instilled a sense of right and wrong within us...known as a conscience?
-
Everyone, everywhere conforms to basic morality. It is in us and proof that there must be something going on beyond simply our societies, etc.
People are born under morality and act as such. If I steal a man's food, he won't like it, he will feel wronged, no matter how he typically acts or feels. This is true no matter what background a person has or where they live or believe.
A big bang did not form this.
not saying the big bang formed it, but i've always had a problem with this logic.
i don't have a very good answer or response to it, i'm just very uncertain that our morals are a result of a higher being. i have NO IDEA where they come from. just seems like something that was formed in me by my childhood. (and yes, a large part of that was religion, but is the true source of my morality religion? or is it just the religious upbringing i happened to have?)
They are a result of the development of our society. What may have been immoral 500 years ago may not be immoral now. The "big ones", the golden rule, murder, theft, remain immoral.
What is immoral in one society may not be in another society, even during the same time period.
-
If God doesn't exist, neither does absolute morality.
If absolute morality does not exist, you cannot say boo to anything anyone else does that you find morally objectionable. Think Bush is a War Criminal? So what?
You can't even criticize Hitler, as his morality is just as valid as yours.
No thanks.
This doesn't make any sense. Please revise and repost. TIA.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Why do they have morals? Why be a good person? Where does their sense of right and wrong come from?
A mixture of our society raising them with basic premises of right and wrong and evolution ingraining empathy into our chemistry. Sociopaths are wired differently not becuase god doesn't exist, but because that's how they were born.
This tells me that you don't have children. Before you can teach a child that a specific act is right or wrong, they already know that some things are right and wrong.
Mental illness is a completely different topic, BTW.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Why do they have morals? Why be a good person? Where does their sense of right and wrong come from?
A mixture of our society raising them with basic premises of right and wrong and evolution ingraining empathy into our chemistry. Sociopaths are wired differently not becuase god doesn't exist, but because that's how they were born.
This tells me that you don't have children. Before you can teach a child that a specific act is right or wrong, they already know that some things are right and wrong.
Mental illness is a completely different topic, BTW.
BOOM!
-
Natural selection could definitely lead to a moral society. Communities that didn't have members killing other members of the community had a better chance of surviving than those that didn't. Therefore, morals became more likely to be passed on to future generations.
Sure, that could be true, but what matters is the origin or the morals. Not that they might get passed down.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Over time, I think things could deteriorate if there was absolutely no religion whatsoever on the planet. It wouldn't be chaotic, but would be....different.
-
God created us through evolution and formed the universe via the big bang. Wrap your head around that.
-
obvious answer is evolution
Evolution plants in us a framework for the way we behave, even when we subtract our environment and background?
You (or anyone) can't possibly believe that.
Natural selection could definitely lead to a moral society. Communities that didn't have members killing other members of the community had a better chance of surviving than those that didn't. Therefore, morals became more likely to be passed on to future generations.
Would you at least say that it is possible that our morals come from a Creator Being that instilled a sense of right and wrong within us...known as a conscience?
sure, I guess. Evolution makes a lot more sense than a spaghetti monster or whatever you're referring to, though.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Why do they have morals? Why be a good person? Where does their sense of right and wrong come from?
SOCIETY!
It just happens that society is religious (overall).
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Why do they have morals? Why be a good person? Where does their sense of right and wrong come from?
A mixture of our society raising them with basic premises of right and wrong and evolution ingraining empathy into our chemistry. Sociopaths are wired differently not becuase god doesn't exist, but because that's how they were born.
This tells me that you don't have children. Before you can teach a child that a specific act is right or wrong, they already know that some things are right and wrong.
Mental illness is a completely different topic, BTW.
BOOM!
You're playing both sides and it's not fair. I'm taking my ball and going home.
But for realz, I think we just disagree on where morals come from. I believe they come from God and you believe they happened by chance or by accident. Good discussion, fellas.
May I propose a new topic: All religions lead to the same place. These are my favorite kind of non-commital people. Ready. Go.
-
God created us through evolution and formed the universe via the big bang. Wrap your head around that.
He tells us he didn't.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Why do they have morals? Why be a good person? Where does their sense of right and wrong come from?
A mixture of our society raising them with basic premises of right and wrong and evolution ingraining empathy into our chemistry. Sociopaths are wired differently not becuase god doesn't exist, but because that's how they were born.
This tells me that you don't have children. Before you can teach a child that a specific act is right or wrong, they already know that some things are right and wrong.
Mental illness is a completely different topic, BTW.
:lol:
Feral children blow this theory out of the water.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Why do they have morals? Why be a good person? Where does their sense of right and wrong come from?
A mixture of our society raising them with basic premises of right and wrong and evolution ingraining empathy into our chemistry. Sociopaths are wired differently not becuase god doesn't exist, but because that's how they were born.
This tells me that you don't have children. Before you can teach a child that a specific act is right or wrong, they already know that some things are right and wrong.
Mental illness is a completely different topic, BTW.
:lol:
Feral children blow this theory out of the water.
So then, you're completely on the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture argument? Is that what you're saying? So all your kid's problems are basically all your fault.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Why do they have morals? Why be a good person? Where does their sense of right and wrong come from?
A mixture of our society raising them with basic premises of right and wrong and evolution ingraining empathy into our chemistry. Sociopaths are wired differently not becuase god doesn't exist, but because that's how they were born.
This tells me that you don't have children. Before you can teach a child that a specific act is right or wrong, they already know that some things are right and wrong.
Mental illness is a completely different topic, BTW.
:lol:
Feral children blow this theory out of the water.
So then, you're completely on the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture argument? Is that what you're saying? So all your kid's problems are basically all your fault.
No, i'm not.
No, it takes a village to raise a child.
-
Many are confusing that it doesn't matter what we find to be right or wrong (murder, stealing, etc.). People differ, because there is an exact truth to be known and not everyone knows it.
But every person who has ever lived would, at the right moment, experience and have to admit to feeling righted or wronged.
Everyone may not feel that way about stealing, but they might about murder, or lying, etc. So, morals are there (basically everyone has admitted to that). Where did they originate?
I guess some really cool monkey, who taught his monkey bros.
-
I guess some really cool monkey, who taught his monkey bros.
just like jesus of nazareth :horrorsurprise:
-
Too bad all of the monkeys left today are the dumb ones or we could talk to them and really figure things out.
-
Many are confusing that it doesn't matter what we find to be right or wrong (murder, stealing, etc.). People differ, because there is an exact truth to be known and not everyone knows it.
But every person who has ever lived would, at the right moment, experience and have to admit to feeling righted or wronged.
Everyone may not feel that way about stealing, but they might about murder, or lying, etc. So, morals are there (basically everyone has admitted to that). Where did they originate?
I guess some really cool monkey, who taught his monkey bros.
Experiment - place 100 babies, 50 male, 50 female, and have a group of caretakers care for them. They can only feed them, teach them basic skills (how to feed, cloth themselves), and nothing else.
As long as they don't kill each other first, a society will develop and so will a moral code.
-
God created us through evolution and formed the universe via the big bang. Wrap your head around that.
He tells us he didn't.
He said He created us in His image. He did not discuss the point A to point B process.
As for creation of the universe, what is more divine than a thunderous explosion and instant creation?
Prove this wrong. and if you think it took God 6 human earth days to create everything, think again. God is timeless. He doesn't create according to our clock and calendar. Especially when the Earth was not even created it yet.
-
Experiment - place 100 babies, 50 male, 50 female, and have a group of caretakers care for them. They can only feed them, teach them basic skills (how to feed, cloth themselves), and nothing else.
As long as they don't kill each other first, a society will develop and so will a moral code.
Exactly right, because they had morals the moment they opened their eyes. What this society will need, however, is the exact, absolute truth God created, otherwise they'll be as lost as any other society. (This is where beliefs toward, murder, adultery, stealing, etc. come in)
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
-
With no religion morals would be set by the biggest strongest guy that killed the most people to achieve his position.
-
every atheist/agnostic I know has morals. the fact that some of you don't believe you would have them if you weren't religious is laughable.
Why do they have morals? Why be a good person? Where does their sense of right and wrong come from?
A mixture of our society raising them with basic premises of right and wrong and evolution ingraining empathy into our chemistry. Sociopaths are wired differently not becuase god doesn't exist, but because that's how they were born.
This tells me that you don't have children. Before you can teach a child that a specific act is right or wrong, they already know that some things are right and wrong.
Mental illness is a completely different topic, BTW.
They know because they recognize how another feels based off of how they would feel. Empathy is a good start on this as mentioned above.
You don't need the threat of eternal damnation to understand that you don't want someone sleeping with your wife, stealing your food/money/home, beating your ass, etc. Understanding that you don't want it to happen to you makes it an easy step to understand that others wouldn't want it either.
Religion just puts a threat behind the morality most have anyway.
The problem with religion is it also provides absolution to rough ridin' up either through donations, confession, attending church, accepting JC, etc. If the religious were truly concerned with morals, absolution wouldn't exist. Absolution is simply a way to keep an individual in the fold, under your control, and donating through telling them that they can still be safe from their religion's threats.
-
God created us through evolution and formed the universe via the big bang. Wrap your head around that.
He tells us he didn't.
He said He created us in His image. He did not discuss the point A to point B process.
As for creation of the universe, what is more divine than a thunderous explosion and instant creation?
Prove this wrong.
Sloppy, cut/paste:
Genesis 2:
5When no(D) bush of the field[a] was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man(E) to work the ground, 6and a mist[c] was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7then the LORD God formed the man of(F) dust from the ground and(G) breathed into his(H) nostrils the breath of life, and(I) the man became a living creature. 8And the LORD God planted a(J) garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
...
20The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21So the LORD God caused a(U) deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.
This is in every Bible where it has not intentionally been removed by someone who didn't like it.
-
With no religion morals would be set by the biggest strongest guy that killed the most people to achieve his position.
No. Law and organized society may be set this way, but you would still understand what others feel by understanding what you feel. Not to get to PW on that part, but you would still understand that you wouldn't like to be murdered and therefore you shouldn't murder others.
-
With no religion morals would be set by the biggest strongest guy that killed the most people to achieve his position.
This would have already happened according to some, I think.
It apparently didn't.
-
Oh dear, I missed out on the age old "If you're an atheist, you have no morals" argument. Very weak sauce argument.
-
With no religion morals would be set by the biggest strongest guy that killed the most people to achieve his position.
No. Law and organized society may be set this way, but you would still understand what others feel by understanding what you feel. Not to get to PW on that part, but you would still understand that you wouldn't like to be murdered and therefore you shouldn't murder others.
What about in societies where it was an honor to be the sacrifice to the gods?
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
That is pure bullshit.
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
That is pure bullshit.
Considering the poster I didn't continue reading far enough to catch that gem.
-
With no religion morals would be set by the biggest strongest guy that killed the most people to achieve his position.
No. Law and organized society may be set this way, but you would still understand what others feel by understanding what you feel. Not to get to PW on that part, but you would still understand that you wouldn't like to be murdered and therefore you shouldn't murder others.
What about in societies where it was an honor to be the sacrifice to the gods?
That is diff than me killing you to take your house, wife, dinner, etc
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
That is pure bullcac.
It's borderline narcissism
-
With no religion morals would be set by the biggest strongest guy that killed the most people to achieve his position.
No. Law and organized society may be set this way, but you would still understand what others feel by understanding what you feel. Not to get to PW on that part, but you would still understand that you wouldn't like to be murdered and therefore you shouldn't murder others.
What about in societies where it was an honor to be the sacrifice to the gods?
Perfect example of how stupid it is to think that only religion can give us our morals...
truth is that these people would have loved to die for their gods - because they were terrified of making them angry...
This is just like most religions, and exactly the way people act in North Korea.
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
That is pure bullcac.
It's borderline narcissism
It's what he is taught. He is better because he believes.
-
I'll see you all in hell.
-
I'll see you all in hell.
I believe in a higher being. Don't believe in any organized religion.
There is no hell, bro.
-
there doesn't have to be a god to know that stealing somebody's eggo waffles is a pretty dick move.
Not in Spartan Society.
That would be something GOOD for a young man to do.
don't be a dumbass. people that don't believe in god let people steal their crap because they are confused about how to respond.
you are taught right vs. wrong by your parents/family, not because of religion.
You really don't understand that there are multiple cultures on this planet right? I mean, that's the only way you'd think my point was just me being a dumbass.
Stealing is not a "dick move" to every group on this planet, and I pointed such a group out. Don't be so butthurt.
Stealing is a dick move, no matter the culture. Has nothing to do with religion. If you live in the middle of Africa, away from nearly all civilization, and someone in your tribe steals your eggo waffles, you're going to be pissed. Find me a culture where everybody is cool with people jacking their stuff.
pretty sure someone said this earlier in the thread, but religion keeps people in line because of a threat of going to a bad place. It didn't create morals.
-
I'll see you all in hell.
I believe in a higher being. Don't believe in any organized religion.
There is no hell, bro.
There is on Neptune, Bro.
-
I'll see you all in hell.
Imagine it's worse than the worst thing you can imagine, for eternity.
-
I believe in God and more specifically am a Christian not out of fear of the unknown, or fear of hell, or the desire to be a good person, or because it makes me happy, or a mental disorder, or anything else, but because logically it is the only system that makes sense. Nothing else stands up to it.
I once believed that maybe there was a leap to be taken (a leap of faith), but now I don't even believe that is necessary. There is a difference between unfounded faith: I believe K-State can win the National Championship. And Faith: God is there and He speaks through His creation and through His word (Bible) and everything that he says makes total sense, so I therefore believe in and trust in Him.
Logic and reason tell me Christianity is true. Not my family or friends or a need to have meaning in my life.
I encourage you all to look deeply into it.
-
I'll see you all in hell.
I believe in a higher being. Don't believe in any organized religion.
There is no hell, bro.
There is on Neptune, Bro.
The difference is that we know Neptune is there. We don't need "faith" for it's existence
-
I'll see you all in hell.
I believe in a higher being. Don't believe in any organized religion.
There is no hell, bro.
There is on Neptune, Bro.
The difference is that we know Neptune is there. We don't need "faith" for it's existence
Oh, Let's meet there, oh say, tomorrow at 5:00pm for dinner. Sound good?
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
That is pure bullshit.
Struck a nerve, eh?
-
I'll see you all in hell.
I believe in a higher being. Don't believe in any organized religion.
There is no hell, bro.
There is on Neptune, Bro.
The difference is that we know Neptune is there. We don't need "faith" for it's existence
Oh, Let's meet there, oh say, tomorrow at 5:00pm for dinner. Sound good?
:flush:
-
As far as morals are/were concerned. Do I think if given the absence of religion and theism, that today's society could function in a productive, moral manner? Yeah, I think it probably could do okay, though I think religion helps. But if we are looking at the Bible, and I think we are, we have to understand who it was made for.
The Bible, or more specifically, the Torah, was written for a people who had spent generations in bondage and were in a very real sense heathanous, vile, brutes. These were not a group of enlightened people like today's society. They literally were only a small step up from the cave men, and were incredibly perverted.
So yes, it did take someone to explicitly say, "don't kill each other, rape each other, screw animals, etc," because that is the kind of stuff they were doing all the time. They call it sin, but could also be looked at as things that are bad for you and will eventually lead to your ruin, both physically and mentally. They say that the wages of sin is death, well yeah it is.
Also, yes I know that we all die, but why expedite the process?
-
I believe in a higher being. Don't believe in any organized religion.
There is no hell, bro.
CNS Casey is certain of him/herself.
Does he/she know how dumb what he/she just said is?
Hell and Heaven are threats/incentives to live a certain way.
I don't follow organized religion. However, I still live a life that most would consider one of a good person. If I am wrong, will your god punish me for living a good life minus the belief in eternal damnation? I don't need the threat. I live the same life all of my good Christian friends do, minus their Sunday morning rituals. I don't believe that this will be the difference in what qualifies a good man from one who is not. If it does, maybe you should be questioning a god that requires such adoration and praise. What would be the motives of someone who would prefer you sin as long as you follow rather than one who lived a moral live without being a follower?
-
I'll see you all in hell.
I believe in a higher being. Don't believe in any organized religion.
There is no hell, bro.
There is on Neptune, Bro.
The difference is that we know Neptune is there. We don't need "faith" for it's existence
Oh, Let's meet there, oh say, tomorrow at 5:00pm for dinner. Sound good?
:flush:
boom roasted.
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
That is pure bullshit.
Struck a nerve, eh?
what about all of the priests who are buttfucking little boys in between sermons? are they not true believers? if not, then why are you listening to them?
-
BTW, the HELL is a mistranslation of a few Hebrew and Greek words. None of which mean a place of eternal damnation for unworthy souls.
look up the words shoel, hades, tartarus, and gehenna or more information.
This is one of the aspects of modern christianity that really angers me. Everytime I drive from Wichita to KC i see a billboard that reads "Accept Jeses, OR REGGRET IT FOREVER!!!" or something along those lines. It is complete crap.
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
That is pure bullshit.
Struck a nerve, eh?
what about all of the priests who are buttfucking little boys in between sermons? are they not true believers? if not, then why are you listening to them?
Absolution. A few hail mary's and a transfer and all is straight(pun intended)
-
while we're at it, what about the gays?
there are tons of studies that show that animals in the wild are homosexual. animals can't choose whether or not to buttfuck their buddy. does god hate gay animals, too? :ck:
-
I saw a video of a monkey pee'ing in its own mouth. I had to chuckle because we used to be monkeys.
-
God created us through evolution and formed the universe via the big bang. Wrap your head around that.
He tells us he didn't.
He said He created us in His image. He did not discuss the point A to point B process.
As for creation of the universe, what is more divine than a thunderous explosion and instant creation?
Prove this wrong.
Sloppy, cut/paste:
Genesis 2:
5When no(D) bush of the field[a] was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man(E) to work the ground, 6and a mist[c] was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7then the LORD God formed the man of(F) dust from the ground and(G) breathed into his(H) nostrils the breath of life, and(I) the man became a living creature. 8And the LORD God planted a(J) garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
...
20The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21So the LORD God caused a(U) deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.
This is in every Bible where it has not intentionally been removed by someone who didn't like it.
So you're taking the bible that literally then? Is there no chance that that is a poetic description for the design process that God went through when deciding what man and woman would become?
-
A Christian can be as horrible as anyone, but a Christian admits what he/she has done was wrong and is repentant.
I am a horrible person. I need help.
-
A Christian can be as horrible as anyone, but a Christian admits what he/she has done was wrong and is repentant.
I am a horrible person. I need help.
From the little bit I can glean from your posted thoughts, it seems to me like you are fine PW and it is a shame that your religion has made you think otherwise.
Again, why does god require an otherwise good person to constantly tell him he is awesome? Why is this the diff from being punished or not?
-
If God doesn't exist, neither does absolute morality.
If absolute morality does not exist, you cannot say boo to anything anyone else does that you find morally objectionable. Think Bush is a War Criminal? So what?
You can't even criticize Hitler, as his morality is just as valid as yours.
No thanks.
This doesn't make any sense. Please revise and repost. TIA.
What doesn't make sense about it?
Like I said, the ONLY way that there is an absolute Morality is if there is a God.
Now if there is no absolute morality, that leaves naught but RELATIVE morality.
Relative morality being a huge crock of crap. Even Atheistic philosophers have come to the conclusion (paraphrase) that you can "offer nothing but personal revulsion" to the actions of Nazis. What the Nazis and Hitler did cannot be condemned using a relativist moral framework. You simply can't say "I don't beleive in God, am a relativist...but Hitler was Evil". It just doesn't follow.
However, most people are not relativists deep down, even if they say they are. Most, if not all people are absolutists, believing whatever moral framework they've adopted or created is THE premier morality. The best there is. however it cannot hold true unless there is a creator and a definer of what is "moral."
Better or worse?
-
If we were once monkeys...why did we get lucky and evolve to what we are now... i mean...how come the monkey's got mumped in this deal??
or did they? :horrorsurprise:
-
Humans did not evolve from monkeys.
-
If we were once monkeys...why did we get lucky and evolve to what we are now... i mean...how come the monkey's got mumped in this deal??
or did they? :horrorsurprise:
pretty sure we (us and monkeys) evolved from similar earlier creatures. not from them, bro.
-
there doesn't have to be a god to know that stealing somebody's eggo waffles is a pretty dick move.
Not in Spartan Society.
That would be something GOOD for a young man to do.
don't be a dumbass. people that don't believe in god let people steal their crap because they are confused about how to respond.
you are taught right vs. wrong by your parents/family, not because of religion.
You really don't understand that there are multiple cultures on this planet right? I mean, that's the only way you'd think my point was just me being a dumbass.
Stealing is not a "dick move" to every group on this planet, and I pointed such a group out. Don't be so butthurt.
Stealing is a dick move, no matter the culture. Has nothing to do with religion. If you live in the middle of Africa, away from nearly all civilization, and someone in your tribe steals your eggo waffles, you're going to be pissed. Find me a culture where everybody is cool with people jacking their stuff.
pretty sure someone said this earlier in the thread, but religion keeps people in line because of a threat of going to a bad place. It didn't create morals.
Nonsense poopypants!
As I mentioned before, In Spartan Society, young boys were encouraged to steal. If they were caught, they were punished. Not for theft, but for being caught.
Deceit and theft is not "always" a bad thing to everyone on the planet. Granted it is ALMOST universally thought of as being a dick move.
-
So you're taking the bible that literally then? Is there no chance that that is a poetic description for the design process that God went through when deciding what man and woman would become?
Of course I take it literally.
There are things in the Bible that may not be known down to the smallest detail, but if there is a thorough description of God's creation, detailing that something was created on one day and something else was created on the next and it seems clear, why wouldn't I believe it. I certainly believe he was capable of doing it this way if He chose to.
You acknowledged that God said he made man in His own image, why take that seriously and not his creation of man from dust?
There's a line there that you can't cross.
-
If we were once monkeys...why did we get lucky and evolve to what we are now... i mean...how come the monkey's got mumped in this deal??
or did they? :horrorsurprise:
but if they got buttfucked, then you know the religious folks would be in a tizzy and telling them to stop destroying the sanctity of marriage (where half of hetero marriages end in divorce)
-
there doesn't have to be a god to know that stealing somebody's eggo waffles is a pretty dick move.
Not in Spartan Society.
That would be something GOOD for a young man to do.
don't be a dumbass. people that don't believe in god let people steal their crap because they are confused about how to respond.
you are taught right vs. wrong by your parents/family, not because of religion.
You really don't understand that there are multiple cultures on this planet right? I mean, that's the only way you'd think my point was just me being a dumbass.
Stealing is not a "dick move" to every group on this planet, and I pointed such a group out. Don't be so butthurt.
Stealing is a dick move, no matter the culture. Has nothing to do with religion. If you live in the middle of Africa, away from nearly all civilization, and someone in your tribe steals your eggo waffles, you're going to be pissed. Find me a culture where everybody is cool with people jacking their stuff.
pretty sure someone said this earlier in the thread, but religion keeps people in line because of a threat of going to a bad place. It didn't create morals.
Nonsense poopypants!
As I mentioned before, In Spartan Society, young boys were encouraged to steal. If they were caught, they were punished. Not for theft, but for being caught.
Deceit and theft is not "always" a bad thing to everyone on the planet. Granted it is ALMOST universally thought of as being a dick move.
That society didn't survive. Natural selection.
-
More like Theban steel!
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
That is pure bullshit.
Struck a nerve, eh?
what about all of the priests who are buttfucking little boys in between sermons? are they not true believers? if not, then why are you listening to them?
That's why I highlighted true believers. These priests are not, and never have been. BTW, I don't go to church and probably never will because I am not a supporter of organized religion in any form.
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
That is pure bullshit.
Struck a nerve, eh?
what about all of the priests who are buttfucking little boys in between sermons? are they not true believers? if not, then why are you listening to them?
That's why I highlighted true believers. These priests are not, and never have been. BTW, I don't go to church and probably never will because I am not a supporter of organized religion in any form.
seems to me that the definition of a true believer would be someone who dedicated their life to spreading the word.
-
If we were once monkeys...why did we get lucky and evolve to what we are now... i mean...how come the monkey's got mumped in this deal??
or did they? :horrorsurprise:
pretty sure we (us and monkeys) evolved from similar earlier creatures. not from them, bro.
oh ok. I mean, i'd be pissed if i was drinking my own piss, and flinging my crap. Ya know?
Well, maybe i'd like to fling my crap, but whatevs.
-
More like Theban steel!
same thing
-
BTW, the HELL is a mistranslation of a few Hebrew and Greek words. None of which mean a place of eternal damnation for unworthy souls.
look up the words shoel, hades, tartarus, and gehenna or more information.
This is one of the aspects of modern christianity that really angers me. Everytime I drive from Wichita to KC i see a billboard that reads "Accept Jeses, OR REGGRET IT FOREVER!!!" or something along those lines. It is complete crap.
I feel this way too, almost. It almost all points to eternal sleep, or abode of the dead. There's a couple places where it points to burning. But in Revelation, it clearly says the dead were given up by death, the sea, and Hades, they were judged, if they didn't repent, they were thrown in the lake of fire. It treats Hades as what Hades actually is. The 4 mile long serpent or whatever. So there does seem to be a paradigm shift between Jewish teaching and Christian teaching.
-
I think one thing that is missing from this debate about morals is what people do when nobody is around. It is easy to be moral and do the right thing when you are in a social setting, but what about when nobody is looking? The idea that a being of some type is always aware of what you are doing, and the possibility of a judgment day, will keep a person from straying down the wrong path. This is where religion and true believers have the advantage over innate moral beliefs.
That is pure bullshit.
Struck a nerve, eh?
what about all of the priests who are buttfucking little boys in between sermons? are they not true believers? if not, then why are you listening to them?
That's why I highlighted true believers. These priests are not, and never have been. BTW, I don't go to church and probably never will because I am not a supporter of organized religion in any form.
seems to me that the definition of a true believer would be someone who dedicated their life to spreading the word.
That's what "born agains" are for.
-
who needs a god to judge when you've got john doug? :ck:
-
who needs a god to judge when you've got john doug? :ck:
pfft :eye:
-
Many are confusing that it doesn't matter what we find to be right or wrong (murder, stealing, etc.). People differ, because there is an exact truth to be known and not everyone knows it.
But every person who has ever lived would, at the right moment, experience and have to admit to feeling righted or wronged.
Everyone may not feel that way about stealing, but they might about murder, or lying, etc. So, morals are there (basically everyone has admitted to that). Where did they originate?
I guess some really cool monkey, who taught his monkey bros.
Experiment - place 100 babies, 50 male, 50 female, and have a group of caretakers care for them. They can only feed them, teach them basic skills (how to feed, cloth themselves), and nothing else.
As long as they don't kill each other first, a society will develop and so will a moral code.
Won't get past the IRB
-
A Christian can be as horrible as anyone, but a Christian admits what he/she has done was wrong and is repentant.
I am a horrible person. I need help.
Yeah rough ridin' right, PW. Most "Christians" from college that I know go out and get absolutely hammered drunk every weekend, do drugs, eff eachother, cheat on eachother, lie to eachother, envy eachother, ETC. But it's ok in their minds since the next day they are "Forgiven" or whatever. This is what angers me about religion the most, is how hypocritical people are.
-
Where did the souls of everyone who was born before Jesus died on the cross go?
-
Where did the souls of everyone who was born before Jesus died on the cross go?
Hell, obviously
-
A Christian can be as horrible as anyone, but a Christian admits what he/she has done was wrong and is repentant.
I am a horrible person. I need help.
Yeah rough ridin' right, PW. Most "Christians" from college that I know go out and get absolutely hammered drunk every weekend, do drugs, eff eachother, cheat on eachother, lie to eachother, envy eachother, ETC. But it's ok in their minds since the next day they are "Forgiven" or whatever. This is what angers me about religion the most, is how hypocritical people are.
Hate the player, don't hate the game. Though I don't think that really applies literally in this case. I often used to say, "It isn't Christianity that I have a problem with, its the Christians."
-
I believe in a higher being. Don't believe in any organized religion.
There is no hell, bro.
CNS Casey is certain of him/herself.
Does he/she know how dumb what he/she just said is?
Hell and Heaven are threats/incentives to live a certain way.
I don't follow organized religion. However, I still live a life that most would consider one of a good person. If I am wrong, will your god punish me for living a good life minus the belief in eternal damnation? I don't need the threat. I live the same life all of my good Christian friends do, minus their Sunday morning rituals. I don't believe that this will be the difference in what qualifies a good man from one who is not. If it does, maybe you should be questioning a god that requires such adoration and praise. What would be the motives of someone who would prefer you sin as long as you follow rather than one who lived a moral live without being a follower?
Guess what...in the end it doesn't really matter what you or anyone else wants to believe or doesn't want to believe. What is true is true, no matter what. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But I don't think I am. I guess we'll just have to wait and see huh?
-
So you're taking the bible that literally then? Is there no chance that that is a poetic description for the design process that God went through when deciding what man and woman would become?
Of course I take it literally.
There are things in the Bible that may not be known down to the smallest detail, but if there is a thorough description of God's creation, detailing that something was created on one day and something else was created on the next and it seems clear, why wouldn't I believe it. I certainly believe he was capable of doing it this way if He chose to.
You acknowledged that God said he made man in His own image, why take that seriously and not his creation of man from dust?
There's a line there that you can't cross.
There is a line. That line is saying that God couldn't do it that way, so it probably didn't happen. What I'm saying is it's more likely that it is a poetic description of his design, his passion in creation. Our place on this earth and historical evidence supports this. What I'm not saying, is God's power is limited. He could have done it any way He pleases. For us to limit ourselves and limit him because of what Moses wrote a some 4000 years ago in a completely different culture with completely different translations, is not helping anyone.
Limestone- It has to do with me reply to nicname. Jews didn't believe in heaven and hell. They basically said you just died. There's debate about whether your soul goes to an actual place, or that place is the grave though. Christianity believes in a heaven, but hell is a little iffy. There is definitely a lake of fire and a lot of suffering. This all comes after judgement though. Which is brought on by Jesus. The most common thought is you're in purgatory until judgement.
-
A Christian can be as horrible as anyone, but a Christian admits what he/she has done was wrong and is repentant.
I am a horrible person. I need help.
Yeah rough ridin' right, PW. Most "Christians" from college that I know go out and get absolutely hammered drunk every weekend, do drugs, eff eachother, cheat on eachother, lie to eachother, envy eachother, ETC. But it's ok in their minds since the next day they are "Forgiven" or whatever. This is what angers me about religion the most, is how hypocritical people are.
Hate the player, don't hate the game. Though I don't think that really applies literally in this case. I often used to say, "It isn't Christianity that I have a problem with, its the Christians."
The thing is, there are Christians and there are people who were only raised Christians. There's not always a long touching born again, coming back to Jesus story with everyone, but there has to be a point in life where you make that choice. Those guys haven't made their choice yet.
-
Where did the souls of everyone who was born before Jesus died on the cross go?
The Big Waiting Room in the Sky? :ck:
-
A Christian can be as horrible as anyone, but a Christian admits what he/she has done was wrong and is repentant.
I am a horrible person. I need help.
Yeah effing right, PW. Most "Christians" from college that I know go out and get absolutely hammered drunk every weekend, do drugs, eff eachother, cheat on eachother, lie to eachother, envy eachother, ETC. But it's ok in their minds since the next day they are "Forgiven" or whatever. This is what angers me about religion the most, is how hypocritical people are.
This is why I'm a Christian. Can't believe more people aren't.
-
A Christian can be as horrible as anyone, but a Christian admits what he/she has done was wrong and is repentant.
I am a horrible person. I need help.
Yeah effing right, PW. Most "Christians" from college that I know go out and get absolutely hammered drunk every weekend, do drugs, eff eachother, cheat on eachother, lie to eachother, envy eachother, ETC. But it's ok in their minds since the next day they are "Forgiven" or whatever. This is what angers me about religion the most, is how hypocritical people are.
Hate the player, don't hate the game. Though I don't think that really applies literally in this case. I often used to say, "It isn't Christianity that I have a problem with, its the Christians."
The thing is, there are Christians and there are people who were only raised Christians. There's not always a long touching born again, coming back to Jesus story with everyone, but there has to be a point in life where you make that choice. Those guys haven't made their choice yet.
Good point.
So real Christians wouldn't claim these people as actual Christians? I for one, would not. Behavior like this is disgraceful to religion if these people still call them selves "Christians", and some of the ones that I know that exhibit this behavior are very religoius and like I said above it's ok because they're "forgiven".
-
I believe in a higher being. Don't believe in any organized religion.
There is no hell, bro.
CNS Casey is certain of him/herself.
Does he/she know how dumb what he/she just said is?
Hell and Heaven are threats/incentives to live a certain way.
I don't follow organized religion. However, I still live a life that most would consider one of a good person. If I am wrong, will your god punish me for living a good life minus the belief in eternal damnation? I don't need the threat. I live the same life all of my good Christian friends do, minus their Sunday morning rituals. I don't believe that this will be the difference in what qualifies a good man from one who is not. If it does, maybe you should be questioning a god that requires such adoration and praise. What would be the motives of someone who would prefer you sin as long as you follow rather than one who lived a moral live without being a follower?
Guess what...in the end it doesn't really matter what you or anyone else wants to believe or doesn't want to believe. What is true is true, no matter what. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But I don't think I am. I guess we'll just have to wait and see huh?
I am not judging you, just curious as to why a Christian god would differentiate as I described above, though.
-
And sometimes some of us take wing and when they do, when their feet leave the ground, even for a second, they pull the rest of us with them. And when we rise, and when we rise, and when we notice that the sky has been around us all along. We have been walking into it. It has been this constant collision. Divinity and depravity. And we rise and we rise and we rise...........
-
So you're taking the bible that literally then? Is there no chance that that is a poetic description for the design process that God went through when deciding what man and woman would become?
Of course I take it literally.
There are things in the Bible that may not be known down to the smallest detail, but if there is a thorough description of God's creation, detailing that something was created on one day and something else was created on the next and it seems clear, why wouldn't I believe it. I certainly believe he was capable of doing it this way if He chose to.
You acknowledged that God said he made man in His own image, why take that seriously and not his creation of man from dust?
There's a line there that you can't cross.
There is a line. That line is saying that God couldn't do it that way, so it probably didn't happen. What I'm saying is it's more likely that it is a poetic description of his design, his passion in creation. Our place on this earth and historical evidence supports this. What I'm not saying, is God's power is limited. He could have done it any way He pleases. For us to limit ourselves and limit him because of what Moses wrote a some 4000 years ago in a completely different culture with completely different translations, is not helping anyone.
Limestone- It has to do with me reply to nicname. Jews didn't believe in heaven and hell. They basically said you just died. There's debate about whether your soul goes to an actual place, or that place is the grave though. Christianity believes in a heaven, but hell is a little iffy. There is definitely a lake of fire and a lot of suffering. This all comes after judgement though. Which is brought on by Jesus. The most common thought is you're in purgatory until judgement.
I believe that we are talking about creation/evolution here. Like I said earlier you have to take into consideration the original audience. It would be useless to try and explain the evolution of the universe, etc. beginning at an atomic level on up.
-
Super jealous of all the people who know what they are doing after they die. I'm sure heaven (or having 72 virgins, or being a cow, whatever) will be a hell of a time. Of course, I hope for your sake that you aren't wrong about which religion you chose, because most of them seem to condemn those that didn't choose their idea of a deity. I really am jealous of those who have confidence and solace in their beliefs about the afterlife, but I can't believe it myself. On the other hand, I don't have terrible memories of the time before I became conscious, and I'm not too concerned about the time after I lose consciousness at the end.
-
Where did the souls of everyone who was born before Jesus died on the cross go?
Some people were deemed holy and rightous in the eyes of God. Look it at Job.
Also they made sacrifices. There was a way to be forgiven. But there was a guilty conscious problem. People still felt guilty. Jesus cleaned the conscious as well as the slate. Then gave someone something to strive for.
-
Where did the souls of everyone who was born before Jesus died on the cross go?
Some people were deemed holy and rightous in the eyes of God. Look it at Job.
Also they made sacrifices. There was a way to be forgiven. But there was a guilty conscious problem. People still felt guilty. Jesus cleaned the conscious as well as the slate. Then gave someone something to strive for.
How did Jesus do this?
-
Where did the souls of everyone who was born before Jesus died on the cross go?
Some people were deemed holy and rightous in the eyes of God. Look it at Job.
Also they made sacrifices. There was a way to be forgiven. But there was a guilty conscious problem. People still felt guilty. Jesus cleaned the conscious as well as the slate. Then gave someone something to strive for.
How did Jesus do this?
They used to go off of sacrifices. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. The end all sacrifice in God's eyes.
But people were still their depressed, no real point to life selves with nothing to use as a guide to life. All they had to think about was what terrible people they were or how low they were in everyone else's eyes.
Look at Mary Magdaline when she met Jesus she just thought she was a terrible person. Jesus basically said by dying on a cross that no matter what you did, you're worth something. I'm dying for you as proof. Follow me and my example and now you also have a purpose.
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
Better yet, what if god didn't pay any attention to anything "us" related. What if god exists but doesn't serve the function that many think?
-
More like Theban steel!
same thing
Yeah, I'm not so sure the Spartans were conquered because they were morally inferior (socially I guess) than Thebes or Rome. Just that Theban Military Doctrine evolved faster. Not necessarily their morals. After all, the Thebans had their Sacred Band of Gay Lovers. Not exactly morally superior to Sparta or inferior to Rome.
-
:emawkid:
-
:emawkid:
You created a monster
-
Super jealous of all the people who know what they are doing after they die. I'm sure heaven (or having 72 virgins, or being a cow, whatever) will be a hell of a time. Of course, I hope for your sake that you aren't wrong about which religion you chose, because most of them seem to condemn those that didn't choose their idea of a deity. I really am jealous of those who have confidence and solace in their beliefs about the afterlife, but I can't believe it myself. On the other hand, I don't have terrible memories of the time before I became conscious, and I'm not too concerned about the time after I lose consciousness at the end.
Super unheralded aspect of Pascal's Wager. There is a 1 in tens of thousands chance that you pick the right religion. And even if you do, you have to really really really mean it if you want to get to that heaven and not go to hell.
The odds are so against you that it makes life nearly as hopeless as being a stupid atheist. But you gotta try. That is why I am a Christian.
-
I love this kind of stuff. You can argue all damn day...and there really isn't anyway for anyone to prove they're right. Love it.
-
the god people have a disadvantage because they have no proof of an invisible ghost guy. the burden is on them.
:emawkid:
-
Yeah effing right, PW. Most "Christians" from college that I know go out and get absolutely hammered drunk every weekend, do drugs, eff eachother, cheat on eachother, lie to eachother, envy eachother, ETC. But it's ok in their minds since the next day they are "Forgiven" or whatever. This is what angers me about religion the most, is how hypocritical people are.
If they are doing these things unrepentantly, they are not Christians.
If they are using God's grace as a pass to do whatever they want without consequence, they are definitely not Christians.
-
A Christian can be as horrible as anyone, but a Christian admits what he/she has done was wrong and is repentant.
I am a horrible person. I need help.
Yeah effing right, PW. Most "Christians" from college that I know go out and get absolutely hammered drunk every weekend, do drugs, eff eachother, cheat on eachother, lie to eachother, envy eachother, ETC. But it's ok in their minds since the next day they are "Forgiven" or whatever. This is what angers me about religion the most, is how hypocritical people are.
Hate the player, don't hate the game. Though I don't think that really applies literally in this case. I often used to say, "It isn't Christianity that I have a problem with, its the Christians."
The thing is, there are Christians and there are people who were only raised Christians. There's not always a long touching born again, coming back to Jesus story with everyone, but there has to be a point in life where you make that choice. Those guys haven't made their choice yet.
Good point.
So real Christians wouldn't claim these people as actual Christians? I for one, would not. Behavior like this is disgraceful to religion if these people still call them selves "Christians", and some of the ones that I know that exhibit this behavior are very religoius and like I said above it's ok because they're "forgiven".
Honestly, it's not up to the "real" Christians to label or claim others. It's more Christian like to reach out to them. Not segregate them. Jesus had a supposed hooker and a tax collector in his posse, after all.
-
I love this kind of stuff. You can argue all damn day...and there really isn't anyway for anyone to prove they're right. Love it.
Pretty much how I see it. Goes along with the difference between knowing something and believing something. I'm good with that.
-
More like Theban steel!
same thing
Yeah, I'm not so sure the Spartans were conquered because they were morally inferior (socially I guess) than Thebes or Rome. Just that Theban Military Doctrine evolved faster. Not necessarily their morals. After all, the Thebans had their Sacred Band of Gay Lovers. Not exactly morally superior to Sparta or inferior to Rome.
maybe theban military doctrine evolved faster because they spent less time worrying about dickheads stealing. :ck:
Super jealous of all the people who know what they are doing after they die. I'm sure heaven (or having 72 virgins, or being a cow, whatever) will be a hell of a time. Of course, I hope for your sake that you aren't wrong about which religion you chose, because most of them seem to condemn those that didn't choose their idea of a deity. I really am jealous of those who have confidence and solace in their beliefs about the afterlife, but I can't believe it myself. On the other hand, I don't have terrible memories of the time before I became conscious, and I'm not too concerned about the time after I lose consciousness at the end.
Super unheralded aspect of Pascal's Wager. There is a 1 in tens of thousands chance that you pick the right religion. And even if you do, you have to really really really mean it if you want to get to that heaven and not go to hell.
The odds are so against you that it makes life nearly as hopeless as being a stupid atheist. But you gotta try. That is why I am a Christian.
You could just follow the golden rule as best you can (without picking the wrong religion) and hope for the best. Personally, I'd take my chances at being a good atheist over picking the religion that the correct religion just couldn't stand.
-
the god people have a disadvantage because they have no proof of an invisible ghost guy. the burden is on them.
:emawkid:
maybe you missed all of the proof in the morality arguments?
-
A Christian can be as horrible as anyone, but a Christian admits what he/she has done was wrong and is repentant.
I am a horrible person. I need help.
Yeah effing right, PW. Most "Christians" from college that I know go out and get absolutely hammered drunk every weekend, do drugs, eff eachother, cheat on eachother, lie to eachother, envy eachother, ETC. But it's ok in their minds since the next day they are "Forgiven" or whatever. This is what angers me about religion the most, is how hypocritical people are.
Hate the player, don't hate the game. Though I don't think that really applies literally in this case. I often used to say, "It isn't Christianity that I have a problem with, its the Christians."
The thing is, there are Christians and there are people who were only raised Christians. There's not always a long touching born again, coming back to Jesus story with everyone, but there has to be a point in life where you make that choice. Those guys haven't made their choice yet.
Good point.
So real Christians wouldn't claim these people as actual Christians? I for one, would not. Behavior like this is disgraceful to religion if these people still call them selves "Christians", and some of the ones that I know that exhibit this behavior are very religoius and like I said above it's ok because they're "forgiven".
Honestly, it's not up to the "real" Christians to label or claim others. It's more Christian like to reach out to them. Not segregate them. Jesus had a supposed hooker and a tax collector in his posse, after all.
I look at it like this. Jesus said I (my words) are the way, the truth, light etc. If you believe in me (my words) and work to apply them to your life, then you will be a beacon of that light. So, should someone who chooses to follow the teachings of Christ stop hanging out with old friends, and only with other people deemed "good enough?" I think it is precisely the opposite. Where would that light be more valuable?
-
the god people have a disadvantage because they have no proof of an invisible ghost guy. the burden is on them.
:emawkid:
maybe you missed all of the proof in the morality arguments?
Nothing was proven by the God people in the morality arguments :dunno:
-
Whats wrong with living your life as a good person but not worrying about God or religion? :dunno:
-
There is a line. That line is saying that God couldn't do it that way, so it probably didn't happen. What I'm saying is it's more likely that it is a poetic description of his design, his passion in creation. Our place on this earth and historical evidence supports this. What I'm not saying, is God's power is limited. He could have done it any way He pleases. For us to limit ourselves and limit him because of what Moses wrote a some 4000 years ago in a completely different culture with completely different translations, is not helping anyone.
But again, I believe He has allowed the Bible to move through time accurately and plainly for us to read and understand. It's not a puzzle. So, questioning how things are translated is perhaps doubting his intention.
-
Super jealous of all the people who know what they are doing after they die. I'm sure heaven (or having 72 virgins, or being a cow, whatever) will be a hell of a time. Of course, I hope for your sake that you aren't wrong about which religion you chose, because most of them seem to condemn those that didn't choose their idea of a deity. I really am jealous of those who have confidence and solace in their beliefs about the afterlife, but I can't believe it myself. On the other hand, I don't have terrible memories of the time before I became conscious, and I'm not too concerned about the time after I lose consciousness at the end.
Super unheralded aspect of Pascal's Wager. There is a 1 in tens of thousands chance that you pick the right religion. And even if you do, you have to really really really mean it if you want to get to that heaven and not go to hell.
The odds are so against you that it makes life nearly as hopeless as being a stupid atheist. But you gotta try. That is why I am a Christian.
You could just follow the golden rule as best you can (without picking the wrong religion) and hope for the best. Personally, I'd take my chances at being a good atheist over picking the religion that the correct religion just couldn't stand.
Bingo
Whats wrong with living your life as a good person but not worrying about God or religion? :dunno:
Nothing
-
the god people have a disadvantage because they have no proof of an invisible ghost guy. the burden is on them.
:emawkid:
maybe you missed all of the proof in the morality arguments?
Nothing was proven by the God people in the morality arguments :dunno:
was being completely facetious in my last two posts.
-
I love this kind of stuff. You can argue all damn day...and there really isn't anyway for anyone to prove they're right. Love it.
Pretty much how I see it. Goes along with the difference between knowing something and believing something. I'm good with that.
I find it amusing that people DEMAND "to be as certain of invisible things as I (or in this case they) was that seven and three are ten"
Yet they do not demand this type of proof that their parents are actually their parents. That the Civil War actually happened. That Milan, as a city, exists.
We simply take these other things at other peoples word. We believe our parents when they tell us that they are our parents. We believe historians when they tell us the Civil War happened without doing the research ourselves. We believe Milan is real just because someone said they were there or had a picture of a city and labeled it so. But God must present himself personally and shake your hand (you will no doubt check yourself into a psychiatric hospital because it would still be too unbelievable to you) for you to buy in.
-
the god people have a disadvantage because they have no proof of an invisible ghost guy. the burden is on them.
:emawkid:
I believe "burden" is the wrong word in this case. oh my. :lol:
-
Whats wrong with living your life as a good person but not worrying about God or religion? :dunno:
Many people don't think it's possible to have morals without a superior being to judge you, which is pretty dumb
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
Better yet, what if god didn't pay any attention to anything "us" related. What if god exists but doesn't serve the function that many think?
Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It answers all of these questions...There's not much else a Christian can say...
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericaninfidelblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fchristianitydemotivator.jpg&hash=2008e361c8433dc57e05e9a206cddd4c62770c56)
BOOM
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericaninfidelblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fchristianitydemotivator.jpg&hash=2008e361c8433dc57e05e9a206cddd4c62770c56)
BOOM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcaudillwebsolutions.com%2Fponderings%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F12%2Fatheism.png&hash=5b1fcfd802d51c80a515d11c43ebdebe7f4fe17e)
we can do this all day...
-
the god people have a disadvantage because they have no proof of an invisible ghost guy. the burden is on them.
:emawkid:
Look out your window.
Look at your hands. Watch them move.
Watch the moon eclipse the sun.
Ask yourself why you haven't killed yourself or your family?
Proof is surrounding you on every side.
Look at it.
-
Whats wrong with living your life as a good person but not worrying about God or religion? :dunno:
It's meaningless and stupid.
Only a real idiot would do it.
-
the god people have a disadvantage because they have no proof of an invisible ghost guy. the burden is on them.
:emawkid:
Look out your window.
Look at your hands. Watch them move.
Watch the moon eclipse the sun.
Ask yourself why you haven't killed yourself or your family?
Proof is surrounding you on every side.
Look at it.
:lol:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericaninfidelblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fchristianitydemotivator.jpg&hash=2008e361c8433dc57e05e9a206cddd4c62770c56)
BOOM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcaudillwebsolutions.com%2Fponderings%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F12%2Fatheism.png&hash=5b1fcfd802d51c80a515d11c43ebdebe7f4fe17e)
we can do this all day...
mine is funnier.
-
the god people have a disadvantage because they have no proof of an invisible ghost guy. the burden is on them.
:emawkid:
Look out your window.
Look at your hands. Watch them move.
Watch the moon eclipse the sun.
Ask yourself why you haven't killed yourself or your family?
Proof is surrounding you on every side.
Look at it.
:horrorsurprise:
-
the god people have a disadvantage because they have no proof of an invisible ghost guy. the burden is on them.
:emawkid:
Look out your window.
Look at your hands. Watch them move.
Watch the moon eclipse the sun.
Ask yourself why you haven't killed yourself or your family?
Proof is surrounding you on every side.
Look at it.
:lol:
You'll think about it.
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
People call him the Son of God, but he was actually God in human form. In Revelation, he actually returns to John in a different form. He resembles the Jesus he knew, but with white hair, a dagger, and bronzed feet. To separate Jesus and God is interesting to think about, but they are indeed one.
Better yet, what if god didn't pay any attention to anything "us" related. What if god exists but doesn't serve the function that many think?
Anything is possible. It would go against everything in the bible, though. Especially the new testament.
-
I love this kind of stuff. You can argue all damn day...and there really isn't anyway for anyone to prove they're right. Love it.
Pretty much how I see it. Goes along with the difference between knowing something and believing something. I'm good with that.
I find it amusing that people DEMAND "to be as certain of invisible things as I (or in this case they) was that seven and three are ten"
Yet they do not demand this type of proof that their parents are actually their parents. That the Civil War actually happened. That Milan, as a city, exists.
We simply take these other things at other peoples word. We believe our parents when they tell us that they are our parents. We believe historians when they tell us the Civil War happened without doing the research ourselves. We believe Milan is real just because someone said they were there or had a picture of a city and labeled it so. But God must present himself personally and shake your hand (you will no doubt check yourself into a psychiatric hospital because it would still be too unbelievable to you) for you to buy in.
There's really no evidence of God though, other than some ridiculously hard to believe things in the Bible. On the other hand, there are millions and millions of witnesses to the Civil war, your "parents" argument is completely irrelevant, and millions and millions of people have been to Milan and can describe it.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericaninfidelblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fchristianitydemotivator.jpg&hash=2008e361c8433dc57e05e9a206cddd4c62770c56)
BOOM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcaudillwebsolutions.com%2Fponderings%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F12%2Fatheism.png&hash=5b1fcfd802d51c80a515d11c43ebdebe7f4fe17e)
we can do this all day...
mine is funnier.
Mine is more accurate.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericaninfidelblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fchristianitydemotivator.jpg&hash=2008e361c8433dc57e05e9a206cddd4c62770c56)
BOOM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcaudillwebsolutions.com%2Fponderings%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F12%2Fatheism.png&hash=5b1fcfd802d51c80a515d11c43ebdebe7f4fe17e)
we can do this all day...
mine is funnier.
Mine is more accurate.
Are you an evolution denier and young earth creationist?
-
I love this kind of stuff. You can argue all damn day...and there really isn't anyway for anyone to prove they're right. Love it.
Pretty much how I see it. Goes along with the difference between knowing something and believing something. I'm good with that.
I find it amusing that people DEMAND "to be as certain of invisible things as I (or in this case they) was that seven and three are ten"
Yet they do not demand this type of proof that their parents are actually their parents. That the Civil War actually happened. That Milan, as a city, exists.
We simply take these other things at other peoples word. We believe our parents when they tell us that they are our parents. We believe historians when they tell us the Civil War happened without doing the research ourselves. We believe Milan is real just because someone said they were there or had a picture of a city and labeled it so. But God must present himself personally and shake your hand (you will no doubt check yourself into a psychiatric hospital because it would still be too unbelievable to you) for you to buy in.
There's really no evidence of God though, other than some ridiculously hard to believe things in the Bible. On the other hand, there are millions and millions of witnesses to the Civil war, your "parents" argument is completely irrelevant, and millions and millions of people have been to Milan and can describe it.
There were millions and millions who saw the civil war. Where are they now? Do you believe they existed? Do you believe they told the truth in their writings? You are willing to trust people you never met that what they describe happened at all, or were accurate. The parents argument is not at all irrelevant. Thousands of people find out each year they were adopted, but previously took it for granted that their parents were their biological parents.
Unless you yourself have been to Milan, you are simply trusting to the word of someone else. You are not completely certain that the place exists, but you believe it.
My point stands, strong as ever, even bolstered.
Are you an evolution denier and young earth creationist?
Nope.
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
Better yet, what if god didn't pay any attention to anything "us" related. What if god exists but doesn't serve the function that many think?
Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It answers all of these questions...There's not much else a Christian can say...
Going back to my analogy of being a beacon of light (which I'm now convinced that my posts are the least read in this thread), I think you are pretty much right. Christians or anyone else can't prove anything, neither can one set of Christians prove anything to another set of Christians. I think the hope is that in time that enough people are acting in accordance with the word, that it will illuminate the rest of the world and will overpower the "darkness" that is the opposite of the way of life described in the word.
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
Better yet, what if god didn't pay any attention to anything "us" related. What if god exists but doesn't serve the function that many think?
Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It answers all of these questions...There's not much else a Christian can say...
I have a completely serious question: if the Bible is "the divinely inspired word of God," what was wrong with the books that were written, but left out of the final "official" version of the New Testament? Were they less divinely inspired? Were they later removed due to human error? Sorry, LHBIQ.
-
Whats wrong with living your life as a good person but not worrying about God or religion? :dunno:
It's meaningless and stupid.
Only a real idiot would do it.
Why is it meaningless, what can you give back by believing?
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
Better yet, what if god didn't pay any attention to anything "us" related. What if god exists but doesn't serve the function that many think?
Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It answers all of these questions...There's not much else a Christian can say...
I have a completely serious question: if the Bible is "the divinely inspired word of God," what was wrong with the books that were written, but left out of the final "official" version of the New Testament? Were they less divinely inspired? Were they later removed due to human error? Sorry, LHBIQ.
In my honest opinion, yes, at least in some cases. I, however, would be foolish to claim that I am well versed in theological study to make a substantial claim in these matters.
-
Are you an evolution denier and young earth creationist?
Nope.
[/quote]
o, seemed likely. Your pic is certainly accurate in its statement that it makes sense.
-
Do unborn muslim babies go to heaven?
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
"Either Jesus is the Son of God; or a madman or worse. But His being just a great teacher? He's not left that open to us." - C.S. Lewis
-
There is a pretty active forum devoted to these type of debates, etc. on the 2+2 poker forums. Pike, I'm sure you would enjoy yourself. <--- not a put down.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/137/religion-god-theology/
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
"Either Jesus is the Son of God; or a madman or worse. But His being just a great teacher? He's not left that open to us." - C.S. Lewis
yeah there some nice things written about him 2 and 3 generations after his death. but nothing that hadn't been said before by philosophers whose blood isn't ritually consumed.
-
Whats wrong with living your life as a good person but not worrying about God or religion? :dunno:
It's meaningless and stupid.
Only a real idiot would do it.
So my day to day enjoyment of life is meaningless? My appreciation of different activities and interactions with people is somehow meaningless because I don't think base my enjoyment of these things on a God or religion?
Enjoy every moment of your life for what it is. Enjoy even the depressing times because you know you'll appreciate the good ones more. Enjoy the depth of your emotions, the use of your abilities, and the beauty of the world around you.
-
ok boys off to the pit
-
:gocho:
-
ok boys off to the pit
Took longer than expected.
-
ok boys off to the pit
Took longer than expected.
glad it made it here before i got drunk.
-
Whats wrong with living your life as a good person but not worrying about God or religion? :dunno:
It's meaningless and stupid.
Only a real idiot would do it.
So my day to day enjoyment of life is meaningless? My appreciation of different activities and interactions with people is somehow meaningless because I don't think base my enjoyment of these things on a God or religion?
Enjoy every moment of your life for what it is. Enjoy even the depressing times because you know you'll appreciate the good ones more. Enjoy the depth of your emotions, the use of your abilities, and the beauty of the world around you.
Yeah, I really hope your post was facetious PW.
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
"Either Jesus is the Son of God; or a madman or worse. But His being just a great teacher? He's not left that open to us." - C.S. Lewis
Isn't Lewis a writer of religious based books?
Also, there can easily be an in between.
-
the god people have a disadvantage because they have no proof of an invisible ghost guy. the burden is on them.
:emawkid:
You obviously don't watch Ghost Adventurers.
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
"Either Jesus is the Son of God; or a madman or worse. But His being just a great teacher? He's not left that open to us." - C.S. Lewis
Isn't Lewis a writer of religious based books?
Also, there can easily be an in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
Very respected thinker. Not an idiot in other terms.
Also, I can't see how there is an inbetween in this case.
A guy claiming to be God is either A. God. B. A liar. C. A crazyman.
-
There is a pretty active forum devoted to these type of debates, etc. on the 2+2 poker forums. Pike, I'm sure you would enjoy yourself. <--- not a put down.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/137/religion-god-theology/
Looks like a slug fest :pbj:
-
I'd like to find some middle ground so let's post things that EVERYONE can agree on.
1. IF there is a God, he obviously loves the really good looking people more than the uglier ones. :gocho:
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
"Either Jesus is the Son of God; or a madman or worse. But His being just a great teacher? He's not left that open to us." - C.S. Lewis
Isn't Lewis a writer of religious based books?
Also, there can easily be an in between.
Yes, he was.
But that comment was said in context of the claims Jesus made himself, ie. its ridiculous to believe he was a "good teacher" when compared to some of the other truly radical (or crazy) things that he said. Of course, that also presupposes that a person thinks the texts that we have quoting him are accurate and reliable.
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
Better yet, what if god didn't pay any attention to anything "us" related. What if god exists but doesn't serve the function that many think?
Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It answers all of these questions...There's not much else a Christian can say...
I have a completely serious question: if the Bible is "the divinely inspired word of God," what was wrong with the books that were written, but left out of the final "official" version of the New Testament? Were they less divinely inspired? Were they later removed due to human error? Sorry, LHBIQ.
In my honest opinion, yes, at least in some cases. I, however, would be foolish to claim that I am well versed in theological study to make a substantial claim in these matters.
These books were included in the original Bible but dropped by later forms of Christianity. If you are speaking of books such as Baruch, 1 Esdras, Judith, Maccabees, Sirach, etc... then this is the case. These books are quoted throughout the New Testament (not word for word, but the readings retain their meaning). Examples include in Jas. 1:19 it says, "Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak", and in Sir. 5:11 it says, "Be quick to hear, and use self-restraint in answering". This reference shows that the early church recognized these books as scripture. It was not until A.D. 170 that anyone wrote that these books should not be included in the Bible. During that time, it was only the opinion of a few, not the entire Church. In A.D. 419 the Council held at Carthage officially decided that these books were part of scripture. The 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils ratified this decision.
(This is found in a book called "Dance, O Isaiah" and backed up in many Church History Books.)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericaninfidelblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fchristianitydemotivator.jpg&hash=2008e361c8433dc57e05e9a206cddd4c62770c56)
BOOM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcaudillwebsolutions.com%2Fponderings%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F12%2Fatheism.png&hash=5b1fcfd802d51c80a515d11c43ebdebe7f4fe17e)
we can do this all day...
mine is funnier.
Mine is more accurate.
So it's easier to believe something as insane as Christianity than it is to believe a theory backed with some form of scientific evidence?
Good to know.
OK Cat...do they have this in a T-Shirt? Preferably purple so I can wear it to KSU games?
-
Do unborn muslim babies go to heaven?
I'm trying to imagine what would make an unborn baby a Muslim.
-
Whats wrong with living your life as a good person but not worrying about God or religion? :dunno:
It's meaningless and stupid.
Only a real idiot would do it.
So my day to day enjoyment of life is meaningless? My appreciation of different activities and interactions with people is somehow meaningless because I don't think base my enjoyment of these things on a God or religion?
Enjoy every moment of your life for what it is. Enjoy even the depressing times because you know you'll appreciate the good ones more. Enjoy the depth of your emotions, the use of your abilities, and the beauty of the world around you.
Yeah, I really hope your post was facetious PW.
I am not.
If you are living your life for anything but Jesus Christ, it is meaningless.
You're either for Him or against Him.
-
Whats wrong with living your life as a good person but not worrying about God or religion? :dunno:
It's meaningless and stupid.
Only a real idiot would do it.
So my day to day enjoyment of life is meaningless? My appreciation of different activities and interactions with people is somehow meaningless because I don't think base my enjoyment of these things on a God or religion?
Enjoy every moment of your life for what it is. Enjoy even the depressing times because you know you'll appreciate the good ones more. Enjoy the depth of your emotions, the use of your abilities, and the beauty of the world around you.
Yeah, I really hope your post was facetious PW.
I am not.
If you are living your life for anything but Jesus Christ, it is meaningless.
You're either for Him or against Him.
That's extremely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
Better yet, what if god didn't pay any attention to anything "us" related. What if god exists but doesn't serve the function that many think?
Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It answers all of these questions...There's not much else a Christian can say...
I have a completely serious question: if the Bible is "the divinely inspired word of God," what was wrong with the books that were written, but left out of the final "official" version of the New Testament? Were they less divinely inspired? Were they later removed due to human error? Sorry, LHBIQ.
Look up the council of nicea. you will find the answer there.
-
I am not.
If you are living your life for anything but Jesus Christ, it is meaningless.
You're either for Him or against Him.
That's extremely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
Matthew 12:30
"Whoever is not with me is against me..." - Jesus
-
I am not.
If you are living your life for anything but Jesus Christ, it is meaningless.
You're either for Him or against Him.
That's extremely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
Matthew 12:30
"Whoever is not with me is against me..." - Jesus
Don't care what Jesus said. Sounds like George Bush :flush:
-
I am not.
If you are living your life for anything but Jesus Christ, it is meaningless.
You're either for Him or against Him.
That's extremely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
Matthew 12:30
"Whoever is not with me is against me..." - Jesus
Fine that you can be for or against him. Not fine with "If you are living life for anything but JHC, it is meaningless." That's rough ridin' stupid. People that believe crap like that ruin religion.
-
Who better to ask about the afterlife than those that experienced it?
Want to know what those that have had near death experiences and lived to tell about it had to say about the afterlife and God? God appears to be a being composed of light. 'It' fills one's consciousness with only love. Be you Mother Theresa or Hitler, its the same love. But here's the kicker: You get to experience all the interactions with other people over your lifetime as those people experienced it. Treat someone like cac? You get to experience his rage, sadness, etc. Treat them with love? You get the warm feeling.
How you treat people matters. Its what life is all about.
-
Near death experiences are nothing more than the brain releasing crap loads of DMT and then tripping out on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine
-
Is this the equivalent of the Cigar's thread for the Birther Pit? This thing is getting out of hand.
-
Near death experiences are nothing more than the brain releasing cac loads of DMT and then tripping out on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine
There are about thirty cases now where the person experiencing the NDE was able to report information, later verified by medical staff, that they couldn't have known during the state their brain was in. No brain activity. Distant location of said recalled events.
Its not something happening in the brain. You can't throw blanket statements out to explain some cases but not all.
-
Near death experiences are nothing more than the brain releasing cac loads of DMT and then tripping out on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine
There are about thirty cases now where the person experiencing the NDE was able to report information, later verified by medical staff, that they couldn't have known during the state their brain was in. No brain activity. Distant location of said recalled events.
Its not something happening in the brain. You can't throw blanket statements out to explain some cases but not all.
Yeah I've heard of that, but IDK, DMT is a hell of a drug
-
so now we're supposed to believe that god exists because someone saw white light when they were near death?
i like to live by facts. the fact is, there is no proof of god. religion is based on faith that something exists.
-
so now we're supposed to believe that god exists because someone saw white light when they were near death?
i like to live by facts. the fact is, there is no proof of god. religion is based on faith that something exists.
Actually, I don't care what you believe. Your beliefs are a non-issue to me.
But if we're going to speak of God than it seems reasonable to me to lend an ear to those that have claimed to meet 'it'. And what do you know, across cultures, religions, and geography, they tell the same tale.
-
so "meeting god" is seeing white light when your body is fighting for life?
I don't care if people believe in god or not. i do care that people use religion as an excuse to be horrible, nasty people.
-
so "meeting god" is seeing white light when your body is fighting for life?
I don't care if people believe in god or not. i do care that people use religion as an excuse to be horrible, nasty people.
"Meeting God" is being in the presence of a light-being that fills one's consciousness with unconditional love. God apparently doesn't judge. YOU judge yourself after experiencing your life from those that you affected throughout it.
I also don't care if people believe in God or not. That is not a prerequisite to get into 'heaven'. Heaven does not appear to be an exclusive club for any group. Personally, what I think happened was people were reporting NDE's all throughout man's history. Men took this story and those wanting to exploit people started attaching their own desires onto it. 'You must believe in Jesus', 'Sharia is the only way', 'Homosexuals will burn'.
Christians being nasty people will be no different than atheists being so. All that matters is how they treated the life around them. How they made them feel.
-
I am not.
If you are living your life for anything but Jesus Christ, it is meaningless.
You're either for Him or against Him.
That's extremely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
Matthew 12:30
"Whoever is not with me is against me..." - Jesus
Jesus also never said, "Choose me now or lose me forever."
-
God apparently doesn't judge.
All Eyez on Me
"Only God Can Judge Me...." - Tupac Shakur
-
8 pages in and not one atheist has addressed the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) nature of relative morality yet.
How telling.
-
8 pages in and not one atheist has addressed the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) nature of relative morality yet.
How telling.
:flush:
-
Just the kind of argument you've put forth so far.
Keep trying, boyo. Maybe you can come up with a clever, but over used picture about how Christianity is absurd.
-
hey we beat texas. go cats :ksu: thanks god
-
hey we beat texas. go cats :ksu: thanks god
This
-
hey we beat texas. go cats :ksu: thanks god
god must hate Texas. Thanks big guy!
-
calling an idea Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is immoral.
-
let's all pak and read bibles and l. ron hubbard books and talk about the qatz and sword fight with real swords and crap!
-
lol @ this thread right now. WGAF tonight. go cats.
-
Just the kind of argument you've put forth so far.
Keep trying, boyo. Maybe you can come up with a clever, but over used picture about how Christianity is absurd.
Don't need to. Not absurb, just not based on any fact.
-
Too busy celebrating to care about this right now. See you tomorrow.
-
Too busy celebrating to care about this right now. See you tomorrow.
Same....lol
-
Too busy celebrating to care about this right now. See you tomorrow.
Its too soon, I'm still in celebration mode
-
Do unborn muslim babies go to heaven?
I'm trying to imagine what would make an unborn baby a Muslim.
ok, a day old baby born of a Muslim mother and father.
-
TOO SOOOOOOON! :dubious:
:emawkid: :emawkid: :emawkid: :ksu: :emawkid: :emawkid: :emawkid:
-
Do unborn muslim babies go to heaven?
I'm trying to imagine what would make an unborn baby a Muslim.
ok, a day old baby born of a Muslim mother and father.
How about a 1, 2, or 3 yr old being raised Muslim. Too young to even understand what the hell they are doing, but still technically practicing(or at least participating in ) a religion.
-
Do unborn muslim babies go to heaven?
I'm trying to imagine what would make an unborn baby a Muslim.
ok, a day old baby born of a Muslim mother and father.
How about a 1, 2, or 3 yr old being raised Muslim. Too young to even understand what the hell they are doing, but still technically practicing(or at least participating in ) a religion.
I would bet hell, according to the bible at least.
-
Do unborn muslim babies go to heaven?
I'm trying to imagine what would make an unborn baby a Muslim.
ok, a day old baby born of a Muslim mother and father.
How about a 1, 2, or 3 yr old being raised Muslim. Too young to even understand what the hell they are doing, but still technically practicing(or at least participating in ) a religion.
If the mom and dad strapped a bomb to the baby and wheeled him into a room full of infidels and set it off, it would go to heaven and have 72 virgins at his disposal. :fatty:
-
Do unborn muslim babies go to heaven?
I'm trying to imagine what would make an unborn baby a Muslim.
ok, a day old baby born of a Muslim mother and father.
How about a 1, 2, or 3 yr old being raised Muslim. Too young to even understand what the hell they are doing, but still technically practicing(or at least participating in ) a religion.
If the mom and dad strapped a bomb to the baby and wheeled him into a room full of infidels and set it off, it would go to heaven and have 72 virgins at his disposal. :fatty:
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
Do unborn muslim babies go to heaven?
I'm trying to imagine what would make an unborn baby a Muslim.
ok, a day old baby born of a Muslim mother and father.
How about a 1, 2, or 3 yr old being raised Muslim. Too young to even understand what the hell they are doing, but still technically practicing(or at least participating in ) a religion.
If the mom and dad strapped a bomb to the baby and wheeled him into a room full of infidels and set it off, it would go to heaven and have 72 virgins at his disposal. :fatty:
oh dear heavenly lord wtf I oh christ jesus
-
What if Jesus was just a really nice guy? What if a god judged people based off of the daily choices they make rather than Jesus getting offed? What if what he did got him judged kindly, but has nothing to do with you or yours?
"Either Jesus is the Son of God; or a madman or worse. But His being just a great teacher? He's not left that open to us." - C.S. Lewis
Isn't Lewis a writer of religious based books?
Also, there can easily be an in between.
Yes, he was.
But that comment was said in context of the claims Jesus made himself, ie. its ridiculous to believe he was a "good teacher" when compared to some of the other truly radical (or crazy) things that he said. Of course, that also presupposes that a person thinks the texts that we have quoting him are accurate and reliable.
He told good stories, but i'm not a fan of his writing style.
-
"Either Jesus is the Son of God; or a madman or worse. But His being just a great teacher? He's not left that open to us." - C.S. Lewis
Lewis was no tard, thats for sure. However, he is oversimplifying this to push his Protestant Christian Fundy dogma... As the only Hindu on this board, I feel the need to weigh in..
Everybody goes to either heaven or hell argument is ridiculous, it is more of a product of Western Philosophy than actual Truth. The truth is that Reincarnation takes place until moksha, or liberation is reached. There are astral realms that do resemble heaven or hell though based on the karma and actions of life one has lived. No one sends you there, you just go to your own level of vibration. Much like radio waves exist on different frequencies, after death, you go to an astral realm that matches your vibratory manifestation, until you reincarnate again. Not transmigration though (going from a bug, to a bird, to a human). Doesn't happen.
Christ did make radical statements, that does not ween the options down to 1.) The only Son of God 2.) A crazed idiot.
The Lord in the sacred Hindu Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, declares: "Whenever virtue declines and vice predominates, I incarnate as an Avatar. In visible form I appear from age to age to protect the virtuous and to destroy evildoing in order to reestablish righteousness"
Divine intercession to mitigate the cosmic law of cause and effect, by which a man suffers from his errors, was at the heart of the mission of love Jesus came to fulfill. Moses brought the law from God to man, emphasizing the awful justice that befalls willful heedlessness. Jesus came to demonstrate the forgiveness and compassion of God, whose love is a shelter even from the exacting law.
Jesus came in a darkened age that was little able to appreciate him; but his message of the love of God and his intercession on behalf of suffering humanity was not only for that time but for all ages to come—that God is with man in this darkest moments as well as in enlightened times. He reminded a world fearful of their Creator as a God of wrathful judgment that, though "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth," the Absolute is also a personal God who can be appealed to in prayer and who responds as a loving heavenly Father.
To understand the magnitude of a divine incarnation, it is necessary to understand the source and nature of the consciousness that is incarnate in the avatar. Jesus spoke of this consciousness when he proclaimed: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30) and "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 14:11). Those who unite their consciousness to God know both the transcendent and the immanent nature of Spirit (through inductive reasoning and direct experience, i might add)—the singularity of the ever-existing, ever-conscious, ever-new Bliss of the Uncreate Absolute, and the myriad manifestations of His Being as the Infinitude of forms into which He variegates Himself in the panorama of creation.
The Good Shepherd of souls opened his arms to all, rejecting none, and with universal love coaxed the world to follow him on the path to liberation through the example of his spirit of sacrifice, renunciation, forgiveness, love for friend and enemy alike, and supreme love for God above all else.
But He was not a tree-hugging hippy patting everyone on the head... Renunciation and devotion is hard, and therefore calls for a certain element of radicalism which Jesus taught.
I doubt anyone will even consider what I am trying to say. Just offering another perspective...
:weirdrobert:
-
No joke, my bro in law's folks are super christians and his brother is a minister. They about had a fit when my niece was born bc they waited to do the babtism when the whole family could make it up to chicago. They were worried that their infant grand daughter could die and would burn in hell if the babtism was not done.
-
They were worried that their infant grand daughter could die and would burn in hell if the baptism was not done.
If true, they've distorted what the Bible says.
Baptism is a statement of your salvation (a statement that an infant can't make), not the source of it.
-
I doubt anyone will even consider what I am trying to say. Just offering another perspective...
I don't know what your point really is.
-
PW,
Born again, or raised?
-
I doubt anyone will even consider what I am trying to say. Just offering another perspective...
I don't know what your point really is.
The point is PW (like your videos btw), exactly what I said, just offering another perspective.
The unfortunate thing is that the atheists/agnostics pretty much have you beat on many of these issues if you accept the party line christian dogma. It is just, well, irrational, petty, and oversimplified. Besides, who the heck would want to worship a "loving" god that throws someone to hell because they don't posses some arbitrary belief in an anthropomorphic european deity? Who would want to worship a god where the main motivation is to avoid punishment of eternal damnation?
Its too bad that God created us in his image, and then we returned the favor.
Anyways, there are other ways to develop a real, deep relationship with Christ without having to buy the fundamentalist or "christian" viewpoint. Most unbelievers don't even consider this possibility because of the poor and inaccurate representation of the Lord Jesus by many of his followers.
This is not a shot at my christian brothers and sisters, all paths have rather poor representatives. But PW, God can not be found through dogma, logic, rhetoric, or reason. These are only rungs on the ladder. Direct experience and communion with the Divine can open even the hardest of human hearts and can thoroughly convince even the most entrenched skeptic.
-
Why would Hindu's study Jesus and believe Him to be an "Avatar" when He claims to be the only way to God (John 14:16)? Hindu's believe in the "way of works," which is salvation (escape) through good works (or adherence to Hindu teaching/scripture). Jesus teaches salvation through faith in Him and did not call for us to be legalistic.
-
Why would Hindu's study Jesus and believe Him to be an "Avatar" when He claims to be the only way to God (John 14:16)? Hindu's believe in the "way of works," which is salvation (escape) through good works (or adherence to Hindu teaching/scripture). Jesus teaches salvation through faith in Him and did not call for us to be legalistic.
To many faith could be interpreted as Faith in the truth of his word and direction.
-
The truth is that Reincarnation takes place until moksha, or liberation is reached. There are astral realms that do resemble heaven or hell though based on the karma and actions of life one has lived. No one sends you there, you just go to your own level of vibration. Much like radio waves exist on different frequencies, after death, you go to an astral realm that matches your vibratory manifestation, until you reincarnate again.
"In my Father's house are many mansions."
-
I doubt anyone will even consider what I am trying to say. Just offering another perspective...
I don't know what your point really is.
The point is PW (like your videos btw), exactly what I said, just offering another perspective.
The unfortunate thing is that the atheists/agnostics pretty much have you beat on many of these issues if you accept the party line christian dogma. It is just, well, irrational, petty, and oversimplified. Besides, who the heck would want to worship a "loving" god that throws someone to hell because they don't posses some arbitrary belief in an anthropomorphic european deity? Who would want to worship a god where the main motivation is to avoid punishment of eternal damnation?
Its too bad that God created us in his image, and then we returned the favor.
Anyways, there are other ways to develop a real, deep relationship with Christ without having to buy the fundamentalist or "christian" viewpoint. Most unbelievers don't even consider this possibility because of the poor and inaccurate representation of the Lord Jesus by many of his followers.
This is not a shot at my christian brothers and sisters, all paths have rather poor representatives. But PW, God can not be found through dogma, logic, rhetoric, or reason. These are only rungs on the ladder. Direct experience and communion with the Divine can open even the hardest of human hearts and can thoroughly convince even the most entrenched skeptic.
I disagree with all of this.
-
PW,
Born again, or raised?
Born again is a term used to describe anyone who has placed their faith and hope in Jesus Christ. They're reborn in Christ. A new person.
Am I a Christian because I was raised as one?
No.
-
Do unborn muslim babies go to heaven?
I'm trying to imagine what would make an unborn baby a Muslim.
ok, a day old baby born of a Muslim mother and father.
This is not something that can be known, we have no exact answer.
Also, there is Christianity and everything else. Muslims, in a sense, do not exist. They might as well pray to celery, anything, it doesn't matter. So a person whose parents are muslims, is not a muslim, it's just a person who does not know Christ.
-
A hindu should dismiss all of Christianity or accept it all.
They do not share anything. They are not equally valid.
-
A hindu should dismiss all of Christianity or accept it all.
They do not share anything. They are not equally valid.
So Ghandi is in hell? That sucks.
-
Why would Hindu's study Jesus and believe Him to be an "Avatar" when He claims to be the only way to God (John 14:16)? Hindu's believe in the "way of works," which is salvation (escape) through good works (or adherence to Hindu teaching/scripture). Jesus teaches salvation through faith in Him and did not call for us to be legalistic.
Here is how I would interpret John 14. (Hinduism has sooo many different sects and philosophies it is hard to distinguish between them, I consider myself a Hindu and a Christian, but most importantly, a Devotee of God).
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Believe in God, the all powerful creator, and His earthly manifestation as Jesus the man, who embodied the Cosmic Christ, the only begottoen manifestation of the Uncreated Creator. The Christ (The All Powerful, All Loving Force), embodied as Jesus, is in us all. We have to access it through prayer metiation, and devotion.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
Jesus is urging us to follow his path as a way-shower, being Divine in human flesh, he is encouraging his disciples to raise their conciousness and assures them that there will be a place for them in the astral realms to commune with God.
4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Here Thomas is like "wtf, ummm, I don't know the way" and Jesus drops the next verse on him, basically saying "Haven't you been watching me, haven't I taught you as my disciple?"
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
No one can reach moksha, liberation, "heaven" as you might put it, without uniting themselves with the Christ Spirit (again the only begotten manifestation of the Uncreated Creator) Dropping egoic attachments, remaining devotional, moral, and communing with God, Jesus is using the example of His Way, Truth, and Life to tell his disciples they must not only believe in him, but become like him. No man reaches liberation without uniting themselves to Christ, not a human manifestation of it. He is speaking of Who He Is, not a belief in him. The Blessed Son of God speaks extremely deeply (and the Book of St. John is perhaps the deepest), not in kindergarten-esque oversimplifications.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Again saying, "If you would have been watching me and seeing the Divine Radience busting forth from within Me, connect with it, and then let it take over your heart, you will know God"
Apologies for not putting the words of Christ in bold, im on my phone.
-
A hindu should dismiss all of Christianity or accept it all.
They do not share anything. They are not equally valid.
Your religion serves your ego, I serve God.
You say "I have the only Truth, Believe as I do"
I say "God is for everyone, he is the All Powerful, All Loving Force, He is Infinite and cannont be broken down to a simple formula"
You say I should dismiss all of Christianity,
I sadly wonder how many people you have caused that to happen to...
-
KSU187 just surpassed PoetWarrior as the crazy person in this thread... :)
No offense, KSU187, but you're totally misguided, in every way. I believe your fellow hindu's would agree, if they cared even a little...
Again, you can't be hindu and Christian. It's impossible.
Nothing is more impossible. Christianity is against everything you're saying.
-
so a college student is nationally embarrassed, a basketball team's hopes for an epic season are damaged, and a whole bunch of negative press is created, because of relgion. i believe this is a good example of why people are turned off from, and shy away from religion. a kid can't play the rest of the season because he had sex with his consenting girlfriend.
-
so a college student is nationally embarrassed, a basketball team's hopes for an epic season are damaged, and a whole bunch of negative press is created, because of relgion. i believe this is a good example of why people are turned off from, and shy away from religion. a kid can't play the rest of the season because he had sex with his consenting girlfriend.
It's basketball, dude, who cares?
-
a bunch of people "care." i'm just saying this is an instance where religion doesn't look so good.
-
KSU187, the Bible details exactly what you are doing, numerous times...I suppose this doesn't dissuade you?
Act 20:
"29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31Therefore be alert..."
2 Corinthians 11:
"3But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. "
"13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."
2 Peter 2:
"1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep."
-
:horrorsurprise:
If I read that right, 187 is the devil.
:horrorsurprise:
-
a bunch of people "care." i'm just saying this is an instance where religion doesn't look so good.
Maybe the kid's act doesn't look so good?
Mormon's fall right in with my above post, but we agree that sex is for marriage.
Anyone, Christian or not, who's honest, should agree.
-
A hindu, who's need for a personal, infinite God, who communicates, was so great that they simply meld the Christian God into their own false beliefs.
Hinduism obviously wasn't enough...
-
a bunch of people "care." i'm just saying this is an instance where religion doesn't look so good.
The whole of religion doesn't look good or Mormonism doesn't look good?
-
both. people who don't really know much about anything will generalize it as "religion."
-
KSU187, the Bible details exactly what you are doing, numerous times...I suppose this doesn't dissuade you?
Act 20:
"29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31Therefore be alert..."
The Bible foretold of the Junkyard Cats :love:
-
KSU187 just surpassed PoetWarrior as the crazy person in this thread... :)
No offense, KSU187, but you're totally misguided, in every way. I believe your fellow hindu's would agree, if they cared even a little...
Again, you can't be hindu and Christian. It's impossible.
Nothing is more impossible. Christianity is against everything you're saying.
Its Impossible, huh... Do you not read your own scripture?
For with God nothing shall be impossible. (Luke 1:37)
-
A hindu, who's need for a personal, infinite God, who communicates, was so great that they simply meld the Christian God into their own false beliefs.
Hinduism obviously wasn't enough...
I am saddened by your ignorance of other faiths.. We don't have to "meld" anything to fit our "false beliefs."
A hindu doesn't have a "need" for a personal, infinite God who communicates and thereby just uses the Christian god to fill that void. We already have one, a Loving God who is both personal and impersonal. The Supreme Being, the Shepard of Souls, who is accessible through inductive processes.
We must be Dvija, or born again. The only thing is our term predates "born again christianity" by oh... 2000 years... :emawkid:
But I'm sure your dogmatic teaching is the ONLY right one...
In the supreme irony, it was the religious who crucified the Master.. People who were SO sure their approach to God was correct and were threatened by the New Covenant..
-
KSU187, the Bible details exactly what you are doing, numerous times...I suppose this doesn't dissuade you?
Act 20:
"29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31Therefore be alert..."
2 Corinthians 11:
"3But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. "
"13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."
2 Peter 2:
"1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep."
:surprised: Maybe I am powered by Satan... :runaway:
"The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”
Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one." (John 8:13-15)
The passages you quoted were written in a specific historical context, I suggest you study the history of your own religion before throwing them around to bolster an egoic assertion.. They are not to be thrown around as vitriol to someone who doesn't share your particular hermeneutic philosophy.
Heck, these verses could apply to the Pope, Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, T.D. Jakes, etc. (And christians have applied these verses to all of the above before). The point is, you can name anyone who disagrees with you and label them as blasphemers or heresies.
"Fire gets covered by smoke, mirror by dust, embryo by a sac. And your self-knowledge is covered by your ego-driven desire." (Bhagvad Gita 3:38)
In your case it is the desire to be "right" and have others share your beliefs.
-
Thought on Lost and the smoke monster? Thanks in Advance!
-
weird thread
-
Thought on Lost and the smoke monster? Thanks in Advance!
yes, please.
-
I was raised as a Christian (Catholic), but I never enjoyed being one. I hated the authoritarianism of the religion, its texts and its hierarchy. I questioned its central tenets. I hated church. And yet I still believed in God, Heaven and Hell, because their existence was never questioned, they was just taken for granted. As a result, I was miserable, always afraid I would make God unhappy and end up in hell. Worse, I started having doubts about God's existence, which would definitely land me in hell if God did exist.
But the more I read and thought about it, the more I realized that God is just an unnecessary hypothesis. Science has filled in almost all the gaps in our knowledge that God filled before. Now the only real questions are, what caused the Big Bang, which created our universe? And what was there before the Big Bang, before our universe or even time (as we know it) existed? These are some pretty huge mysteries that science may never explain. But I do know that "God" as the explanation is pretty arbitrary and not very helpful. Christians insist that the universe can't come from nothing, it must have a creator, and God is the creator. When you point out that God would have to have a creator too, they say nuh-uhh, God has always existed outside of space and time. Well sorry, there's no evidence of this. There must have been something before and outside of the Big Bang, but I doubt it was an all-powerful, all-knowing deity. That just seems silly. Instead of explaining where everything came from it just adds one more thing to explain.
As for morality, some of the best countries on Earth are the most secular, like Japan and most of Western Europe. Some of the shittiest countries are the most fervently religious, like most of the Middle East. If morality is that which most reduces suffering, or leads to the least suffering, then some of the world's most moral places are also its least religious, and vice-versa.
Anyway, my life is much better now and I'm much happier without religion or belief in god. If you're religious and you're unhappy, doubtful and/or fearful, maybe you should honestly and thoroughly re-evaluate your beliefs. There are some good books and websites available to help you in this. I can recommend some if you like.
-
I was raised as a Christian (Catholic), but I never enjoyed being one. I hated the authoritarianism of the religion, its texts and its hierarchy. I questioned its central tenets. I hated church. And yet I still believed in God, Heaven and Hell, because their existence was never questioned, they was just taken for granted. As a result, I was miserable, always afraid I would make God unhappy and end up in hell. Worse, I started having doubts about God's existence, which would definitely land me in hell if God did exist.
But the more I read and thought about it, the more I realized that God is just an unnecessary hypothesis. Science has filled in almost all the gaps in our knowledge that God filled before. Now the only real questions are, what caused the Big Bang, which created our universe? And what was there before the Big Bang, before our universe or even time (as we know it) existed? These are some pretty huge mysteries that science may never explain. But I do know that "God" as the explanation is pretty arbitrary and not very helpful. Christians insist that the universe can't come from nothing, it must have a creator, and God is the creator. When you point out that God would have to have a creator too, they say nuh-uhh, God has always existed outside of space and time. Well sorry, there's no evidence of this. There must have been something before and outside of the Big Bang, but I doubt it was an all-powerful, all-knowing deity. That just seems silly. Instead of explaining where everything came from it just adds one more thing to explain.
As for morality, some of the best countries on Earth are the most secular, like Japan and most of Western Europe. Some of the shittiest countries are the most fervently religious, like most of the Middle East. If morality is that which most reduces suffering, or leads to the least suffering, then some of the world's most moral places are also its least religious, and vice-versa.
Anyway, my life is much better now and I'm much happier without religion or belief in god. If you're religious and you're unhappy, doubtful and/or fearful, maybe you should honestly and thoroughly re-evaluate your beliefs. There are some good books and websites available to help you in this. I can recommend some if you like.
I think I found out the main reason you felt this way.
-
I was raised as a Christian (Catholic), but I never enjoyed being one. I hated the authoritarianism of the religion, its texts and its hierarchy. I questioned its central tenets. I hated church. And yet I still believed in God, Heaven and Hell, because their existence was never questioned, they was just taken for granted. As a result, I was miserable, always afraid I would make God unhappy and end up in hell. Worse, I started having doubts about God's existence, which would definitely land me in hell if God did exist.
But the more I read and thought about it, the more I realized that God is just an unnecessary hypothesis. Science has filled in almost all the gaps in our knowledge that God filled before. Now the only real questions are, what caused the Big Bang, which created our universe? And what was there before the Big Bang, before our universe or even time (as we know it) existed? These are some pretty huge mysteries that science may never explain. But I do know that "God" as the explanation is pretty arbitrary and not very helpful. Christians insist that the universe can't come from nothing, it must have a creator, and God is the creator. When you point out that God would have to have a creator too, they say nuh-uhh, God has always existed outside of space and time. Well sorry, there's no evidence of this. There must have been something before and outside of the Big Bang, but I doubt it was an all-powerful, all-knowing deity. That just seems silly. Instead of explaining where everything came from it just adds one more thing to explain.
As for morality, some of the best countries on Earth are the most secular, like Japan and most of Western Europe. Some of the shittiest countries are the most fervently religious, like most of the Middle East. If morality is that which most reduces suffering, or leads to the least suffering, then some of the world's most moral places are also its least religious, and vice-versa.
Anyway, my life is much better now and I'm much happier without religion or belief in god. If you're religious and you're unhappy, doubtful and/or fearful, maybe you should honestly and thoroughly re-evaluate your beliefs. There are some good books and websites available to help you in this. I can recommend some if you like.
I think I found out the main reason you felt this way.
Nope. I got to college and discovered that Protestantism is much worse. You don't see Catholics trying to stick religion in your face all the time, like the Evangelical Protestant groups do. Then when you look into their beliefs on morality, culture and science, it's just much, much rough ridin' worse. The Catholic Church is preferable. Plus a lot of Catholics in the U.S. have much more liberal/progressive views than the Vatican. That said, I wouldn't go back. It's still false and authoritarian. Same for the Mainline Protestant denominations, even if some of the congregations are more progressive.
-
KSU187 just surpassed PoetWarrior as the crazy person in this thread... :)
No offense, KSU187, but you're totally misguided, in every way. I believe your fellow hindu's would agree, if they cared even a little...
Again, you can't be hindu and Christian. It's impossible.
Nothing is more impossible. Christianity is against everything you're saying.
Its Impossible, huh... Do you not read your own scripture?
For with God nothing shall be impossible. (Luke 1:37)
Yes, through God (the one true God), nothing is impossible.
Changing an unchangeable God to suit your cause? Impossible. Does not work that way.
-
PW thoughts on Revelations 20: 12?
-
KSU187 just surpassed PoetWarrior as the crazy person in this thread... :)
No offense, KSU187, but you're totally misguided, in every way. I believe your fellow hindu's would agree, if they cared even a little...
Again, you can't be hindu and Christian. It's impossible.
Nothing is more impossible. Christianity is against everything you're saying.
Its Impossible, huh... Do you not read your own scripture?
For with God nothing shall be impossible. (Luke 1:37)
Yes, through God (the one true God), nothing is impossible.
Changing an unchangeable God to suit your cause? Impossible. Does not work that way.
Absolutely one hundred percent agree with this statement.
God is unchangeable.. However, he is infinite. Perhaps you are the one "changing" him so he can fit in to an understandable and simple dogma. Just a consideration... See, God is not to be put in to a box of intellectual and theological limitation. He is SO much more than that.
If you think your chruch or religion's interpretation has God clearly defined and put neatly in a box, there is nothing I can say to you that will change your mind. You have been programmed and indoctrinated to a rather narrow viewpoint where everything is nice and neat and you can readily comfort your gnawing doubts.
That's completely okay though and where you are, it is what your karma and vibration has set out for you in life. Protestant Christianity can produce an abundance of spiritual fruit. And many Protestant Christians are some of the most loving, caring, wonderful examples of God's Love I have ever met.
But PW, Truth is One and Eternal.. It is Transcendent, not prosaic.
God is within all the multi-colored lamps of various true teachings, in which shine the same one white flame of God. Our One Father dwells impartially in the fullness of His glory in all hearts. It is up to the seeker to activate His power.
Keep seeking my friend, keep praying, and may Christ live in your heart always.
"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:28-31)
-
PW thoughts on Revelations 20: 12?
" 11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
I'd call this fairly self explanatory. During the end times, all will be judged and it would be a good idea to be on the right side of things.
-
I was raised as a Catholic, but I never enjoyed being one. I hated the authoritarianism of the religion, its texts and its hierarchy. I questioned its central tenets. I hated church. And yet I still believed in God, Heaven and Hell, because their existence was never questioned, they was just taken for granted. As a result, I was miserable, always afraid I would make God unhappy and end up in hell. Worse, I started having doubts about God's existence, which would definitely land me in hell if God did exist.
I'm sorry that you feel the way the you do, but it is easy to see through what you're saying. You don't like the Catholic church, I don't either. A lot going on there is unnecessary and distracting and does not get to the core message of Christianity. I suggest you look into what Christianity really is.
-
But the more I read and thought about it, the more I realized that God is just an unnecessary hypothesis. Science has filled in almost all the gaps in our knowledge that God filled before. Now the only real questions are, what caused the Big Bang, which created our universe? And what was there before the Big Bang, before our universe or even time (as we know it) existed? These are some pretty huge mysteries that science may never explain. But I do know that "God" as the explanation is pretty arbitrary and not very helpful. Christians insist that the universe can't come from nothing, it must have a creator, and God is the creator. When you point out that God would have to have a creator too, they say nuh-uhh, God has always existed outside of space and time. Well sorry, there's no evidence of this. There must have been something before and outside of the Big Bang, but I doubt it was an all-powerful, all-knowing deity. That just seems silly. Instead of explaining where everything came from it just adds one more thing to explain.
Science has done well answering your questions.
There is no better definition of a hypothesis than the big bang...
-
As for morality, some of the best countries on Earth are the most secular, like Japan and most of Western Europe. Some of the cactiest countries are the most fervently religious, like most of the Middle East. If morality is that which most reduces suffering, or leads to the least suffering, then some of the world's most moral places are also its least religious, and vice-versa.
Religion is not valid. Christianity is valid.
-
...If you think your chruch or religion's interpretation has God clearly defined and put neatly in a box, there is nothing I can say to you that will change your mind. You have been programmed and indoctrinated to a rather narrow viewpoint where everything is nice and neat and you can readily comfort your gnawing doubts...
...God is within all the multi-colored lamps of various true teachings, in which shine the same one white flame of God. Our One Father dwells impartially in the fullness of His glory in all hearts. It is up to the seeker to activate His power.
The funny thing about your statement is that your god is conveniently in multiple places and forms. The doubts you have about your god are eased by moving from one teaching to another. If a doubt is raised about something you are being taught you simple move on to another teaching that comforts you. While it may not be narrow your theology is very "a la carte." There is no relationship there, no conversation about the doubt and no opportunity for trust to be built because you are in control. Your god lets everyone come back and try again until they get it right. That is simple and easy.
Working on a relationship with a God that loves you so much that He would step into time and deprave himself so that you could have free will, and a God that at the same has the sovereignty and power to judge completely for eternity is hard. Knowing you only have one shot at this is hard. It's easy to confuse narrow with hard. Its difficult to understand that while God's love does transcend all things, He still loves us enough to give us choice and that some will unfortunately not choose Him.
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. The gate is wide and the road is wide that leads to hell, and many people enter through that gate.14 But the gate is small and the road is narrow that leads to true life. Only a few people find that road." Matthew 7:13
-
Absolutely one hundred percent agree with this statement.
God is unchangeable.. However, he is infinite. Perhaps you are the one "changing" him so he can fit in to an understandable and simple dogma. Just a consideration... See, God is not to be put in to a box of intellectual and theological limitation. He is SO much more than that.
If you think your chruch or religion's interpretation has God clearly defined and put neatly in a box, there is nothing I can say to you that will change your mind. You have been programmed and indoctrinated to a rather narrow viewpoint where everything is nice and neat and you can readily comfort your gnawing doubts.
That's completely okay though and where you are, it is what your karma and vibration has set out for you in life. Protestant Christianity can produce an abundance of spiritual fruit. And many Protestant Christians are some of the most loving, caring, wonderful examples of God's Love I have ever met.
But PW, Truth is One and Eternal.. It is Transcendent, not prosaic.
God is within all the multi-colored lamps of various true teachings, in which shine the same one white flame of God. Our One Father dwells impartially in the fullness of His glory in all hearts. It is up to the seeker to activate His power.
Keep seeking my friend, keep praying, and may Christ live in your heart always.
Serious question: Are you a god?
I've never experienced anyone who literally creates their own religion on the fly...So you must be a god...I think you said something to this effect a few pages back.
-
Nope. I got to college and discovered that Protestantism is much worse. You don't see Catholics trying to stick religion in your face all the time, like the Evangelical Protestant groups do.
Mark 16:15
"He (Jesus) said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."
This and their love for you is why they do what they do.
-
Absolutely one hundred percent agree with this statement.
God is unchangeable.. However, he is infinite. Perhaps you are the one "changing" him so he can fit in to an understandable and simple dogma. Just a consideration... See, God is not to be put in to a box of intellectual and theological limitation. He is SO much more than that.
If you think your chruch or religion's interpretation has God clearly defined and put neatly in a box, there is nothing I can say to you that will change your mind. You have been programmed and indoctrinated to a rather narrow viewpoint where everything is nice and neat and you can readily comfort your gnawing doubts.
That's completely okay though and where you are, it is what your karma and vibration has set out for you in life. Protestant Christianity can produce an abundance of spiritual fruit. And many Protestant Christians are some of the most loving, caring, wonderful examples of God's Love I have ever met.
But PW, Truth is One and Eternal.. It is Transcendent, not prosaic.
God is within all the multi-colored lamps of various true teachings, in which shine the same one white flame of God. Our One Father dwells impartially in the fullness of His glory in all hearts. It is up to the seeker to activate His power.
Keep seeking my friend, keep praying, and may Christ live in your heart always.
Serious question: Are you a god?
I've never experienced anyone who literally creates their own religion on the fly...So you must be a god...I think you said something to this effect a few pages back.
Am I a god? :facepalm: No. Can I attune myself to God's Love and Grace? Yes. Creating my own religion on the fly? LOL! Sanatana Dharma is not that at all. Again, your seething ignorance is exposing itself. I don't expect you to comprehend or "get" anything I am saying, as I said in my first post.
I am posting in the hopes that an athiest/agnostic might consider to seek God, Christ and Truth without the "Jesus was nailed to a cross because you are an evil horrible sinner and you touch your wee-wee at night" Evangelical Protestantism.
I am just trying to offer another perspective, as well as my own experience, with a wonderful, loving God.
That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Spirituality, not religion.
Read up my fellow EMAW :gocho::
"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; " (John 10:38)
-
...If you think your chruch or religion's interpretation has God clearly defined and put neatly in a box, there is nothing I can say to you that will change your mind. You have been programmed and indoctrinated to a rather narrow viewpoint where everything is nice and neat and you can readily comfort your gnawing doubts...
...God is within all the multi-colored lamps of various true teachings, in which shine the same one white flame of God. Our One Father dwells impartially in the fullness of His glory in all hearts. It is up to the seeker to activate His power.
The funny thing about your statement is that your god is conveniently in multiple places and forms. The doubts you have about your god are eased by moving from one teaching to another. If a doubt is raised about something you are being taught you simple move on to another teaching that comforts you. While it may not be narrow your theology is very "a la carte." There is no relationship there, no conversation about the doubt and no opportunity for trust to be built because you are in control. Your god lets everyone come back and try again until they get it right. That is simple and easy.
Working on a relationship with a God that loves you so much that He would step into time and deprave himself so that you could have free will, and a God that at the same has the sovereignty and power to judge completely for eternity is hard. Knowing you only have one shot at this is hard. It's easy to confuse narrow with hard. Its difficult to understand that while God's love does transcend all things, He still loves us enough to give us choice and that some will unfortunately not choose Him.
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. The gate is wide and the road is wide that leads to hell, and many people enter through that gate.14 But the gate is small and the road is narrow that leads to true life. Only a few people find that road." Matthew 7:13
I have no doubts about God. I am blessed by His Presence through direct experience (prayer, devotion, and meditation). Relationship, not religion is the basis of my spirituality... A phrase you might be familiar with.
Rather than "a la carte" I have an appreciation for all true teachings.
A God who "loves" us enough to give us a chance to either choose him, or burn in hell, is not "love" at all my friend.
If I have to spend eternity with a god who is as petty and trivial as this.. I will take my chances gnashing my teeth in the eternal hellfire.
This type of frivolous and shallow nature of Diety is Unbecoming of The Supreme Lord.
-
Who's right?
-
Who's right?
We will all find out at some point, Trim. :ohno: :crossfingers:
-
Who's right?
We will all find out at some point, Trim. :ohno: :crossfingers:
How many more pages?
-
Who's right?
We will all find out at some point, Trim. :ohno: :crossfingers:
How many more pages?
It will probably take another page or two for Poet to expose me as being influenced Satan and posing as an "Angel of Light," an emissary of the light-bearer Lucifer influencing people to turn away from chruchianity.
At that point you can accept Jesus, and then threaten people with hell, because god loves them so darn much their salvation lies in a finite, arbitrary belief system. Then you will know who is right.
-
Serious question: Are you a god?
Do you wear a bubble wrap suit and shoot lightning at people? tia
-
Nope. I got to college and discovered that Protestantism is much worse. You don't see Catholics trying to stick religion in your face all the time, like the Evangelical Protestant groups do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owZc3Xq8obk
-
I love how 187 keeps calling Christianity simple cuz he thinks Hinduism is so logical and complex. GMAFB!! I'm studied Hinduism, I've been to India. Of all the major religions in the world, it is the craziest, baseless, and most incoherent of them all. Christianity makes sense. Islam...(sorta) makes sense. Hinduism makes absolutely no sense. There is no logic to it. If you think too much about it you get to a point where you say, this cannot be true. So...187, sorry to say that just because you have a billion gods, doesn't make you right. Sorry to break it to ya. Now go eat a hamburger or something.
-
PW thoughts on Revelations 20: 12?
" 11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
I'd call this fairly self explanatory. During the end times, all will be judged and it would be a good idea to be on the right side of things.
nothing in there about what they believed.......seems fairly self explanatory.
-
PW thoughts on Revelations 20: 12?
" 11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
I'd call this fairly self explanatory. During the end times, all will be judged and it would be a good idea to be on the right side of things.
nothing in there about what they believed.......seems fairly self explanatory.
Really?
-
I love how 187 keeps calling Christianity simple cuz he thinks Hinduism is so logical and complex. GMAFB!! I'm studied Hinduism, I've been to India. Of all the major religions in the world, it is the craziest, baseless, and most incoherent of them all. Christianity makes sense. Islam...(sorta) makes sense. Hinduism makes absolutely no sense. There is no logic to it. If you think too much about it you get to a point where you say, this cannot be true. So...187, sorry to say that just because you have a billion gods, doesn't make you right. Sorry to break it to ya. Now go eat a hamburger or something.
Thanx for "breaking it to me" 1/64th.
You say you have "studied Hinduism." By your gross mischaracterization of it, I find that highly doubtful... I also find it doubtful you are out of your "wicked sick" high school christian youth group..
With all do respect friend, you sound like a 14 year old....
But hey, I "gtg" bra, cuz I have some gnarly gnarlingtons to hang wit 2night, lolz.
Oh, and "now go eat hamburger or something?" :horrorsurprise:
That cuts deep bra... deep...
(Im just havin a little fun, dont take it personally, im sure you're a good kid)
-
Nope. I got to college and discovered that Protestantism is much worse. You don't see Catholics trying to stick religion in your face all the time, like the Evangelical Protestant groups do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owZc3Xq8obk
I like Penn, but he also has no small number of dumb views, and this is one of them. I don't give a crap if religious people hate me, I just don't want them bothering me with their idiocy. And it's not just proselytizing, it's the fact that these churches and preachers indoctrinate their followers who then vote for politicians who legislate according to their conservative religious beliefs, which makes this a shittier country to live in. eff that. I'm so glad America is getting less religious and less socially conservative.
-
There is no better definition of a hypothesis than the big bang...
The Big Bang is not a hypothesis. It's a scientific theory and model supported by a vast amount of evidence and observation. Please don't try to make statements about science if you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I was raised as a Catholic, but I never enjoyed being one. I hated the authoritarianism of the religion, its texts and its hierarchy. I questioned its central tenets. I hated church. And yet I still believed in God, Heaven and Hell, because their existence was never questioned, they was just taken for granted. As a result, I was miserable, always afraid I would make God unhappy and end up in hell. Worse, I started having doubts about God's existence, which would definitely land me in hell if God did exist.
I'm sorry that you feel the way the you do, but it is easy to see through what you're saying. You don't like the Catholic church, I don't either. A lot going on there is unnecessary and distracting and does not get to the core message of Christianity. I suggest you look into what Christianity really is.
I've looked extensively into many forms of Christianity. I've heard all the arguments. They're all illogical, false, and shitty.
It would be incredible if there really were a god, much more incredible than, say, discovering an advanced alien civilization. But if it were true, then why hasn't this deity made an appearance to the world? Like, "Yo, world, here I am, check out all the mind-blowing stuff I can do! I can make all the all the animals sing your favorite songs, and bring back your dead loved ones for a visit, and take away all human suffering! Make sure all your cameras are focused. Believe me now?" Don't you think an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God would at least do that? It would have to be a pretty bad person god to leave such ambiguous "evidence" as nature, ancient books, and purported miracles, and leave the humans to argue and kill each other over it, and others to go to hell because the "evidence" is so flimsy that they dismiss it.
Religionists laugh at Pacific Island cargo cults, who believe a guy named John Frum is God because he delivered a whole bunch of cargo one day. Cargo cultists couldn't fathom how this big metal flying thing could bring all this awesome stuff without the answer being god. Well, followers of most mainstream religions can't fathom how all this amazing stuff got on the planet without the answer being God. They don't know (or won't accept) that it can all be explained by science. Most religions (and definitely Christian literalism) are just bigger versions of a cargo cult.
Also, lol at the people in this thread arguing about what the right version of religion is.
-
How about this skycat... Since you are scientifically inclined, how about praying for 3 weeks and testing God as a working hypothesis. Even if you are 100% sure God doesn't exist and think you are praying to air, give it a try. Pray everyday for three weeks asking God to reveal Himself to you and try to be open-minded.
If it doesn't work, you are back in the same boat you were in, and you will now have even more evidence to bolster your assertions. If you are as scientific as you claim to be, this should be a worthwhile experiment. However, I bet you resist this suggestion and call it ridiculous, mainly because you are afraid of what you might find out if you did it.
And I am not saying others are "wrong" per se and I am "right." They are just a product of the particular path they are on in this lifetime, a path that is based more on dogma, than actual experience. The people I am "arguing" with are devoted, faithful, and good people who love God, they just have a very limited viewpoint of the Transcendent Reality they were indoctrinated with.
-
How about this skycat... Since you are scientifically inclined, how about praying for 3 weeks and testing God as a working hypothesis. Even if you are 100% sure God doesn't exist and think you are praying to air, give it a try. Pray everyday for three weeks asking God to reveal Himself to you and try to be open-minded.
If it doesn't work, you are back in the same boat you were in, and you will now have even more evidence to bolster your assertions. If you are as scientific as you claim to be, this should be a worthwhile experiment. However, I bet you resist this suggestion and call it ridiculous, mainly because you are afraid of what you might find out if you did it.
And I am not saying others are "wrong" per se and I am "right." They are just a product of the particular path they are on in this lifetime, a path that is based more on dogma, than actual experience. The people I am "arguing" with are devoted, faithful, and good people who love God, they just have a very limited viewpoint of the Transcendent Reality they were indoctrinated with.
Why do believers always think that non-believers must secretly believe but don't want to admit it to themselves/others? I went through the whole praying to God to reveal himself when I was a kid. Didn't work. When I first became an atheist, there was some residual God-belief, some doubt, in the back of my mind. It was mostly just a feeling, which is what religion mostly is. But the residual doubt went away. I've been an intellectually satisfied atheist for about 15 years.
There are some good books by Christian preachers who became non-believers. One is Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker. John Loftus and Robert Price are other preacher-to-atheist authors.
-
Big news this week.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-completes-52year-mission-to-find-kill-god,19263/
-
How about this skycat... Since you are scientifically inclined, how about praying for 3 weeks and testing God as a working hypothesis. Even if you are 100% sure God doesn't exist and think you are praying to air, give it a try. Pray everyday for three weeks asking God to reveal Himself to you and try to be open-minded.
If it doesn't work, you are back in the same boat you were in, and you will now have even more evidence to bolster your assertions. If you are as scientific as you claim to be, this should be a worthwhile experiment. However, I bet you resist this suggestion and call it ridiculous, mainly because you are afraid of what you might find out if you did it.
And I am not saying others are "wrong" per se and I am "right." They are just a product of the particular path they are on in this lifetime, a path that is based more on dogma, than actual experience. The people I am "arguing" with are devoted, faithful, and good people who love God, they just have a very limited viewpoint of the Transcendent Reality they were indoctrinated with.
Why do believers always think that non-believers must secretly believe but don't want to admit it to themselves/others? I went through the whole praying to God to reveal himself when I was a kid. Didn't work. When I first became an atheist, there was some residual God-belief, some doubt, in the back of my mind. It was mostly just a feeling, which is what religion mostly is. But the residual doubt went away. I've been an intellectually satisfied atheist for about 15 years.
There are some good books by Christian preachers who became non-believers. One is Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker. John Loftus and Robert Price are other preacher-to-atheist authors.
I never suggested you "secretly" want to be a believer or have any desire to. I was just proposing an experiment.. But it sounds like my initial assessment as far as your resistance to it was right on. If you are as intellectually satisfied as you claim, the experiment should only further validate what you claim to know for certian.
Just a suggestion skycat, give it a try sometime, you might be suprised by what happens... Also worthy of note, is that there are many books by former atheists who became believers as well...
-
There is no better definition of a hypothesis than the big bang...
The Big Bang is not a hypothesis. It's a scientific theory.
You sure?
-
I didn't write a book but I moved from atheist to 'believer' as well.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_xpadHP2LoUA%2FS24wVInaCCI%2FAAAAAAAAAq0%2FQq2pMnWqOCM%2FS1600-R%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=adba1c6494bdcb60e659f03a5c9cb6bab0285f43)
-
Big news this week.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-completes-52year-mission-to-find-kill-god,19263/
Well, that's that.
-
How about this skycat... Since you are scientifically inclined, how about praying for 3 weeks and testing God as a working hypothesis. Even if you are 100% sure God doesn't exist and think you are praying to air, give it a try. Pray everyday for three weeks asking God to reveal Himself to you and try to be open-minded.
If it doesn't work, you are back in the same boat you were in, and you will now have even more evidence to bolster your assertions. If you are as scientific as you claim to be, this should be a worthwhile experiment. However, I bet you resist this suggestion and call it ridiculous, mainly because you are afraid of what you might find out if you did it.
And I am not saying others are "wrong" per se and I am "right." They are just a product of the particular path they are on in this lifetime, a path that is based more on dogma, than actual experience. The people I am "arguing" with are devoted, faithful, and good people who love God, they just have a very limited viewpoint of the Transcendent Reality they were indoctrinated with.
Why do believers always think that non-believers must secretly believe but don't want to admit it to themselves/others? I went through the whole praying to God to reveal himself when I was a kid. Didn't work. When I first became an atheist, there was some residual God-belief, some doubt, in the back of my mind. It was mostly just a feeling, which is what religion mostly is. But the residual doubt went away. I've been an intellectually satisfied atheist for about 15 years.
There are some good books by Christian preachers who became non-believers. One is Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker. John Loftus and Robert Price are other preacher-to-atheist authors.
I never suggested you "secretly" want to be a believer or have any desire to. I was just proposing an experiment.. But it sounds like my initial assessment as far as your resistance to it was right on. If you are as intellectually satisfied as you claim, the experiment should only further validate what you claim to know for certian.
Just a suggestion skycat, give it a try sometime, you might be suprised by what happens... Also worthy of note, is that there are many books by former atheists who became believers as well...
As I said, already been there, done that.
I mentioned those authors because as former believers, their books might be more relatable to believers than would be authors who've always been atheists. It was a suggestion for anyone who might be on the fence about their beliefs.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
This is one of the dumbest assertions that theists make. It's just disbelief that anyone could not believe in God. Funny: You believe with all your heart in an all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence, yet you don't believe that people can be atheists even when they tell you, yes, I really am an atheist.
Theism is an impossibility. There, that makes just as much sense as what you said.
-
KSU187.....why don't you try not praying for 3 weeks and see what happens? You won't do it because you're afraid good things will happen without you having to speak with God. But then again I'm sure you would say something like "God is always looking out for me because he loves me" which is fine, but sounds silly to an Atheist. This is a two way street and a dumb talking point.
-
There is no better definition of a hypothesis than the big bang...
The Big Bang is not a hypothesis. It's a scientific theory.
You sure?
I try not to say things unless I'm sure about them. So, yeah.
-
i'm an agnostic.
-
the skycat vs. ksu187 thing is interesting because what i understand of Hinduism is that, according to western Hindu teaching, atheism is a valid "path." while atheism is rarely practiced by Hindus because it is difficult to reconcile spiritually w/ the rest of what Hindus believe. anyway, i just find this piece of the convo interesting.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
This is one of the dumbest assertions that theists make. It's just disbelief that anyone could not believe in God. Funny: You believe with all your heart in an all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence, yet you don't believe that people can be atheists even when they tell you, yes, I really am an atheist.
Theism is an impossibility. There, that makes just as much sense as what you said.
I actually agree with PW on this one, at least partially. Not saying that the belief is impossible, but that it is impossible that there isn't some greater power. I used to lean toward atheism, as I feel like science explains all but one thing very well. That one thing is what keeps me from being full on atheist. That one thing is what got the whole process started.
Go back to the starting point. How did it all get kicked off? Its one of those questions that can be argued more than any other.
I believe in the big bang, evolution, carbon dating, dinosaurs, and that stars are balls of gas and not holes to heaven. However, I don't believe in the bible, or really any individual religion. However, can't overcome the one question.
-
the skycat vs. ksu187 thing is interesting because what i understand of Hinduism is that, according to western Hindu teaching, atheism is a valid "path." while atheism is rarely practiced by Hindus because it is difficult to reconcile spiritually w/ the rest of what Hindus believe. anyway, i just find this piece of the convo interesting.
ArchE_Cat is kind of right. A Hindu might argue the Lord would say.. "Even In the atheist, I AM his atheism," (being the Supreme Consciousness manifested through that particular path, even if it has no belief in the Divine). In a certain sense, yes, atheism is a valid path. It is possible for the person who is an atheist, to have in a previous life, blindly believed in religious teachings and that did not bid well for his soul growth.
That karma would naturally lead to, in a future life, a path of atheism, agnosticism, or indifference. This doubt and lack of faith is the karmic "push," so to speak, that the soul is experiencing, and therefore a valid path so the person can work out their karma.
And Pike, I am a Freemason as well, so watch what you say about calling my talking points "dumb"... my Illuminati brethren are on call... :peek:
-
I love how 187 keeps calling Christianity simple cuz he thinks Hinduism is so logical and complex. GMAFB!! I'm studied Hinduism, I've been to India. Of all the major religions in the world, it is the craziest, baseless, and most incoherent of them all. Christianity makes sense. Islam...(sorta) makes sense. Hinduism makes absolutely no sense. There is no logic to it. If you think too much about it you get to a point where you say, this cannot be true. So...187, sorry to say that just because you have a billion gods, doesn't make you right. Sorry to break it to ya. Now go eat a hamburger or something.
Thanx for "breaking it to me" 1/64th.
You say you have "studied Hinduism." By your gross mischaracterization of it, I find that highly doubtful... I also find it doubtful you are out of your "wicked sick" high school christian youth group..
With all do respect friend, you sound like a 14 year old....
But hey, I "gtg" bra, cuz I have some gnarly gnarlingtons to hang wit 2night, lolz.
Oh, and "now go eat hamburger or something?" :horrorsurprise:
That cuts deep bra... deep...
(Im just havin a little fun, dont take it personally, im sure you're a good kid)
Classic ad hominem attack...bra. Degrade me and then you don't have to explain why Hinduism is so complex and logical. Explain to my how Christianity is simplied and what evidence you have of Hinduism being correct....at all. Even one little part? TIA. Try to leave out the name calling this time. It's fairly immature for someone of your enlightenment.
-
i'm an agnostic.
Have you looked for God pr just said screw it and went with being agnostic?
-
I love how 187 keeps calling Christianity simple cuz he thinks Hinduism is so logical and complex. GMAFB!! I'm studied Hinduism, I've been to India. Of all the major religions in the world, it is the craziest, baseless, and most incoherent of them all. Christianity makes sense. Islam...(sorta) makes sense. Hinduism makes absolutely no sense. There is no logic to it. If you think too much about it you get to a point where you say, this cannot be true. So...187, sorry to say that just because you have a billion gods, doesn't make you right. Sorry to break it to ya. Now go eat a hamburger or something.
Thanx for "breaking it to me" 1/64th.
You say you have "studied Hinduism." By your gross mischaracterization of it, I find that highly doubtful... I also find it doubtful you are out of your "wicked sick" high school christian youth group..
With all do respect friend, you sound like a 14 year old....
But hey, I "gtg" bra, cuz I have some gnarly gnarlingtons to hang wit 2night, lolz.
Oh, and "now go eat hamburger or something?" :horrorsurprise:
That cuts deep bra... deep...
(Im just havin a little fun, dont take it personally, im sure you're a good kid)
Classic ad hominem attack...bra. Degrade me and then you don't have to explain why Hinduism is so complex and logical. Explain to my how Christianity is simplied and what evidence you have of Hinduism being correct....at all. Even one little part? TIA. Try to leave out the name calling this time. It's fairly immature for someone of your enlightenment.
I dunno.. I thought my Charlie Sheen "gnarly gnarlingtons" reference was quite clever. :dunno:
Anyways, I never called you any names other than "bra," questioned your maturity, stating that in your post you sounded like you were 14 (And I still stick by that statement). I have posted several times on this thread and offered my personal experience and what I have come to know as my Truth through prayer, mediation, and devotion to God.
Simply labeling my belief system as invalid does not make it so. Neither does calling it incoherent or mocking it. I was just doing a little mocking myself towards you for cacs and giggles. And as I said in the post, it was for fun, nothing personal, and I apologize if I offended you.
Anyways, you are just making claims without substantiating them or giving any insight to how you have arrived at your conclusion. For example you said: "Of all the major religions in the world, [Hinduism] it is the craziest, baseless, and most incoherent of them all. Christianity makes sense." Yet you have provided nothing to back up either assertion, other than that you have 'been' to India and 'studied' Hinduism (which I find highly doubtful, at least in an academic or cultural context and not a 'convert the heathen' context), and you also seem to believe that somehow by just saying something makes sense, it in fact does.
I have said more than enough in this thread for the readers to get the gist of what I believe, and if they are so inclined, they can google the Bhagvad Gita, Sanatan Dharma, Transcendentalism and so forth.
I make no claims to be enlightened, and as I have stated before, I am simply sharing my experience with spirituality.
God Bless.. And sorry if you can't comprehend my face-melting religion.
-
i'm an agnostic.
Have you looked for God pr just said screw it and went with being agnostic?
The concept of a supernatural being is that it is beyond the testable realms of physical and empirical methods. Therefore, it is utterly impossible for us to truly prove or disprove that there is an omnipotent being in the universe as of this point. You can either put faith in a system of organized or personally constructed moral beliefs (or a combination of the two) that are based on the concept of a higher being, or you don't. I personally don't, but I don't fault most people that have faith, especially since organized religion can be a positive force in many lives when it's not abused for purposes of economic, political, or military gain.
-
OT: Hey 187, it's gnarles gnarlington
-
OT: Hey 187, it's gnarles gnarlington
Yeah I know, it has kinda evolved... But he coined the term on your boy's show, I'm suprised you missed it.
To Alex "he's not crazy, just extremely informed" Jones:
"What they’re not ready for is guys like you and I and Nails and all the other gnarly gnarlingtons in my life, that we are high priests, Vatican assassin warlocks. Boom. Print that, people. See where that goes.”
-
OT: Hey 187, it's gnarles gnarlington
Yeah I know, it has kinda evolved... But he coined the term on your boy's show, I'm suprised you missed it.
To Alex "he's not crazy, just extremely informed" Jones:
"What they’re not ready for is guys like you and I and Nails and all the other gnarly gnarlingtons in my life, that we are high priests, Vatican assassin warlocks. Boom. Print that, people. See where that goes.”
:gocho:
Can't say I listen to his show, though
-
Rosicrucians :ohno:
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence,
Already covered why this isn't true.
Also could cover the anthropic principle and the properties of the universe that had to be exactly right. You can either explain this with a multiverse or a god. Either 'solution' is ridiculous and yet we have loads of people reporting seeing an actual god while dead... I'll side with a god.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence,
Already covered why this isn't true.
Also could cover the anthropic principle and the properties of the universe that had to be exactly right. You can either explain this with a multiverse or a god. Either 'solution' is ridiculous and yet we have loads of people reporting seeing an actual god while dead... I'll side with a god.
The universe is exactly right
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence,
Already covered why this isn't true.
Also could cover the anthropic principle and the properties of the universe that had to be exactly right. You can either explain this with a multiverse or a god. Either 'solution' is ridiculous and yet we have loads of people reporting seeing an actual god while dead... I'll side with a god.
Not to mention the arguments that can be made from a philosophical standpoint. Of course, these arguments are usually brushed aside without consideration because the Divine word "SCIENCE" was not shouted during the proposition. I've already covered the hypocrisy many are guilty of when it comes to demanding evidence of God, but not of most everything else in their life.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence,
Already covered why this isn't true.
Also could cover the anthropic principle and the properties of the universe that had to be exactly right. You can either explain this with a multiverse or a god. Either 'solution' is ridiculous and yet we have loads of people reporting seeing an actual god while dead... I'll side with a god.
Not to mention the arguments that can be made from a philosophical standpoint. Of course, these arguments are usually brushed aside without consideration because the Divine word "SCIENCE" was not shouted during the proposition. I've already covered the hypocrisy many are guilty of when it comes to demanding evidence of God, but not of most everything else in their life.
But that's the thing, religious people answer things in their life by just asking "God". Talk about taking the easy way out.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence,
Already covered why this isn't true.
Also could cover the anthropic principle and the properties of the universe that had to be exactly right. You can either explain this with a multiverse or a god. Either 'solution' is ridiculous and yet we have loads of people reporting seeing an actual god while dead... I'll side with a god.
Not to mention the arguments that can be made from a philosophical standpoint. Of course, these arguments are usually brushed aside without consideration because the Divine word "SCIENCE" was not shouted during the proposition. I've already covered the hypocrisy many are guilty of when it comes to demanding evidence of God, but not of most everything else in their life.
But that's the thing, religious people answer things in their life by just asking "God". Talk about taking the easy way out.
I would argue that the religious life is more difficult for many than the life of an atheist. To be clear, I'm talking about simple anti-authority or anti-god anarchists., I'm not talking about learned, intelligent people who have done serious soul-searching and fact finding and have come to the conclusion that the possibility of a God is minute, I believe they may have the toughest time of all.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence,
Already covered why this isn't true.
Also could cover the anthropic principle and the properties of the universe that had to be exactly right. You can either explain this with a multiverse or a god. Either 'solution' is ridiculous and yet we have loads of people reporting seeing an actual god while dead... I'll side with a god.
Not to mention the arguments that can be made from a philosophical standpoint. Of course, these arguments are usually brushed aside without consideration because the Divine word "SCIENCE" was not shouted during the proposition. I've already covered the hypocrisy many are guilty of when it comes to demanding evidence of God, but not of most everything else in their life.
But that's the thing, religious people answer things in their life by just asking "God". Talk about taking the easy way out.
I would argue that the religious life is more difficult for many than the life of an atheist. To be clear, I'm talking about simple anti-authority or anti-god anarchists., I'm not talking about learned, intelligent people who have done serious soul-searching and fact finding and have come to the conclusion that the possibility of a God is minute, I believe they may have the toughest time of all.
I'll grant that we all have a very difficult time, those of us who actually seek truth, no matter what conclusion we get.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
This is one of the dumbest assertions that theists make. It's just disbelief that anyone could not believe in God. Funny: You believe with all your heart in an all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence, yet you don't believe that people can be atheists even when they tell you, yes, I really am an atheist.
Theism is an impossibility. There, that makes just as much sense as what you said.
I actually agree with PW on this one, at least partially. Not saying that the belief is impossible, but that it is impossible that there isn't some greater power. I used to lean toward atheism, as I feel like science explains all but one thing very well. That one thing is what keeps me from being full on atheist. That one thing is what got the whole process started.
Go back to the starting point. How did it all get kicked off? Its one of those questions that can be argued more than any other.
You don't need a "greater power" or a starting point if you posit an oscillatory universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model). An oscillatory universe is eternal. Sounds crazy, but Christians, after all, claim their god is eternal. Remove the unnecessary hypothesis of an intelligent, all-powerful supernatural entity somehow creating everything out of nothing, and you're left with a much simpler, naturalistic explanation.
-
Also could cover the anthropic principle and the properties of the universe that had to be exactly right. You can either explain this with a multiverse or a god. Either 'solution' is ridiculous and yet we have loads of people reporting seeing an actual god while dead... I'll side with a god.
The anthropic principle says that you wouldn't exist to observe the physical constants of the universe unless those constants allowed for your existence. You don't need either a multiverse or a god to explain it. The constants just are. If the constants were different, we couldn't say, "Hey, those constants don't allow for life," because we wouldn't have ever existed in the first place.
Near-death experiences are caused by chemical reactions in the brain. I've had drug experiences where I swore I had entered a totally different reality unconnected to anything on Earth. Yeah, it was the drugs.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence,
Already covered why this isn't true.
Also could cover the anthropic principle and the properties of the universe that had to be exactly right. You can either explain this with a multiverse or a god. Either 'solution' is ridiculous and yet we have loads of people reporting seeing an actual god while dead... I'll side with a god.
Not to mention the arguments that can be made from a philosophical standpoint. Of course, these arguments are usually brushed aside without consideration because the Divine word "SCIENCE" was not shouted during the proposition. I've already covered the hypocrisy many are guilty of when it comes to demanding evidence of God, but not of most everything else in their life.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-
I would argue that the religious life is more difficult for many than the life of an atheist. To be clear, I'm talking about simple anti-authority or anti-god anarchists., I'm not talking about learned, intelligent people who have done serious soul-searching and fact finding and have come to the conclusion that the possibility of a God is minute, I believe they may have the toughest time of all.
I'll grant that we all have a very difficult time, those of us who actually seek truth, no matter what conclusion we get.
No one who knows me would ever dispute that I'm one of the most dedicated truth-seekers they know. Sometimes finding the truth is a struggle. Yet, I don't have a difficult time with my atheism. I've just found all arguments for the existence of God utterly unconvincing, so why would I agonize over it? I did at first (15 years ago) because of residual belief that had been ingrained in me from birth, but as I wrote earlier, that went away. I'm totally content in my non-belief, as are my atheist friends. It seems like it's usually religious people who are struggling with their beliefs.
-
Atheism is an impossibility.
This is one of the dumbest assertions that theists make. It's just disbelief that anyone could not believe in God. Funny: You believe with all your heart in an all-powerful being of which there is not a shred of evidence, yet you don't believe that people can be atheists even when they tell you, yes, I really am an atheist.
Theism is an impossibility. There, that makes just as much sense as what you said.
I actually agree with PW on this one, at least partially. Not saying that the belief is impossible, but that it is impossible that there isn't some greater power. I used to lean toward atheism, as I feel like science explains all but one thing very well. That one thing is what keeps me from being full on atheist. That one thing is what got the whole process started.
Go back to the starting point. How did it all get kicked off? Its one of those questions that can be argued more than any other.
You don't need a "greater power" or a starting point if you posit an oscillatory universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model). An oscillatory universe is eternal. Sounds crazy, but Christians, after all, claim their god is eternal. Remove the unnecessary hypothesis of an intelligent, all-powerful supernatural entity somehow creating everything out of nothing, and you're left with a much simpler, naturalistic explanation.
I don't get how you are ok with believing that something is eternal, but not in a higher power. Kinda the same thing to me.
I don't believe anything is perpetual or eternal. Everything has a start and an end point. Everything is started by something.
For me, feeling that the uni is eternal is pretty equivalent to believing in something starting the process that formed it.
-
Also could cover the anthropic principle and the properties of the universe that had to be exactly right. You can either explain this with a multiverse or a god. Either 'solution' is ridiculous and yet we have loads of people reporting seeing an actual god while dead... I'll side with a god.
The anthropic principle says that you wouldn't exist to observe the physical constants of the universe unless those constants allowed for your existence. You don't need either a multiverse or a god to explain it. The constants just are. If the constants were different, we couldn't say, "Hey, those constants don't allow for life," because we wouldn't have ever existed in the first place.
Near-death experiences are caused by chemical reactions in the brain. I've had drug experiences where I swore I had entered a totally different reality unconnected to anything on Earth. Yeah, it was the drugs.
Better study up more. Not only is 'the constants just are' a completely unscientific statement but it also doesn't offer an explanation for observable data. Its like saying that when a squad of ten sharp shooters lined up to shoot a man sentenced to death, and they all missed, that they obviously missed because if they hadn't the prisoner wouldn't be around to know. No explanation. And yes, you do need to posit one or the other or something new if you have a bright idea of explaining it.
Also, read up on near death experiences deeper than a google search. If it was caused by chemical reactions in the brain there would have to be a constant environment which brings that about, not to mention we would be capable of inducing it. Not only can we not do that, but it still wouldn't explain the many cases of verifiable information observed by the brain dead individual.
-
Well put Goldbrick. The constants are not just constants, just because. Take a look at the gravitational constant, G, that is used in Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Einstein's theory of general relativity. It took a very long time for the constant to be proven and accepted.
-
:goodbyecruelworld:
-
Wow, this is the first time I ever seen this board because I don't like to talk politics. I just vote straight ticket republican. I do like to talk religion, and a lot of you folks need saved. Don't worry, I will read through and address your concerns one by one.
-
Is scientology a religion? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHpjcZNM8_k
NO. Scientology is a cult for the science folk to try and kill religion. Religion does not make you crazy like Tom Cruise, it makes you frightened into doing what's right.
-
Like the idea of religion...don't like that there are too many of them and some of them conflict with others.
Of course they conflict, because only one is right. That's us Christian folk, by the way.
-
Wow, this is the first time I ever seen this board because I don't like to talk politics. I just vote straight ticket republican. I do like to talk religion, and a lot of you folks need saved. Don't worry, I will read through and address your concerns one by one.
You didn't address mine.
-
Is scientology a religion? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHpjcZNM8_k
NO. Scientology is a cult for the science folk to try and kill religion. Religion does not make you crazy like Tom Cruise, it makes you frightened into doing what's right.
Agreed Scientology is cultish. Disagree that is for the science folk. Level 4 Thetans have no basis is science.
Oh and I'm done :emawkid: the Texas ownage, although it was incredible, so I'm back.
Wow, this is the first time I ever seen this board because I don't like to talk politics. I just vote straight ticket republican. I do like to talk religion, and a lot of you folks need saved. Don't worry, I will read through and address your concerns one by one.
You didn't address mine.
Mine either
-
I saw the thread hanging around the top of the Birther Pit and I was hoping for 'nouji had posted on this thread, but instead, it was Branson Bound... :flush:
Oh well, he has a pretty entertaining story of some dude popping a boner on him while he was wrestling in high school or something.. Abomination BB? What say you?
-
Like the idea of religion...don't like that there are too many of them and some of them conflict with others.
I don't think I could ever choose a religion. There are more than 100 religions. Odds are that only one of them, if any, are right. How on earth could I possibly pick one, knowing full well that geography often dictates what you believe in?
It's like I told the Mormons who visited my house one day: "You are going to feel mighty stupid when you are wrong."
And religions (especially Christianity) always try to dodge the "What happens to non-Christians" question when it's clear that the Bible says they all go to hell. "God would probably save Ghandi since he was a good man" when really he wasn't a Christian and is probably burning in hell right now according to the Holy text. I guess nice guys finish last :frown:
Ghandi is burning in hell right now. He chose wrong.
-
while we're at it, what about the gays?
there are tons of studies that show that animals in the wild are homosexual. animals can't choose whether or not to buttfuck their buddy. does god hate gay animals, too? :ck:
Animals have no morality. God only hates the humans who act like animals.
-
If I am wrong, will your god punish me for living a good life minus the belief in eternal damnation?
Of course he will.
-
Where did the souls of everyone who was born before Jesus died on the cross go?
Nearly everyone was evil before Jesus. Some people made it to heaven, like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. Oh, and Elijah went straight to heaven on a chariot of fire without even dying.
-
Like the idea of religion...don't like that there are too many of them and some of them conflict with others.
I don't think I could ever choose a religion. There are more than 100 religions. Odds are that only one of them, if any, are right. How on earth could I possibly pick one, knowing full well that geography often dictates what you believe in?
It's like I told the Mormons who visited my house one day: "You are going to feel mighty stupid when you are wrong."
And religions (especially Christianity) always try to dodge the "What happens to non-Christians" question when it's clear that the Bible says they all go to hell. "God would probably save Ghandi since he was a good man" when really he wasn't a Christian and is probably burning in hell right now according to the Holy text. I guess nice guys finish last :frown:
Ghandi is burning in hell right now. He chose wrong.
Care to comment on Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins?"
-
If I am wrong, will your god punish me for living a good life minus the belief in eternal damnation?
Of course he will.
Religion is fear and fear is a religion.
-
Care to comment on Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins?"
I will ArchE... I myself, am enjoying the meltdown :bwpopcorn:
He has caused quite a stir, which has led to several of the evangelical/theologically conservative Christians to go in to a BMW-esque super-validation mode. "2 Timothy 4!!!!!" :angry:
Here is some stuff you, Poet, and other Christians may like, Martin Bashir pwns the heck out of him in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA
Also, here are a couple articles you might find interesting. :cheers:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2011/03/LoveWinsReview.pdf
http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/love-wins-a-review-of-rob-bells-new-book
Poor Rob Bell, doesn't he realize he is helping people punch their tickets for burning in eternal hellfire... Too bad he is butchering the "Good News"... That news is especially good if you are an upper middle-class caucasian protestant american who accepts Jesus "in the right way" and whose doctrine is 100 percent sound.
-
Well put Goldbrick. The constants are not just constants, just because. Take a look at the gravitational constant, G, that is used in Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Einstein's theory of general relativity. It took a very long time for the constant to be proven and accepted.
I miss Lost :frown:
-
God is an bad person. What kind of rough ridin' bad person would condemn most of the people on the face of the earth to an eternity of suffering because they didn't know about or choose the right path. Especially without giving them any kind of proof that He even exists, and in fact lots of ways to explain our existence without needing him to exist. What kind of bad person would deceive the world like that, let people fight wars and kill each other in his name, without telling us who is right. And why does this bad person wait for us to die to let us know for sure whether we are going to burn in hell or live in eternal bliss. What kind of bad person just sits there and watches people suffer and could do something about it, but chooses not to?
Either God is an bad person or doesn't exist.
Also, prove why any of your holy books are more correct than any other holy books.
-
:users:
-
God is an bad person. What kind of rough ridin' bad person would condemn most of the people on the face of the earth to an eternity of suffering because they didn't know about or choose the right path. Especially without giving them any kind of proof that He even exists, and in fact lots of ways to explain our existence without needing him to exist. What kind of bad person would deceive the world like that, let people fight wars and kill each other in his name, without telling us who is right. And why does this bad person wait for us to die to let us know for sure whether we are going to burn in hell or live in eternal bliss. What kind of bad person just sits there and watches people suffer and could do something about it, but chooses not to?
Either God is an bad person or doesn't exist.
Also, prove why any of your holy books are more correct than any other holy books.
The book of Job says that you are correct. Here is the flaw in you logic: Why would God care about death and suffering if your life is nothing more than a test to see where you end up after you die? Seriously, if you could create an entire world of people, would you get all bent out of shape about each and every little thing that happened to each and every little person? I would just sit back and enjoy the show.
-
God is an bad person. What kind of rough ridin' bad person would condemn most of the people on the face of the earth to an eternity of suffering because they didn't know about or choose the right path. Especially without giving them any kind of proof that He even exists, and in fact lots of ways to explain our existence without needing him to exist. What kind of bad person would deceive the world like that, let people fight wars and kill each other in his name, without telling us who is right. And why does this bad person wait for us to die to let us know for sure whether we are going to burn in hell or live in eternal bliss. What kind of bad person just sits there and watches people suffer and could do something about it, but chooses not to?
Either God is an bad person or doesn't exist.
Also, prove why any of your holy books are more correct than any other holy books.
The book of Job says that you are correct. Here is the flaw in you logic: Why would God care about death and suffering if your life is nothing more than a test to see where you end up after you die? Seriously, if you could create an entire world of people, would you get all bent out of shape about each and every little thing that happened to each and every little person? I would just sit back and enjoy the show.
Yeah, but it does kinda go against that all-loving and all merciful nature that God supposedly possesses. A god that is an bad person is not worthy of worship
-
God is an bad person. What kind of rough ridin' bad person would condemn most of the people on the face of the earth to an eternity of suffering because they didn't know about or choose the right path. Especially without giving them any kind of proof that He even exists, and in fact lots of ways to explain our existence without needing him to exist. What kind of bad person would deceive the world like that, let people fight wars and kill each other in his name, without telling us who is right. And why does this bad person wait for us to die to let us know for sure whether we are going to burn in hell or live in eternal bliss. What kind of bad person just sits there and watches people suffer and could do something about it, but chooses not to?
Either God is an bad person or doesn't exist.
Also, prove why any of your holy books are more correct than any other holy books.
The book of Job says that you are correct. Here is the flaw in you logic: Why would God care about death and suffering if your life is nothing more than a test to see where you end up after you die? Seriously, if you could create an entire world of people, would you get all bent out of shape about each and every little thing that happened to each and every little person? I would just sit back and enjoy the show.
Yeah, but it does kinda go against that all-loving and all merciful nature that God supposedly possesses. A god that is an bad person is not worthy of worship
:bwpopcorn:
-
God is an bad person. What kind of effing bad person would condemn most of the people on the face of the earth to an eternity of suffering because they didn't know about or choose the right path. Especially without giving them any kind of proof that He even exists, and in fact lots of ways to explain our existence without needing him to exist. What kind of bad person would deceive the world like that, let people fight wars and kill each other in his name, without telling us who is right. And why does this bad person wait for us to die to let us know for sure whether we are going to burn in hell or live in eternal bliss. What kind of bad person just sits there and watches people suffer and could do something about it, but chooses not to?
Either God is an bad person or doesn't exist.
Also, prove why any of your holy books are more correct than any other holy books.
The book of Job says that you are correct. Here is the flaw in you logic: Why would God care about death and suffering if your life is nothing more than a test to see where you end up after you die? Seriously, if you could create an entire world of people, would you get all bent out of shape about each and every little thing that happened to each and every little person? I would just sit back and enjoy the show.
Yeah, but it does kinda go against that all-loving and all merciful nature that God supposedly possesses. A god that is an bad person is not worthy of worship
"All men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
Man was given a choice in the very beginning (so we could experience true joy) and he chose wrong. So, it's our fault, we suffer because of the choice(s) we made. The good news (great news), is that even though man screwed up, and continues to inherently screw up, God provided a way for us to be redeemed. His one begotten Son (important distinction), came to earth, lived as a man and died for us (this is supported by real history), paying the penalty for our sins. We have been given a second chance. It only takes repentance and faith in Him to be rejoined, forever, to God. Because that is the problem. We separated ourselves from God through our actions. He didn't want it to happen.
"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. God looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." Psalm 53:1-3
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." Matthew 10:29-31
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
The Bible makes sense, others do not. Look into it.
-
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." Matthew 10:29-31
The Bible makes sense, others do not. Look into it.
Lol.
-
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." Matthew 10:29-31
The Bible makes sense, others do not. Look into it.
Lol.
God cares about us. Surely a person can read and understand that.
-
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." Matthew 10:29-31
The Bible makes sense, others do not. Look into it.
Lol.
God cares about us. Surely you can read and understand that.
What you just did there is called interpretation. With enough interpretation I can make anything reasonably sound like "the truth".
-
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:
“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:35-39
Context is often important, but this is plain as day...
-
“Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:6)
1. God is not an assohole, people are, thus they transfer it to their conception of God.
2. Most people who are obsessively preoccupied with the afterlife do not know what to do with this one.
3. CNS Casey's extreme over-generalization about religion and fear has some truth to it, although it is not entirely accurate. Religion has used fear to persuade, and people's fear has used religion to comfort. Just because it is used a in certain way, does not invalidate it completely.
4. The Bible does make sense when looked at in context, mainly a mix of allegorical and historical stories that convey deep spiritual truths.
As far as Poet's quote, I'll go ahead and interpret it for those who don't understand what he thinks Paul is saying: "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, [accept, of course, for not agreeing with protestant christianity] will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:35-39
But God does love us, he might say.. He "loves" us enough to give us the choice to choose him, and when we reject that choice, he solemnly shakes his head and sighs as millions are thrown in to the pits of hell... mmmm yeeeahhh....
And you wonder why the atheists and agnostics think this is completely asinine, and constantly batter you in philosophical debates... Sure William Lane Craig can put up a good fight, and I root for you guys, but c'mon, gimme a break, it is a completely ridiculous dogmatic conjecture which has absolutely no basis in reality.
Fred Phelps meets all the criteria for being "saved." Ghandi does not.
A god that allows Freddy to go to heaven and Ghandi to burn in hell is not a "just" or "loving" god at all...
To quote Ghandi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Too many Pharisees....
-
“Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:6)
1. God is not an assohole, people are, thus they transfer it to their conception of God.
2. Most people who are obsessively preoccupied with the afterlife do not know what to do with this one.
3. CNS Casey's extreme over-generalization about religion and fear has some truth to it, although it is not entirely accurate. Religion has used fear to persuade, and people's fear has used religion to comfort. Just because it is used a in certain way, does not invalidate it completely.
4. The Bible does make sense when looked at in context, mainly a mix of allegorical and historical stories that convey deep spiritual truths.
As far as Poet's quote, I'll go ahead and interpret it for those who don't understand what he thinks Paul is saying: "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, [accept, of course, for not agreeing with protestant christianity] will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:35-39
But God does love us, he might say.. He "loves" us enough to give us the choice to choose him, and when we reject that choice, he solemnly shakes his head and sighs as millions are thrown in to the pits of hell... mmmm yeeeahhh....
And you wonder why the atheists and agnostics think this is completely asinine, and constantly batter you in philosophical debates... Sure William Lane Craig can put up a good fight, and I root for you guys, but c'mon, gimme a break, it is a completely ridiculous dogmatic conjecture which has absolutely no basis in reality.
Fred Phelps meets all the criteria for being "saved." Ghandi does not.
A god that allows Freddy to go to heaven and Ghandi to burn in hell is not a "just" or "loving" god at all...
To quote Ghandi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Too many Pharisees....
Well, I don't claim to be the authority on who gets in to heaven and who does not. Fred Phelps is an all around crap head, but I'm not sure if what he does qualifies him for a seat in hell or not. There are definitely worse people in this world, and many of them claim to be Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/whatever. I will say that being a Christian involves much more than just going to church and saying you believe in Jesus. If you refer to the story about Jesus and the rich man (sorry, I don't have sections of the bible memorized like some), the rich man obviously believed in God, but was unwilling to give up his riches. According to Jesus, that man did not make it to heaven.
-
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." Matthew 10:29-31
The Bible makes sense, others do not. Look into it.
Lol.
God cares about us. Surely a person can read and understand that.
Does he care about gay people and babies born to muslim parents?
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gifs.net%2FAnimation11%2FCreatures_and_Cartoons%2FCartoons_Simpsons%2FMr_Burns_3.gif&hash=b982761cb3c6b5b30589d51e407b635b480713d4)
-
Well, I don't claim to be the authority on who gets in to heaven and who does not. Fred Phelps is an all around cac head, but I'm not sure if what he does qualifies him for a seat in hell or not. There are definitely worse people in this world, and many of them claim to be Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/whatever. I will say that being a Christian involves much more than just going to church and saying you believe in Jesus. If you refer to the story about Jesus and the rich man (sorry, I don't have sections of the bible memorized like some), the rich man obviously believed in God, but was unwilling to give up his riches. According to Jesus, that man did not make it to heaven.
I find nowhere in the story where it says that guy is in hell or did not make it in to "heaven." Your assessment of it is not accurate and your conclusion is simply not in the text. But for arguments sake, if you think that is what Jesus was saying, you will not make it in to heaven either... unless you have sold all your possessions.
"Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'
At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth." (Mark 10:21-22)
Also, Fred Phelps is as guilty of sin as you or I. But unlike myself, Christians believe he has an advocate and pardon before the punishing judgmental god because he "accepts" Christ in the theologically right way. Since Ghandi does not have the one and only advocate who can save him when he comes before the heavenly father, he is thrown in hell along with muslim babies and whoever else.
According to this line of thinking, Phelps is saved by grace, even though he is an a-hole. It is not his works that allow him to be "saved," but his faith does, along with his baptism and whatever else you want to throw in there. He definitely meets many denominations criteria for "the kingdom of heaven."
-
I find nowhere in the story where it says that guy is in hell or did not make it in to "heaven." Your assessment of it is not accurate and your conclusion is simply not in the text. But for arguments sake, if you think that is what Jesus was saying, you will not make it in to heaven either... unless you have sold all your possessions.
"Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Mark 10:21)
Also, Fred Phelps is as guilty of sin as you or I. But unlike myself, Christians believe he has an advocate and pardon before the punishing judgmental god because he "accepts" Christ in the theologically right way. Since Ghandi does not have the one and only advocate who can save him when he comes before the heavenly father, he is thrown in hell along with muslim babies and whoever else.
According to this line of thinking, Phelps is saved by grace, even though he is an a-hole. It is not his works that allow him to be "saved," but his faith does, along with his baptism and whatever else you want to throw in there. He definitely meets many denominations criteria for "the kingdom of heaven."
After the rich man left, Jesus told his disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. It doesn't sound like the man got into heaven to me. According to the story, the rich man obviously accepted Christ, or he wouldn't have been asking him what he needed to do to guarantee a spot in heaven.
-
I find nowhere in the story where it says that guy is in hell or did not make it in to "heaven." Your assessment of it is not accurate and your conclusion is simply not in the text. But for arguments sake, if you think that is what Jesus was saying, you will not make it in to heaven either... unless you have sold all your possessions.
"Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Mark 10:21)
Also, Fred Phelps is as guilty of sin as you or I. But unlike myself, Christians believe he has an advocate and pardon before the punishing judgmental god because he "accepts" Christ in the theologically right way. Since Ghandi does not have the one and only advocate who can save him when he comes before the heavenly father, he is thrown in hell along with muslim babies and whoever else.
According to this line of thinking, Phelps is saved by grace, even though he is an a-hole. It is not his works that allow him to be "saved," but his faith does, along with his baptism and whatever else you want to throw in there. He definitely meets many denominations criteria for "the kingdom of heaven."
After the rich man left, Jesus told his disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. It doesn't sound like the man got into heaven to me. According to the story, the rich man obviously accepted Christ, or he wouldn't have been asking him what he needed to do to guarantee a spot in heaven.
So god only rewards the poor.
Come on...
-
I find nowhere in the story where it says that guy is in hell or did not make it in to "heaven." Your assessment of it is not accurate and your conclusion is simply not in the text. But for arguments sake, if you think that is what Jesus was saying, you will not make it in to heaven either... unless you have sold all your possessions.
"Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Mark 10:21)
Also, Fred Phelps is as guilty of sin as you or I. But unlike myself, Christians believe he has an advocate and pardon before the punishing judgmental god because he "accepts" Christ in the theologically right way. Since Ghandi does not have the one and only advocate who can save him when he comes before the heavenly father, he is thrown in hell along with muslim babies and whoever else.
According to this line of thinking, Phelps is saved by grace, even though he is an a-hole. It is not his works that allow him to be "saved," but his faith does, along with his baptism and whatever else you want to throw in there. He definitely meets many denominations criteria for "the kingdom of heaven."
After the rich man left, Jesus told his disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. It doesn't sound like the man got into heaven to me. According to the story, the rich man obviously accepted Christ, or he wouldn't have been asking him what he needed to do to guarantee a spot in heaven.
So god only rewards the poor.
Come on...
But what about the middle class? :runaway:
-
What about BEn? I mean, it's a trust fund so it's not actually his yet. :dubious:
-
For CNS.. No, Jesus was not stating that God only rewards the poor. Jesus is speaking deeply about the spiritual principle of non-attachment, renunciation, and devotion to God. It is not literal.
Many commentators believe that the man in the passage was St. Mark himself, as the full story only appears in his gospel (Matthew and Luke leave out some stuff), whom Jesus was instructing to drop everything and follow him literally. But the camel and the eye of the needle illustration is, of course, a metaphorical representation. For me, it represents the principle of "God First; God Alone" (a mantra that I love).
-
For CNS.. No, Jesus was not stating that God only rewards the poor. Jesus is speaking deeply about the spiritual principle of non-attachment, renunciation, and devotion to God. It is not literal.
Many commentators believe that the man in the passage was St. Mark himself, as the full story only appears in his gospel (Matthew and Luke leave out some stuff), whom Jesus was instructing to drop everything and follow him literally. But the camel and the eye of the needle illustration is, of course, a metaphorical representation of "God First; God Alone" (a mantra that I love).
Hmmmm....
I don't know.
Feels like we are getting back into the whole "interpretation" thing.
-
For CNS.. No, Jesus was not stating that God only rewards the poor. Jesus is speaking deeply about the spiritual principle of non-attachment, renunciation, and devotion to God. It is not literal.
Many commentators believe that the man in the passage was St. Mark himself, as the full story only appears in his gospel (Matthew and Luke leave out some stuff), whom Jesus was instructing to drop everything and follow him literally. But the camel and the eye of the needle illustration is, of course, a metaphorical representation of "God First; God Alone" (a mantra that I love).
Hmmmm....
I don't know.
Feels like we are getting back into the whole "interpretation" thing.
You are right. But the whole "interpretation" thing is basically unavoidable when you are dealing with certain texts. Especially religious ones.
-
God wants every part of us. Jesus asked a rich man to give up everything he had, not for the poor, but for Him, because he wants every piece and aspect of him. He doesn't want half of our attention, he wants it all.
The man wanted to believe, but when Jesus asked him to give up the one thing he obviously cared about most (his wealth), he wasn't willing to give it up. This is the complete opposite of what Christ asks of us. He wants us to give up everything for Him. Because he wants all of us.
You can't accept 25-50% of this (of Him), you accept 100% or nothing.
Immediately following what was quoted earlier:
"Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
-
We don't know the heart of Fred Phelps.
We don't know where he's going.
-
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." Matthew 10:29-31
The Bible makes sense, others do not. Look into it.
Lol.
God cares about us. Surely a person can read and understand that.
Does he care about gay people and babies born to muslim parents?
He cares about them as much as anyone who has ever lived.
He wants gays to repent and accept Him and His truth.
And he wants babies born to muslims to know his truth just as he wants anyone to, including the parents.
It's not too late for anyone, yet, but there will be a time when it is.
-
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." Matthew 10:29-31
The Bible makes sense, others do not. Look into it.
Lol.
God cares about us. Surely a person can read and understand that.
Does he care about gay people and babies born to muslim parents?
He cares about them as much as anyone who has ever lived.
He wants gays to repent and accept Him and His truth.
And he wants babies born to muslims to know his truth just as he wants anyone to, including the parents.
It's not too late for anyone, yet, but there will be a time when it is.
What if the baby dies at age 1? NEver having been baptised, or to a christian church, or even read a bible?
-
I think it sucks that Ghandhi is in hell. He was a great guy.
-
God wants every part of us. Jesus asked a rich man to give up everything he had, not for the poor, but for Him, because he wants every piece and aspect of him. He doesn't want half of our attention, he wants it all.
The man wanted to believe, but when Jesus asked him to give up the one thing he obviously cared about most (his wealth), he wasn't willing to give it up. This is the complete opposite of what Christ asks of us. He wants us to give up everything for Him. Because he wants all of us.
You can't accept 25-50% of this (of Him), you accept 100% or nothing.
Immediately following what was quoted earlier:
"Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
give up family, home, wealth, everything...
sounds very cultish.
your interpretation is diff than what a face value of that is.
-
What if the baby dies at age 1? NEver having been baptised, or to a christian church, or even read a bible?
I don't know.
But baptism, attending church and even reading the Bible are not requirements of salvation, for anyone.
-
I think it sucks that Ghandhi is in hell. He was a great guy.
By what standard was he a great guy?
-
God wants every part of us. Jesus asked a rich man to give up everything he had, not for the poor, but for Him, because he wants every piece and aspect of him. He doesn't want half of our attention, he wants it all.
The man wanted to believe, but when Jesus asked him to give up the one thing he obviously cared about most (his wealth), he wasn't willing to give it up. This is the complete opposite of what Christ asks of us. He wants us to give up everything for Him. Because he wants all of us.
You can't accept 25-50% of this (of Him), you accept 100% or nothing.
Immediately following what was quoted earlier:
"Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
give up family, home, wealth, everything...
sounds very cultish.
your interpretation is diff than what a face value of that is.
No it isn't.
Christ wants our lives + He is the savior of the world = We should give it to Him.
We don't even have to kill ourselves. (< funny joke)
It's about priorities. If ANYTHING stands between you and Christ, give it up. Why have a desire to hold onto meaningless things?
-
hmmm...
that sounds like more interpretation to me.
still sound cultish, only with hell/fear as the enforcer that beats you down if you try to leave.
-
What if the baby dies at age 1? NEver having been baptised, or to a christian church, or even read a bible?
I don't know.
But baptism, attending church and even reading the Bible are not requirements of salvation, for anyone.
What of the baby doesn't yet believe in god or jc?
-
that sounds like more interpretation to me.
I would be very skeptical if it wasn't interpretation. If he somehow claimed to know everything for certain. That would be far more disturbing.
-
What if the baby dies at age 1? NEver having been baptised, or to a christian church, or even read a bible?
I don't know.
But baptism, attending church and even reading the Bible are not requirements of salvation, for anyone.
What standard is it based on then? You have to accept Jesus as your lord and savior but you don't have to know anything about what he talked about or participate in any activities related to worshiping him? That sounds asinine because you could live your life in complete ignorance and not live it as Jesus taught it and be saved.
Also, Jesus was a socialist. Just saying.
-
Also, Jesus was a socialist. Just saying.
Either you're an idiot who is just repeating what someone once said that you thought was trendy...or you are correct and just proved Jesus to be a social scientist about 1800 years ahead of his time.
-
For CNS.. No, Jesus was not stating that God only rewards the poor. Jesus is speaking deeply about the spiritual principle of non-attachment, renunciation, and devotion to God. It is not literal.
Many commentators believe that the man in the passage was St. Mark himself, as the full story only appears in his gospel (Matthew and Luke leave out some stuff), whom Jesus was instructing to drop everything and follow him literally. But the camel and the eye of the needle illustration is, of course, a metaphorical representation. For me, it represents the principle of "God First; God Alone" (a mantra that I love).
And then you end up with evangelical teachings of the gospel of prosperity were being financially rich is praised as coming from that you are super devoted to God, were I think the real examples are those that eschew wealth in the pursuit of the benefit of others. A great example would be the Franciscan Friars.
You know, I spent way to much time studying my religion as a Catholic and I can argue from the Catholic position and as an avowed atheist. I spent time considering whether I was called to be a priest. It was a good decision that I didn't pursue that because as I learned more about the world, the more I learned that there is no proof for a damn bit of anything. We can spend all day arguing about the merits of this or that thought, but when it comes down to it, nobody can prove a damn thing of anything. And so I default to my natural position, which is that unless anyone can prove that religious feelings are caused by anything more than society and chemicals in our brain, I can not believe that it is true.
-
Also, Jesus was a socialist. Just saying.
Either you're an idiot who is just repeating what someone once said that you thought was trendy...or you are correct and just proved Jesus to be a social scientist about 1800 years ahead of his time.
I might be exaggerating a little bit but I do think that Jesus would be much more in line with socialistic thinking than with capitalistic thinking. Taking care of the least of us and the poor and the sick aligns much more with socialism than it does with pure unregulated capitalism.
-
And so I default to my natural position, which is that unless anyone can prove that religious feelings are caused by anything more than society and chemicals in our brain, I can not believe that it is true.
Yet, and I say this on the assumption you don't have a PhD in Neuroscience, you didn't investigate the matter yourself and just took the word of others as fact. How shocking that you would accept something without proof!
I might be exaggerating a little bit but I do think that Jesus would be much more in line with socialistic thinking than with capitalistic thinking. Taking care of the least of us and the poor and the sick aligns much more with socialism than it does with pure unregulated capitalism.
I think it goes along with Charity more than either, to be honest.
-
God is an bad person. What kind of effing bad person would condemn most of the people on the face of the earth to an eternity of suffering because they didn't know about or choose the right path. Especially without giving them any kind of proof that He even exists, and in fact lots of ways to explain our existence without needing him to exist. What kind of bad person would deceive the world like that, let people fight wars and kill each other in his name, without telling us who is right. And why does this bad person wait for us to die to let us know for sure whether we are going to burn in hell or live in eternal bliss. What kind of bad person just sits there and watches people suffer and could do something about it, but chooses not to?
Either God is an bad person or doesn't exist.
Also, prove why any of your holy books are more correct than any other holy books.
The book of Job says that you are correct. Here is the flaw in you logic: Why would God care about death and suffering if your life is nothing more than a test to see where you end up after you die? Seriously, if you could create an entire world of people, would you get all bent out of shape about each and every little thing that happened to each and every little person? I would just sit back and enjoy the show.
Yeah, but it does kinda go against that all-loving and all merciful nature that God supposedly possesses. A god that is an bad person is not worthy of worship
"All men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
Man was given a choice in the very beginning (so we could experience true joy) and he chose wrong. So, it's our fault, we suffer because of the choice(s) we made. The good news (great news), is that even though man screwed up, and continues to inherently screw up, God provided a way for us to be redeemed. His one begotten Son (important distinction), came to earth, lived as a man and died for us (this is supported by real history), paying the penalty for our sins. We have been given a second chance. It only takes repentance and faith in Him to be rejoined, forever, to God. Because that is the problem. We separated ourselves from God through our actions. He didn't want it to happen.
"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. God looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." Psalm 53:1-3
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." Matthew 10:29-31
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
The Bible makes sense, others do not. Look into it.
Except for the parts that contradict science. Also the parts that contradict themselves. I mean, you can support a wide variety of positions just by cherry picking bible verses. Even then, the story of the resurrection varies from gospel to gospel. If you doubt it, look up the Easter challenge.
Actually, I will save you the effort. http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone
But I'm sure that when it comes down to it, people will argue with as much vehemence that the Qu'ran is true or that the Book of Mormon is true, and the fact of the matter, is that you can't definitively prove it either way. Or to be put in more scientific terms, you can't disprove the other religions and we can't disprove christianity. That means that we can't tell whether it is true or just a cult that didn't die due to the conditions of the roman empire at the time.
-
And so I default to my natural position, which is that unless anyone can prove that religious feelings are caused by anything more than society and chemicals in our brain, I can not believe that it is true.
Yet, and I say this on the assumption you don't have a PhD in Neuroscience, you didn't investigate the matter yourself and just took the word of others as fact. How shocking that you would accept something without proof!
I might be exaggerating a little bit but I do think that Jesus would be much more in line with socialistic thinking than with capitalistic thinking. Taking care of the least of us and the poor and the sick aligns much more with socialism than it does with pure unregulated capitalism.
I think it goes along with Charity more than either, to be honest.
I do have an M.S. in psychology and do know a bit about the cognitive distortions that are a result of our evolutionary past. I do know that there are certain chemicals that can cause people to experience very religious experiences while under their influence. The main ones being, psilocybin and psilocin, lsd, DMT (which you should totally watch the spirit molecule though they get the point wrong) and mescaline. Why is it that our brains are programmed so that they experience these intense reactions under the influence of a chemical? If this was a true experience from god, it shouldn't be able to be manufactured in our brain. Much less the experience of the schizophrenic, who hears the voice of god. Our brains can be mumped with in too many ways to trust a purely emotional reaction and belief without proof.
We can believe in all kinds of mumped up crap if we don't follow that belief with proof for its existence. I could believe in stupid things like astrology or homeopathy, but I know that there is no rational proof for those things, and so I don't waste time with them. There are all kinds of things you discount in your daily life as lacking proof, yet you accept Christianity on faith alone. For what reason? you were raised that way, you rationalize it, you have a feeling? All I ask is that one of you rough ridin' prove it without resorting to a work written by men 2000 years ago. If you can prove it, I will fall down on my knees and beg forgiveness from the one true God.
Edit: and also, the beauty about science is that you don't have to have a Ph.D. to study it or to understand it. You can investigate any claims made by a scientist on your own. All you need is a bit of effort and a bit of time. And when you get done, you may wish that you had the Ph.D. to go along with it.
Edit 2: Yes, a scientist wishes others to know about their knowledge and you can read about science through non-technical sources. However, science makes no claims to special knowledge or special understanding of the true meaning of things. Any claim that a scientist makes must be backed up by evidence, and all that evidence is available for people to critique whether they are scientists or not. And trust me, scientists get off on proving others wrong because it gives them recognition. If someone comes up with evidence that disproves a current theory and supports a new theory, then that person will become very well known within that field. The reason that we know of Darwin so well is that he pushed a theory that has yet to be disproven despite all the best attempts to do so.
And too, what it comes down to is that things need to be testable, we can't test for God. In fact, if you tried to pin people down on ways to test for the existence of God you will get a great variety of reasons why they can't, or why those particular tests failed.
-
Whew, dohminator moppin' 'em up.
-
To add a bit more to the discussion. 600 years ago, people thought that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. The explanation for this was that God did it. Yet, the more we learned about the world, we found that there were natural forces acting that were not the direct result of God and did not need God's intervention to happen. As we learned more about the world we discovered that diseases were not the result of God punishing us, but were the result of bacteria and viruses. We learned that the forces of selection could create a wide diversity in life on this planet. We learned that we are in fact only a tiny part of this super vast universe that is always changing. We know now that one day the sun will swallow the earth as it becomes a red giant. That the universe is expanding and growing instead of staying stagnant. We learned that there are very weird things that are happening that we can't fully explain yet. At each step we have gained more knowledge, yet there were forces that said that the next step was unexplainable and that God was the only thing that could explain it. Yet each time, when people studied and tried to find the truth through rational exploration and experimentation, God has been pushed back. And we may never know in our lifetime or ever what caused the big bang, yet a I accept that it probably didn't require a god to do it.
And when it comes down to it, I look up in wonderment at the stars, I think how lucky we are to be here, and I do not feel that my life is in any way cheapened because there probably is no god. I feel that my life is in fact much more meaningful because of the lack of probability for it.
Edit: I'll just put this here for all the conservatives. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushvsjesus.htm (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushvsjesus.htm)
-
Science!?
Please tell me why I love?!
-
...While you're at it, tell me why dohminator does?!
-
The reason that we know of Darwin so well is that he pushed a theory that has yet to be disproven despite all the best attempts to do so.
The reason people still believe in God is that the bible has yet to be disproven despite all the best attempts to do so.
*I believe in evolution, by the way.
-
Also, Jesus was a socialist. Just saying.
What is your point?
If everyone were like Jesus, the world would be socialist if there were any government at all, and nobody would be hungry or suffer.
-
The reason that we know of Darwin so well is that he pushed a theory that has yet to be disproven despite all the best attempts to do so.
The reason people still believe in God is that the bible has yet to be disproven despite all the best attempts to do so.
*I believe in evolution, by the way.
How do you suppose that we test the veracity of the bible scientifically?
And certain aspects of the bible have definitely been disproven.
-
So "religious experiences" are a means to test for God, and those "experiences" cannot be trusted because emotions are a chemical function of our brains. Or more simply, human observations about something non-human as interpreted by the human brain.
Science is based on the observation (by humans) of the natural world. These observations are interpreted by the human brain. The interpretations are refined (testing) until they match the observed behavior of the natural world.
So our brains are to be fully trusted in one instance and not at all in another? This is especially interesting in light of things such as the use of Newtonian physics is many applications when Einstein's theories are much more accurate. Seriously, we use to think the earth was flat. But, human brains have yet to cure cancer or explain with absolute certainty how the world came to be. In fact, we believe that we can't even use the full capacity of our own brains. 99.99999999992% is not 100%. Science throughout history has been "close enough" until we figure just how off we really are (for example see Kepler, Newton & Bohr).
Let's face it, people's interpretation of science and religion are governed more by their world view than anything else. People completely accepting of Darwin's generally have an agenda not science related (see world view). And, people that completely reject all of Darwin's observations also have an agenda (again, see world view).
My point to all of this is that we are flawed and our world is flawed. Neither is perfect, and to dismiss belief in God due to science is ignorant; as is dismissing science due to a belief in God.
-
How do you scientifically prove what happens to your soul when you die?
-
Very well put ArchE...
Dohminator obviously has some resentment and bitterness towards religion and/or God. I will be praying for you.
Just remember, what is scientifically accepted today will be completely different in 50 years. We are nowhere near the pinnacle of our understanding of God's Universe.
I want to address the "cult" issue though because it gets thrown around all the time.
Many times, the only difference between a religion and a cult, is the number of followers. :thumbsup:
The etymology of the word "cult"
1610s, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte (17c.), from L. cultus "care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence," originally "tended, cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.
I have no problem with "cultish" religion. It is thrown around as a dismissive platitude though, and for good reason in many cases, as some "cults" are indeed batcac crazy. But there are also non-religious groups that meet the definition of a cult that are equally as crazy. Therefore, simply saying "sounds kinda cultish" in no way says anything about said group or religion, other than you disagree with it and are trying to dismiss its claims by using a word with a loaded connotation.
-
Also, we could not prove DNA until Johann Friedrich Miescher, or Watson and Crick...
Did that mean that DNA never existed until it was scientifically proven? Following your logic, you would have probably said back then "DNA doesn't exist!! We can't test it! We can't prove it scientifically!!"
Obviously, this says nothing about its existence.
-
Very well put ArchE...
Dohminator obviously has some resentment and bitterness towards religion and/or God. I will be praying for you.
Just remember, what is scientifically accepted today will be completely different in 50 years. We are nowhere near the pinnacle of our understanding of God's Universe.
I want to address the "cult" issue though because it gets thrown around all the time.
Many times, the only difference between a religion and a cult, is the number of followers. :thumbsup:
The etymology of the word "cult"
1610s, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte (17c.), from L. cultus "care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence," originally "tended, cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.
I have no problem with "cultish" religion. It is thrown around as a dismissive platitude though, and for good reason in many cases, as some "cults" are indeed batcac crazy. But there are also non-religious groups that meet the definition of a cult that are equally as crazy. Therefore, simply saying "sounds kinda cultish" in no way says anything about said group or religion, other than you disagree with it and are trying to dismiss its claims by using a word with a loaded connotation.
When I was at KSU, there was some cult that met in the park a lot. Were reported on in the local paper some. Basically they invited rando people to the park for a bbq, and after hanging with them for a while they assigned an enforcer to a new member. Enforcer literally beat you down if you strayed. Paper reported on it because people were getting beaten up.
Anyway, the cult inducted new followers, scared them into following blindly, then prayed on them by telling them that they needed to give their possessions to the cult and that they are not true followers if they can't give up their loved ones, etc.
Not trying to lump all cults together with a single definition/connotation, but when it comes to Christianity(at least the most known forms of it to me), it seems pretty much exactly like the cult that was in Manhattan back then. The only real diffs were the lack of popular acceptance and the use of brute force to apply the fear rather than mind rough ridin' it's members, and it should be noted that brute force is simply a faster way of accomplishing something rather than a mind eff, but ultimately has the same intent and result in many cases.
Should also note again that I do believe in a higher power, but think it is ridiculous that any one person can tell me that the way I choose to acknowledge/worship/celebrate/communicate/etc with such a higher power, and that doing so is nothing more than furthering the above described cult process whether intentionally or unintentionally.
I find religion fascinating and genuinely like a lot of religious folks as I feel like their intentions are good. However the whole "spreading the good news" thing is a line that I feel they have no right to cross.
-
I do believe in a higher power, but think it is ridiculous that any one person can tell me that the way I choose to acknowledge/worship/celebrate/communicate/etc with such a higher power, and that doing so is nothing more than furthering the above described cult process whether intentionally or unintentionally.
100 % agree. And it is because of this so-called "cult process" you mentioned that many dismiss God or religion entirely, which is a shame.
-
Barely skimmed the last month's worth of this. Anybody figured out who's right yet?
-
Barely skimmed the last month's worth of this. Anybody figured out who's right yet?
In a stunning upset the Mulsims came out on top. Who knew, right! I'm going down to pick out a prayer rug this weekend, pm if you need a ride.
-
Barely skimmed the last month's worth of this. Anybody figured out who's right yet?
In a stunning upset the Mulsims came out on top. Who knew, right! I'm going down to pick out a prayer rug this weekend, pm if you need a ride.
Can't go with you, but I'll take 2 of whatever kind you pick out, in purple.
-
Barely skimmed the last month's worth of this. Anybody figured out who's right yet?
In a stunning upset the Mulsims came out on top. Who knew, right! I'm going down to pick out a prayer rug this weekend, pm if you need a ride.
No no no. Just because they blew up the judges and declared victory doesn't make it so. Buddha is going to be lodging a formal appeal to the committee when new members replaced those beheaded in the Intifada.
-
Very well put ArchE...
Dohminator obviously has some resentment and bitterness towards religion and/or God. I will be praying for you.
I would say that I am very not resentful or bitter toward religion or god, and most atheists aren't. To give you a better understanding of where I am coming from I'll give you guys a little bit of my history. I was born and raised Catholic. During my youth I spent probably more time than any kid usually would thinking about religion and I would spend times where I prayed a lot and was very strong in my faith to other times when I was much less strong, but still a believer throughout. In my senior year of high school, I went through a period of questioning about my beliefs and recognized that there is no way to know for sure whether my religion was the correct one. I acknowledged a level of agnosticism, just knowing that I couldn't be sure on anything, which led me to explore and learn about a wide variety of the religions that exist in this world and also to learn more about Catholic beliefs. Once this period was over, I become much stronger in my Catholic faith, and to be honest, there are many beautiful things about the Catholic church and about the ritual of mass. When I went to college I went to church weekly, and was very invested in my faith. During my sophomore year, I was going to mass during the week several times a week. To me, I definitely did get a lot out of it at the time, and I spent time considering whether I wanted to be a priest or even a monk. However, I came to start having greater and greater doubts as some of the things that I learned about the world, how our brains work, how our psychology works began to really plant serious doubts in my head about the existence of God. Many of those doubts being the ones that I have shared and will share. As those doubts increased, I found it harder and harder to believe and even though I really wanted to, I just couldn't bring myself to do it anymore. I went through a period of mourning the loss of my faith and spending a lot of time at night contemplating the fact that I was going to die some day and that would be it. However, I have come to terms with this over time, and the more I learn the less reason I see for the existence of a god. I spent a lot of time considering myself agnostic, until one day I just realized that I was pretty much an atheist and went through the day without any belief that there was a god out there watching everything I did.
In the end, I don't hold any ill will to the Catholic church, and would probably still be a Catholic if I actually believed in God. But having a belief in God is a pretty central tenet to hold in order to be a Catholic.
I am very passionate, and probably the reason that I am posting so much in this thread is that I rarely get into these discussions in real life because a lot of people would have a hard time having this discussion in a positive way. Most of the time if people ask, I'll just state that I'm an atheist and they'll make some comment like "there are no atheists in foxholes" and I'll just nod my head and move on with my life.
And for a weird question, has anybody else in this thread really sat down and thought about what eternity really means and been very weirded out by it? Or is that just me?
Edit: To add the the discussion there are good things about religion and there are bad things. Studies show that religious people that attend services have a higher sense of well-being, which comes from the communal aspect of attending church. Also religious people tend to volunteer more and donate more. These are very good things. However, religion does have it's dark side. It can convince people that they have the only hold to the truth which makes them self-righteous. It can cause people to want to enforce their views on everyone else and to enact laws restricting the freedoms of others when those views do not match up with their own. And it can cause people to justify their killing of other people in God's name. It can stop people from exploring the world around them and encourage ignorance about our world and other people. All pretty crappy. Religion is definitely a mixed bag.
-
Science!?
Please tell me why I love?!
http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/lovesex/sciencelove.htm (http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/lovesex/sciencelove.htm)
Here is a short article that overviews some of the changes that occur in our body and brain that produce the feeling of romantic love.
There is no reason that the development of love requires a god. Love has to do with our kinship bonds. Those individuals and groups that experienced greater bonding with one another were better able to survive and pass along their genes. But yes, the qualitative experience of love is complex and different and involves discussions of cognition and philosophy that I just honestly haven't investigated fully enough to give a detailed response to the question. But if you are a curious person, I would encourage you to do some research. Read about the psychology of love and philosophical discussions of love. Report back some of what you learned.
-
So "religious experiences" are a means to test for God, and those "experiences" cannot be trusted because emotions are a chemical function of our brains. Or more simply, human observations about something non-human as interpreted by the human brain.
No, religious experiences are not a means for testing for God because they can't be independently verified. We all have lots of feelings about things that can be very untrue. If someone you know doesn't acknowledge you as they pass by, you might have the feeling that they hate you or that they are an bad person. This doesn't make it true, because you don't know if that person just found out that they have cancer and are walking shell shocked back to their car to drive home and tell their family. Until you can verify it, your feeling is just a feeling. I know that we can't always verify things like that and it would be huge burden to do so. That's why our brains use all kinds of shortcuts that get us into trouble from time to time and lead to irrational thinking and behavior.
Science is based on the observation (by humans) of the natural world. These observations are interpreted by the human brain. The interpretations are refined (testing) until they match the observed behavior of the natural world.
So our brains are to be fully trusted in one instance and not at all in another? This is especially interesting in light of things such as the use of Newtonian physics is many applications when Einstein's theories are much more accurate. Seriously, we use to think the earth was flat. But, human brains have yet to cure cancer or explain with absolute certainty how the world came to be. In fact, we believe that we can't even use the full capacity of our own brains. 99.99999999992% is not 100%. Science throughout history has been "close enough" until we figure just how off we really are (for example see Kepler, Newton & Bohr).
It would be impossible for the brain to function at "100%" The brain is finely tuned and delicate. And the ability to turn parts of the brain off is every bit as important as being able to fire them off. Culling unused connections in our brain is important to maintaining function. Schizophrenia may actually be caused by our brain holding on to too many connections in the brain and not pruning enough to make it function correctly. Also, science will never be finished, that's a feature, not a flaw.
Let's face it, people's interpretation of science and religion are governed more by their world view than anything else. People completely accepting of Darwin's generally have an agenda not science related (see world view). And, people that completely reject all of Darwin's observations also have an agenda (again, see world view).
My point to all of this is that we are flawed and our world is flawed. Neither is perfect, and to dismiss belief in God due to science is ignorant; as is dismissing science due to a belief in God.
Thank you for the south park conclusion Stan
-
How do you scientifically prove what happens to your soul when you die?
You can't. That's the problem with believing in one or the afterlife. There is no possible way to know if we have a soul or not. There is no way to test for it, and even if someone tried to do a test, when they found a negative result they would just back away from it and give an excuse. There is no way to prove that we do not have a soul. Which means that we can never prove that there is one either.
Science requires that hypothesis be able to be proven wrong, it's what allows us to get a yes or no answer to questions and to learn more about the world. When something is proven wrong, people go back to the drawing board and see if they can find a better explanation, which leads to more knowledge.
This question always kinda messed with my mind when I was in undergrad, and I'm curious to see what answers the more religious people here have to it because I never was able to come to a satisfying conclusion. We know that changes in our brain affect changes in our thinking. Consciousness is very tied to our brain. When someone experiences a brain injury it can affect not only their ability to carry out basic functions, but also their personality and beliefs about the world.
So let's take a hypothetical situation, that has occurred at least a few times. There is a terrible person. A mean, uncaring, and disbelieving. He has an accident that causes him to forget who he is and his entire past. In this process he also has a change in his personality where he becomes much kinder and gentler, no longer an evil son of a bitch. Someone preaches to him, and he is "saved". In effect this person is now to seperate people. There is no knowledge of the person before who was mean and would beat up this newer kinder person. At the same time that old person has never paid for any of his sins. What happens when he goes to heaven? Is he reunited with his old self, which personality wins, does he get to go to heaven just because of that brain injury? Did his soul change?
What about the opposite situation. A very nice lady has an industrial accident that disables her ability to control her impulses. She now has sex like a fiend, is mean and roudy and hates on people. She does goes away from religion because everyone shuns her for her wild behavior. Is she condemned to hell because of the accident or does the nice person that was her before get to go on to heaven?
What about schizophrenics who are not in control of their own mind. Are they held responsible even though it is their mind that may have led them to not live a Christian life? What about people with multiple personalities. Does god judge them all differently?
What about the karsakoff's syndrome people that have lost their ability to remember anything and the ability to even form new memories?
Obviously the consciousness does not reside in the soul or brain injury would never be able to cause people to change in such drastic ways except for lessened bodily function. I just was never able to quite figure out the weird cases where people change.
-
God is an bad person. What kind of effing bad person.. etc.
Sounds a little resentful to me, but I get a better sense of where you are coming from and you seem pretty level headed. It was just my initial impression. Sounds like you became frustrated. At first, this is very common.
In an academic setting, which I am very familiar with, students who begin in Religious Studies have their faiths shaken pretty regularly as they become exposed to the overwhelming amount of belief systems and worldviews contrary to their own.
To them, reconciling their sometimes narrow viewpoint on Truth is like trying to take a drink of water from a fire hydrant. Too much comes at them. Too many questions they can't answer. Too many doubts. They get overwhelmed as concepts they have received through their theological and religious socialization come crashing down to the reality of the Big World we live in. Sometimes this leads to an emphatic insistence on atheism, as they feel betrayed in a sense or feel like they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the religion they grew up with. Almost as if, "I can't believe in anything anymore because I came to find out that my childhood religion just can't be true..." This is a quite common occurrence.
I will still be praying for you though dohminator. We all have different paths, and different pre and post-natal karma to work out. May God guide you in whatever system of faith or no faith you choose in this life.
As far as religion being a product of brain chemistry etc. This says more about the person, than it says about the existence of God. Here is christian apologist Gregory Koukl speaking on the topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyV1-djBl68
Listen to all five minutes, cause it takes him a bit to "get there."
Anyways, you described yourself as "passionate." The source of you passion is coming from somewhere. Seek the Source. Maybe it is just the cold, robotic, physiological mechanisms of your brain chemistry afterall. Or an ability to reason and scientifically negotiate reality. But maybe its not...
Finally, a way complicated answer made simple: Eternity is not of our space-time domain. Eternity is not linear, it is timeless, spaceless, and permeated with Bliss. Although you might dismiss it or deny it, You can probably hear Eternity whispering to you at times. Still your mind, open your heart, and Listen.
Have a good weekend, and may God Bless everyone who has posted on this thread.
-
You missed the point. Lots of people can independently arrive at the same conclusion regarding religion, having had exactly the same or an extremely similar experiences. Lots of people can have the same or extremely similar observations of the natural world and independently arrive at the same scientific conclusion. The common denominators here are the humans (brain) and the environment in which the observe/experience things. You can't say the brain is more reliable in one instance than it is another.
If science never ends, then it is safe to assume that science is approaching a mathematical limit of sorts. Science can continually perfection but never really reach it. The same exists with faith, you get closer and closer but never fully comprehend. This doesn't mean that the perfect equation doesn't exist, or that God doesn't exist. It means that we are limited in our ability to fully perceive either, because we and the word around us are inherently flawed, until an independent source outside of humanity or the world we see is able to verify it.
-
How do you scientifically prove what happens to your soul when you die?
You can't. That's the problem with believing in one or the afterlife. There is no possible way to know if we have a soul or not. There is no way to test for it, and even if someone tried to do a test, when they found a negative result they would just back away from it and give an excuse. There is no way to prove that we do not have a soul. Which means that we can never prove that there is one either.
Science requires that hypothesis be able to be proven wrong, it's what allows us to get a yes or no answer to questions and to learn more about the world. When something is proven wrong, people go back to the drawing board and see if they can find a better explanation, which leads to more knowledge.
This question always kinda messed with my mind when I was in undergrad, and I'm curious to see what answers the more religious people here have to it because I never was able to come to a satisfying conclusion. We know that changes in our brain affect changes in our thinking. Consciousness is very tied to our brain. When someone experiences a brain injury it can affect not only their ability to carry out basic functions, but also their personality and beliefs about the world.
So let's take a hypothetical situation, that has occurred at least a few times. There is a terrible person. A mean, uncaring, and disbelieving. He has an accident that causes him to forget who he is and his entire past. In this process he also has a change in his personality where he becomes much kinder and gentler, no longer an evil son of a bitch. Someone preaches to him, and he is "saved". In effect this person is now to seperate people. There is no knowledge of the person before who was mean and would beat up this newer kinder person. At the same time that old person has never paid for any of his sins. What happens when he goes to heaven? Is he reunited with his old self, which personality wins, does he get to go to heaven just because of that brain injury? Did his soul change?
What about the opposite situation. A very nice lady has an industrial accident that disables her ability to control her impulses. She now has sex like a fiend, is mean and roudy and hates on people. She does goes away from religion because everyone shuns her for her wild behavior. Is she condemned to hell because of the accident or does the nice person that was her before get to go on to heaven?
What about schizophrenics who are not in control of their own mind. Are they held responsible even though it is their mind that may have led them to not live a Christian life? What about people with multiple personalities. Does god judge them all differently?
What about the karsakoff's syndrome people that have lost their ability to remember anything and the ability to even form new memories?
Obviously the consciousness does not reside in the soul or brain injury would never be able to cause people to change in such drastic ways except for lessened bodily function. I just was never able to quite figure out the weird cases where people change.
Anybody who claims to have an answer to those questions is fooling you, themselves, or both. There really is no way that any human could tell you if somebody is going to heaven or hell. I wouldn't even claim to know where Hitler is.
-
This question always kinda messed with my mind when I was in undergrad, and I'm curious to see what answers the more religious people here have to it because I never was able to come to a satisfying conclusion. We know that changes in our brain affect changes in our thinking. Consciousness is very tied to our brain. When someone experiences a brain injury it can affect not only their ability to carry out basic functions, but also their personality and beliefs about the world.
The answer to your question is: consciousness reflecting pre and post natal karma. And in the scenarios you mentioned of life changing "accidents," they are usually tied to previous incarnations as opposed to karma in this life.
-
This question always kinda messed with my mind when I was in undergrad, and I'm curious to see what answers the more religious people here have to it because I never was able to come to a satisfying conclusion. We know that changes in our brain affect changes in our thinking. Consciousness is very tied to our brain. When someone experiences a brain injury it can affect not only their ability to carry out basic functions, but also their personality and beliefs about the world.
The answer to your question is: consciousness reflecting pre and post natal karma. And in the scenarios you mentioned of life changing "accidents," they are usually tied to previous incarnations as opposed to karma in this life.
I would like to take a quick time out to say that I enjoy this thread because it includes a religion's p.o.v. other than Christianity.
Fascinating. Tell me more.
Being serious.
-
Hey doh, you could have stopped at "I was raised Catholic." Nuff said. Thanks.
-
How do you scientifically prove what happens to your soul when you die?
You can't. That's the problem with believing in one or the afterlife. There is no possible way to know if we have a soul or not. There is no way to test for it, and even if someone tried to do a test, when they found a negative result they would just back away from it and give an excuse. There is no way to prove that we do not have a soul. Which means that we can never prove that there is one either.
Science requires that hypothesis be able to be proven wrong, it's what allows us to get a yes or no answer to questions and to learn more about the world. When something is proven wrong, people go back to the drawing board and see if they can find a better explanation, which leads to more knowledge.
This question always kinda messed with my mind when I was in undergrad, and I'm curious to see what answers the more religious people here have to it because I never was able to come to a satisfying conclusion. We know that changes in our brain affect changes in our thinking. Consciousness is very tied to our brain. When someone experiences a brain injury it can affect not only their ability to carry out basic functions, but also their personality and beliefs about the world.
So let's take a hypothetical situation, that has occurred at least a few times. There is a terrible person. A mean, uncaring, and disbelieving. He has an accident that causes him to forget who he is and his entire past. In this process he also has a change in his personality where he becomes much kinder and gentler, no longer an evil son of a bitch. Someone preaches to him, and he is "saved". In effect this person is now to seperate people. There is no knowledge of the person before who was mean and would beat up this newer kinder person. At the same time that old person has never paid for any of his sins. What happens when he goes to heaven? Is he reunited with his old self, which personality wins, does he get to go to heaven just because of that brain injury? Did his soul change?
What about the opposite situation. A very nice lady has an industrial accident that disables her ability to control her impulses. She now has sex like a fiend, is mean and roudy and hates on people. She does goes away from religion because everyone shuns her for her wild behavior. Is she condemned to hell because of the accident or does the nice person that was her before get to go on to heaven?
What about schizophrenics who are not in control of their own mind. Are they held responsible even though it is their mind that may have led them to not live a Christian life? What about people with multiple personalities. Does god judge them all differently?
What about the karsakoff's syndrome people that have lost their ability to remember anything and the ability to even form new memories?
Obviously the consciousness does not reside in the soul or brain injury would never be able to cause people to change in such drastic ways except for lessened bodily function. I just was never able to quite figure out the weird cases where people change.
OK, very interesting, but I do believe God will know who has control of their thoughts and actions and who does not.
I have personally had 2 experiences that have made me believe in the presence of a soul. My wife's father passed away after a fight with lung cancer. We were in his room at a hospice center where I was holding his dog, a Pomeranian. The dog was very quiet and still and I was standing about 10 feet from the bed. The moment he took his last breath, the dog stood up in my arms and started barking. The dog was barking directly at my father-in-law, then slowly moved his head upward while still barking until he was looking directly at the ceiling, barked for another few seconds, then just stopped and laid back down in my arms. It was obvious to everyone in the room what had just happened. The dog sensed something we couldn't see, and I believe it was his soul leaving.
-
http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/lovesex/sciencelove.htm (http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/lovesex/sciencelove.htm)
Here is a short article that overviews some of the changes that occur in our body and brain that produce the feeling of romantic love.
Not one piece of that addresses anything that has anything to do with the love I'm talking about.
I'm talking about LOVE, man.
-
CNS, this is a very complex topic and will be addressed admittedly extremely inadequately, as I am kinda in a hurry, but I will try to paint an overall picture.
First and foremost, We are not bodies that posses souls, we are souls that posses bodies. This is a very subtle, but important distinction.
Secondly, everything is vibration. Conciousness is a reflection of vibration. Here is an example of how someone with a reincarnationist perspective might view some of the scenario's mentioned.
Lets look at dohminator's first scenario. You have someone who is obviously bitter and uncaring but gets changed in an instant because of an accident. Dohminator points out how he hasn't "paid for any of his sins." Yet when you look at it from a reincarnationist perspective, maybe he had. Being mean and uncaring produce thier own negitive vibrations anyway and people who are that way are usually not very happy, and often times miserable. Maybe that was payment for his sins. Even still, he will have to face in one way or another the negative energy which he put out in to the universe, whether this is an astral realm that resembles the catholic purgatory, or an earthly incarnation. Maybe the accident was an intersession of God to jolt him on the right path. For his Love and Grace are VERY real. Or maybe the accident was a result of his past karma which had set him up for a spectacular change. Either way, karmic "jolts" like this and complete changes in conciousness, as I stated are usually set up by past incarnations. Summer changes from fall to winter, even supernovas take time before they explode. In God's Universe changes take time and buildup, hence dramatic events like these have been "in the works," so to speak, for a while.
When dohminator says "In effect this person is now to seperate people." He is wrong. Same body, same soul, different states of conciousness. You could argue because my conciousness is different than it was when I was 10, that I am "two seperate people." But in reality is the fluid and ever-moving state of my conciousness.
Next you have the "very nice lady has an industrial accident that disables her ability to control her impulses. She now has sex like a fiend, is mean and roudy and hates on people." This causes her to move away from religion. This scenario has past life karma written all over it. Perhaps in several previous lives she repressed her sexual impulses drastically, perhaps she was so reserved and wound so tight that it knawed on her soul, causing her feelings of guilt and self contempt. Now her self contempt is being projected by being mean and rowdy and "hating on people." Thus, they do not like her back, and condemn her in the very way she condemned(s) herself. She must face and overcome her karma. However, she will have to deal with her promiscuity and mean and rowdyness in one way or another. We must meet all our challenges that occur due to karma. For example, a person who committs suicide (which is horrible, horrible, karma) will incarnate again and face that very same level of suffering, until he can overcome it.
Every action in this universe has a reaction. That is why raising our own vibration through prayer, meditation, chanting, devotion, etc. is important. For me it is based on results. When I meditate and pray regularly, I am more kind, loving, harmonious, patient, and peaceful. Qualities that burn away negative karmic vibrations, although, there is no way of getting rid of some things, other than facing them and conquering them.
This was admittedly rushed and incomplete, but I wanted to get you an answer before I chill out this weekend. Here are some things that might interest you CNS:
This movie talks about things that Indian yogi's have known for millenia, it is a great film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-azcMJ5JS4
http://www.whatthebleep.com/crystals/
-
God is an bad person. What kind of effing bad person.. etc.
Sounds a little resentful to me, but I get a better sense of where you are coming from and you seem pretty level headed. It was just my initial impression. Sounds like you became frustrated. At first, this is very common.
In an academic setting, which I am very familiar with, students who begin in Religious Studies have their faiths shaken pretty regularly as they become exposed to the overwhelming amount of belief systems and worldviews contrary to their own.
To them, reconciling their sometimes narrow viewpoint on Truth is like trying to take a drink of water from a fire hydrant. Too much comes at them. Too many questions they can't answer. Too many doubts. They get overwhelmed as concepts they have received through their theological and religious socialization come crashing down to the reality of the Big World we live in. Sometimes this leads to an emphatic insistence on atheism, as they feel betrayed in a sense or feel like they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the religion they grew up with. Almost as if, "I can't believe in anything anymore because I came to find out that my childhood religion just can't be true..." This is a quite common occurrence.
I will still be praying for you though dohminator. We all have different paths, and different pre and post-natal karma to work out. May God guide you in whatever system of faith or no faith you choose in this life.
As far as religion being a product of brain chemistry etc. This says more about the person, than it says about the existence of God. Here is christian apologist Gregory Koukl speaking on the topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyV1-djBl68
Listen to all five minutes, cause it takes him a bit to "get there."
Anyways, you described yourself as "passionate." The source of you passion is coming from somewhere. Seek the Source. Maybe it is just the cold, robotic, physiological mechanisms of your brain chemistry afterall. Or an ability to reason and scientifically negotiate reality. But maybe its not...
Finally, a way complicated answer made simple: Eternity is not of our space-time domain. Eternity is not linear, it is timeless, spaceless, and permeated with Bliss. Although you might dismiss it or deny it, You can probably hear Eternity whispering to you at times. Still your mind, open your heart, and Listen.
Have a good weekend, and may God Bless everyone who has posted on this thread.
The god is an bad person stuff really isn't out of resentment. It was just an interesting thought that I had one day and I think it rings true in a lot of ways. Either God exists and is just messing with us, or he doesn't exist and it doesn't matter.
And my passion is more a function of my personality. I have always been interested in the big questions and I love to talk about them and debate them. So I look for truth and an understanding of the world and the universe. I just think that science can give us such a great understanding of all of these huge questions and help us to discover more and more about the world and ourselves. Whereas I think religion kind of stops some of that. It says, ok, we've discovered all that we can, everything after this is god's doing and his mystery, yet as we find out more, we find less need for it. I've definitely had a lot of fun posting like crazy in this thread and hopefully some of it might cause some people to question and to think and to grow a little.
Hey doh, you could have stopped at "I was raised Catholic." Nuff said. Thanks.
Well, I had to try to preempt the "*groan* raised catholic, now I understand. You just need to go to a better church" responses
-
To be honest, Catholicism is awful. The only reason I support their existence is they have exorcists and I may need one some day.
-
To be honest, Catholicism is awful. The only reason I support their existence is they have exorcists and I may need one some day.
To be honest, Catholicism isn't much worse than most religions. The main problems with them being no contraception, no abortion, hating on gays, and last and not least, not handling mumped up priests. I guess it's hard for me to hate on them too much having grown up as one, which is the opposite of how it usually happens. Of course I think the fundamentalists are way worse, but different perspectives.
Of course I think they are all full of crap, so in the end its all a comparison of which is the biggest turd.
-
To be honest, Catholicism is awful. The only reason I support their existence is they have exorcists and I may need one some day.
To be honest, Catholicism isn't much worse than most religions. The main problems with them being no contraception, no abortion, hating on gays, and last and not least, not handling mumped up priests. I guess it's hard for me to hate on them too much having grown up as one, which is the opposite of how it usually happens. Of course I think the fundamentalists are way worse, but different perspectives.
Of course I think they are all full of crap, so in the end its all a comparison of which is the biggest turd.
I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.
-
I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.
What do you identify as now, just for curiosity
edit: I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any. Why should I believe in something without proof?
Or let's put it into more scientific terms. H0: There is no god. - disprove that
-
I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.
What do you identify as now, just for curiosity
edit: I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any. Why should I believe in something without proof?
Or let's put it into more scientific terms. H0: There is no god. - disprove that
There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.
-
I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.
What do you identify as now, just for curiosity
edit: I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any. Why should I believe in something without proof?
Or let's put it into more scientific terms. H0: There is no god. - disprove that
There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.
How so?
-
I grew up as one as well....hate the cac out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.
What do you identify as now, just for curiosity
edit: I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any. Why should I believe in something without proof?
Or let's put it into more scientific terms. H0: There is no god. - disprove that
There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.
Disagree
-
I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.
What do you identify as now, just for curiosity
edit: I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any. Why should I believe in something without proof?
Or let's put it into more scientific terms. H0: There is no god. - disprove that
There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.
How so?
Because scientifically speaking, there had to be matter for the big bang to occur. Where did that matter come from?
-
I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.
What do you identify as now, just for curiosity
edit: I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any. Why should I believe in something without proof?
Or let's put it into more scientific terms. H0: There is no god. - disprove that
There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.
How so?
Because scientifically speaking, there had to be matter for the big bang to occur. Where did that matter come from?
1. How can theists insist that God is eternal, but that matter had to have come from somewhere?
2. Matter always existed. (link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) God is an unnecessary hypothesis.
-
I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.
What do you identify as now, just for curiosity
edit: I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any. Why should I believe in something without proof?
Or let's put it into more scientific terms. H0: There is no god. - disprove that
There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.
How so?
Because scientifically speaking, there had to be matter for the big bang to occur. Where did that matter come from?
1. How can theists insist that God is eternal, but that matter had to have come from somewhere?
2. Matter always existed. (link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) God is an unnecessary hypothesis.
The matter was just there? Nothing created it? It just formed the universe by chance?
The big bang theory simply states that the universe is expanding, therefore in the past, it must have been infinitely small. It cannot and does not explain the creation of the universe.
-
I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.
What do you identify as now, just for curiosity
I'm a Protestant.
-
I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.
What do you identify as now, just for curiosity
edit: I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any. Why should I believe in something without proof?
Or let's put it into more scientific terms. H0: There is no god. - disprove that
There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.
How so?
Because scientifically speaking, there had to be matter for the big bang to occur. Where did that matter come from?
1. How can theists insist that God is eternal, but that matter had to have come from somewhere?
2. Matter always existed. (link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) God is an unnecessary hypothesis.
The matter was just there? Nothing created it? It just formed the universe by chance?
The big bang theory simply states that the universe is expanding, therefore in the past, it must have been infinitely small. It cannot and does not explain the creation of the universe.
This is exactly what keeps me on the side of this line that I am on.
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
Woah, it looks like the actual science is advancing on this subject. See, that's the cool thing about science, they don't stop trying just because they reach a tough a spot.
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
Woah, it looks like the actual science is advancing on this subject. See, that's the cool thing about science, they don't stop trying just because they reach a tough a spot.
The not yet complete theory proposed in this article just raises more questions. In, fact in raises questions about another universe.
A particular problem is that of entropy. For the previous universe to have have collapsed, it's entropy would had to approach an absolute minimum. For our universe as we approach t=0 we approach infinite density and temperature at a finite point in time (yes, the article points this out). We have observed that our universe expanded from the infinite density and temperature to where we are today, and as the expansion continues entropy approaches a maximum limit. So basically entropy goes from 0 to positive infinity for our universe as we know it. If the proposed new theory is assuming that the previous universe is a somewhat backwards model of our universe, it still doesn't explain what happens at t=0 or t=infinity, it just shows that at that time the rules of the current model no longer apply.
Our current universe model will eventually become too cool to sustain life because it expands forever. So this gives us only a few options. 1) something we have no idea about happens at t=infinity in order to to reverse the process back toward the minimum of entropy. 2) the previous universe has completely different constraints (volume? mass? energy? limits of entropy?). 3) our current model is farther off then what we think. Either way this new theory just raises more questions ,could be good, could be bad.
The reason it could be bad is that our model may become skewed because we don't have enough info. And, we may never have enough info. For the theory of relativity to work light must travel at a finite rate. This means the light from things that have already happened an extremely long time ago may never reach us. Inflationary theory attempts to resolve this but by assuming that the bounds of the observable universe expand faster than the universe itself. We have not been able to verify this, and if inflationary theory is correct, it still means there is a limited range of the universe we can see.
It will be interesting to see how small or big of a step this proposed new theory actually is.
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
Woah, it looks like the actual science is advancing on this subject. See, that's the cool thing about science, they don't stop trying just because they reach a tough a spot.
Just out of curiosity, do you like to use Philosophy to look into this God discussion or are you strictly a science guy?
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
Woah, it looks like the actual science is advancing on this subject. See, that's the cool thing about science, they don't stop trying just because they reach a tough a spot.
Just out of curiosity, do you like to use Philosophy to look into this God discussion or are you strictly a science guy?
I do enjoy philosophy, but I would say that my own reasons for disbelief come from a scientific background, and I'm less familiar with all of the current philosophical arguments. Maybe that is something I need to remedy.
Edit: and I guess there is the philosophical aspect of how do we know things to be true, but yeah, I haven't really thought much about the philosophical arguments and looked into them as much. But then again, philosophy tends to just go round and round.
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
Woah, it looks like the actual science is advancing on this subject. See, that's the cool thing about science, they don't stop trying just because they reach a tough a spot.
The not yet complete theory proposed in this article just raises more questions. In, fact in raises questions about another universe.
A particular problem is that of entropy. For the previous universe to have have collapsed, it's entropy would had to approach an absolute minimum. For our universe as we approach t=0 we approach infinite density and temperature at a finite point in time (yes, the article points this out). We have observed that our universe expanded from the infinite density and temperature to where we are today, and as the expansion continues entropy approaches a maximum limit. So basically entropy goes from 0 to positive infinity for our universe as we know it. If the proposed new theory is assuming that the previous universe is a somewhat backwards model of our universe, it still doesn't explain what happens at t=0 or t=infinity, it just shows that at that time the rules of the current model no longer apply.
Our current universe model will eventually become too cool to sustain life because it expands forever. So this gives us only a few options. 1) something we have no idea about happens at t=infinity in order to to reverse the process back toward the minimum of entropy. 2) the previous universe has completely different constraints (volume? mass? energy? limits of entropy?). 3) our current model is farther off then what we think. Either way this new theory just raises more questions ,could be good, could be bad.
The reason it could be bad is that our model may become skewed because we don't have enough info. And, we may never have enough info. For the theory of relativity to work light must travel at a finite rate. This means the light from things that have already happened an extremely long time ago may never reach us. Inflationary theory attempts to resolve this but by assuming that the bounds of the observable universe expand faster than the universe itself. We have not been able to verify this, and if inflationary theory is correct, it still means there is a limited range of the universe we can see.
It will be interesting to see how small or big of a step this proposed new theory actually is.
Yeah, we may never pin it down to exactly what happened, but there are possible scientific explanations that don't require a god to exist.
-
I absolutely love science. love it.
trust me. I would actually prefer it be able to fully explain everything.
admittedly, I havent done much reading on this subject, however it just seems that everything that gets explained, now our eventually, will still leave the question "what about before that?", or, "and what initiated that?".
if there was a side to root for, in my mind, it would be science, however I just donny t think it will ever eliminate those types of questions.
-
edit: I asked for proof of god's existence earlier
You love.
-
I haven't really thought much about the philosophical arguments and looked into them as much.
You should.
-
I absolutely love science. love it.
trust me. I would actually prefer it be able to fully explain everything.
admittedly, I havent done much reading on this subject, however it just seems that everything that gets explained, now our eventually, will still leave the question "what about before that?", or, "and what initiated that?".
if there was a side to root for, in my mind, it would be science, however I just donny t think it will ever eliminate those types of questions.
No, it won't, but why does a god have to be the answer for what happened before everything. I don't think science should ever give up looking, but it will get harder and harder to explain things as we reach the edge of what we can discover, but there is no indication that anything needed a supernatural force to come into being. Why would God decide to make it look like He had no hand in it at all.
On that note, what happened before God? how did God come into being?
-
great point
-
I absolutely love science. love it.
trust me. I would actually prefer it be able to fully explain everything.
admittedly, I havent done much reading on this subject, however it just seems that everything that gets explained, now our eventually, will still leave the question "what about before that?", or, "and what initiated that?".
if there was a side to root for, in my mind, it would be science, however I just donny t think it will ever eliminate those types of questions.
No, it won't, but why does a god have to be the answer for what happened before everything. I don't think science should ever give up looking, but it will get harder and harder to explain things as we reach the edge of what we can discover, but there is no indication that anything needed a supernatural force to come into being. Why would God decide to make it look like He had no hand in it at all.
On that note, what happened before God? how did God come into being?
Must have been another God :runaway:
-
On that note, what happened before God? how did God come into being?
Welcome to philosophy!
I would posit that a God capable of creating this universe would transcend time and space. Of course the question remains...did something create him outside the boundaries of the Universe? I don't know....
-
On that note, what happened before God? how did God come into being?
Welcome to philosophy!
I would posit that a God capable of creating this universe would transcend time and space. Of course the question remains...did something create him outside the boundaries of the Universe? I don't know....
SMOKE MONSTER!
-
Why would God decide to make it look like He had no hand in it at all.
You're funny.
-
On that note, what happened before God? how did God come into being?
Welcome to philosophy!
I would posit that a God capable of creating this universe would transcend time and space. Of course the question remains...did something create him outside the boundaries of the Universe? I don't know....
How can something that exists outside the bounds of space and time affect the universe? Either God has to be involved in the stream of time as we experience it to actually influence our time or he is separate from it entirely, and therefore would be the Christian God. In order for god to create time, god would have to experience time.
In order for god to affect the universe, he would have to be part of the universe somehow. The same problem. Either God can be active in the universe and be the God of Christianity or god is separate from the universe and truly eternal and supernatural.
-
Why would God decide to make it look like He had no hand in it at all.
You're funny.
When you give me empirical evidence that amounts to more than just love, I'll accept it.
And we love because love has helped us to survive as a species. We also become aggressive because aggression has helped us to survive. Is aggression something that God created in humans as well.
-
Why would God decide to make it look like He had no hand in it at all.
You're funny.
When you give me empirical evidence that amounts to more than just love, I'll accept it.
And we love because love has helped us to survive as a species. We also become aggressive because aggression has helped us to survive. Is aggression something that God created in humans as well.
Subjecting yourself to the depravity that is life as a human and being tortured then hung on a cross to show your love. I would consider that to be aggressive. Your empirical evidence is an empty grave.
I love it when people try to make God's love this pretty pink valentine's day thing. It's not. It's gritty and raw. Despite all the gross things we do, He still loves us.
-
And we love because love has helped us to survive as a species. We also become aggressive because aggression has helped us to survive. Is aggression something that God created in humans as well.
I don't see why not. Aggression on it's own is not inherently bad. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose"
-
Why would God decide to make it look like He had no hand in it at all.
You're funny.
When you give me empirical evidence that amounts to more than just love, I'll accept it.
And we love because love has helped us to survive as a species. We also become aggressive because aggression has helped us to survive. Is aggression something that God created in humans as well.
Subjecting yourself to the depravity that is life as a human and being tortured then hung on a cross to show your love. I would consider that to be aggressive. Your empirical evidence is an empty grave.
I love it when people try to make God's love this pretty pink valentine's day thing. It's not. It's gritty and raw. Despite all the gross things we do, He still loves us.
I'm going to go ahead and revive this thread though I have left it alone for a bit. First of all, how would god even become human? God by all definitions resides outside of the bounds of nature and is not subject to it. It really is a stretch that god would give up his own godness to be able to inhabit a human body. It's a difficult issue to resolve well.
How is empirical evidence an empty grave? The very workings of the internet and computers are based on empirical evidence. Both relativity and quantum mechanics are not mentioned in the bible, yet they are supported by empirical evidence. Science and empirical evidence has advanced us as a species to the point where our average lifespan is way longer than it used to be. Did religion come up with antibiotics or explain why some bacteria become resistant. Did religion come up with the first vaccine? Can the bible explain how a nuclear power plant works? Or even why it works? Empirical evidence is the basis for how we live. If you don't agree with empiricism then maybe becoming Amish might suit you.
to add: does the bible tell us how gravity works or the planets revolve around the sun. It all comes down to people collecting data and trying to prove stuff right or wrong. When claims made in the bible are disproven, then claims fall back and become more ambiguous.
-
Why would God decide to make it look like He had no hand in it at all.
You're funny.
When you give me empirical evidence that amounts to more than just love, I'll accept it.
And we love because love has helped us to survive as a species. We also become aggressive because aggression has helped us to survive. Is aggression something that God created in humans as well.
Subjecting yourself to the depravity that is life as a human and being tortured then hung on a cross to show your love. I would consider that to be aggressive. Your empirical evidence is an empty grave.
I love it when people try to make God's love this pretty pink valentine's day thing. It's not. It's gritty and raw. Despite all the gross things we do, He still loves us.
I'm going to go ahead and revive this thread though I have left it alone for a bit. First of all, how would god even become human? God by all definitions resides outside of the bounds of nature and is not subject to it. It really is a stretch that god would give up his own godness to be able to inhabit a human body. It's a difficult issue to resolve well.
How does he do it? He's God.
How is empirical evidence an empty grave? The very workings of the internet and computers are based on empirical evidence. Both relativity and quantum mechanics are not mentioned in the bible, yet they are supported by empirical evidence. Science and empirical evidence has advanced us as a species to the point where our average lifespan is way longer than it used to be. Did religion come up with antibiotics or explain why some bacteria become resistant. Did religion come up with the first vaccine? Can the bible explain how a nuclear power plant works? Or even why it works? Empirical evidence is the basis for how we live. If you don't agree with empiricism then maybe becoming Amish might suit you.
to add: does the bible tell us how gravity works or the planets revolve around the sun. It all comes down to people collecting data and trying to prove stuff right or wrong. When claims made in the bible are disproven, then claims fall back and become more ambiguous.
You write like if you are a member of a religion you are anti-science. Not true at all. Science explains how God works. The Bible does not attempt to answer those questions (not the point of the book), so asking those questions is like asking if a cookbook tells you how install drywall.
-
How does he do it? He's God.
This is 99.4% of the reason it's impossible for me to believe in a deity.
The, "Well, duh, he's God," excuse is probably the most intellectually dishonest and devoid argument in the history of mankind.
-
How is it intellectually dishonest? I profess a belief in an omnipotent being with unlimited power. That means He can do anything He pleases. It's 100% consistent.
A lot more consistent than the concurrent scientific beliefs in biogenesis and lightning striking a pool of mud creating life.
-
Because instead of allowing for further thinking and exploration, it is just a way to end the conversation and I think it promotes ignorance. Why shouldn't you try to resolve that conflict or find someone that has.
I think the problem that I was proposing as far as the bible goes is that the bible does make specific claims about how the world was created, and a lot of people reject what science has discovered about those processes because it does not fit their notions and because it creates a pretty significant amount of cognitive dissonance. There are a lot of claims about how god intervenes in the world and creates miracles, yet, we can't truly ever study and verify that god intervenes in the world at all. There is no strong evidence for it. There are a lot of claims, there are a lot of "experiences", but there is no hard verifiable evidence. I would love to see some, and if a god exists, a god that cares anything about humans, a god that intervenes in our life, then I would expect that that god would like us enough to reveal himself while we are alive to really give us an option of following him or not. I shouldn't have to put my faith into a religious text that was written 2000 years ago and is not even consistent.
But yes, the bible makes a lot of claims, many of which we can't verify and others that have been proven wrong.
-
Where was He on 9/11/01? :runaway:
-
How is it intellectually dishonest? I profess a belief in an omnipotent being with unlimited power. That means He can do anything He pleases. It's 100% consistent.
A lot more consistent than the concurrent scientific beliefs in biogenesis and lightning striking a pool of mud creating life.
It's like some sort of cacty silly putty you buy on TV to fix something that's broken.
Need to plug that leaky faucet? Use magic putty. Need to glue that pipe back together? Use magic putty.
Can't seem to wrap your head around some sort of concept or care to think too deeply about it? Use God.
-
How is it intellectually dishonest? I profess a belief in an omnipotent being with unlimited power. That means He can do anything He pleases. It's 100% consistent.
A lot more consistent than the concurrent scientific beliefs in biogenesis and lightning striking a pool of mud creating life.
It's like some sort of cacty silly putty you buy on TV to fix something that's broken.
Need to plug that leaky faucet? Use magic putty. Need to glue that pipe back together? Use magic putty.
Can't seem to wrap your head around some sort of concept or care to think too deeply about it? Use God.
If you are intellectually honest, you can come to no other conclusion than that life can not spring from inanimate objects on its own.
Walk through the woods. Find an intricate pocketwatch lying there. I bet you think it got there that way naturally rather than someone dropping it there.
Science claims to be an open book looking for answers wherever they may be.
Except one.
-
How is it intellectually dishonest? I profess a belief in an omnipotent being with unlimited power. That means He can do anything He pleases. It's 100% consistent.
A lot more consistent than the concurrent scientific beliefs in biogenesis and lightning striking a pool of mud creating life.
It's like some sort of cacty silly putty you buy on TV to fix something that's broken.
Need to plug that leaky faucet? Use magic putty. Need to glue that pipe back together? Use magic putty.
Can't seem to wrap your head around some sort of concept or care to think too deeply about it? Use God.
If you are intellectually honest, you can come to no other conclusion than that life can not spring from inanimate objects on its own.
Walk through the woods. Find an intricate pocketwatch lying there. I bet you think it got there that way naturally rather than someone dropping it there.
Science claims to be an open book looking for answers wherever they may be.
Except one.
So let's take the easy way out and say some "god" put it there.
-
How is it intellectually dishonest? I profess a belief in an omnipotent being with unlimited power. That means He can do anything He pleases. It's 100% consistent.
A lot more consistent than the concurrent scientific beliefs in biogenesis and lightning striking a pool of mud creating life.
It's like some sort of cacty silly putty you buy on TV to fix something that's broken.
Need to plug that leaky faucet? Use magic putty. Need to glue that pipe back together? Use magic putty.
Can't seem to wrap your head around some sort of concept or care to think too deeply about it? Use God.
If you are intellectually honest, you can come to no other conclusion than that life can not spring from inanimate objects on its own.
Walk through the woods. Find an intricate pocketwatch lying there. I bet you think it got there that way naturally rather than someone dropping it there.
Science claims to be an open book looking for answers wherever they may be.
Except one.
Jesus Christ. You really just used "The Watchmaker" argument.
Next thing you know, you'll go all St. Thomas Aquinas on me and start pushing a chair all over the room and say, "Now, this chair doesn't move itself. It requires me to do it. Therefore, I move because God moves me."
Just because I don't know the exact origins of the universe doesn't mean the most acceptable and logical conclusion is an invisible man that sees all, knows all, and is the reason for all.
Again, it goes back to your example. If I see a watch laying in the woods, I'm thinking it was created by a magical leprechaun that cacs watches. Because, honestly, that's as valid as any creation story given by any religion in the history of man.
Can't figure out how the watch got there? cac. It had to be God.
Oh, wait, it was dropped there by a guy named Joe? Doesn't matter, God made Joe, so it was all His doing. Praise God.
Huh? Joe's mother and father had sex and that made Joe? Doesn't matter. God made Joe's parents, so it was all his doing. Praise God, etc.
That's the thing about 'God'. It's just moving the goalpost again and again because we find out some new fact. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Huh? Doesn't matter. You can't show me the rest of the universe. A telescope? Well, you can't tell me how the universe began. You can look back 13 billion years with the Hubble? Well, God's not a part of this space and time, so that doesn't matter...and on, and on, and on.
I mean, eff, where does it end? When you base your beliefs on a magical deity that doesn't exist in our plane of existence, you can make it do whatever you want. It's like a bad science fiction novel.
I really, really, really don't understand how anyone with a functioning brain can really believe in "God" unless they really have a fear of death. That's the only explanation I can come up with.
-
How is it intellectually dishonest? I profess a belief in an omnipotent being with unlimited power. That means He can do anything He pleases. It's 100% consistent.
A lot more consistent than the concurrent scientific beliefs in biogenesis and lightning striking a pool of mud creating life.
It's like some sort of cacty silly putty you buy on TV to fix something that's broken.
Need to plug that leaky faucet? Use magic putty. Need to glue that pipe back together? Use magic putty.
Can't seem to wrap your head around some sort of concept or care to think too deeply about it? Use God.
If you are intellectually honest, you can come to no other conclusion than that life can not spring from inanimate objects on its own.
Walk through the woods. Find an intricate pocketwatch lying there. I bet you think it got there that way naturally rather than someone dropping it there.
Science claims to be an open book looking for answers wherever they may be.
Except one.
Jesus Christ. You really just used "The Watchmaker" argument.
Next thing you know, you'll go all St. Thomas Aquinas on me and start pushing a chair all over the room and say, "Now, this chair doesn't move itself. It requires me to do it. Therefore, I move because God moves me."
Just because I don't know the exact origins of the universe doesn't mean the most acceptable and logical conclusion is an invisible man that sees all, knows all, and is the reason for all.
Again, it goes back to your example. If I see a watch laying in the woods, I'm thinking it was created by a magical leprechaun that cacs watches. Because, honestly, that's as valid as any creation story given by any religion in the history of man.
Can't figure out how the watch got there? cac. It had to be God.
Oh, wait, it was dropped there by a guy named Joe? Doesn't matter, God made Joe, so it was all His doing. Praise God.
Huh? Joe's mother and father had sex and that made Joe? Doesn't matter. God made Joe's parents, so it was all his doing. Praise God, etc.
That's the thing about 'God'. It's just moving the goalpost again and again because we find out some new fact. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Huh? Doesn't matter. You can't show me the rest of the universe. A telescope? Well, you can't tell me how the universe began. You can look back 13 billion years with the Hubble? Well, God's not a part of this space and time, so that doesn't matter...and on, and on, and on.
I mean, eff, where does it end? When you base your beliefs on a magical deity that doesn't exist in our plane of existence, you can make it do whatever you want. It's like a bad science fiction novel.
I really, really, really don't understand how anyone with a functioning brain can really believe in "God" unless they really have a fear of death. That's the only explanation I can come up with.
/thread
-
Where was He on 9/11/01? :runaway:
Why would God care about 9/11? In the grand scheme of things it's completely insignificant.
-
If you were absolutely confident about your thought processes and beliefs, you wouldn't be getting so upset about someone putting a counter argument forward.
-
I really, really, really don't understand how anyone with a functioning brain can really believe in "God" unless they really have a fear of death. That's the only explanation I can come up with.
I said the same thing when I was an atheist. There are plenty of people who are smarter than anyone on this board (which is saying something) who believe in God, and there are plenty of people who are smarter than anyone on this board who do not believe in God.
The smartest person I know, a math professor at K-State, claims to be agnostic. We've talked about creationism vs. evolution a lot, and he always says "it is stupid to call either side stupid. There is plenty of evidence for both sides that cannot be disproven by the other side, and to not acknowledge that is ignorant."
I think there is enough evidence for both sides that people can choose to believe whatever they want and be able to justify it to themselves.
-
The religous cycle, in my example, can be summarized into a period of events.
As a kid I went to Sunday school and church with Mom and sis. Looking back, I never understood why I was going, just that it was the thing to do with my family.
The day I doubted Christianity (maybe sometime in middle, early high school) was when I realized that there are other religions in the World that have followers just as devout. The conflict of relgious interest is kept hidden as long as possible from the youth in most Christian fellowships. From that day I was convinced that religion was a human invention. Especially the Bible. (A talking snake? c'mon.)
lastly,
When Sirr Parker scored, that's when I knew there was no GOD. The end.
-
HIS Grace is infinite if YOU choose to accept IT.
-
So, Honus is PW, right?
Welcome, bro.
-
If you were absolutely confident about your thought processes and beliefs, you wouldn't be getting so upset about someone putting a counter argument forward.
I'm not upset, and the watchmaker is not an argument. It's just bullshit.
-
I really, really, really don't understand how anyone with a functioning brain can really believe in "God" unless they really have a fear of death. That's the only explanation I can come up with.
I said the same thing when I was an atheist. There are plenty of people who are smarter than anyone on this board (which is saying something) who believe in God, and there are plenty of people who are smarter than anyone on this board who do not believe in God.
The smartest person I know, a math professor at K-State, claims to be agnostic. We've talked about creationism vs. evolution a lot, and he always says "it is stupid to call either side stupid. There is plenty of evidence for both sides that cannot be disproven by the other side, and to not acknowledge that is ignorant."
I think there is enough evidence for both sides that people can choose to believe whatever they want and be able to justify it to themselves.
The only evidence for a God is the fact that we can't explain how the universe was created.
We continually get closer and closer to figuring out what happened billions and billions of years ago, how our universe works and behaves, and that's only going to continue as technology continues to advance and give us tools to see more and more. Better telescopes let us see farther and farther into the past, and things like the LHSC will allow us to study matter in ways we couldn't have dreamed of years and years ago.
The problem is that no matter how far we go, or what new things we discover, we aren't able to see the big bang. Our known laws of physics break down when we talk about gravitational singularities. But to people who believe in "God", that's proof of his existence, when really, it's not proof that a God exists. It just proves that our species is still learning and growing to understand the universe it lives in.
Humanity has learned so much in the last one-hundred years that it's quite amazing when you look at the entire scope of our existence. Imagine what we'll learn in the next one-hundred.
It's my hope, that before I die, we live in a world that's essentially disproven God. I doubt that I'll see it, but it would give me hope for our species if we can break from our ancient mysticism and actually start tapping into human potential.
-
So, Honus is PW, right?
Welcome, bro.
PW would have used italics and color.
-
If you were absolutely confident about your thought processes and beliefs, you wouldn't be getting so upset about someone putting a counter argument forward.
I'm not upset, and the watchmaker is not an argument. It's just bullshit.
This proves it! :horrorsurprise:
-
I really, really, really don't understand how anyone with a functioning brain can really believe in "God" unless they really have a fear of death. That's the only explanation I can come up with.
I said the same thing when I was an atheist. There are plenty of people who are smarter than anyone on this board (which is saying something) who believe in God, and there are plenty of people who are smarter than anyone on this board who do not believe in God.
The smartest person I know, a math professor at K-State, claims to be agnostic. We've talked about creationism vs. evolution a lot, and he always says "it is stupid to call either side stupid. There is plenty of evidence for both sides that cannot be disproven by the other side, and to not acknowledge that is ignorant."
I think there is enough evidence for both sides that people can choose to believe whatever they want and be able to justify it to themselves.
Yep. I subscribe to this but have never been able to verbalize quite this well.
-
It's my hope, that before I die, we live in a world that's essentially disproven God. I doubt that I'll see it, but it would give me hope for our species if we can break from our ancient mysticism and actually start tapping into human potential.
It's not possible to disprove the existence of a God who exists outside the realm of our universe. Also, it's sort of an odd thing to wish for. If God was actually disproven, I don't think I would want to be around to witness the fallout.
-
It's my hope, that before I die, we live in a world that's essentially disproven God. I doubt that I'll see it, but it would give me hope for our species if we can break from our ancient mysticism and actually start tapping into human potential.
It's not possible to disprove the existence of a God who exists outside the realm of our universe. Also, it's sort of an odd thing to wish for. If God was actually disproven, I don't think I would want to be around to witness the fallout.
It's gotta happen at some point. :dunno:
And the first sentence proves the points I've been making in the last few posts.
-
It's my hope, that before I die, we live in a world that's essentially disproven God. I doubt that I'll see it, but it would give me hope for our species if we can break from our ancient mysticism and actually start tapping into human potential.
It's not possible to disprove the existence of a God who exists outside the realm of our universe. Also, it's sort of an odd thing to wish for. If God was actually disproven, I don't think I would want to be around to witness the fallout.
I think people will slowly start to come to their senses about religion. I'd be willing to bet there has been a steady increase in atheism over the last century, but won't look it up now since I have to work. In other words, it's more of a desensitization over a long time and hopefully that wouldn't lead to a global riot as you're implying. Hope not anyway.
-
If you were absolutely confident about your thought processes and beliefs, you wouldn't be getting so upset about someone putting a counter argument forward.
I'm not upset, and the watchmaker is not an argument. It's just bullcac.
This proves it! :horrorsurprise:
The watchmaker is a horrible argument because anything can be the watchmaker. It can be God, Joe, magical leprechauns, or whatever.
People believe that the universe is so intricate that it required a designer. Well, considering that we explain more and more of these intricacies with natural phenomena every day, it gets weaker and weaker all of the time. That doesn't even take into consideration that people believe the watchmaker is THEIR deity as opposed to someone else's. It may not be your Abrahamic god, but it could be the Hindu Gods, Ahura Mazda, Quetzalcoatl, Gaia and Uranus, etc.
The watchmaker is stupid because A) there is no way of telling who it could have been (negating the support for your particular belief structure), and B) because we're finding more and more plausible ways for us to explain how the watch got there in the first place.
This doesn't even begin to get into the fact that there were probably a ton of intermediary steps between now and how the watch got there in the first place, but for those who believe in religion, you're hard wired to believe that there was a cause and effect of God/Earth, God/Watch. You're skipping out on a whole story there where the watch was dropped by someone hiking in the woods, and that person received their watch from their uncle Dave, and he bought it from a jeweler in some other place, etc. Just because you don't know the previous chapter in the story doesn't mean that it didn't exist and the watch randomly formed by itself or was created by a God.
And then, to assume that the Earth is so intricate that it's like a watch is kind of dumb in and of itself. We literally have billions and trillions of examples of planets out there that show that these things randomly form all over the place. Just because the universe is so large and we can't "find" anyone else out there doesn't mean there isn't.
I could go on and on, but the watchmaker is something you hear in most basic philosophy 101 classes that's picked apart and destroyed as bad logic.
-
You're proving my point, you know. :users:
-
:facepalm:
-
You're proving my point, you know. :users:
I'm really not. You're proving mine.
-
wut
-
I'll reserve judgment until I see how much God donates.
-
can we just lock this thread already?
-
Atheism, Agnosticism, Non-Believer is now the third largest belief system
-
religious nuts from 1000 years ago would want to lock this thread.Religion is not debateable, keep the knowledge from the people, promote ignorance.
Back to the dark ages!
-
religious nuts from 1000 years ago would want to lock this thread.Religion is not debateable, keep the knowledge from the people, promote ignorance.
Back to the dark ages!
Yeah, well 1000 years ago, Catholicism was very similar to radical Islam.
-
You're proving my point, you know. :users:
I'm really not. You're proving mine.
You're my yarn.
"meow"
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clipartguide.com%2F_named_clipart_images%2F0511-1008-1113-2635_Playful_cat_playing_with_a_ball_of_yarn_clipart_image.jpg&hash=0cedb18b9dbf714159e0a2f198f42785e9708386)
-
First off, The "watchmaker" argument ----> :flush: Okay, anyways...
religious nuts from 1000 years ago would want to lock this thread.Religion is not debateable, keep the knowledge from the people, promote ignorance.
Yeah, well 1000 years ago, Catholicism was very similar to radical Islam.
It is easy to be critical about religion keeping people ignorant, committing atrocities, propagating superstition, and manipulating the masses. Every single one of these things has happened.
However, that says nothing about whether or whether not God exists. Religion is an entirely human creation, acting as an intermediary between Deity and man. Subjective experiences with God can lead to all sorts of crazy interpretations, philosophies, dogmas, and actions.
But deep down in the human heart, there is a Desire to commune with the Infinite. It is innate, whether or whether or not you think it is. How can it be innate? There are tons of people who don't believe. Even the atheist and the agnostic have at least asked themselves these important questions about God and Life, and have come to their own conclusion.
Some forms of religion promote ignorance. However, others including even Catholicism, ask their practitioners to go deeper in to Reality and experience it on a non-materialistic, an intuitive, inner, supernatural level.
Religion has been around since man first made cave drawings or tried to worship the sky, stars, animals or plants. We are the only primates, and animals on the planet, capable of thinking abstractly. Why hold in condemnation another's abstraction, or their Reality as they see it? Don't you have one yourself which you cling to?
The Catholic Church has accumulated some huge karmic challenges over its storied and controversial history, but I have confidence these things will work themselves out. From my personal experience, I have worked with Catholic Charities on the front lines of homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, crime, and prostitution infested areas. To describe the work they do as commendable, inspirational, and unselfishly Loving would not do justice to these wonderful souls.
If taking shots at them makes you feel better, go ahead, they can take it.
But I must ask.. What are you doing for your fellow man, righteously indignant secular humanist?
As much as you want to intellectualize your patchwork materialistic morality, as a whole, you fall incredibly short of the religious.
Sure, you can claim religion "has done more harm," but if you want to blind yourself to its good, then perhaps you are the one steeped in "ignorance."
-
Anyone wanting either God or science to be completely done away with is either extremely driven by their world view or not well educated on those matters, or both.
-
Anyone wanting either God or science to be completely done away with is either extremely driven by their world view or not well educated on those matters, or both.
I've taken a lot of time to study all kinds of mythology and mysticism (it's a hobby of mine). But I judge it on what it is: mythology.
So, if that makes me driven in my world view, fine. So be it. I consider it to be more of ripping the band aid off quickly as opposed to dragging it out, but you can view it however you so choose.
-
really surprised how many people are going to the mat over this topic in a message board
-
Anyone wanting either God or science to be completely done away with is either extremely driven by their world view or not well educated on those matters, or both.
I've taken a lot of time to study all kinds of mythology and mysticism (it's a hobby of mine). But I judge it on what it is: mythology.
So, if that makes me driven in my world view, fine. So be it. I consider it to be more of ripping the band aid off quickly as opposed to dragging it out, but you can view it however you so choose.
So it is your opinion that religion should be done away with completely?
-
Anyone wanting either God or science to be completely done away with is either extremely driven by their world view or not well educated on those matters, or both.
I've taken a lot of time to study all kinds of mythology and mysticism (it's a hobby of mine). But I judge it on what it is: mythology.
So, if that makes me driven in my world view, fine. So be it. I consider it to be more of ripping the band aid off quickly as opposed to dragging it out, but you can view it however you so choose.
So it is your opinion that religion should be done away with completely?
Yes, I wish for that.
A little, extreme, I know, but it's how I feel, right or wrong.
-
Must be a sad life to think of oneself as nothing more than a machine limited simply to chemical and physical machinations responding only to base stimuli. In that case, life if completely preordained as one stimulation will always lead to a result. No point to anything.
-
Must be a sad life to think of oneself as nothing more than a machine limited simply to chemical and physical machinations responding only to base stimuli. In that case, life if completely preordained as one stimulation will always lead to a result. No point to anything.
It is possible to absolutely love the beauty of life (which includes people being nice and stuff) without believing in a god.
-
Another example of why to hate organized relig:
Family friend has a family member who is gay and getting married. Entire side of the family has openly said that they will not participate in the wedding or this person's life anymore. This person's grandmother wrote her hate mail. Like, long, detailed, drawn out hate mail.
Imagine that. Growing up in a loving, what you thought to be, decent family. Declaring what you are and being left alone simply because of your sexual orientation.
If you are a parent, do you think you could do this to your kid? Could you imagine your grandmother sending you a hate mail send off letter and you parents doing nothing?
These people's religion has made them destroy/turn against the most pure thing there is in life, their relationship with their child.
Here is a thought for those that believe in organized relig: Maybe you are caught up in your devil's snare. Maybe your devil has created organized relig to separate, segragate, and increase hatred. Seems like it does as much of this as anything else.
The above example is the second time in the last year that someone my family is close with has experience this. I imagine it is not all that uncommon.
I honestly cannot imagine a situation that is more sad and more brutal on a human level.
Org religion rough ridin' disgusts me.
-
Another example of why to hate organized relig:
Family friend has a family member who is gay and getting married. Entire side of the family has openly said that they will not participate in the wedding or this person's life anymore. This person's grandmother wrote her hate mail. Like, long, detailed, drawn out hate mail.
Imagine that. Growing up in a loving, what you thought to be, decent family. Declaring what you are and being left alone simply because of your sexual orientation.
If you are a parent, do you think you could do this to your kid? Could you imagine your grandmother sending you a hate mail send off letter and you parents doing nothing?
These people's religion has made them destroy/turn against the most pure thing there is in life, their relationship with their child.
Here is a thought for those that believe in organized relig: Maybe you are caught up in your devil's snare. Maybe your devil has created organized relig to separate, segragate, and increase hatred. Seems like it does as much of this as anything else.
The above example is the second time in the last year that someone my family is close with has experience this. I imagine it is not all that uncommon.
I honestly cannot imagine a situation that is more sad and more brutal on a human level.
Org religion rough ridin' disgusts me.
You don't have to be religious to be homophobic/racist.
-
Another example of why to hate organized relig:
Family friend has a family member who is gay and getting married. Entire side of the family has openly said that they will not participate in the wedding or this person's life anymore. This person's grandmother wrote her hate mail. Like, long, detailed, drawn out hate mail.
Imagine that. Growing up in a loving, what you thought to be, decent family. Declaring what you are and being left alone simply because of your sexual orientation.
If you are a parent, do you think you could do this to your kid? Could you imagine your grandmother sending you a hate mail send off letter and you parents doing nothing?
These people's religion has made them destroy/turn against the most pure thing there is in life, their relationship with their child.
Here is a thought for those that believe in organized relig: Maybe you are caught up in your devil's snare. Maybe your devil has created organized relig to separate, segragate, and increase hatred. Seems like it does as much of this as anything else.
The above example is the second time in the last year that someone my family is close with has experience this. I imagine it is not all that uncommon.
I honestly cannot imagine a situation that is more sad and more brutal on a human level.
Org religion rough ridin' disgusts me.
You don't have to be religious to be homophobic/racist.
Correct, but this was the reason. Not working off a hypo here. This is what actually happened. Relig family. Gay daughter. Now she is no longer considered part of the family.
Human beings will always have the ability to hate and will always do so for silly reasons. Organized religion tells them to do so. Maybe not directly, but it is certainly a by product. Again, this is no where near an isolated example.
Again, Grandma sent her a "go eff yourself, hater" letter.
-
Another example of why to hate organized relig:
Family friend has a family member who is gay and getting married. Entire side of the family has openly said that they will not participate in the wedding or this person's life anymore. This person's grandmother wrote her hate mail. Like, long, detailed, drawn out hate mail.
Imagine that. Growing up in a loving, what you thought to be, decent family. Declaring what you are and being left alone simply because of your sexual orientation.
If you are a parent, do you think you could do this to your kid? Could you imagine your grandmother sending you a hate mail send off letter and you parents doing nothing?
These people's religion has made them destroy/turn against the most pure thing there is in life, their relationship with their child.
Here is a thought for those that believe in organized relig: Maybe you are caught up in your devil's snare. Maybe your devil has created organized relig to separate, segragate, and increase hatred. Seems like it does as much of this as anything else.
The above example is the second time in the last year that someone my family is close with has experience this. I imagine it is not all that uncommon.
I honestly cannot imagine a situation that is more sad and more brutal on a human level.
Org religion rough ridin' disgusts me.
You don't have to be religious to be homophobic/racist.
Correct, but this was the reason. Not working off a hypo here. This is what actually happened. Relig family. Gay daughter. Now she is no longer considered part of the family.
Human beings will always have the ability to hate and will always do so for silly reasons. Organized religion tells them to do so. Maybe not directly, but it is certainly a by product. Again, this is no where near an isolated example.
Again, Grandma sent her a "go eff yourself, hater" letter.
I'm sure that was their excuse, but I've met plenty of people who would have a similar response who really aren't religious. Some people just really don't like gays, and I doubt the family's response would have been much different if they were atheist.
eff that family, either way, though.
-
Another example of why to hate organized relig:
Family friend has a family member who is gay and getting married. Entire side of the family has openly said that they will not participate in the wedding or this person's life anymore. This person's grandmother wrote her hate mail. Like, long, detailed, drawn out hate mail.
Imagine that. Growing up in a loving, what you thought to be, decent family. Declaring what you are and being left alone simply because of your sexual orientation.
If you are a parent, do you think you could do this to your kid? Could you imagine your grandmother sending you a hate mail send off letter and you parents doing nothing?
These people's religion has made them destroy/turn against the most pure thing there is in life, their relationship with their child.
Here is a thought for those that believe in organized relig: Maybe you are caught up in your devil's snare. Maybe your devil has created organized relig to separate, segragate, and increase hatred. Seems like it does as much of this as anything else.
The above example is the second time in the last year that someone my family is close with has experience this. I imagine it is not all that uncommon.
I honestly cannot imagine a situation that is more sad and more brutal on a human level.
Org religion rough ridin' disgusts me.
You don't have to be religious to be homophobic/racist.
Correct, but this was the reason. Not working off a hypo here. This is what actually happened. Relig family. Gay daughter. Now she is no longer considered part of the family.
Human beings will always have the ability to hate and will always do so for silly reasons. Organized religion tells them to do so. Maybe not directly, but it is certainly a by product. Again, this is no where near an isolated example.
Again, Grandma sent her a "go eff yourself, hater" letter.
I'm sure that was their excuse, but I've met plenty of people who would have a similar response who really aren't religious. Some people just really don't like gays, and I doubt the family's response would have been much different if they were atheist.
eff that family, either way, though.
I agree that it could have happened at some level, but don't buy the complete family doing so. Could see if it was just the grandma, or just the dad, or something like that, but it was her entire family. Uncles, Grandma, dad, bro, etc.
All deeply religious. All no longer acknowledging her existence. All in the name of their god and his teachings.
-
It is possible to absolutely love the beauty of life (which includes people being nice and stuff) without believing in a god.
But you would have to believe in something. You would have to admit that there is not nothing.
If there's nothing. There's no beauty.
So, you do admit to something. We could even say that the something is beauty.
But why?
-
Another example of why to hate organized relig:
Family friend has a family member who is gay and getting married. Entire side of the family has openly said that they will not participate in the wedding or this person's life anymore. This person's grandmother wrote her hate mail. Like, long, detailed, drawn out hate mail.
Imagine that. Growing up in a loving, what you thought to be, decent family. Declaring what you are and being left alone simply because of your sexual orientation.
If you are a parent, do you think you could do this to your kid? Could you imagine your grandmother sending you a hate mail send off letter and you parents doing nothing?
These people's religion has made them destroy/turn against the most pure thing there is in life, their relationship with their child.
Here is a thought for those that believe in organized relig: Maybe you are caught up in your devil's snare. Maybe your devil has created organized relig to separate, segragate, and increase hatred. Seems like it does as much of this as anything else.
The above example is the second time in the last year that someone my family is close with has experience this. I imagine it is not all that uncommon.
I honestly cannot imagine a situation that is more sad and more brutal on a human level.
Org religion rough ridin' disgusts me.
You don't have to be religious to be homophobic/racist.
Correct, but this was the reason. Not working off a hypo here. This is what actually happened. Relig family. Gay daughter. Now she is no longer considered part of the family.
Human beings will always have the ability to hate and will always do so for silly reasons. Organized religion tells them to do so. Maybe not directly, but it is certainly a by product. Again, this is no where near an isolated example.
Again, Grandma sent her a "go eff yourself, hater" letter.
I'm sure that was their excuse, but I've met plenty of people who would have a similar response who really aren't religious. Some people just really don't like gays, and I doubt the family's response would have been much different if they were atheist.
eff that family, either way, though.
Yes, they are simply assholes. Religion or not.
-
I love looking at clouds. I really can't get enough of them. They are so amazing. The sky, in general, is amazing. The way the light of the sun hits them, fills them, paints them depending on the time of day...it, literally, takes the breath from my lungs.
Does anyone want to go outside around 7:30 and look around? It will be fun.
-
It is possible to absolutely love the beauty of life (which includes people being nice and stuff) without believing in a god.
But you would have to believe in something. You would have to admit that there is not nothing.
If there's nothing. There's no beauty.
So, you do admit to something. We could even say that the something is beauty.
Perhaps, but that is not the same as believing in a god.
-
It is possible to absolutely love the beauty of life (which includes people being nice and stuff) without believing in a god.
But you would have to believe in something. You would have to admit that there is not nothing.
If there's nothing. There's no beauty.
So, you do admit to something. We could even say that the something is beauty.
Perhaps, but that is not the same as believing in a god.
Not "perhaps". True.
And you left out the most important part of my quote.
-
Extremely intelligent people (non-apes), who don't believe in God, spend their entire lives trying to figure out why we live, or how to live.
Why?
Why must they be authenticated?
-
Extremely intelligent people (non-apes), who don't believe in God, spend their entire lives trying to figure out why we live, or how to live.
Why?
Why must they be authenticated?
Simple, because they like finding answers. Intelligent people get that way by being inquisitive.
Has nothing to do with relig.
-
Extremely intelligent people (non-apes), who don't believe in God, spend their entire lives trying to figure out why we live, or how to live.
Why?
Why must they be authenticated?
I don't feel that need.
-
Extremely intelligent people (non-apes), who don't believe in God, spend their entire lives trying to figure out why we live, or how to live.
Why?
Why must they be authenticated?
I don't feel that need.
Perhaps it had never occurred to you. Many haven't thought about it. Too busy watching TV or looking for men/women or something.
But everyone feels it. They may not know how to define it, however. But they feel it.
-
Why do religous people feel that there must be a void or a need for validation among non-religous individuals. I do not spend time trying to figure out the how or the why beyond what is readily apparent.
I live because of sexual recreation experienced by mammals and will die as all life does. The world will go on just as it did before. :cheers:
p.s. i feel pretty authentic
-
Must be a sad life to think of oneself as nothing more than a machine limited simply to chemical and physical machinations responding only to base stimuli. In that case, life if completely preordained as one stimulation will always lead to a result. No point to anything.
:flush:
-
Why do religous people feel that there must be a void or a need for validation among non-religous individuals. I do not spend time trying to figure out the how or the why beyond what is readily apparent.
Because most religious people have felt a void or a need for validation when they were non-religious.
-
Must be a sad life to think of oneself as nothing more than a machine limited simply to chemical and physical machinations responding only to base stimuli. In that case, life if completely preordained as one stimulation will always lead to a result. No point to anything.
:flush:
You had no choice but to do that. You only responded to the stimulation of my post.
-
Another example of why to hate organized relig:
Family friend has a family member who is gay and getting married. Entire side of the family has openly said that they will not participate in the wedding or this person's life anymore. This person's grandmother wrote her hate mail. Like, long, detailed, drawn out hate mail.
Imagine that. Growing up in a loving, what you thought to be, decent family. Declaring what you are and being left alone simply because of your sexual orientation.
If you are a parent, do you think you could do this to your kid? Could you imagine your grandmother sending you a hate mail send off letter and you parents doing nothing?
These people's religion has made them destroy/turn against the most pure thing there is in life, their relationship with their child.
Here is a thought for those that believe in organized relig: Maybe you are caught up in your devil's snare. Maybe your devil has created organized relig to separate, segragate, and increase hatred. Seems like it does as much of this as anything else.
The above example is the second time in the last year that someone my family is close with has experience this. I imagine it is not all that uncommon.
I honestly cannot imagine a situation that is more sad and more brutal on a human level.
Org religion rough ridin' disgusts me.
You don't have to be religious to be homophobic/racist.
Certainly helps, though.
-
You don't have to be religious to be homophobic/racist.
Certainly helps, though.
How are you any better? Judging people en masse without knowing them?
-
You don't have to be religious to be homophobic/racist.
Certainly helps, though.
How are you any better? Judging people en masse without knowing them?
I personally don't know of one person that has had their entire family turn their back on them in a hateful manner based on any life choice that isn't based on religious interpretations.
Based on my personal experiences, religion sure seems to be the catalyst.
-
You don't have to be religious to be homophobic/racist.
Certainly helps, though.
How are you any better? Judging people en masse without knowing them?
Duh, i'm not homophobic and/or racist.
-
I personally don't know of one person that has had their entire family turn their back on them in a hateful manner based on any life choice that isn't based on religious interpretations.
Based on my personal experiences, religion sure seems to be the catalyst.
Because Rejection of Interracial marriage is based on biblical teachings.
Because people turning their backs on someone in their family who chooses to use drugs on the reg is based on biblical teachings.
Yeah, right.
-
I personally don't know of one person that has had their entire family turn their back on them in a hateful manner based on any life choice that isn't based on religious interpretations.
Based on my personal experiences, religion sure seems to be the catalyst.
Because Rejection of Interracial marriage is based on biblical teachings.
Because people turning their backs on someone in their family who chooses to use drugs on the reg is based on biblical teachings.
Yeah, right.
I do personally know strongly religious people who don't consider their sister-in-law a person because she is gay.
I do not personally know any family who has completely shunned their daughter/son due to drug use.
So, yeah.
I also know of a local church who loved their pastor until they found out that he was gay. He was immediately removed.
So, yeah.
-
I do personally know strongly religious people who don't consider their sister-in-law a person because she is gay.
I do not personally know any family who has completely shunned their daughter/son due to drug use.
So, yeah.
Really bra?
You are going to judge religion...the entire thing, encompassing multiple different religions based on the very limited things that you have PERSONALLY seen? Wow. Well, it should come as no surprise that I've never personally known anyone who's family doesn't consider them a "person" because they're gay. I know people who've broken off relations with a family member because of their dependence on drugs.
Does this suddenly negate everything you just said...
Yeah, bra, yeah.
-
I do personally know strongly religious people who don't consider their sister-in-law a person because she is gay.
I do not personally know any family who has completely shunned their daughter/son due to drug use.
So, yeah.
Really bra?
You are going to judge religion...the entire thing, encompassing multiple different religions based on the very limited things that you have PERSONALLY seen? Wow. Well, it should come as no surprise that I've never personally known anyone who's family doesn't consider them a "person" because they're gay. I know people who've broken off relations with a family member because of their dependence on drugs.
Does this suddenly negate everything you just said...
Yeah, bra, yeah.
Religion isn't the only thing out there causing hate. Read above posts. Just the most wide spread thing out there causing hate.
Also, being gay and being a meth head are not even close to the same discussion.
-
Recreational drugs are a life choice....
Religion isn't the only thing out there causing hate. Read above posts. Just the most wide spread thing out there causing hate.
Patriotism, Nationalism, Loyalty, etc. All these things cause a lot of hate. I can take a lot of pride in my City, Tribe, Country, etc....doesn't make it a bad thing at all. In fact I want to be around people who take pride in things...however they also lead to hate of others. Religion can be the same. The point is not to do that though.
-
A religious individual does not have to be homophobic to shun a homosexual individual, be they family or not.
If God appeared before you today and said that homosexuality was immoral behavior, you wouldn't have to suddenly despise gay people. You could simply recognize that their behavior is ultimately wrong and immoral. That doesn't require hate or fear, that requires a moral judgement of behavior.
But since we've all become more than comfortable assuming each others 'true' motivations, the 'religion is homophobic/hateful' narrative has taken full force for a cop-out answer and guaranteed emotional reaction.
-
Haven't done a lot of research myself, but from my limited understanding and what I've heard from people who have researched them, Buddhism and Hinduism sound like pretty badass organized religions. :dunno: Gun to my head, I'd prolly pick one of those.
Gun to my head, mind you.
-
Haven't done a lot of research myself, but from my limited understanding and what I've heard from people who have researched them, Buddhism and Hinduism sound like pretty badass organized religions. :dunno: Gun to my head, I'd prolly pick one of those.
Gun to my head, mind you.
If a gun were to you're head, it would probably be atheism or islam you would pick.
Just sayin'.
-
cause atheists and muslims regularly convert at gun point?
:opcat:
-
Haven't done a lot of research myself, but from my limited understanding and what I've heard from people who have researched them, Buddhism and Hinduism sound like pretty badass organized religions. :dunno: Gun to my head, I'd prolly pick one of those.
Gun to my head, mind you.
If a gun were to you're head, it would probably be atheism or islam you would pick.
Just sayin'.
atheism isn't a religion :ck:
-
Haven't done a lot of research myself, but from my limited understanding and what I've heard from people who have researched them, Buddhism and Hinduism sound like pretty badass organized religions. :dunno: Gun to my head, I'd prolly pick one of those.
Gun to my head, mind you.
If a gun were to you're head, it would probably be atheism or islam you would pick.
Just sayin'.
atheism isn't a religion :ck:
In today's world, it clearly is. Organization, indoctrination, prostleitization, etc.
-
Haven't done a lot of research myself, but from my limited understanding and what I've heard from people who have researched them, Buddhism and Hinduism sound like pretty badass organized religions. :dunno: Gun to my head, I'd prolly pick one of those.
Gun to my head, mind you.
If a gun were to you're head, it would probably be atheism or islam you would pick.
Just sayin'.
atheism isn't a religion :ck:
In today's world, it clearly is. Organization, indoctrination, prostleitization, etc.
No. Atheism is pretty much this = (https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fimages%2Fdidnotread.gif&hash=77489ac93b632b972d08f1409885e591ed89a913)
-
Haven't done a lot of research myself, but from my limited understanding and what I've heard from people who have researched them, Buddhism and Hinduism sound like pretty badass organized religions. :dunno: Gun to my head, I'd prolly pick one of those.
Gun to my head, mind you.
If a gun were to you're head, it would probably be atheism or islam you would pick.
Just sayin'.
Please name the last few famous murderers/criminals that committed their respective crimes/murders in the name of atheism. tia. :popcorn:
-
Haven't done a lot of research myself, but from my limited understanding and what I've heard from people who have researched them, Buddhism and Hinduism sound like pretty badass organized religions. :dunno: Gun to my head, I'd prolly pick one of those.
Gun to my head, mind you.
If a gun were to you're head, it would probably be atheism or islam you would pick.
Just sayin'.
Please name the last few famous murderers/criminals that committed their respective crimes/murders in the name of atheism. tia. :popcorn:
sigh, you he's going to name mao and stalin. and probably hitler too.
never before have i seen both sides of an argument be so rough ridin' terrible at making a point
-
The fact that so many possibilities remain leaves all conclusions incorrect and impossible...except for the conclusion that there is no conclusion.
-
I agree this thread has probably run it's course. :users:
-
The fact that so many possibilities remain leaves all conclusions incorrect and impossible...except for the conclusion that there is no conclusion.
Yeah... no.
The fact that so many possibilities remain is just further evidence that its a tough question.
-
Haven't done a lot of research myself, but from my limited understanding and what I've heard from people who have researched them, Buddhism and Hinduism sound like pretty badass organized religions. :dunno: Gun to my head, I'd prolly pick one of those.
Gun to my head, mind you.
If a gun were to you're head, it would probably be atheism or islam you would pick.
Just sayin'.
atheism isn't a religion :ck:
In today's world, it clearly is. Organization, indoctrination, prostleitization, etc.
:flush:
-
It's a worldview. It just doesn't have a pope other than Jesus H. Dawkins.
-
It's a worldview. It just doesn't have a pope other than Jesus H. Dawkins.
I don't know. Maybe.
Is not believing in Santa Claus a world view? If so, then yes, it's a world view.
-
Is not believing in Santa Claus a world view? If so, then yes, it's a world view.
Not believing in Santa Clause does not drastically change your perspective on anything really. I didn't realize that Santa dictated what good and bad were, other than you shouldn't do bad. I didn't realize that Santa claimed creation over the world. I didn't realize Santa did much of anything other than deliver presents.
Bad comparison.
-
A religious individual does not have to be homophobic to shun a homosexual individual, be they family or not.
If God appeared before you today and said that homosexuality was immoral behavior, you wouldn't have to suddenly despise gay people. You could simply recognize that their behavior is ultimately wrong and immoral. That doesn't require hate or fear, that requires a moral judgement of behavior.
No, I'd think God was a total Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Who cares if a man likes to stick his dick in another man's ass, or a woman likes to lick another woman's pussy? How is that wrong or immoral?
And please don't say, "Because the Bible HURRR DURRRRR"
-
A religious individual does not have to be homophobic to shun a homosexual individual, be they family or not.
If God appeared before you today and said that homosexuality was immoral behavior, you wouldn't have to suddenly despise gay people. You could simply recognize that their behavior is ultimately wrong and immoral. That doesn't require hate or fear, that requires a moral judgement of behavior.
No, I'd think God was a total Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Who cares if a man likes to stick his dick in another man's ass, or a woman likes to lick another woman's pussy? How is that wrong or immoral?
And please don't say, "Because the Bible HURRR DURRRRR"
Maybe God said "Hey, whoa there boys! Those parts were not designed to be used in that way! I know they sort of fit together and kind of get the job done, but using them in that manner voids your limited lifetime warranty."
-
A religious individual does not have to be homophobic to shun a homosexual individual, be they family or not.
If God appeared before you today and said that homosexuality was immoral behavior, you wouldn't have to suddenly despise gay people. You could simply recognize that their behavior is ultimately wrong and immoral. That doesn't require hate or fear, that requires a moral judgement of behavior.
No, I'd think God was a total Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
So you were created in God's image then. :grin:
-
<---- Wonders why Athiesm vs. Theism always ends up with the "butt effing" discussion. It always comes back to gayness, and people not accepting said gayness.... Jesus, who really cares?
For the atheist, who cares if religious people don't accept gays? What does it matter? Must everyone agree with you?
There are plenty of religions/denominations that do. Some groups not accepting the queerz is not a basis for wholesale condemnation.
-
For the atheist, who cares if religious people don't accept gays? What does it matter? Must everyone agree with you?
"Don't accept" is a pretty broad strawman. Personally, I have a problem with gays not having equal rights as straight people, based solely on their gayness, like I would any other group of people that is not harming others. I imagine this is how many atheists feel, as well.
-
For the atheist, who cares if religious people don't accept gays? What does it matter? Must everyone agree with you?
"Don't accept" is a pretty broad strawman. Personally, I have a problem with gays not having equal rights as straight people, based solely on their gayness, like I would any other group of people that is not harming others. I imagine this is how many atheists feel, as well.
I imagine you experience some form of revulsion at the idea of polygamy and/or incest.
-
For the atheist, who cares if religious people don't accept gays? What does it matter? Must everyone agree with you?
"Don't accept" is a pretty broad strawman. Personally, I have a problem with gays not having equal rights as straight people, based solely on their gayness, like I would any other group of people that is not harming others. I imagine this is how many atheists feel, as well.
They have equal rights as everyone else, and in some cases, extra "rights". We've been over this.
-
For the atheist, who cares if religious people don't accept gays? What does it matter? Must everyone agree with you?
"Don't accept" is a pretty broad strawman. Personally, I have a problem with gays not having equal rights as straight people, based solely on their gayness, like I would any other group of people that is not harming others. I imagine this is how many atheists feel, as well.
I imagine you experience some form of revulsion at the idea of polygamy and/or incest.
Again, that's a strawman. I have experienced revulsion at the 2 girls 1 cup video, but I don't think they should be stripped of any rights the average American enjoyed. Similarly, I don't think polygamy or incest should be illegal as long as they occur among consenting adults, (although I have not researched the possibility of birth defects from incest to speak intelligently on that matter).
Regardless, I definitely am not in favor of stripping participants of those practices their basic human rights.
They have equal rights as everyone else, and in some cases, extra "rights". We've been over this.
no, they don't.
-
what rights are we talking about exactly? Legally married and health insurance benefits etc?
-
For the atheist, who cares if religious people don't accept gays? What does it matter? Must everyone agree with you?
"Don't accept" is a pretty broad strawman. Personally, I have a problem with gays not having equal rights as straight people, based solely on their gayness, like I would any other group of people that is not harming others. I imagine this is how many atheists feel, as well.
This. Gays aren't hurting anyone, but religious people have long been hurting gays by discriminating against them, passing "defense of marriage" laws, barring them from military service, passing anti-sodomy laws, barring them from the Boy Scouts, disowning them from their families, beating them up, killing them, etc. Attitudes and laws are rapidly changing, thankfully, to the horror of religious conservatives. They're getting beat silly in the culture wars.
Make no mistake that religious conservatives are the main culprits. In a Oct. 6, 2010 Pew survey (http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Support-For-Same-Sex-Marriage-Edges-Upward.aspx#catholics) of Americans:
20% of white evangelical Protestants supported gay marriage; 74% opposed it.
31% of all Protestants supported it; 59% opposed it.
46% of Catholics supported it; 42% opposed it. Catholics are coming around, but 42% of Catholics is still a huge number of people.
62% of "unaffiliated" people supported it; 28% opposed it.
76% of Jews supported it, 18% opposed it. Bravo, Jews!
80% of atheists/agnostics supported it; 16% opposed it.
This meshes with my own experience. Most of my friends are non-believers, and none of them have a problem with gays.
-
Again, that's a strawman. I have experienced revulsion at the 2 girls 1 cup video, but I don't think they should be stripped of any rights the average American enjoyed. Similarly, I don't think polygamy or incest should be illegal as long as they occur among consenting adults
So why not speak out in favor of those rights?
, (although I have not researched the possibility of birth defects from incest to speak intelligently on that matter).
Meh, abortions man. Abortions.
Regardless, I definitely am not in favor of stripping participants of those practices their basic human rights.
Where do these most basic of human rights come from?
-
this is where the kahn starts to argue that if gays get rights, then kiddie rapists and animal fuckers should, too.....except that argument isn't valid, because we're talking about a relationship between two consenting adults.
-
this is where the kahn starts to argue that if gays get rights, then kiddie rapists and animal effers should, too.....except that argument isn't valid, because we're talking about a relationship between two consenting adults.
Why does it have to be two?
-
this is where the kahn starts to argue that if gays get rights, then kiddie rapists and animal fuckers should, too.....except that argument isn't valid, because we're talking about a relationship between two consenting adults.
Nonsense, it's not at all where I'm going, but I appreciate the thought.
We all agree that those people shouldn't get rights to do what they want.
However, comparable groups are incestuous relationships (two consenting adults) or polygamists (multiple consenting adults) who do not have the right to love whomever they want. You can shoot down the other sicko groups you've mentioned with ease, but can you do the same for the groups I brought up, or are you prepared to wave their flags too?
-
this is where the kahn starts to argue that if gays get rights, then kiddie rapists and animal effers should, too.....except that argument isn't valid, because we're talking about a relationship between two consenting adults.
Why does it have to be two?
:ck: i didn't say it had to be. i don't care if 10 people want to shack up and have some sort of group marriage. doesn't effect me.
-
this is where the kahn starts to argue that if gays get rights, then kiddie rapists and animal fuckers should, too.....except that argument isn't valid, because we're talking about a relationship between two consenting adults.
Nonsense, it's not at all where I'm going, but I appreciate the thought.
We all agree that those people shouldn't get rights to do what they want.
However, comparable groups are incestuous relationships (two consenting adults) or polygamists (multiple consenting adults) who do not have the right to love whomever they want. You can shoot down the other sicko groups you've mentioned with ease, but can you do the same for the groups I brought up, or are you prepared to wave their flags too?
as long as the people(s) involved are consenting adults, then who cares? let them do what they want. i can shoot down kiddie rapists or animal fuckers, because it's not between consenting adults.
-
this is where the kahn starts to argue that if gays get rights, then kiddie rapists and animal fuckers should, too.....except that argument isn't valid, because we're talking about a relationship between two consenting adults.
Nonsense, it's not at all where I'm going, but I appreciate the thought.
We all agree that those people shouldn't get rights to do what they want.
However, comparable groups are incestuous relationships (two consenting adults) or polygamists (multiple consenting adults) who do not have the right to love whomever they want. You can shoot down the other sicko groups you've mentioned with ease, but can you do the same for the groups I brought up, or are you prepared to wave their flags too?
as long as the people(s) involved are consenting adults, then who cares? let them do what they want. i can shoot down kiddie rapists or animal fuckers, because it's not between consenting adults.
So why aren't you speaking up for other "oppressed" groups that them thar religious people are keeping down? Don't be a bigot now.
-
Again, that's a strawman. I have experienced revulsion at the 2 girls 1 cup video, but I don't think they should be stripped of any rights the average American enjoyed. Similarly, I don't think polygamy or incest should be illegal as long as they occur among consenting adults
So why not speak out in favor of those rights?
I'm pretty sure that's what I just did.
-
this is where the kahn starts to argue that if gays get rights, then kiddie rapists and animal fuckers should, too.....except that argument isn't valid, because we're talking about a relationship between two consenting adults.
Nonsense, it's not at all where I'm going, but I appreciate the thought.
We all agree that those people shouldn't get rights to do what they want.
However, comparable groups are incestuous relationships (two consenting adults) or polygamists (multiple consenting adults) who do not have the right to love whomever they want. You can shoot down the other sicko groups you've mentioned with ease, but can you do the same for the groups I brought up, or are you prepared to wave their flags too?
as long as the people(s) involved are consenting adults, then who cares? let them do what they want. i can shoot down kiddie rapists or animal fuckers, because it's not between consenting adults.
So why aren't you speaking up for other "oppressed" groups that them thar religious people are keeping down? Don't be a bigot now.
:ck: i don't know anyone who is into incest or who is in a group-marriage. i know gay people.
you're searching for something that isn't there, homie. I don't give a eff what people do.
-
Why does getting married get you benefits anyway? LMBIQ, but seems like it would be best to just do away with getting benefits when you get married. Then no one would be getting something over the other and there would be no incentive for gays to get married, which really is just a title at that point.
-
Why does getting married get you benefits anyway? LMBIQ, but seems like it would be best to just do away with getting benefits when you get married. Then no one would be getting something over the other and there would be no incentive for gays to get married, which really is just a title at that point.
was thinking this earlier, not sure what this would do with property rights etc. Seems like a good idea however, as the government really doesn't need to be involved.
-
Why does getting married get you benefits anyway? LMBIQ, but seems like it would be best to just do away with getting benefits when you get married. Then no one would be getting something over the other and there would be no incentive for gays to get married, which really is just a title at that point.
I imagine it has something to do with the idea that stable homes create stable citizens. Gives incentives for people to stay together (which may indeed be bad...based on these divorce rates).
i don't know anyone who is into incest or who is in a group-marriage. i know gay people.
you're searching for something that isn't there, homie. I don't give a eff what people do.
Ok, Just checking for consistency. I am willing to bet that many a Gay Rights advocate who thinks Christians are backwards and inbred would disagree with you though. High fives for not judging, bro.
I'm pretty sure that's what I just did.
First time in your life. Five bucks on it.
-
i don't know anyone who is into incest or who is in a group-marriage. i know gay people.
you're searching for something that isn't there, homie. I don't give a eff what people do.
Ok, Just checking for consistency. I am willing to bet that many a Gay Rights advocate who thinks Christians are backwards and inbred would disagree with you though. High fives for not judging, bro.
Meh, I attend church/church functions several times a week. Most Christians aren't judgemental, but the minority that are just happen to be more vocal. I'm not a gay rights advocate (or an advocate for anything, really...). I just think that people get too caught up in trying to push others down because they're different than the mainstream, and that annoys me.
-
BTW, lots of gay sex and incest in Genesis by people who are said to probably be in heaven.
Lot effs his daughters in a gang bang, also, Noah gets pak'd and gets effed by his son.
Somehow I don't think this kid is going to have a cutout of that though....
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQpGMe0udQmHpzGhrRx7f7pxh8vfbR9eFucZjpgXPC8nZtOSfCY&hash=7da45cb1cccf9acb06ecf23793759bd91d4ee9e1)
-
I'm pretty sure that's what I just did.
First time in your life. Five bucks on it.
What does it matter? There are tons of oppressed groups in the world. Just because I haven't "spoken out" in favor of each group's rights doesn't mean I think they don't deserve them. Gay rights will be commented on more often because it is a more prevalent issue than incest or polygamy.
-
I'm pretty sure that's what I just did.
First time in your life. Five bucks on it.
What does it matter? There are tons of oppressed groups in the world. Just because I haven't "spoken out" in favor of each group's rights doesn't mean I think they don't deserve them. Gay rights will be commented on more often because it is a more prevalent issue than incest or polygamy.
Which reminds me. Where do those rights come from again?
-
I'm pretty sure that's what I just did.
First time in your life. Five bucks on it.
What does it matter? There are tons of oppressed groups in the world. Just because I haven't "spoken out" in favor of each group's rights doesn't mean I think they don't deserve them. Gay rights will be commented on more often because it is a more prevalent issue than incest or polygamy.
Which reminds me. Where do those rights come from again?
It doesn't matter where they came from. The problem is the denial of rights.
-
I'm pretty sure that's what I just did.
First time in your life. Five bucks on it.
What does it matter? There are tons of oppressed groups in the world. Just because I haven't "spoken out" in favor of each group's rights doesn't mean I think they don't deserve them. Gay rights will be commented on more often because it is a more prevalent issue than incest or polygamy.
Which reminds me. Where do those rights come from again?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
:dunno:
-
I'm pretty sure that's what I just did.
First time in your life. Five bucks on it.
What does it matter? There are tons of oppressed groups in the world. Just because I haven't "spoken out" in favor of each group's rights doesn't mean I think they don't deserve them. Gay rights will be commented on more often because it is a more prevalent issue than incest or polygamy.
Which reminds me. Where do those rights come from again?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
:dunno:
If rights were God-given, those guys wouldn't have had to fight a war and establish a constitution to get them.
-
I'm pretty sure that's what I just did.
First time in your life. Five bucks on it.
What does it matter? There are tons of oppressed groups in the world. Just because I haven't "spoken out" in favor of each group's rights doesn't mean I think they don't deserve them. Gay rights will be commented on more often because it is a more prevalent issue than incest or polygamy.
Which reminds me. Where do those rights come from again?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
:dunno:
If rights were God-given, those guys wouldn't have had to fight a war and establish a constitution to get them.
They had them. The Brits were infringing on them. Government and individuals can only take, never give, rights.
-
Exactly.
Unless you want to say that we have rights because we say we have rights. In that scenario it comes down to "might makes right." I am not inclined to believe that.
It doesn't matter where they came from. The problem is the denial of rights.
You don't honestly believe that do you?
Of course it matters where they came from. You can't just declare that you have a right and then demand everyone recognize it.
-
Great timing.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
-
BTW, lots of gay sex and incest in Genesis by people who are said to probably be in heaven.
Lot effs his daughters in a gang bang, also, Noah gets pak'd and gets effed by his son.
Somehow I don't think this kid is going to have a cutout of that though....
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQpGMe0udQmHpzGhrRx7f7pxh8vfbR9eFucZjpgXPC8nZtOSfCY&hash=7da45cb1cccf9acb06ecf23793759bd91d4ee9e1)
Oh man, this gives me all kinds of awesome ideas.
-
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
They had it right that we can't start from ourselves.
We need a universal.
-
Of course it matters where they came from. You can't just declare that you have a right and then demand everyone recognize it.
why not?
-
You're all so dumb, like, really stupid, man, but I still love and care about each and every one of you.
-
We couldn't have given these rights to ourselves?
-
We couldn't have given these rights to ourselves?
We can.
I'd laugh, in real life*, at them.
*I believe there is a reality - Truth.
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Cause it's not very nice :ck:
-
BTW, lots of gay sex and incest in Genesis by people who are said to probably be in heaven.
Lot effs his daughters in a gang bang, also, Noah gets pak'd and gets effed by his son.
Somehow I don't think this kid is going to have a cutout of that though....
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQpGMe0udQmHpzGhrRx7f7pxh8vfbR9eFucZjpgXPC8nZtOSfCY&hash=7da45cb1cccf9acb06ecf23793759bd91d4ee9e1)
can't say i know/care much about the bible and/or this thread, but omg this is a great post :cheers:
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Cause it's not very nice :ck:
Why is it not very nice? Animals kill animals of their own species all the time.
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Cause it's not very nice :ck:
Why is it not very nice? Animals kill animals of their own species all the time.
Well, those animals should be charged with 1st degree murder
-
Which reminds me. Where do those rights come from again?
It doesn't matter where they came from.
:facepalm:
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Cause it's not very nice :ck:
You should be able to kill yourself if you want. Did you know it is illegal to commit suicide in many states?
You shouldn't be able to kill others because doing so directly effects the others' ability to live their life.
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Cause it's not very nice :ck:
You should be able to kill yourself if you want. Did you know it is illegal to commit suicide in many states?
You shouldn't be able to kill others because doing so directly effects the others' ability to live their life.
I wonder what the punishment is.
-
If we go back as far as we can and find that the origination of our existence (or existence itself) is chance, a fluke occurrence with nothing behind it, everything we know is meaningless. Everything you've ever cared about or enjoyed or hated, meant nothing. It was all an irregularity in your brain. You were confused to have ever felt the way that you did. We could not, and did not, create ourselves. We did not create the universe.
We cannot use ourselves for the basis for how and why to live.
But, the good news: There is no reason to follow laws; no reason to be "nice"; no reason not to eat your own children; no reason not to lie and cheat in every facet of your life; no reason not to rape every man and woman you come into contact with; no reason to feel guilt; no reason to be embarrassed; no reason to be disappointed; etc. If you have a desire to do anything, anything at all, you should do it, immediately, and as soon as you're sad, or bored, or tired, or in jail, or at the bottom of a pit where there is no escape, you should kill yourself, without a moment's thought.
We must have something to set ourselves (as finite humans) up against. We need a starting point and something to be in relation to, something that can provide a reason for why we are and why we behave as we do. Because, we do behave a certain way, we feel compelled to. We are a certain way. There must be something. A universal. A truth. A big bang does not help us.
What is it?
I want to know.
-
good god, PW. We went over this like 18 pages ago.
-
good god, PW. We went over this like 18 pages ago.
I want you, michigancat, to admit that you don't have a good, logical reason to continue on with your happy, normal, married* life in the state of Michigan.
I've been waiting for you, but the same goes for everyone.
-
good god, PW. We went over this like 18 pages ago.
I want you, michigancat, to admit that you don't have a good, logical reason to continue on with your happy, normal, married* life in the state of Michigan.
why? I have plenty of good reasons. (although I would like to leave Michigan).
-
good god, PW. We went over this like 18 pages ago.
I want you, michigancat, to admit that you don't have a good, logical reason to continue on with your happy, normal, married* life in the state of Michigan.
I've been waiting for you, but the same goes for everyone.
LIVE THE WAY I LIVE, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE HAPPY OTHERWISE!!!!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQXhN-8958hmnba6UFFtjeMiLg23y_BSWYX-fqm8bkeNPnDPv75&hash=628600705f167d86037003ec158ecf12cbf653f8)
-
I'm not talking about living happy lives. I'm asking you to care about why and how you live and have a good reason for doing so. You all care about a lot of different things, why not this?
It's obvious that most of you have never thought about it, or at least refuse to when it comes up. Or at the very least believe it is a problem that cannot be solved. Don't be that lazy or stupid. You're not an animal. You're a person. (Man, animals are so dumb. Cool to look at - dumb as rocks. I'm glad I'm not one.)
Be alone for awhile. Think about things. Don't read, don't talk - think. Think about everything you know. Turn off your cellphone for a couple minutes.
When I realized I was alone, I realized I wasn't alone.
-
PoetWarrior, you are a dumbass.
-
PoetWarrior, you are a dumbass.
Thanks, man.
Me and every philosopher who ever lived.
-
PoetWarrior, you are a dumbass.
Thanks, man.
Me and every philosopher who ever lived.
I enjoyed when you, LSOC and I mini-pak'd.
-
We cannot use ourselves for the basis for how and why to live.
Funny, then, that crime rates are lower among non-believers, and crime is lower in countries with a higher percentage of non-believers. Maybe Christians are overly influenced by the Bible's condoning of torture, slavery, oppression of women, mass murder, genocide, etc.
Sucks when your deep belief is savagely butt-raped by reality, huh?
-
We cannot use ourselves for the basis for how and why to live.
Funny, then, that crime rates are lower among non-believers, and crime is lower in countries with a higher percentage of non-believers. Maybe Christians are overly influenced by the Bible's condoning of torture, slavery, oppression of women, mass murder, genocide, etc.
Sucks when your deep belief is savagely butt-raped by reality, huh?
First: Who's talking about Christianity?
Second: The Bible does not condone any of those things the way you mean them. That's not dodging anything. If you really knew what the Bible said about those topics you would not object. Read it.
Third: You made up every word of your post.
Fourth: I don't like replying to such idiotic posts.
Fifth: I still love you.
Sixth: You don't understand what you quoted.
-
PoetWarrior, you are a dumbass.
Thanks, man.
Me and every philosopher who ever lived.
omg, this is good. Not only is he a poet, and a warrior, but also a philosopher. :lol: Newsflash: most philosophers reject "divine revelation" as a basis for morality.
-
PoetWarrior, you are a dumbass.
Thanks, man.
Me and every philosopher who ever lived.
omg, this is good. Not only is he a poet, and a warrior, but also a philosopher. :lol: Newsflash: most philosophers reject "divine revelation" as a basis for morality.
:excited:
-
Third: You made up every word of your post.
If you have even the tiniest bit of intellectual integrity, you will head over to Google right now and discover that every word of my post is true.
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Cause it's not very nice :ck:
You should be able to kill yourself if you want. Did you know it is illegal to commit suicide in many states?
You shouldn't be able to kill others because doing so directly effects the others' ability to live their life.
I wonder what the punishment is.
Death
-
why not?
Seriously?
Only for this reason. These rights are not inalienable if you just declare that you have them. I can declare you don't have them. Then who's right? Whoever is stronger...that's who.
In your opinion rights are just some words written on a piece of paper by some crusty old men....or in this case...they aren't even written down anywhere!
-
Third: You made up every word of your post.
If you have even the tiniest bit of intellectual integrity, you will head over to Google right now and discover that every word of my post is true.
In PoetWarrior's defense, the "oppression of women" part is absolutely made up. Jesus is known as one of the first feminists among people with entirely different backgrounds and beliefs. That's why the story of the Samaritan woman by the well is such a big deal. Everybody was confused why Jesus would be talking to a woman, especially a Samaritan woman.
-
good god, PW. We went over this like 18 pages ago.
Just read this and laughed hard, because it's absolutely right :lol:
-
I'm not talking about living happy lives. I'm asking you to care about why and how you live and have a good reason for doing so. You all care about a lot of different things, why not this?
It's obvious that most of you have never thought about it, or at least refuse to when it comes up. Or at the very least believe it is a problem that cannot be solved. Don't be that lazy or stupid. You're not an animal. You're a person. (Man, animals are so dumb. Cool to look at - dumb as rocks. I'm glad I'm not one.)
Be alone for awhile. Think about things. Don't read, don't talk - think. Think about everything you know. Turn off your cellphone for a couple minutes.
When I realized I was alone, I realized I wasn't alone.
Why do we need a good reason for why we live? I do believe that life on our planet was a huge fluke of things coming together. The universe is so unfathomably big that it had to happen somewhere, and likely has happened more than just here.
There's no reason to look for a reason. We're here just because...
-
why not?
Seriously?
Only for this reason. These rights are not inalienable if you just declare that you have them. I can declare you don't have them. Then who's right? Whoever is stronger...that's who.
In your opinion rights are just some words written on a piece of paper by some crusty old men....or in this case...they aren't even written down anywhere!
Like I said, I don't really care what is a "right", or where it came from - I simply believe all people that are not harming others deserve a government that provides equal laws, privileges, or rights - (whatever you want to call them). In my opinion, it is your right to disagree, and yes, who has the freedom to enjoy certain rights is ultimately decided by crusty old men. I don't know why you're trying to turn equal treatment of gays into a semantics argument about where rights come from, but whatever. You haven't said much that makes sense here, anyway.
-
Third: You made up every word of your post.
If you have even the tiniest bit of intellectual integrity, you will head over to Google right now and discover that every word of my post is true.
In PoetWarrior's defense, the "oppression of women" part is absolutely made up. Jesus is known as one of the first feminists among people with entirely different backgrounds and beliefs. That's why the story of the Samaritan woman by the well is such a big deal. Everybody was confused why Jesus would be talking to a woman, especially a Samaritan woman.
Yes, but Christians are taught to read the whole Bible, not just what Jesus supposedly said.
The anti-women passages in the Bible would really take up too much room here, but here's a good start: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm
These Christian leaders clearly know their Bible:
Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.
What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.
If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there.
I don't make things up, BTW.
-
Third: You made up every word of your post.
If you have even the tiniest bit of intellectual integrity, you will head over to Google right now and discover that every word of my post is true.
In PoetWarrior's defense, the "oppression of women" part is absolutely made up. Jesus is known as one of the first feminists among people with entirely different backgrounds and beliefs. That's why the story of the Samaritan woman by the well is such a big deal. Everybody was confused why Jesus would be talking to a woman, especially a Samaritan woman.
Yes, but Christians are taught to read the whole Bible, not just what Jesus supposedly said.
The anti-women passages in the Bible would really take up too much room here, but here's a good start: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm
These Christian leaders clearly know their Bible:
Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.
What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.
If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there.
I don't make things up, BTW.
I trust Jesus more than Christan leaders. That argument might hold weight against Catholics, but I'm not one. I don't believe that what the saints say should be taken as truth.
And Jesus came to correct all the things that the people in the Old Testament didn't understand, such as oppression to women, anger, revenge, adultery, etc. So I think the oppression of women in the Old Testament is more of an example of how we are wrong, flawed, and don't understand what God is trying to tell us.
-
I trust Jesus more than Christan leaders. That argument might hold weight against Catholics, but I'm not one. I don't believe that what the saints say should be taken as truth.
And Jesus came to correct all the things that the people in the Old Testament didn't understand, such as oppression to women, anger, revenge, adultery, etc. So I think the oppression of women in the Old Testament is more of an example of how we are wrong, flawed, and don't understand what God is trying to tell us.
It's strange that teachings that are wrong and flawed comprise the first part of the Bible. Isn't the whole Bible supposedly the word of God?
I included the quotes to show that some of the most prominent leaders in Christianity, people who'd spent much of their lives thinking about the Scriptures, were anti-women. In fact, their attitudes were the norm, not the exception. For most of the history of Christianity, Christians don't seem to have gotten the memo that Christ's teachings replaced the old teachings, and even today many haven't figured it out. The Southern Baptist Convention in recent years said that wives should submit to their husbands. Christians abuse women at a higher rate than non-believers. And it seems like every time I come across one of the religious shows on TV or the Radio, they're preaching fire and brimstone, not tolerance and justice. If the Bible is such a great moral guide, why has it been so easy through the centuries to use it to justify the most horrible atrocities and suffering? How would it not have been better to just throw the damn thing out?
I agree that Jesus had some great teachings, but c'mon, look what they're surrounded by. Thomas Jefferson had the right idea. He took what he thought were the legitimate teachings of Jesus, and he threw the rest of it out. He said Jesus' teachings were "as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill." The result was the Jefferson Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible). That's a bible I could get behind. Only 46 pages, too.
-
The old testament is/what the Law was for mankind and a historical account of the creation of God's people.
The new testament is the new guidelines God provided through Jesus.
And to take what men who relished having complete control over people by creating fear in them as what God wanted, is pretty ludicrous. They may have said it, but that doesn't make it so.
-
wives should submit to their husbands.
The Bible does say that and we are meant to follow it. This is not oppressive, however.
Christians abuse women at a higher rate than non-believers
You're doing it again, dude.
It's strange that teachings that are wrong and flawed comprise the first part of the Bible. Isn't the whole Bible supposedly the word of God?
You don't understand how this works. You should look into it, in honesty.
-
I included the quotes to show that some of the most prominent leaders in Christianity, people who'd spent much of their lives thinking about the Scriptures, were anti-women.
To be fair, at the time when the quotes were made, the entire world could be described into the broad generalization of being "anti-women." An argument can be made that Eastern Civilization was just as, or more, "anti-women" than the newly developing Christian West.
The Southern Baptist Convention in recent years said that wives should submit to their husbands.
:horrorsurprise: :runaway:
Yes, they are speaking about St. Paul's instructions in Ephesians for a Christian household from Ephesians Chapter 5:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (He is speaking of the spiritual principle of reciprocity in a relationship, not oppression. He goes on to clearly describe it.)
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. (As you do to the Lord, implies that free will is still involved) 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church....
In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.
31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (The last verse he he sums it up in the consensual, mutual, spiritual, reciprocal dedication to God and the marriage)
Earlier in the epistle he gives this instruction:
"Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." Ephesians 4:1-3
Hardly the "just go beat the bitch" slant you are trying to portray it as.
If the Bible is such a great moral guide, why has it been so easy through the centuries to use it to justify the most horrible atrocities and suffering?
Human nature my friend, is why atrocities and suffering occur, not "justification" from the Bible. The Bible has also been used to justify, motivate, and inspire a great amount of good in this world as well.
Finally, Christians abuse women at a higher rate than non-believers.
Data? or just a platitude?
I have access to an assload of academic databases due to my work, I would be happy to email you the full text of these studies/articles.
D. B. Sugerman and S. L. Frankel, "Patriarchal Ideology and Wife-Assault: A Meta-Analytic Review," Journal of Family Violence 11 (1996)
"Conservative Protestant Ideology and Wife Abuse: Reflections on the Discrepancy between Theory and Data," Journal of Religion and Abuse 2 (2001)
“Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy,’’ in Violence and Victims Vol. 9, No. 2 (1994)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200709/ai_n29491710/pg_4/
-
That sound you just heard was an aneurysm in stevsie's brain popping.
-
what's funny is that either side in this "debate" thinks that it's "winning" or putting forward compelling arguments :lol:
its the collision between philosophy 101 students and coffee shop Christians.
-
I still love you though Chingon
-
I still love you though Chingon
everyone does :gocho:
-
I still love you though Chingon
everyone does :gocho:
REPLY 666!
:horrorsurprise:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mgexperience.net%2Fphorum%2Fmods%2Fsmileys%2Fimages%2Fevil2.gif&hash=950cdf7537daba34b476f7adda17cdaff4fe9619)
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Because it would increase human suffering and misery and decrease well-being.
Of course, if they were all Christians I would be doing them a favor by sending them to heaven earlier and sparing from the suffering of being on this planet and seperated from God.
-
i consider myself to be a notch below a philosophy 101 student.
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Because it would increase human suffering and misery and decrease well-being.
Of course, if they were all Christians I would be doing them a favor by sending them to heaven earlier and sparing from the suffering of being on this planet and seperated from God.
But if we're just machines responding to stimuli, then suffering and misery is an illusion.
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Because it would increase human suffering and misery and decrease well-being.
Of course, if they were all Christians I would be doing them a favor by sending them to heaven earlier and sparing from the suffering of being on this planet and seperated from God.
But if we're just machines responding to stimuli, then suffering and misery is an illusion.
The experience of suffering an misery and of love and happiness do reside in our brain. Our ability to have complex thoughts and to be aware of ourselves also reside in our brain. Provable by all the effects that chemicals, brain damage, etc. have on our brains and our ability to think. Mental illness (schizophrenia as a great example) is not a problem of the soul, it is a problem of the brain.
If you want to think that that breaks down human experience to us just being simple machines then so be it, but the human brain is a wonderful machine and we experience the world in a unique way as a result.
-
what's funny is that either side in this "debate" thinks that it's "winning" or putting forward compelling arguments :lol:
To win I think I'd have to change some minds, so no, I don't think I'm "winning" the "debate." And my arguments are pretty slapdash. There are loads of books and articles that put forward compelling, thorough arguments, which take a long time to research and formulate, time I don't have. Originally I intended to do only one or two posts to explain how my life has gotten better since I rejected religion.
Compelling arguments don't change many minds (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney), anyway -- they only make people (especially conservative Republicans) cling harder to their deeply held but false beliefs. Someday I'd like to do some reading on how to best persuade these people, drawing from the latest psychology and neuroscience. It's too frustrating arguing with people who are impervious to logic and evidence.
-
I don't drink coffee.
-
I trust Jesus more than Christan leaders. That argument might hold weight against Catholics, but I'm not one. I don't believe that what the saints say should be taken as truth.
And Jesus came to correct all the things that the people in the Old Testament didn't understand, such as oppression to women, anger, revenge, adultery, etc. So I think the oppression of women in the Old Testament is more of an example of how we are wrong, flawed, and don't understand what God is trying to tell us.
It's strange that teachings that are wrong and flawed comprise the first part of the Bible. Isn't the whole Bible supposedly the word of God?
I included the quotes to show that some of the most prominent leaders in Christianity, people who'd spent much of their lives thinking about the Scriptures, were anti-women. In fact, their attitudes were the norm, not the exception. For most of the history of Christianity, Christians don't seem to have gotten the memo that Christ's teachings replaced the old teachings, and even today many haven't figured it out. The Southern Baptist Convention in recent years said that wives should submit to their husbands. Christians abuse women at a higher rate than non-believers. And it seems like every time I come across one of the religious shows on TV or the Radio, they're preaching fire and brimstone, not tolerance and justice. If the Bible is such a great moral guide, why has it been so easy through the centuries to use it to justify the most horrible atrocities and suffering? How would it not have been better to just throw the damn thing out?
I agree that Jesus had some great teachings, but c'mon, look what they're surrounded by. Thomas Jefferson had the right idea. He took what he thought were the legitimate teachings of Jesus, and he threw the rest of it out. He said Jesus' teachings were "as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill." The result was the Jefferson Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible). That's a bible I could get behind. Only 46 pages, too.
I didn't say the teachings of God in the Old Testament are wrong, but that the people interpreted them incorrectly. And I absolutely agree that Christians are still interpreting them inaccurately, myself included. But I don't think the things you hear about in the news or see on late night infomercials are the norm, I think they draw a hell of a lot more attention though. And I used to be just as cynical about Christians as you seem to be, but after my personal interactions with them over the years, the Christians I know have never stolen from someone or shoplifted, shown up to work drunk or high, cheated on their significant other, etc. However, I could tell you plenty of my friends who have done these things that are not Christians. But you’re right, neither of those things made the news.
There are plenty of churches that preach mercy, grace, and love and not a word that could be considered “fire and brimstone”. In fact, I’ve never been to a church that has preached that way. Once again, they don’t make the news.
And you’re right, this thread is flawed because no one is going to change their mind in a debate. Maybe some spectators are reading this thread that are taking some points to think about, but as for you and me, skycat, I think our views will stay the same (ir)regardless of how many facts or talking points we can spit out.
That sound you just heard was an aneurysm in stevsie's brain popping.
What?
-
Like I said, I don't really care what is a "right", or where it came from - I simply believe all people that are not harming others deserve a government that provides equal laws, privileges, or rights - (whatever you want to call them). In my opinion, it is your right to disagree, and yes, who has the freedom to enjoy certain rights is ultimately decided by crusty old men. I don't know why you're trying to turn equal treatment of gays into a semantics argument about where rights come from, but whatever. You haven't said much that makes sense here, anyway.
So you openly admit that your opinion is backed by nothing but your opinion. That really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. For instance, in such a world where that was considered legitimate, I could say that I feel Eugenics is something we should strive for because to me the end result is "good". Who is to argue with me? Because if you do, we can just debate what "good" really means. To you "not harming" would be good. To me, why can't harming others be good?
Rights, to me, are not granted by some old bastards from three hundred years ago. Rights are inalienable and know no time period or era. Man has had the right to life, liberty, and property since he first walked on two legs, not since we fought a war. We fought a war to defend the rights, not create them. They come from God, any other explanation for "inalienable" rights is quite laughable and come down to "well, we have them because we say we do".
I make no sense to you? Well, I guess that's what I get for using actual philosophical arguments created by some very intelligent men on this message board. Probably goes over more than a few heads.
-
Like I said, I don't really care what is a "right", or where it came from - I simply believe all people that are not harming others deserve a government that provides equal laws, privileges, or rights - (whatever you want to call them). In my opinion, it is your right to disagree, and yes, who has the freedom to enjoy certain rights is ultimately decided by crusty old men. I don't know why you're trying to turn equal treatment of gays into a semantics argument about where rights come from, but whatever. You haven't said much that makes sense here, anyway.
So you openly admit that your opinion is backed by nothing but your opinion. That really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. For instance, in such a world where that was considered legitimate, I could say that I feel Eugenics is something we should strive for because to me the end result is "good". Who is to argue with me? Because if you do, we can just debate what "good" really means. To you "not harming" would be good. To me, why can't harming others be good?
Rights, to me, are not granted by some old bastards from three hundred years ago. Rights are inalienable and know no time period or era. Man has had the right to life, liberty, and property since he first walked on two legs, not since we fought a war. We fought a war to defend the rights, not create them. They come from God, any other explanation for "inalienable" rights is quite laughable and come down to "well, we have them because we say we do".
I make no sense to you? Well, I guess that's what I get for using actual philosophical arguments created by some very intelligent men on this message board. Probably goes over more than a few heads.
So you openly admit that your opinion is backed by nothing but your opinion?
-inalienable Rights were and are absolutely granted to you by old bastards from 300 yrs ago
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Because it would increase human suffering and misery and decrease well-being.
Of course, if they were all Christians I would be doing them a favor by sending them to heaven earlier and sparing from the suffering of being on this planet and seperated from God.
But if we're just machines responding to stimuli, then suffering and misery is an illusion.
The experience of suffering an misery and of love and happiness do reside in our brain. Our ability to have complex thoughts and to be aware of ourselves also reside in our brain. Provable by all the effects that chemicals, brain damage, etc. have on our brains and our ability to think. Mental illness (schizophrenia as a great example) is not a problem of the soul, it is a problem of the brain.
If you want to think that that breaks down human experience to us just being simple machines then so be it, but the human brain is a wonderful machine and we experience the world in a unique way as a result.
I don't think that at all. I think we have a soul and God has granted us free will, thus we are not bound to simple cause and effect relationships. We have choices, not just the illusion of them.
-
One of you atheists* really should break away from the normal, conforming life you live. You live 95% of your life like a Christian! Enough! Eating spaghetti for breakfast tomorrow would be a good way to get the ball rolling. After a while, you'll be ready to take a dook on a infant's face. See what that's like and then go from there. Who knows what you might do... It will be fun! Or horrible! Either way, it doesn't matter!
I would.
Oh boy, would I. If only I existed in a world where there were no actual attachments and no true emotions. I wouldn't be typing right now or reading your posts. Certainly not.
-
what's funny is that either side in this "debate" thinks that it's "winning" or putting forward compelling arguments :lol:
Compelling arguments don't change many minds (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney), anyway -- they only make people () cling harder to their deeply held but false beliefs. Someday I'd like to do some reading on how to best persuade these people, drawing from the latest psychology and neuroscience. It's too frustrating arguing with people who are impervious to logic and evidence.
You are exactly right, but I am surprised you used "especially conservative Republicans" when there is currently a huge pool of liberals that have proven your point.
While bush was in office, these liberals were frothing mad at Bush and needed anyone in office that was not him, so they voted in an inexperienced senator. Now that there is incredibly compelling evidence that Obama is exactly like Bush and has also increased the federal deficit by 100% in just 2 years, but these same people are impervious to logic and still support him. Weird.
-
Yes, they are speaking about St. Paul's instructions in Ephesians for a Christian household from Ephesians Chapter 5:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (He is speaking of the spiritual principle of reciprocity in a relationship, not oppression. He goes on to clearly describe it.)
The Southern Baptists seem to have different ideas:
The messengers, as the Baptists call their convention delegates, rejected an amendment that would have said that husbands and wives should submit to each other.
Ahem. Let's continue.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. (As you do to the Lord, implies that free will is still involved) 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church....
In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.
31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (The last verse he he sums it up in the consensual, mutual, spiritual, reciprocal dedication to God and the marriage)
Wives must submit to their husbands' rule over the household, while husbands only have to love their wives. This is not an equal relationship. This is the same relationship dogs have to their owners. This stuff is just horribly patriarchal, and makes me :barf:
Let me know if you agree with this guy, too:
oscar Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said women desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin.
“And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged–or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches,” Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas.
He goes on and on like this. Really, read the whole thing, it's repugnant.
If the Bible is such a great moral guide, why has it been so easy through the centuries to use it to justify the most horrible atrocities and suffering?
Human nature my friend, is why atrocities and suffering occur, not "justification" from the Bible. The Bible has also been used to justify, motivate, and inspire a great amount of good in this world as well.
Sweet. When atrocities and suffering occur, the Bible had nothing to do with that. When awesome stuff happens, YES, the Bible inspired and justified it!
Let's be real. The Bible has justified, motivated and inspired both good and bad stuff. The question is, did MORE bad stuff happen because of the Bible than without it? We'll never know for sure, but it is safe to say there would not have been the Inquisitions, Crusades, holy wars and witch trials, just for starters, but I could go on and on.
Finally, Christians abuse women at a higher rate than non-believers.
Data? or just a platitude?
Data, at least with regards to Protestants:
One 2004 study by William Bradford Wilcox examined the relationship between religious affiliation, church attendance, and domestic violence, using data on wives' reports of spousal violence from three national United States surveys conducted between 1992 and 1994.[4] The study found that the lowest reported rates of domestic violence occurred among active conservative Protestants (2.8% of husbands committed domestic violence), followed by those who were religiously unaffiliated (3.2%), nominal mainline Protestants (3.9%), active mainline Protestants (5.4%), and nominal conservative Protestants (7.2%).[4] Overall (including both nominal and active members), the rates among conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants were 4.8% and 4.3%, respectively.[4]
So domestic violence rates among Protestants is about 4.6, 4.7%, considering there are more conservative than mainline Protestants. That compares to 3.2% for the religiously unaffiliated. About 1.5% difference. Not a huge difference, but a real one.
Also, this study was dependent on wives' reports of spousal violence. Wives would be less likely to report such violence if they thought it was justified. I think this is why the rate among active conservative Protestants is so low. Allow me to quote one excellent article at length:
Mary Potter Engel, a Christian theologian and novelist, has called this the "Just Battering" tradition. She models her analysis of the Christian justification of violence against wives on the Just War tradition. Just War principles start with "Right Authority." In the "Christian home," ideologies of "submission" mean that only the husband has authority. This makes physical abuse of women "just" in the same way that political authorities can claim a war is "just" if it is authorized by them.
(See Kay Marshall Strom, In the Name of Submission: A Painful Look at Wife Battering)
Evangelical Christian ministries such as those run by Rev. Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church or James Dobson of Focus on the Family all stress "submission" as the Christian family role for wives. At the same time, these Christian Evangelical ministries staunchly deny that submission is a cause of violence against wives.
Some Evangelicals strongly disagree and have explicitly charged that it is submission that is responsible for wife battering in the "Christian" home. James and Phyllis Alsdurf, in Battered Into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home, have noted that conservative Christian women can't even get help because of this religious ideology of submission. "When she [the battered wife] musters up the courage to go public with 'her' problem (very likely to her pastor or a church member), what little human dignity she has retained can soon be 'trampled underfoot' with comments like: 'What have you done to provoke him?' 'Well, you've got to understand that your husband is under a lot of pressure right now,' or 'How would Jesus want you to act: just submit and it won't happen again.'"
In fact, Jesus gets invoked a lot to justify wife battering, especially as a model for suffering. In an article Time Magazine did when Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ was first released, I noted the direct connection between an overemphasis on suffering as "saving" people and what women have told me for years about how their priests or ministers advise them to stay in a violent home. "Countless women have told me that their priest or minister had advised them, as 'good Christian women' to accept beatings by their husbands as 'Christ accepted the cross.' An overemphasis on the suffering of Jesus to the exclusion of his teaching has tended to be used to support violence." (April 12, 2004)
As the Chicago Tribune recently reported, there is an epidemic of teen "date battering". I have counseled young women involved in date-battering relationships. In one case, members of a conservative "Christian" youth group to which she belonged were encouraging this teenage girl to stay with the battering boyfriend in order to "convert him to Christ" by her model of "perfect submission and love." It took a lot of support and a very different religious interpretation to help her make better life choices.
OK, that's all I got for now. I'm not posting any more today. The rest of you heathen fuckers feel free to reply in my place.
-
Provable by all the effects that chemicals, brain damage, etc.
Not provable.
Its correlation. No one disputes that the brain affects the mind. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the mind while affected by the brain, is something else entirely.
-
@skycat
I agree with the mindset that Paul was writing this particular letter to a localized church, and it was to deal with an issue in that particular region. It was not to be applied to everyone. Also, the churches at the time were doing something amazing for the time period; they had both male and female leaders. Paul was a part of a church body that treated men and women equally, so it doesn't make sense that he would write a letter to tell everyone to do it differently.
Your data about abuse makes me gag, because I think it's disgusting that Christians use that passage to justify treating women poorly. One thing I've learned is that American Christians are pretty shitty Christians. If you were to look at the data for Chinese Christians or African Christians, I bet it would be different. Having been able to experience it firsthand, it makes me sad to be here. Those people know what it is to know the truth of Christ, and I never saw them commit a terrible act by using the Bible to justify it (like how I've seen American Christians get drunk because Jesus drank wine). So I'm sorry you may not see that, or care to, but it truly is life changing.
-
what's funny is that either side in this "debate" thinks that it's "winning" or putting forward compelling arguments :lol:
To win I think I'd have to change some minds, so no, I don't think I'm "winning" the "debate." And my arguments are pretty slapdash. There are loads of books and articles that put forward compelling, thorough arguments, which take a long time to research and formulate, time I don't have. Originally I intended to do only one or two posts to explain how my life has gotten better since I rejected religion.
Compelling arguments don't change many minds (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney), anyway -- they only make people (especially conservative Republicans) cling harder to their deeply held but false beliefs. Someday I'd like to do some reading on how to best persuade these people, drawing from the latest psychology and neuroscience. It's too frustrating arguing with people who are impervious to logic and evidence.
there is definitely some "winning" to be had for people arguing against christianity because there is little exposure to skepticism in our creationist culture. reading religious arguments on message boards was my first encounter with atheism.
-
Be 100% sure you shouldn't kill yourself, or everyone around you - have a reason, then let's continue this discussion.
Fair deal, all?
Because it would increase human suffering and misery and decrease well-being.
Of course, if they were all Christians I would be doing them a favor by sending them to heaven earlier and sparing from the suffering of being on this planet and seperated from God.
But if we're just machines responding to stimuli, then suffering and misery is an illusion.
The experience of suffering an misery and of love and happiness do reside in our brain. Our ability to have complex thoughts and to be aware of ourselves also reside in our brain. Provable by all the effects that chemicals, brain damage, etc. have on our brains and our ability to think. Mental illness (schizophrenia as a great example) is not a problem of the soul, it is a problem of the brain.
If you want to think that that breaks down human experience to us just being simple machines then so be it, but the human brain is a wonderful machine and we experience the world in a unique way as a result.
I don't think that at all. I think we have a soul and God has granted us free will, thus we are not bound to simple cause and effect relationships. We have choices, not just the illusion of them.
But if our soul is separate from our brain, then why do changes in our brain have such an effect on our conscious experience?
-
One of you atheists* really should break away from the normal, conforming life you live. You live 95% of your life like a Christian! Enough! Eating spaghetti for breakfast tomorrow would be a good way to get the ball rolling. After a while, you'll be ready to take a dook on a infant's face. See what that's like and then go from there. Who knows what you might do... It will be fun! Or horrible! Either way, it doesn't matter!
I would.
Oh boy, would I. If only I existed in a world where there were no actual attachments and no true emotions. I wouldn't be typing right now or reading your posts. Certainly not.
Or you could live your life and realize that you make most of your decisions without considering what God would want from you, but that you live as an atheist and that the only thing keeping you to some belief is a fear of the unknown and how people will judge you.
eff, I have yet to admit to my parents that I am an atheist because they place such importance in the belief in god. The only worse thing I could be would be gay.
As an atheist I must be a bad person right? What kind of atheist would go out of their way to work with and help people that are mentally ill? Doesn't that go against the whole living for your self part?
The fact of the matter is that I am a person. I am a human with complex motives and emotions that are a result of my biology but that willingly accept and think are great. I love to help people, I love to listen to people. It has nothing to do with a belief in God or some fear that one day I may end up in hell. It's just who I am.
What made me who I am is my genetics and my upbringing. Change either of those and I'm a different person.
Edit: I probably do more on a day to day basis to help people and make the world a better place than most Christians in this thread. So eff you.
-
Like I said, I don't really care what is a "right", or where it came from - I simply believe all people that are not harming others deserve a government that provides equal laws, privileges, or rights - (whatever you want to call them). In my opinion, it is your right to disagree, and yes, who has the freedom to enjoy certain rights is ultimately decided by crusty old men. I don't know why you're trying to turn equal treatment of gays into a semantics argument about where rights come from, but whatever. You haven't said much that makes sense here, anyway.
So you openly admit that your opinion is backed by nothing but your opinion. That really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. For instance, in such a world where that was considered legitimate, I could say that I feel Eugenics is something we should strive for because to me the end result is "good". Who is to argue with me? Because if you do, we can just debate what "good" really means. To you "not harming" would be good. To me, why can't harming others be good?
Rights, to me, are not granted by some old bastards from three hundred years ago. Rights are inalienable and know no time period or era. Man has had the right to life, liberty, and property since he first walked on two legs, not since we fought a war. We fought a war to defend the rights, not create them. They come from God, any other explanation for "inalienable" rights is quite laughable and come down to "well, we have them because we say we do".
I make no sense to you? Well, I guess that's what I get for using actual philosophical arguments created by some very intelligent men on this message board. Probably goes over more than a few heads.
So you openly admit that your opinion is backed by nothing but your opinion?
-inalienable Rights were and are absolutely granted to you by old bastards from 300 yrs ago
In the case of NO God, then yes. I have no standing. But, in that case, neither do you.
You are standing there claiming "rights" when you, in reality, have absolutely none. Be you Gay or straight. You have no right, even to life.
-
As an atheist I must be a bad person right? What kind of atheist would go out of their way to work with and help people that are mentally ill? Doesn't that go against the whole living for your self part?
The fact of the matter is that I am a person. I am a human with complex motives and emotions that are a result of my biology but that willingly accept and think are great. I love to help people, I love to listen to people. It has nothing to do with a belief in God or some fear that one day I may end up in hell. It's just who I am.
What made me who I am is my genetics and my upbringing. Change either of those and I'm a different person.
Edit: I probably do more on a day to day basis to help people and make the world a better place than most Christians in this thread. So eff you.
Your actions could not support my point more.
You were made a certain way and you are acting as such.
It's not something you can escape. No one can. Genetics and upbringing can be escaped. We could correct ourselves.
But, it's impossible to live the way I hypothetically described because ALL OF US are pulled back - by morals, by guilt, by love, by something.
We conform, because we were made in His image. We, in some slight way, even if you're the worst person who ever lived, experience some of what He intended. The world may be fallen, but he created us as men, and that's unique. In all of creation we are the only thing that reflects Him.
So, you may not be experiencing Him directly, but you've gotten a taste through the way He made you and the way he made other men.
-
Trust me, nobody is WINNING or LOSING this debate. We are all linked, searching for the same things, feeling the same things, and simply may have chosen different ways to deal with the impossibility of what we cannot know. I may not agree with everyone of you, but I try, and believe mostly succeed, in UNDERSTANDING YOU.
I love you all.
-
Trust me, nobody is WINNING or LOSING this debate. We are all linked, searching for the same things, feeling the same things, and simply may have chosen different ways to deal with the impossibility of what we cannot know. I may not agree with everyone of you, but I try, and believe mostly succeed, in UNDERSTANDING YOU.
I love you all.
I think that when people say such things, it cheapens the word.
No offense.
-
Trust me, nobody is WINNING or LOSING this debate. We are all linked, searching for the same things, feeling the same things, and simply may have chosen different ways to deal with the impossibility of what we cannot know. I may not agree with everyone of you, but I try, and believe mostly succeed, in UNDERSTANDING YOU.
I love you all.
I think that when people say such things, it cheapens the word.
No offense.
totally agree, huge ok_cat pet peeve. love should be saved for family.
-
Trust me, nobody is WINNING or LOSING this debate. We are all linked, searching for the same things, feeling the same things, and simply may have chosen different ways to deal with the impossibility of what we cannot know. I may not agree with everyone of you, but I try, and believe mostly succeed, in UNDERSTANDING YOU.
I love you all.
I think that when people say such things, it cheapens the word.
No offense.
None taken my friend. You may very well be right.
-
As an atheist I must be a bad person right?
I'm a Christian, and I can honestly say that IDGAF about your beliefs, either way. Why would I care if you're an atheist?
-
As an atheist I must be a bad person right?
I'm a Christian, and I can honestly say that IDGAF about your beliefs, either way. Why would I care if you're an atheist?
Because your bible, the word of the lord, says you should?
-
As an atheist I must be a bad person right?
I'm a Christian, and I can honestly say that IDGAF about your beliefs, either way. Why would I care if you're an atheist?
Because your bible, the word of the lord, says you should?
still don't care.
-
As an atheist I must be a bad person right?
I'm a Christian, and I can honestly say that IDGAF about your beliefs, either way. Why would I care if you're an atheist?
Because your bible, the word of the lord, says you should?
still don't care.
fair enough. carry on.
-
One of you atheists* really should break away from the normal, conforming life you live. You live 95% of your life like a Christian! Enough! Eating spaghetti for breakfast tomorrow would be a good way to get the ball rolling. After a while, you'll be ready to take a dook on a infant's face. See what that's like and then go from there. Who knows what you might do... It will be fun! Or horrible! Either way, it doesn't matter!
I would.
Oh boy, would I. If only I existed in a world where there were no actual attachments and no true emotions. I wouldn't be typing right now or reading your posts. Certainly not.
As an atheist I must be a bad person right? What kind of atheist would go out of their way to work with and help people that are mentally ill? Doesn't that go against the whole living for your self part?
From an alinskyist point of view (an atheist cultural Jew), that would be exactly living for yourself. In that worldview, no one does anything for any other reason than self. Are you helping people? Yes, but you do it because you want to feel good about yourself and get a "rewarding" experience.
I happen to disagree with this sentiment. When I took the alinsky class at Washburn, the prof brought up this theory. I brought up firefighters who ran into the twin towers on 9/11 and that guy that jumped onto subway tracks to save another man who had fallen in and ended up lying under the train as it passed over. That was in the news that week. He kind of stammered and said something about having to look into it closer because he didn't know enough about the situation.
Not saying that either one is you, but based on your post history, I would be willing to bet you're closer to the former than the latter.
-
I have a friend (!).
He says that a lot of what religion is saying, is happening. Like some crap with natural disasters, Israel being back or some crap, etc, and says that 60-70% of what is predicted has happened. He then said some crap about how wrong Nostradamus was in comparison.
I made a logical counter, saying bible's been around 4x longer than his predictions, give him more time. Plus it is said that 5-10% of his predictions happened with 100% certainty (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewarticle.php?id=160). Given that my friend no doubt exaggerated this 60-70% figure, and the Nostra figure is super conservative (leaves out the stuff thats a little too general), the numbers would be very similar.
But what I don't know about is anything about the bible, other than its gay. WTF is this 60-70% figure, can I debunk it? Its never a fair argument with a jesus freak since they've spent all their time learning this, and have some crap to say for everything.
What I'm really against are people converting Asian people. Its really crushing my soul. For example, foreign exchange students, they're lost, just looking for friends. So they get approached by jesus freaks, who on the surface seem like they are doing good, but really they are just manipulating these students. Its just not right. Talking with my friend, its like they first try and strike fear into you by saying all this conspiracy stuff, freemasons, etc. All you have is your status quo, which is totally unprepared for this onslaught of bullshit. They're trying to take over celebrities here where I live as social proof, its really bothersome. I live in a great place, everyone is happy, why change it.
-
I have a friend (!).
He says that a lot of what religion is saying, is happening. Like some crap with natural disasters, Israel being back or some crap, etc, and says that 60-70% of what is predicted has happened. He then said some crap about how wrong Nostradamus was in comparison.
I made a logical counter, saying bible's been around 4x longer than his predictions, give him more time. Plus it is said that 5-10% of his predictions happened with 100% certainty (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewarticle.php?id=160). Given that my friend no doubt exaggerated this 60-70% figure, and the Nostra figure is super conservative (leaves out the stuff thats a little too general), the numbers would be very similar.
But what I don't know about is anything about the bible, other than its gay. WTF is this 60-70% figure, can I debunk it? Its never a fair argument with a jesus freak since they've spent all their time learning this, and have some crap to say for everything.
What I'm really against are people converting Asian people. Its really crushing my soul. For example, foreign exchange students, they're lost, just looking for friends. So they get approached by jesus freaks, who on the surface seem like they are doing good, but really they are just manipulating these students. Its just not right. Talking with my friend, its like they first try and strike fear into you by saying all this conspiracy stuff, freemasons, etc. All you have is your status quo, which is totally unprepared for this onslaught of bullshit. They're trying to take over celebrities here where I live as social proof, its really bothersome. I live in a great place, everyone is happy, why change it.
Trying too hard to be edgy. Failing big time.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Stephen Hawinkg thinks Poet Warrior is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven
-
Stephen Hawinkg thinks Poet Warrior is a respect
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven
There is no value in your action, Stephen.
-
I'm getting this as a tattoo over my whole back.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2011%2F5%2F15%2F1305492457260%2FStephen-Hawking-008.jpg&hash=4a6837874a7e58bb61a265e828a5c647bb4ff984)
-
Do most of you do hard drugs? (serious question) I would assume they'd be a necessity for your mindset...
I know you all routinely drink excessive amounts of alcohol, which perhaps answers my question. Maybe branch out to cocaine?
Might even provide a little insight or purpose. Experiential. No reason to be yourself.
-
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/
i value you stephen. i value your action
-
i value you stephen. i value your action
Why?
-
so saturday is the end, according to christian nutjobs in california.
end of the world pak? :ksu:
-
Do most of you do hard drugs? (serious question) I would assume they'd be a necessity for your mindset...
I know you all routinely drink excessive amounts of alcohol, which perhaps answers my question. Maybe branch out to cocaine?
Might even provide a little insight or purpose. Experiential. No reason to be yourself.
Never done a hard drug and I haven't had a drink of alcohol in over 4 months. Still don't believe in God
/thread
-
i value you stephen. i value your action
Why?
So our society can keep moving forward with out being held down by religious nut jobs
-
Never done a hard drug and I haven't had a drink of alcohol in over 4 months. Still don't believe in God
/thread
\thread
I hope 4 months becomes 5.
/thread
-
So our society can keep moving forward with out being held down by religious nut jobs
What do you want society to move toward?
A better world? Is perfection possible? Do you feel you have the necessary control over your life and the world to do it? When you've done it, then what? Wait, why did you do it again?
There have been many admissions in this thread that religion existing helps society to function effectively. Now, "nut jobs" are holding everyone back.
You and your friends (or fellow aware material and chemicals) are not consistent, in anything. Your mindset and especially your behavior.
We, you and I, are specially created beings, created for a purpose, but imperfect. This explains my thoughts and acts. What explains yours?
-
so saturday is the end, according to christian nutjobs in california.
end of the world pak? :ksu:
crap I hope not. had a really nice relaxing sunday planned.
-
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/tick-tock-goes-the-doomsday-clock/?hpt=C2 :runaway: :runaway: :runaway: :runaway:
-
Because instead of allowing for further thinking and exploration, it is just a way to end the conversation and I think it promotes ignorance. Why shouldn't you try to resolve that conflict or find someone that has.
I think the problem that I was proposing as far as the bible goes is that the bible does make specific claims about how the world was created, and a lot of people reject what science has discovered about those processes because it does not fit their notions and because it creates a pretty significant amount of cognitive dissonance. There are a lot of claims about how god intervenes in the world and creates miracles, yet, we can't truly ever study and verify that god intervenes in the world at all. There is no strong evidence for it. There are a lot of claims, there are a lot of "experiences", but there is no hard verifiable evidence. I would love to see some, and if a god exists, a god that cares anything about humans, a god that intervenes in our life, then I would expect that that god would like us enough to reveal himself while we are alive to really give us an option of following him or not. I shouldn't have to put my faith into a religious text that was written 2000 years ago and is not even consistent.
But yes, the bible makes a lot of claims, many of which we can't verify and others that have been proven wrong.
I have not gone through the whole thread yet but I have not seen one place where you have "proven" the bible wrong. You have claimed more than once but not given a single example of where the bible has been proven wrong.
Also, just because science can prove it does not mean it was not created by God, I've lost your point on this one. We may not now be able to "prove" certain things and things that you belive to be proven may in fact, as we learn more about the complex world we live in, be proven wrong, as have many beliefs (world flat etc..) over time as we dig deeper. I believe science can and will and possibly has proven there is a God regardless if you want to believe it or not.
-
http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/17/harold-camping-prepares-for-judgment-day-may-21-2011/?hpt=C2
i thought my purpose was to start a crazy radio station and proclaim the end of days but it looks like this guy beat me too it :cry:
-
Never done a hard drug and I haven't had a drink of alcohol in over 4 months. Still don't believe in God
/thread
\thread
I hope 4 months becomes 5.
/thread
first time I've seen PW rattled.
-
\thread
I hope 4 months becomes 5.
/thread
first time I've seen PW rattled.
I'm genuinely glad for him/her. Maybe he or she will get this sucker figured out.
-
Hawkins books are good.
Read Brief History of Time summer before going to KSU. Almost(almost) made me want to go into physics.
-
There is no value in your action, Harold Camping.
*except for making over $80 million dollars for family radio by fleecing some uber religious boobs
-
Just got an e-mail that there's no God. Or at least that he/she doesn't honor nearly 50 requested premium prayers.
-
/thread
-
Just got an e-mail that there's no God. Or at least that he/she doesn't honor nearly 50 requested premium prayers.
the poster forgot to include his name, address & kid's name. lmao @ these rubes that think god is going to run around hunting down isp's & email addy's.
-
What I can only presume are hardcore gpc wabash'rs say "eff you" to all the non-believing goEMAW haterz.
http://www.kansas.com/2011/06/26/1908924/as-girl-lay-near-death-family.html
-
What I can only presume are hardcore gpc wabash'rs say "eff you" to all the non-believing goEMAW haterz.
http://www.kansas.com/2011/06/26/1908924/as-girl-lay-near-death-family.html
tl;dr
-
What I can only presume are hardcore gpc wabash'rs say "eff you" to all the non-believing goEMAW haterz.
http://www.kansas.com/2011/06/26/1908924/as-girl-lay-near-death-family.html
tl;dr
Some God-fearing folks suited up and prayed to a saint.
-
What I can only presume are hardcore gpc wabash'rs say "eff you" to all the non-believing goEMAW haterz.
http://www.kansas.com/2011/06/26/1908924/as-girl-lay-near-death-family.html
tl;dr
Some God-fearing folks suited up and prayed to a saint.
tl;dr
-
Next time, they should feel free to talk to Him directly.
-
Next time, they should feel free to talk to Him directly.
That, or go on the international rivals board.
By that time, because of the e-mails the Gerlemans were getting, they knew that people and prayer chains all over the world were praying for her; in Italy, in England, and other places far and wide.
Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/06/27/1910070/no-medical-explanation-for-girls.html#ixzz1QTvoGfXP
-
Why can't medicine explain situations like this? What's the problem?
Our bodies work in simple, mechanical ways. Surely we have the knowledge to determine the exact causes and effects? We're not talking about an infinite cosmos here, we're talking about a pitiful, little animal, which is exactly like billions of other animals that have come before it.
Someone open a book and solve this thing.
-
Why can't medicine explain situations like this? What's the problem?
Like the dad found during the process, probably just a matter of plugging in the cord or something.
-
Why can't medicine explain situations like this? What's the problem?
Our bodies work in simple, mechanical ways. Surely we have the knowledge to determine the exact causes and effects? We're not talking about an infinite cosmos here, we're talking about a pitiful, little animal, which is exactly like billions of other animals that have come before it.
Someone open a book and solve this thing.
What we don't know today is only because He has not revealed it yet. Great homework excuse btw.
-
Today I saw this girl's facebook status. A friend of hers commented on it and eventually it came up that the father of her friend passed away and she is going to the funeral. The girl she was talking to replied with "my prayers are with you". Why would someone say something so stupid? It wasn't her dad, it wasn't even her relative, and yet people are "praying" and "sending prayers" to her?
Why is religion (and praying) so egotistical?
-
Today I saw this girl's facebook status. A friend of hers commented on it and eventually it came up that the father of her friend passed away and she is going to the funeral. The girl she was talking to replied with "my prayers are with you". Why would someone say something so stupid? It wasn't her dad, it wasn't even her relative, and yet people are "praying" and "sending prayers" to her?
Why is religion (and praying) so egotistical?
Most people who "my prayers are with you" don't actually end up praying for those people at all.
-
Why is religion (and praying) so egotistical?
People are flawed.
-
Most people who "my prayers are with you" don't actually end up praying for those people at all.
I agree that you should only say this if you intend to ask the one true God to aid in the person's grief or hurt.
Otherwise it is stupid, meaningless and insincere.
-
Today I saw this girl's facebook status. A friend of hers commented on it and eventually it came up that the father of her friend passed away and she is going to the funeral. The girl she was talking to replied with "my prayers are with you". Why would someone say something so stupid? It wasn't her dad, it wasn't even her relative, and yet people are "praying" and "sending prayers" to her?
Why is religion (and praying) so egotistical?
Most people who "my prayers are with you" don't actually end up praying for those people at all.
Some of the time. I happen to regard the positive statement and the sentiments behind (even if feigned) "my prayers are with you" as having its own vibration, and being a "prayer" in itself.
Also, in the instance above with the girl, she was probably just being polite. But who knows, maybe she confided in the other girl how much she hates going to funerals and that it reminds her of a loss in her family etc. Who knows why she said that? Maybe she is just a brainless skank, who really cares? So why get all butthurt?
Because it is your own ego that is involved...
To judge, or to claim to know why someone says something helpful to another person, and then deem their positive statements and actions as egotistical, is, in reality, the real egotism here.
-
I judge because if you knew the girl you would have a hard time believing anything she says. This same girl stopped taking birth control without telling her husband, after her husband said to her (and others) that he didn't want any kids until they had been married 2 years, and got pregnant within 6 months of being married.
So when I see her post stupid crap about praying for people, I kinda find it all to be :bs:
-
God killed nearly 25 million people in the Bible.
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
:horrorsurprise:
-
God killed nearly 25 million people in the Bible.
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
:horrorsurprise:
pffftttt....god kills way more every year these days
-
pffftttt....god kills way more every year these days
don't let ouhoops see this.
-
If we simply say the word empathy, it sounds mushy. If a scientist like Tania Singer shows, using fMRI scans, that women’s brains light up in three places when they get electric shocks, and that when their partners are shocked, their brains light up in two of the same three places, we understand empathy not as a hard-to-define feeling but as something that people experience in a physical sense. ... Neuroscience also shows that a reward circuit is triggered in our brains when we cooperate with one another, and that provides a scientific basis for saying that at least some people want to cooperate, given a choice, because it feels good.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/are-humans-naturally-selfish.html
full article:
http://hbr.org/2011/07/the-unselfish-gene/ar/pr
-
If we simply say the word empathy, it sounds mushy. If a scientist like Tania Singer shows, using fMRI scans, that women’s brains light up in three places when they get electric shocks, and that when their partners are shocked, their brains light up in two of the same three places, we understand empathy not as a hard-to-define feeling but as something that people experience in a physical sense. ... Neuroscience also shows that a reward circuit is triggered in our brains when we cooperate with one another, and that provides a scientific basis for saying that at least some people want to cooperate, given a choice, because it feels good.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/are-humans-naturally-selfish.html
full article:
http://hbr.org/2011/07/the-unselfish-gene/ar/pr
your welcome. (daily dish)
-
If we simply say the word empathy, it sounds mushy. If a scientist like Tania Singer shows, using fMRI scans, that women’s brains light up in three places when they get electric shocks, and that when their partners are shocked, their brains light up in two of the same three places, we understand empathy not as a hard-to-define feeling but as something that people experience in a physical sense. ... Neuroscience also shows that a reward circuit is triggered in our brains when we cooperate with one another, and that provides a scientific basis for saying that at least some people want to cooperate, given a choice, because it feels good.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/are-humans-naturally-selfish.html
full article:
http://hbr.org/2011/07/the-unselfish-gene/ar/pr
your welcome. (daily dish)
yeah, thanks. it's great.
-
How lucky we are to be humans and not plants.
These articles do not answer your questions.
-
How lucky we are to be humans and not plants.
These articles do not answer your questions.
:thumbs:
-
Heard a new song yesterday by Casting Crowns called "Already There". It talks about how my future is God's memory and he is standing at the end looking back at my life knowing exactly how it played out. I love knowing that even though I am not sure exactly what the future holds, God's already been there and done that. So thankful for that comfort!
This is crazy talk. I mean seriously, how can anyone believe this?
-
Heard a new song yesterday by Casting Crowns called "Already There". It talks about how my future is God's memory and he is standing at the end looking back at my life knowing exactly how it played out. I love knowing that even though I am not sure exactly what the future holds, God's already been there and done that. So thankful for that comfort!
This is crazy talk. I mean seriously, how can anyone believe this?
gives them validation for horrible decisions. "part of god's plan"
-
Heard a new song yesterday by Casting Crowns called "Already There". It talks about how my future is God's memory and he is standing at the end looking back at my life knowing exactly how it played out. I love knowing that even though I am not sure exactly what the future holds, God's already been there and done that. So thankful for that comfort!
This is crazy talk. I mean seriously, how can anyone believe this?
gives them validation for horrible decisions. "part of god's plan"
God is completely outside of, therefore not dependent on, and transcends our space/time domain and three dimensional reality.. See, God can not only "see" our future, but He can also "see" an almost infinite number of hypothetical futures based on how we utilize our free will. Theoretical physicists might label these realms, which are as real as the one we currently live in, "parallel universes."
God also does not "see" in the sense that we see with our eyes either. Again, He is not an old man with a beard, nor is He a "He." God completely Transcends all anthropomorphic qualities attributed to Him.
"Part of God's Plan" is a trite platitude, but when looking at everything with reincarnation in mind, perhaps those things WERE meant to happen. Sure, some dude in a white robe didn't do it to them, but maybe their karma, and past lives, dictated that certain events needed to take place to create a karmic balance.
The whole predestination vs. free will argument has been something people have grappled with for centuries. But the answer lies in the fact that they are both true to a certain extent. Before the soul manifests itself on our planet or others, a karmic pattern based on a variety of circumstances (individual karma, astrological alignments, past lives, etc.) is set forth and has a magnetic-like pull, outlining a general direction for the soul during the incarnation. However, it is ultimately up to the individual, through utilizing his or her free will, on whether or not they will experience soul growth during this incarnation.
Sadly to say, some lives have this "general karmic pattern" set up so strongly, that it is practically impossible for them to experience soul growth for a particular incarnation. However, since free will is involved, sometimes they do, and overcome the odds.
To avoid vagueness, "soul growth," in the broad sense is: The learning of spiritual lessons, though a series of lives on earth, which enables the soul to become liberated from threefold suffering: physical disease (understanding the impermanence and illusion of everything on this earth plane, including our own lives), balancing and overcoming mental inharmonies, and the dispelling of spiritual ignorance. Through the application of spiritual principles (Love, Faith, Charity, Honesty, Virtue, etc. etc.), and personal attunement with the God, an individual can bring this growth about. He or she will go through several realms, astral, causal, and physical (like earth), until the soul has reached a sufficient enough vibratory level to merge back in to the Infinate, and then.. Eternal Bliss.
Oh, eff it, kinda hard to explain.. What I'm saying is... Life is like this:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamebooks.org%2Fgallery%2Fcyoa004n.jpg&hash=ddbea84fc77c8e1a9f59c944f94124bf332db47e)
-
Heard a new song yesterday by Casting Crowns called "Already There". It talks about how my future is God's memory and he is standing at the end looking back at my life knowing exactly how it played out. I love knowing that even though I am not sure exactly what the future holds, God's already been there and done that. So thankful for that comfort!
This is crazy talk. I mean seriously, how can anyone believe this?
gives them validation for horrible decisions. "part of god's plan"
God is completely outside of, therefore not dependent on, and transcends our space/time domain and three dimensional reality.. See, God can not only "see" our future, but He can also "see" an almost infinite number of hypothetical futures based on how we utilize our free will. Theoretical physicists might label these realms, which are as real as the one we currently live in, "parallel universes."
God also does not "see" in the sense that we see with our eyes either. Again, He is not an old man with a beard, nor is He a "He." God completely Transcends all anthropomorphic qualities attributed to Him.
"Part of God's Plan" is a trite platitude, but when looking at everything with reincarnation in mind, perhaps those things WERE meant to happen. Sure, some dude in a white robe didn't do it to them, but maybe their karma, and past lives, dictated that certain events needed to take place to create a karmic balance.
The whole predestination vs. free will argument has been something people have grappled with for centuries. But the answer lies in the fact that they are both true to a certain extent. Before the soul manifests itself on our planet or others, a karmic pattern based on a variety of circumstances (individual karma, astrological alignments, past lives, etc.) is set forth and has a magnetic-like pull, outlining a general direction for the soul during the incarnation. However, it is ultimately up to the individual, through utilizing his or her free will, on whether or not they will experience soul growth during this incarnation.
Sadly to say, some lives have this "general karmic pattern" set up so strongly, that it is practically impossible for them to experience soul growth for a particular incarnation. However, since free will is involved, sometimes they do, and overcome the odds.
To avoid vagueness, "soul growth," in the broad sense is: The learning of spiritual lessons, though a series of lives on earth, which enables the soul to become liberated from threefold suffering: physical disease (understanding the impermanence and illusion of everything on this earth plane, including our own lives), balancing and overcoming mental inharmonies, and the dispelling of spiritual ignorance. Through the application of spiritual principles (Love, Faith, Charity, Honesty, Virtue, etc. etc.), and personal attunement with the God, an individual can bring this growth about. He or she will go through several realms, astral, causal, and physical (like earth), until the soul has reached a sufficient enough vibratory level to merge back in to the Infinate, and then.. Eternal Bliss.
Oh, eff it, kinda hard to explain.. What I'm saying is... Life is like this:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamebooks.org%2Fgallery%2Fcyoa004n.jpg&hash=ddbea84fc77c8e1a9f59c944f94124bf332db47e)
Sounds computery
-
I'd like to caution everyone about KSU187's posts.
Believing everything is equal to believing nothing.
-
I still love you though Poet...
-
Heard a new song yesterday by Casting Crowns called "Already There". It talks about how my future is God's memory and he is standing at the end looking back at my life knowing exactly how it played out. I love knowing that even though I am not sure exactly what the future holds, God's already been there and done that. So thankful for that comfort!
This is crazy talk. I mean seriously, how can anyone believe this?
gives them validation for horrible decisions. "part of god's plan"
God is completely outside of, therefore not dependent on, and transcends our space/time domain and three dimensional reality.. See, God can not only "see" our future, but He can also "see" an almost infinite number of hypothetical futures based on how we utilize our free will. Theoretical physicists might label these realms, which are as real as the one we currently live in, "parallel universes."
God also does not "see" in the sense that we see with our eyes either. Again, He is not an old man with a beard, nor is He a "He." God completely Transcends all anthropomorphic qualities attributed to Him.
"Part of God's Plan" is a trite platitude, but when looking at everything with reincarnation in mind, perhaps those things WERE meant to happen. Sure, some dude in a white robe didn't do it to them, but maybe their karma, and past lives, dictated that certain events needed to take place to create a karmic balance.
The whole predestination vs. free will argument has been something people have grappled with for centuries. But the answer lies in the fact that they are both true to a certain extent. Before the soul manifests itself on our planet or others, a karmic pattern based on a variety of circumstances (individual karma, astrological alignments, past lives, etc.) is set forth and has a magnetic-like pull, outlining a general direction for the soul during the incarnation. However, it is ultimately up to the individual, through utilizing his or her free will, on whether or not they will experience soul growth during this incarnation.
Sadly to say, some lives have this "general karmic pattern" set up so strongly, that it is practically impossible for them to experience soul growth for a particular incarnation. However, since free will is involved, sometimes they do, and overcome the odds.
To avoid vagueness, "soul growth," in the broad sense is: The learning of spiritual lessons, though a series of lives on earth, which enables the soul to become liberated from threefold suffering: physical disease (understanding the impermanence and illusion of everything on this earth plane, including our own lives), balancing and overcoming mental inharmonies, and the dispelling of spiritual ignorance. Through the application of spiritual principles (Love, Faith, Charity, Honesty, Virtue, etc. etc.), and personal attunement with the God, an individual can bring this growth about. He or she will go through several realms, astral, causal, and physical (like earth), until the soul has reached a sufficient enough vibratory level to merge back in to the Infinate, and then.. Eternal Bliss.
Oh, eff it, kinda hard to explain.. What I'm saying is... Life is like this:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamebooks.org%2Fgallery%2Fcyoa004n.jpg&hash=ddbea84fc77c8e1a9f59c944f94124bf332db47e)
I saw a funny little quip the other day commenting on the futile effort to explain our existence "with a language that evolved to communicate where the ripe fruit was." Apparently the secret to advance our language to where it can achieve such awesome understanding is to capitalize certain words like: He, Love, Eternal Bliss, etc.
-
http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news-facebook-page/
This is pretty hilarious, and indicative of the inbred religious redneck morons we still have in our country. Notice how awful their grammar is. And oh yeah, it sucks your religion is suffering a slow, painful trip to obscurity.
-
http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news-facebook-page/
This is pretty hilarious, and indicative of the inbred religious redneck morons we still have in our country. Notice how awful their grammar is. And oh yeah, it sucks your religion is suffering a slow, painful trip to obscurity.
"the more devout they (Christians) are....the more they view Thou Shall Not Kill as NEGOTIABLE..." - G. Carlin
-
http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news-facebook-page/
This is pretty hilarious, and indicative of the inbred religious redneck morons we still have in our country. Notice how awful their grammar is. And oh yeah, it sucks your religion is suffering a slow, painful trip to obscurity.
Did Atheists become the majority when I was napping? Oh, wait, there are still over a billion Catholics in the world....yeah...obscurity. :users:
-
http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news-facebook-page/
This is pretty hilarious, and indicative of the inbred religious redneck morons we still have in our country. Notice how awful their grammar is. And oh yeah, it sucks your religion is suffering a slow, painful trip to obscurity.
Did Atheists become the majority when I was napping? Oh, wait, there are still over a billion Catholics in the world....yeah...obscurity. :users:
slowly
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F26.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lqckyjPzlk1qgwk51o1_500.jpg&hash=56b1437b7d0aea02b4ae9ae3c7e561a431b05811)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F26.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lqckyjPzlk1qgwk51o1_500.jpg&hash=56b1437b7d0aea02b4ae9ae3c7e561a431b05811)
pfffffffffffffffffffffft
-
I guess you can add Uganda to the list of countries we have troops in...
-
If we simply say the word empathy, it sounds mushy. If a scientist like Tania Singer shows, using fMRI scans, that women’s brains light up in three places when they get electric shocks, and that when their partners are shocked, their brains light up in two of the same three places, we understand empathy not as a hard-to-define feeling but as something that people experience in a physical sense. ... Neuroscience also shows that a reward circuit is triggered in our brains when we cooperate with one another, and that provides a scientific basis for saying that at least some people want to cooperate, given a choice, because it feels good.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/are-humans-naturally-selfish.html
full article:
http://hbr.org/2011/07/the-unselfish-gene/ar/pr
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fwiredscience%2F2011%2F12%2Fbartal8HR.jpg&hash=b84358fdae84e8ba6e04714699267a58065a81da)
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/rat-empathy/all/1 (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/rat-empathy/all/1)
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-aris-survey-nones_N.htm
A closer look at the "Nones" — people who said "None" when asked their religious identity — shows that this group (now 15% of Americans, up from 8% in 1990) opts out of traditional religious rites of passage:
•40% say they had no childhood religious initiation ceremony such as a baptism, christening, circumcision, bar mitzvah or naming ceremony.
•55% of those who are married had no religious ceremony.
•66% say they do not expect to have a religious funeral.
"Your parents may decide for you on baptism and your spouse has a say in your wedding, but when people talk about dying, they speak for themselves," says Kosmin.
He expects the number of Nones to continue to grow as each generation begets more.
-
I don't see Religion going anywhere anytime soon.. Belief and consciousness is an evolving process. As we humans shed our old and worn out belief systems (i.e. fundamentalism; Islamic, Hindu, and Christian to name a few) there is going to be a change in the collective consciousness, and some resistance to the acknowledgement of a Higher Power or being part of a religious body, mainly due to having felt cheated by out-dated and ridiculous sounding dogmas.
This resistance and reluctance to admit religious affiliation can in some cases be based on how crazy certain religious people are, and the desire not to be "one of them." It is natural to try to separate from ignorant people.
Also, another take on it is that now more people have access to the internet and can investigate any religion they want, so you find people with very eclectic viewpoints. These people might not have a religious affiliation, but are believers in God.
However, you do have some points noticing a trend, but making the huge jump to "Religion is done-for" is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Pew Research has some good stuff on this topic..
http://www.pewforum.org/Topics/Beliefs-and-Practices/Importance-of-Religion/
http://www.pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the-Millennials.aspx
Just like when Francis Bacon stated: "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion," humankind will pass through this phase, the shedding of old beliefs, and to a greater understanding of Reality.
-
However, you do have some points noticing a trend, but making the huge jump to "Religion is done-for" is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
not sure if this is directed at me or not.
if it is... that is not the argument i am trying to make. in fact in the article it states that many "nones" are believers of a higher power but feel that "organized" religion has no/little value for them.
I do believe however that as science continues to develop and we increase our understanding of the natural world "religion" will continue to fade into obscurity. non-belieg/agnostic is already the 4th largest belief system on the planet.
-
What I can only presume are hardcore gpc wabash'rs say "eff you" to all the non-believing goEMAW haterz.
http://www.kansas.com/2011/06/26/1908924/as-girl-lay-near-death-family.html
tl;dr
Some God-fearing folks suited up and prayed to a saint.
Not EMAW, squawks
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fgovbeat%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F12%2F2010-Largest-Group-by-County.jpg&hash=2a26cf90b59c3f9ee81d3a954b170d5f0abcf967)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fgovbeat%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F12%2FLargestNonChristian.png&hash=e128ab7bc05a5dbbc85379f661db79cd063aaece)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fgovbeat%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F12%2FMost-diversity-by-county.jpg&hash=d8f863eb2f48278d707ae29d59021d0df2625609)
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/12/religion-in-americas-states-and-counties-in-6-maps/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/12/religion-in-americas-states-and-counties-in-6-maps/)
-
If someone has time they should definitely go through this thread like the other teams' game threads and highlight it.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fgovbeat%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F12%2F2010-Largest-Group-by-County.jpg&hash=2a26cf90b59c3f9ee81d3a954b170d5f0abcf967)
this one is crazy because of the state lines.
-
also because Mizzou/SEC
-
If someone has time they should definitely go through this thread like the other teams' game threads and highlight it.
Serious question: Are you a god?
Do you wear a bubble wrap suit and shoot lightning at people? tia
-
also because Mizzou/SEC
Yeah, that was the big thing for me.
-
i'm glad there aren't more baptists in kansas. we could stand to have fewer methodists, but i guess that's true for every state. it would sure be nice if the lutherans would set up shop in one region the way the LDS have.
-
i sat next to this guy on a plane this week. long story short he started talking about how he travels around and preaches the gospel. no problem, right? he seemed like a nice guy so i engaged in some conversation.
but eventually he started talking about how he heals people, and that he uses the holy spirit to grow peoples legs, and has it on video. he said that he has healed scoliosis, broken bones, and straight up just made people taller.
here are some videos of him doing his magic on people. he showed me these videos on the plane. also please note i was dealing with a substantial hangover throughout this entire plane ride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2L_C_Ce1OI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2L_C_Ce1OI)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skZQmZffdoU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skZQmZffdoU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGDrd8SJgng (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGDrd8SJgng)
-
:sdeek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2UBbACT-rI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2UBbACT-rI)
-
Only watched the first one. Really impressive. No need to go back to back with a bro to see how much taller you are after having a miracle performed on you. Tape measures? Pssht.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Did you ask for him to miracle your hangover? That would be my first request.
-
Did you ask for him to miracle your hangover? That would be my first request.
damnit. DAMNIT. he would have done it too.
-
Atonement
By Father Stephen De Young
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2019/07/03/atonement/
Over the next several weeks, posts will examine the Biblical concept of atonement from several angles in an attempt to synthesize the teaching of the scriptures on this topic. Before delving into the teaching of particular portions of the scriptures it is important to have a working definition of what “atonement” is in the first place and how the terms in the original languages of scripture which are translated by this English word are used in a general sense. There also needs to be a certain amount of disambiguation regarding common popular uses of the term in Western theology and popular Christian discussion. Many of these usages import concepts and theological notions which postdate the scriptures by centuries. The “reading in” of these much later theological notions to the text of scripture serves in some cases to merely cause confusion, but in others to create a sort of feedback loop based on confirmation bias. A particular piece of later teaching is read into a text and then the text is used as a proof for that same teaching. This post will serve to clear the ground before the positive presentation of forthcoming posts.
The English word “atonement” is a word created for the purposes of Biblical translation and has no earlier etymological history. Wycliffe used the phrase “at onement” in his own translations in the 14th century to indicate reconciliation to unity. In the 16th century, this was combined into the word “atonement.” Because the word is a coinage, it offers very little insight into the concept as it is employed in the scriptures. Some modern English translations have moved to the translation “reconciliation” in many instances in order to parallel Wycliffe’s original translation. In contemporary scholarly sources, the translation “purification” has become widely popular, with “purgation” as another alternative.
The origin of the term is in the Hebrew word group ‘kfr’. Hebrew words have three letter roots which can then be used to form related verbs and nouns which carry similar meaning. A form of this word creates the name for the holy day Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The ‘kfr’ root appears to be derived from a parallel Akkadian word which formed the verb “to wipe.” In Hebrew, it is used to mean to wipe, to smear, or to cover. There is, in the Hebrew scriptures, deliberate wordplay in, for example, the description of the Day of Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16. Blood is wiped or smeared in the sanctuary which wipes away sin. Blood covers the objects in the tabernacle and sins are covered from the sight of God. Incense covers the appearance of God himself within the sanctuary so that the high priest does not see him and die. This action is central to all of Israelite worship. The lid of the ark of the covenant is “the atonement cover” (though often translated “mercy seat” in English). The later temple is referred to as the “house of atonement” (eg. 1 Chron 28:20). Despite the centrality of the usage of the term in ritual contexts, it is also used throughout the Hebrew scriptures within the context of relationships between humans. It is used, for example, when Jacob is preparing to once again encounter his brother Esau after many years and he sends offerings ahead of himself in the hopes that they will “cover Esau’s face,” literally “atone his face” (Gen 32:20). The ‘kfr’ word group can then be seen to involve the restoration of relationships between persons and community in a general sense but also includes ritual elements aimed at removing or covering over the cause of estrangement.
In Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the word “hilasmos” and other related words are used to translate the ‘kfr’ word group. This translation choice has some of the same difficulties found in the English “atonement” in providing additional information about the term’s meaning. Though similar concepts are discussed, there are no known pre-Christian, non-Jewish instances of the word “hilasmos” in Greek literature. For the first few centuries of its known usage, then, this term is simply a Greek substitute for ‘kfr’ words and carries only the meaning of the latter. The first known usages of the term in a pagan context come from the first century AD, parallel to the time of the composition of the New Testament, in Plutarch. In every case, Plutarch uses the term to refer to sacrificial offerings used to placate an angered or offended supernatural being, either a god or a deceased human’s spirit. This represents a narrower usage than ‘kfr’ words, though the translators of scripture and later Jewish authors such as Philo freely used “hilasmos” for cases involving both divine-human and human-human relationships. In Jewish and Christian thought, these are inseparable concepts.
In light of these general definitions based on usage, future posts in this series will describe in more detail the ways in which the concept of atonement is described in the scriptures. In light of these scriptural terms, the concept of the wrath of God, as described in scripture, will be further defined. The means by which the situation described by that wrath is ameliorated will then be discussed. Then, these understandings of atonement as it takes place within the context of sacrifice, in general, will be applied to the sacrifice of Christ in particular. Finally, the relationship between the atonement of Christ’s sacrifice and related concepts of redemption and salvation in their cosmic scope will be described.
Beyond the clarification of terminology, however, there are further preconceptions related to atonement, for the most part grounded in Western theology, which need to be cleared away. Much, if not all, of contemporary discussion regarding atonement in general, and Christ’s atoning sacrifice in particular, takes place surrounding various competing “theories of atonement.” These theories represent attempts which are to one degree or another systematic to explain how atonement, and specifically Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross, works. Sometimes, rather than “theory” the term “model” is used. Within Western theology, a shift occurred in the seventh and eighth centuries in the pursuit of establishing how certain teachings and doctrines fit together and how certain mysteries of the church work. This set a trajectory for Eucharistic theology which continued through the Reformation and to this very day. In the context of atonement, it represented a turn from describing what Christ accomplished on the cross to attempting to explain how he accomplished it and why he accomplished it in the particular way which he did. The most famous example of this turn and benchmark on this inquiry’s historical path is, of course, Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo. “Why the God-Man?” still bore the tissue of earlier theology in connecting the understanding of Christ’s atoning death to the incarnation, but also followed the new trajectory of attempting to explain the how and why. In our own day, scholar Simon Gathercole has reasserted one of these theories or models, penal substitutionary atonement, as superior to all of the other models because it is the only one which provides a “mechanism” by which atonement takes place.
This entire discussion is based on a series of presuppositions which collapse under even a small amount of scrutiny. There is, for example, no reason to believe that the mysteries of God operate according to “mechanisms” intelligible to the human mind. There is no reason to believe that any of the various metaphorical descriptions used by scripture and the fathers to describe Christ’s atoning sacrifice at the cross is intended to be describing precisely what happened there in an exhaustive and exclusive sense such that these descriptions represent “theories” which can be argued against one another. There is no reason to believe that the problems manifest within creation by human sin necessitates some particular response from God as a remedy as if there are some overarching rules or concept of justice to which God himself is subject.
Rather, the scriptures and the fathers understand Christ’s atoning death as the revelation of his divine glory. Atonement as it took place in the old covenant, as described in the Hebrew scriptures, represents a partial and preliminary revelation of the glory of Christ which comes to its fullness in his death on the cross. The scriptures and the fathers meditate on what is revealed about Christ in these events and on what he has accomplished for the sake of his creation, including ourselves, in these mighty acts. The purpose of this series of posts is to return to see the way in which this revelation of Christ is described in scripture. It is not to promote one of these “theories” over against others. The only critique which will here be offered of various models for the atonement will be the implied critique of their absence from the testimony of scripture. Such theories, merely because they have been advanced or even become popular, do not need to be disproven. Rather those who would seek to advance them must prove their legitimacy. More importantly, they must demonstrate the validity of the presuppositions which produced them in the first place. These presuppositions are shared by neither the scriptures or the fathers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Fr. Stephen De Young
The V. Rev. Dr. Stephen De Young is Pastor of Archangel Gabriel Orthodox Church in Lafayette, Louisiana. He holds a PhD in Biblical Studies from Amridge University. Fr. Stephen is also the host of the Whole Counsel of God podcast from Ancient Faith and author of the Whole Counsel Blog. He co-hosts the live call-in show and podcast Lord of Spirits with Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick.
-
The Wrath of God
July 8, 2019 · Fr. Stephen De Young
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2019/07/08/the-wrath-of-god/
Edit: I don't know why the text is showing up as strike-through. click the link if it is too bothersome.
The wrath of God is a topic unpopular in the present era. Much theological ink has been spilled in the modern period in an attempt to explain away or otherwise neutralize the idea, despite its clear presence in the scriptures and in the writings of the fathers. An entire fully developed complex of ideas in later Western theology, including not only God’s wrath but also a particular conception of his justice and of penal substitution, is seen by many modern commentators as an inextricably linked whole. This complex idea is then caricatured in various ways and rejected wholesale. To reject the teaching of the church at the foundation, however, along with the later erroneous edifice built upon it is to deform the Christian faith. Rather than, as many of St. Paul’s original hearers, seeking to justify themselves, post-modern thought demands that the faithful justify God in the face of a denuded sense of morality. This approach makes the concept of true repentance utterly unintelligible or at best a bland form of self-improvement. Worse, it makes the cross of Christ an embarrassment once again as it was to so many in the ancient world.
Though the wrath of God as a concept is expressed using words related to emotional anger, it is not intended to express a passionate or emotional state. This is an important distinction in breaking the popular caricature of the “wrathful God.” What is described by the terms relevant to the wrath of God is a particular experience of God by human persons and those who witness that experience. It is never used in the scriptures to portray God as fickle or intemperate. Quite the opposite. An oft-repeated theme of the Hebrew scriptures is that God is slow to anger (in Hebrew idiom, literally “long of nose”), describing the long period of patient mercy which precedes the experience of his wrath.
In order to understand the origin of the human experiences described as the wrath of God, two interlinked concepts need to be understood. The first of these is the concept of justice or righteousness. Both the Hebrew ‘mishpat’ and the Greek ‘dikaios’ describe the world as being in a rightly ordered state. Existence and non-existence and therefore Yahweh’s act of creation in Gen 1 are conceived in the scriptures as bringing order to chaos. Humanity was originally created to continue the work of creation in cooperation with Yahweh by bringing the order and beauty of Paradise with them to make the whole creation into Eden. Humanity, however, was expelled from Paradise into this present world of chaos and violence under the power of sin and death. The great promise of the Hebrew scriptures is that a day, most often called ‘the day Yahweh’ will come when he will establish perfect justice in the whole creation (Isa 13:6, 9; Jer 46:10; Ezek 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1-31; 3:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad 1:15; Zeph 1:7-14; 14:1; Mal 4:1-5).
Though this is a promise, that on a final day Yahweh will bring his great work of creation to its completion in bringing it to perfect order, a casual perusal of the Old Testament passages above gives a rather horrifying description of that day. From these descriptions, however, certain motifs relating to the nature of God’s wrath as expressed on that day emerge. The first of these is fire. Specifically, a fire which tries and tests all things (eg. Mal 4:1-5). This fire has two effects on two different groups of people. For one group, this fire is destructive and consumes them utterly. For the other group, this fire is purgative and they emerge from the day of Yahweh purified like gold from the dross and stain of their sins and transgressions. This latter group are those who are justified, made righteous or made just. Rather than being consumed with their sins and wickedness they are purified from them by a burning away. This burning fire is rightly described by scripture and the fathers as God’s wrath.
Undergoing this fiery trial, with either result, is “judgment” in its Biblical sense. In the new covenant, this justification, being made righteous or just, being set in order as God’s creation, begins in this life in this world. In his prophetic ministry, St. John the Forerunner speaks of the wrath to come using this motif of cleansing fire (eg. Matt 3:7-12). He also, however, links this fire to the Holy Spirit, and specifically to baptism with the Holy Spirit (3:11). The phrase generally translated ‘baptize you with the Holy Spirit’ in English is directly parallel to St. John’s statement that he ‘baptize you with water’ for repentance. It literally describes being immersed or submerged in the Holy Spirit and, as he here makes clear, fire. Repentance is therefore linked here to, and serves as the precondition for, the cleansing fire of the Spirit. Repentance is here not seen as self-improvement or growth, but as testing and trial by fire. It is bringing one’s self under judgment now in order to remove the fire of judgment on the day of the Lord (1 Cor 11:31).
The other major motif surrounding the day of Yahweh in the Hebrew prophets is that of distributive justice (eg. Obad 1:15). The state of this present world, as it is still God’s creation, still reflects his character. Humanity is still the image of God within it. It is therefore not abject chaos and destruction, but a broken order which requires the cleansing and purification described above. This distributive justice character of judgment sees the final completion of the ordering of creation as shoring up and repairing the order which still persists therein. It is a restoration of balance and order. This restoration will necessarily affect some positively and others negatively based upon their thoughts, words, and deeds (Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10). Many scriptural categories describe the two poles of this experience of God, such as reward and punishment, blessing and curse, and vindication and wrath. Punishment, curse, and wrath are all ways of describing the experience of those who suffer loss in this restoration. This loss is not merely shame or embarrassment but is quite real. For the Egyptians, their massacre of the male children of God’s firstborn, Israel, was rebalanced by the death of their firstborn sons. For two hundred years of apostasy, the northern kingdom of Israel was scattered back into non-existence. For 490 years of ignoring the Sabbath year, the southern kingdom of Judah faced 70 years of exile in a foreign land. That this sort of massive upheaval is coming is a constant theme of Christ’s own preaching (eg. Matt 19:30; 20:16; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30; 16:25).
The various punishments or consequences for sin in the Torah are grounded in this twofold understanding of the wrath of God. The Torah never imposes suffering or pain as a means of recompense for sin, though this is not uncommon in other ancient cultures. Sin in the Torah is handled either by death, corresponding to the consuming fire of wrath, or by restitution, the suffering of loss to restore the right order of justice. Restitution is, therefore, a critical and necessary element of repentance (Luke 19:8-9). This understanding gave rise to the concept of penance in the church. It is also a constitutive element to the church’s understanding of asceticism.
The second concept, linked with the understanding of the wrath of God as the experience of judgment and righteousness, is that the experience of God’s wrath stems from his presence. In Hebrew idiom, what is generally translated in English as being in God’s presence is actually to be “before his face,” which is itself a reference to seeing him. God is righteous. God is holy. God is surrounded by the fullness of his glory. These are not merely adjectives correctly applied to God as if he were being judged against some external standard. Rather, just as God is love, he is also righteousness, holiness, glory, etc. This is why for Moses, to see his glory would be to see God himself (Ex 33:18-20). This is why St. Paul can say that Christ is the righteousness of God (1 Cor 1:30-31). The experience of a sinful human person coming into the presence of God is dramatized in Isaiah’s prophetic call (Isa 6:1-13). The prophet experiences his own undoing in his experience of the righteousness, holiness, and glory of God (v. 5). In order for him to speak the words of God, his lips must be purified by fire (v. 6-7).
God’s coming to bring judgment upon the gods of Egypt and to vindicate his people is therefore referred to in the Torah as him visiting his people (Gen 50:24-25; Ex 4:31). The day of Yahweh is therefore also referred to as the day on which he will visit his people (Ex 32:34; Lev 26:16; Isa 23:27; 29:6; Jer 15:15; 27:22; 29:10; 32:5). In the prophetic timeline, the day of Yahweh would come first upon Judea, preceded by the coming of Elijah. Judgment would come upon God’s people first, through which a remnant would be refined by fire. After this would come a period, the last days, during which the nations would stream to Jerusalem to worship Yahweh, concluding in Yahweh’s judgment of the entire creation and the completion of his creative work.
Basic to the understanding of the New Testament authors is that this timeline was advanced in their day. Jesus Christ is Yahweh and he has come to his people in Judea. His very presence in their midst brought about judgment. Most were cut off through their rejection of Christ. A remnant, however, found repentance and justification in Christ. Following this, the Gentiles were added to this remnant, reconstituting the assembly of Israel, the church. The apostles bore witness to these events and attest to them in the scriptures. This means, as they attest, that we are now in the latter days during which Christ rules in the midst of his enemies. At the conclusion of this period, described by St. John figuratively as a thousand years in the Apocalypse, Christ will again visit his creation to complete the eighth creation day begun by incarnation and resurrection. Thus he will judge the living and the dead. The word “Parousia,” generally translated in English as “return,” more literally means “presence.” All of creation will be brought before the throne of Christ. All of creation will stand in his presence. All will see his face. This will bring all of creation to order and completion. Human persons will either themselves be justified, purified by fire, or will be purged, losing even what little they may presently possess. For the first, this experience will be reward and joy, but for the second punishment and wrath.
As a final note, this understanding of the presence of Christ is firmly embedded in the church’s understanding of the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, a human person receives Christ himself into his own person. The presence of Christ, as has already been seen, can bring either purification or destruction, forgiveness or wrath. St. Paul speaks of this when he describes the consequences of receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner (1 Cor 11:27-34). The priest’s prayers reference the purification of Isaiah described above (Isa 6:6-7). The prayer of St. Symeon the Translator after receiving the Eucharist is a profound meditation upon these themes. Repentance and the purification of our souls and bodies can be painful and difficult, but they prepare us to stand before the face of our Lord Jesus Christ and for the eternal righteousness, holiness, and glory of the world to come.
-
Summarize that for me please
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
While I’m here MAGA has shown us that religion isn’t actually at fault for all these religion based wars and atrocities. People just love being tribal fuckheads.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Propitiation and Expiation
July 16, 2019 · Fr. Stephen De Young
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2019/07/16/propitiation-and-expiation/
Debates surrounding atonement theology over the last several decades have centered on two terms, propitiation and expiation. Both of these terms describe the function of particular sacrificial rituals. There is not, of necessity, a conflict between the core meanings of these two terms. They have come, however, to be emblematic of entire theological positions regarding the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Clearing away the accumulated theological baggage from these terms, however, allows them to highlight two important elements of the sacrificial system described in the Hebrew scriptures which will, in turn, reveal elements of the Gospels’ portrayal of Christ’s atoning death. Rather than summarizing two incompatible views or options or theories regarding “how atonement works,” these elements, along with others, convey ways of speaking and understanding sacrifice which together produce a rich, full-orbed understanding of what our Lord Jesus Christ has done on our behalf.
Both propitiation and expiation in the scriptures view sin through an ontological lens. It is a thing which exists in the form of a taint, an impurity, similar to a deadly disease. Like a deadly infection, if left uncontrolled it will not only bring death, but will spread throughout the camp in the wilderness, the nation, and the world. While this is true of sin generally, the presence of Yahweh himself in the midst of his people in the tabernacle and later temple elevates this danger. The Day of Atonement ritual, for example, is instituted in Leviticus in response to the fate of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron who entered into the tabernacle unworthily in their drunken sinfulness and were consumed by the fire of God’s holiness (Lev 10:1-2; 16:1-2).
In fact, the entirety of the commandments of the Torah is a means of dealing with sin and related contamination in order to allow Yahweh to remain in the midst of his people. The failure of Israel and then Judah to follow it results in the departure of Yahweh from the temple and the removal from the people from Yahweh’s land. The internecine debates within Second Temple Judaism primarily surround what must be done vis a vis the Torah and the way of life of the people to correct the resulting situation. The Christian proclamation within this debate is that Yahweh has visited his people in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ has fulfilled the commandments of the Torah (in filling them to overflowing) and accomplished what they, of themselves, could not. While the Torah prescribed a sort of sin management system, Christ has dealt with sin once and for all, so that the commandments of the Torah now function, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to cure the disease of sin and transform human persons into sons of God.
Within this overall system, sacrificial ritual occupies a central place and it is within the sacrificial system that we see principles of propitiation and expiation. Expiation, as a term related to atonement, refers to the removal of sin. The danger to the community posed by sin and its resulting corruption is remedied by the removal of sin from those so contaminated and ultimately its removal from the entire community. It has become popular, due to baggage loaded into the other term, propitiation, for some to argue for expiation as an alternative, meaning that expiation represents the entirety of the function of sacrifice. The direct connection of expiation to sacrificial ritual, however, is tenuous at best. It is not uncommon, for example, for people, even scholars, to shorthand sacrificial practice by saying that before the killing of an animal the priest would place the sins of the offerer, or the people as a whole, upon that animal and then kill it. Unfortunately, this is something which occurs nowhere in the sacrificial system as outlined in the Torah, nor anywhere in the pagan sacrificial rituals of the ancient world for that matter.
The one ritual in which such a thing occurs is within the ritual of the Day of Atonement (as first described in Leviticus 16). Within this ritual, two goats are set apart and lots are cast (v. 7-8). One of these goats is then taken and the high priest pronounces the sins of the people over it (v. 20-22). This goat is not the goat “for Yahweh.” This goat is not sacrificed. In fact, this goat cannot be sacrificed because, bearing the sins of the people upon it, it is now unclean and unfit to be presented as an offering. The goat is so unclean, in fact, that the one who leads it out into the wilderness is himself made unclean by contact with it (v. 26). The goat is sent into the wilderness, the region still controlled by evil spiritual powers as embodied in Azazel, such that sin is returned to the evil spiritual powers who were responsible for its production. This represents the primary enactment of the principle of expiation in Israel’s ritual life, though the principle is found throughout the Hebrew scriptures (eg. Ps 103:12). The New Testament authors see this element of atonement fulfilled in Christ as he bears the sins of the people and is driven outside of the city to die the death of an accursed criminal (as in Matt 27:27-44; Rom 8:3-4; Heb 13:12-13).
A much more widespread concept which falls under the category of expiation is that of purification, purgation, and washing from sin often associated with blood. This is not so much expiation enacted within sacrificial ritual as it is a result of sprinkling or smearing of blood which wipes away sin. This idea is at the core of the terms translated “atonement” in Hebrew itself. As part of the sacrificial offering of the other goat, the goat “for Yahweh,” its blood is drained and is used to purify the sanctuary, the altar, and the rest of the accouterment of the tabernacle (Lev 16:15-19). The annual Day of Atonement ritual takes place in addition to the regular cycle of sin and guilt offerings that take place throughout that year and has, as its key purpose, the cleansing of the sanctuary itself. While sin has been managed through these other offerings, it has left a resulting taint and corruption in the camp which is especially dangerous in the place in which Yahweh himself resides and so this must be purified. Once again, handling this blood which absorbs and removes sin renders the high priest himself contaminated and so he must purify himself before he goes on to offer the rest of the animal to Yahweh (v. 23-24). This element of washing and purification from sin is found throughout the Hebrew scriptures (eg. Ps 51:2, 7), forms much of the basis of the understanding of baptism beginning with that of St. John the Forerunner, and is applied to the operation of the blood of Christ by the New Testament authors (eg. Eph 1:7; Col 1:20; Heb 10:3-4, 19-22; 1 Pet 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:5).
The term propitiation has been freighted with a great amount of theological baggage. Specifically, it has been used as a sort of synecdoche for the systematic view of penal substitutionary atonement. Many now take it to refer to the appeasement of God’s wrath through the punishment of a substitute for the sins of a person or people. Attempting to import this conceptual whole into the sacrificial system as established in the Torah is simply impossible. Much of the sacrificial does not even involve the killing of an animal. Offerings of the sacrificial system are always food. There is a sacrificial meal involved in which the offerer and those bringing the offering eat and/or drink a portion of the meal while a significant portion, the best, is offered to Yahweh. Animals which are going to be a portion of these offerings and meals are, of course, killed as they would be before being a part of any meal. But there is no attention paid to the mode of their killing by the text of the Torah. Precise details are laid out regarding how they are to be butchered and what is to be done with the various parts of the animal and the cuts of meat. But their killing is not even ritualized. This likewise means that some sort of punishment or suffering on the part of the sacrificial animal is no part of the ritual. Even in the case of whole burnt offerings in which the entirety of the animal is burned and thereby given to Yahweh, it is not immolated alive but is killed first, unceremonially.
Propitiation itself, however, has a much simpler meaning. Literally, of course, it means to render someone propitious, meaning favorably disposed. At its most simple level, it refers to an offering which is pleasing to God. Unlike pagan deities, Yahweh does not require care and sustenance in the form of food from human worshippers. There are, however, significant instances of his sharing of a meal in a literal sense (eg. Gen 18:4-8; Ex 24:9-11; and of course numerous meals shared by Christ in the Gospels). The more common language used in the scriptures for God’s appreciation for his portion of sacrificial meals is that these sacrifices are a pleasing aroma (as in Gen 8:21; Lev 1:9, 13; 2:2; 23:18). This same language is applied to the sacrifice of Christ in the New Testament (as in Eph 5:2 and the Father’s statement that in Christ he is “well pleased”). In the Greek translation of Numbers 10:10, the language of a memorial is used to describe the sin offering as its smoke rises to Yahweh. This language is applied to prayers and almsgiving elsewhere in the scriptures (Ps 141:2; Acts 10:4; Rev 5:8). The party who is being propitiated through atonement may be wrathful toward the one who makes the offering (as, for example, Jacob assumes in Gen 32:21 regarding Esau), but this is not necessitated by the language of propitiation as such.
Understanding the wrath of God as a function of his presence, of his justice and holiness, there is another element of propitiation which is directly relevant to wrath. This is the protective function which sacrificial blood and incense offerings serve in relation to Yahweh’s presence. Part of the Day of Atonement ritual is specifically oriented toward allowing Aaron to enter the most holy place without dying as had his sons (Lev 16:11-14). An obscuring cloud of smoke, as well as the blood of a bull to wipe away the sins of himself and his priestly family, are required because, on that day, Yahweh himself would appear, would make himself present, in that place (v. 2). The blood of the sacrificial lamb, which was utilized as a meal, at the Passover served a similar protective role (Ex 12:21-23). This is not protection from a loving God. Rather, it is a means provided by that loving God to allow sinful human persons to abide in the presence of his holiness. This same sort of protection language is utilized regarding the blood of Christ (eg. Rom 3:24-25; 5:9; Eph 2:13; Heb 10:19-22; Rev 12:11).
Propitiation and expiation, themselves being seen from a variety of perspectives, are inseparable elements of what atonement means in the scriptures. They, along with other elements already and still to be discussed, form the cohesive understanding of Christ’s own sacrifice on the cross. These are not abstract principles, theological rationales or arguments. They are not constructed ideas used to explain mechanisms by which salvation takes place. Rather, they are highlighted moments of experiential reality. The core of Israelite, Judahite, and Judean religion was sacrificial ritual which brought about states of being and consciousness in its participants and the world itself. Ancient people, the first Christians understood the self-offering death of Christ in terms of this lived experience. This post and the others in the present series seek to reestablish access to this experience of God through delineating the shape of that experience for our fathers in the faith.
-
The Handwriting of Our Sins
July 22, 2019 · Fr. Stephen De Young
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2019/07/22/the-handwriting-of-our-sins/
One verse cited often with regard to the crucifixion of Christ in the Orthodox liturgical tradition is Colossians 2:14. “When he canceled the handwriting in the decrees against us, which were opposed to us. And he has taken it from our midst, by nailing it to the cross.” This verse describes how, as the previous verse says, we who were dead in our transgressions were made alive by having those transgressions taken away. The language used here offers us yet another window through the scriptures to understand the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sakes upon the cross. Though it may not be apparent in English translation, this language of the handwriting of a decree is part and parcel of one set of the thematic language used throughout the scriptures to describe human sin and its relationship to death.
The Greek word translated typically in this verse as “handwriting” is translated so based on a woodenly literal rendering of a Greek compound word made up of the word for “hand” and the word for something written. Its most common usage, however, in the first century AD was to refer to an IOU or a promissory note. Its attachment here to the word translated “decree” which refers to an official public document moves the meaning toward the latter usage, a promissory note or a public document describing a debt owed. St. Paul is therefore here describing the effects of our transgressions, our sins, as an accumulated debt which represents a claim against us. Christ, through his atoning sacrifice on the cross, cancels this debt. The certificate of that debt is nailed to the cross and torn asunder.
The imagery of transgression as debt here utilized by St. Paul is commonplace in the Gospels. Depending upon the Gospel which one is reading, the Lord’s Prayer asks either for the forgiveness of debts or of trespasses. St. Matthew’s Gospel gives the Lord’s Prayer as referring to the forgiveness of our debts as we forgive our debtors (Matt 6:9-13). Immediately thereafter, however, as an interpretation of the prayer, Christ says that if we forgive the trespasses of others, then our trespasses will be forgiven us (v. 14-15). St. Luke, however, phrases the Lord’s Prayer as referring to the forgiveness of our sins as we forgive our debtors (Lk 11:4). These concepts are so closely aligned in Second Temple Jewish thought that they can literally be used interchangeably. In describing the forgiveness of sins, Christ uses debt in several of his parables (eg. Matt 18:23-35; Luke 7:36-47).
This understanding of sin as a debt, however, goes well beyond merely an analogy to help us understand forgiveness. Though not so in most of the cultures of our day, in the ancient world, the concept of debt was closely tied to the institution of slavery. Slavery in the ancient world was not primarily an instrument of racial or ethnic oppression. Rather, it was primarily an economic institution. With no concept of “bankruptcy” in the modern sense, the means by which a debt which could not be paid would be settled was indentured servitude. A person would work off the debt by becoming a slave. As the head of a household, not only a man who had incurred a debt would be sold as a slave, but his entire family. Children born into the family would be considered to be subject to the debt incurred by the father and might live their whole life in slavery attempting to pay it back or otherwise earn freedman status. Until that point, their lives and actions were not their own but were under the control of the person who held their certificate of debt and so had a claim to ownership of them.
In his Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul uses this language of debt and slavery to describe the relationship between sin and death (6:16-23). St. Paul posits that the wage of sin is death. Death is the means by which the debt incurred through sin is paid and so death, through the slavery of sin, projects itself back through the life of the debtor, expressing itself in the form of continued sin, which in turn increases debt and further enslaves in a vicious cycle (Rom 7:7-24). Because this debt has been owed by every human person who has ever lived, each person dies for their own sin (Deut 24:16; Jer 31:30; Ezek 18:20). Further, the devil is connected to this imagery as the holder of the debt. After his rebellion in Paradise, the devil was cast down to the underworld and given, for a time, dominion over the dead. Through death and sin, he has been able to enslave the great mass of humankind, with this certificate of debt as his claim over everyone who sins.
A critical theme of St. John’s Gospel is that Christ, as sinless, does not owe any debt to death. In fact, it was impossible for Jesus to be killed. Rather, he chooses to lay down his life and having done so voluntarily, is able to take it up again (John 10:17-18). Because Christ is without sin, the devil has no claim over him whatsoever (John 14:30-31). He cannot even lay claim to his body through decay (Jude 9; Acts 2:27). Because he had no sins of his own he was able to die for ours (1 Cor 15:3). Because his life is the ineffable, infinite life of God himself, it is able to pay the debt owed to death for every human person setting them free from bondage to sin, death, and the devil. The devil is thus rendered powerless and deprived of even his kingdom of dust and ashes. “Since, then, the children have shared in blood and flesh, he himself, in the same way, shared in the same things, in order that through this death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is the devil, and might set free those who, through fear of death, were subject to a lifetime of slavery” (Heb 2:14-15).
This language of manumission and redemption, of being freed from slavery through Christ’s sacrifice, is also entailed by the paschal language surrounding Christ and his death. Christ died not on the Day of Atonement, but the Passover. The celebration of Pascha was and remains for Jewish communities a celebration of freedom from slavery. Slavery to a spiritual tyrant who wielded the power of death. St. Peter can, therefore, speak of us having been purchased by the blood of Christ, the paschal lamb (Matt 20:28; Mark 10;45; 1 Pet 1:18-19). St. Paul can say that Christ has been sacrificed for us as our Passover (1 Cor 5:7). St. John the Forerunner’s primary witness to Jesus Christ is that he is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). It is the lamb who was slain whom St. John sees seated upon the heavenly throne (Rev 5:6).
Redemption in this sense, from the power of death and the devil, is universal. On the last day, all will be raised from the dead, not only the righteous (John 5:25-27; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16). Death has been destroyed in Christ’s victory over it. St. Paul can say that Christ is the savior of all men, especially those who believe (1 Tim 4:10). The power (kratos) of death which the devil wielded has been taken away from him so that now all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Christ Pantokrator (all-powerful; Matt 28:18; Eph 1:21; Jude 25). Every human person now belongs to Christ as their Lord and Master (1 Cor 6:19-20). Christ now rules over all of creation, over those who accept and embrace him as Lord and Master of their life and over those who continue in rebellion against him (1 Cor 15:24-26). In the end, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Rom 14:11; Phil 2:10-11).
The heresy of universalism which has arisen from time to time in the history of the church comes from a misunderstanding of this universal element of redemption. What is said about the resurrection of the dead and Christ’s dominion is then taken to also be speaking of entrance into the kingdom and eternal life. The scriptures, however, are utterly clear that the resurrection of every human person who has ever lived is a precursor to Christ’s judgment of the living and the dead. “Do not wonder at this, for the hour comes when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out; those who have done good to the resurrection of life and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29). Rather than removing judgment from all of humanity as they suppose, Christ’s victory over death makes him the sole judge of all of humanity (John 5:22; Rom 14:4). No one but Christ exercises judgment over human persons, including the devil and his demons. They no longer have any claim. Christ is the Lord and so the judge of all.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is the story of his great victory over the powers of sin and death and the devil culminating with his enthronement at the right hand of the Father with dominion over all the earth. This is a proclamation which brings joy and freedom in our being set free and receiving forgiveness of our debts. But it concludes with the warning that this same Jesus will appear to judge the living and the dead. It is this final proclamation which has always produced the question, “What must I do to be saved?” It is this final proclamation which has brought us all to live lives of repentance and faithfulness within the community of the church.
-
Overall he makes some decent points, although I think he downplays the influence of early, pre-Roman Angloids on the way the roman church expresses itself in the English speaking world.
-
Atonement for the Whole World
August 2, 2019 · Fr. Stephen De Young
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2019/08/02/atonement-for-the-whole-world/
First John 2:2 states that Christ has offered himself as an atoning sacrifice “not only for our sins but also for the whole world.” For most of Christian history, this verse has been used as a football in various theological disputes. First, it was used as a proof text against the Donatists who saw their churches in North Africa as the totality of the church of Christ. Second, it was debated in regard to the condemnation of apokatastasis or universalism. Beginning in the period of the Protestant Reformation, it became a key text in the debate surrounding the Calvinist doctrine of limited or particular atonement. While what St. John has to say to the Johannine community in 1 John may apply in various ways to these later debates, it is quite clear that none of these applications reflect the original context. St. John was not writing against hypothetical first century Donatists or Calvinists. Nor was he writing in support of some universalist notion. Rather, St. John is applying a consistent understanding of atonement centered around the Day of Atonement ritual itself to the sacrificial self-offering of Jesus Christ.
Paradise is the place where God dwells. After the creation of humanity, they were brought into Paradise to dwell with God and with the already created spiritual beings. Humanity was meant to grow to maturity and then depart from Paradise bringing Paradise, the presence of God himself, with him in order to transform the whole creation into Eden. Instead, by partaking of the knowledge of good and evil, humanity became subject to corruption and ultimately death. The first humans were expelled from Paradise, not because of their sin and uncleanness alone, but because for them to live eternally in that state would have made them like the demons, unable to repent (Gen 3:22-24). Rather than bringing Paradise with them, they brought their corruption with them and lived in difficulty within this present world.
The first transgression, in the garden, took place at the instigation of the devil. This pattern, of wicked spiritual powers influencing humanity to perform evil deeds, continued and intensified. This begins with Cain, the archetypal wicked man (Gen 4:6-7). In Second Temple Jewish thought, Cain is the archetypal sinner and wicked man. While his father was told that the ground was cursed because of him, Cain himself was cursed ‘from the ground’ (v. 11). While Adam would bring forth food from the earth by the sweat of his brow (3:17-19), the ground would not at all yield its fruit to Cain (4:12). Unable to live by the work of his hands, Cain founds a city so that he and his lineage create commerce, culture, and warfare.
What was true of Cain plays out in his genealogy (Gen 4:17-24). The corruption of the world continues and culminates in the figure of Lamech whose song to his two wives is emblematic of his sexual immorality and violent murder exceeding his forefather Cain exponentially by his own boast. This moral corruption was paralleled by spiritual corruption (Gen 6:1-7). In the interpretations found within Second Temple Jewish texts, this relationship, as with Adam and Cain, is causal. Rebellious spiritual powers are at work in and through human rebellion to corrupt and destroy the created order. It is the purification from the world of this evil and corruption which necessitates the flood as prophesied at Noah’s birth (Gen 5:28-29). St. John directly references these traditions surrounding Cain and his lineage in regards to the corruption of the world in 1 John 3:12-13. For St. John, the whole world lies under the power of the evil one (5:19) through this corruption. But Christ came to destroy the works of the devil brought about in the world by human persons (3:8).
The name attached to the leader of the supernatural powers involved in this corruption in league with Cain and his descendants in Second Temple literature is typically Azazel. So, for example, 1 Enoch 10:8 says, “The whole earth has been corrupted through the works taught by Azazel, ascribe to him all sin.” The use of this name serves to connect these traditions about the corruption of the world to the Day of Atonement ritual itself. The first of the two goats utilized in the Day of Atonement ritual is the goat ‘for Azazel.’ It is entirely possible that this was, at the earliest stage of the text of Leviticus 16, not a proper name but simply referred to ‘the goat who takes away.’ This is the goat into which the sins of the people were ritually placed by the high priest and which was then sent into the wilderness to die. In later, Second Temple traditions, this was understood to mean that the goat was taking the sins of the people back to whence they came, to the evil spiritual powers who had inspired them.
The Day of Atonement ritual took place annually and took place in addition to the regular cycle of sin and guilt offerings. This means that it served an additional ritual function above and beyond what those sacrifices accomplished. The Day of Atonement ritual, indeed all of the commandments of the Torah, are aimed toward preserving the holiness, purity, and cleanness of the Israelite camp and the later nation. Sin was seen to leave a metaphysical taint, a stain of impurity, on those who committed it and on the world around them. It brings spiritual corruption in the world. For God to continue to dwell within the tabernacle at the center of the camp and later the temple in the midst of the nation, not only must sin be atoned for through sacrifice, but this stain and corruption must be purified.
This is enacted within the Day of Atonement ritual. The sins of the people are placed upon the goat and sent away and the blood of the second goat is used to cleanse the sanctuary, the place where Yahweh himself dwells because this is the place in which that corruption and taint are the most dangerous. When the Torah was kept, it preserved first the camp in the wilderness and then the nation of Judah as holy and pure islands in the midst of a world which had been subjected to evil spiritual powers through sin and death. Those of the nations, ruled over by demons whom they worshiped, were unclean. Animals from outside the camp were unclean. Even physical objects were unclean and had to be cleansed and dedicated before they could be used in the sanctuary and then annually cleansed at the Day of Atonement.
The same literature which connects the corruption of the world in the earlier chapters of Genesis to Azazel and the cleansing ritual of the Day of Atonement also envisions an ultimate fulfillment to that ritual. Texts such as the Apocalypse of Abraham, which has been preserved for us in Slavonic by the Orthodox Church, describe an ultimate eschatological Day of Atonement at the end, connected with the coming of the Messiah, in which not only the sins of the people will be cleansed, but the entire world will be set free from the corruption of sin and death. This is fulfillment in the original sense, that the pattern of the old covenant is filled to overflowing by what is accomplished in the new. This event will represent a fulfillment of the entire Torah in that what the Torah merely managed and controlled on a small scale, this latter Messianic fulfillment will deal with once and for all.
That Christ’s atoning, sacrificial death represents this fulfillment is ubiquitous among the New Testament authors. The Synoptic Gospels, and St. Matthew’s Gospel, in particular, present Christ as fulfilling the role of both goats through his suffering and death. St. Luke in his two-volume work, his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles follows the same trajectory at the pivot point from one volume to the next. The end of St. Luke’s Gospel culminates in Christ’s self-revelation on the road to Emmaus followed by the continued praise and worship offered by the original Christian community in the temple. This parallels the events of the Maccabean revolt in which the climactic battle at Emmaus was followed by the rededication of the temple after it had been desecrated and abandoned under Antiochus Epiphanes. This Lukan rededication of the people as a temple is followed at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles by the coming of the Holy Spirit, the presence of Yahweh himself, to fill not a new building, but his people. The sacrifice of Christ had not only purified and cleansed them to allow the Spirit to dwell within them but had also expanded the boundaries of the camp to encompass the entire world, such that Gentiles and even wild animals were no longer unclean (Acts 10:9-23).
Though this final purification of the world is accomplished in principle in Christ’s death and resurrection, it finds its application in the world of time and space over the course of the period preceding Christ’s return. That all food is clean finds its expression in the lives of the faithful when that food is received with prayer and thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4). For St. John, Christ came to destroy the works of the evil one (1 John 3:8). This finds its fruition within the community of the church. “We know that we are from God and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (5:19). Just as those who are, like Cain, from the Devil bring sin and corruption and death into the world, so also those who are from God bear fruit of purification and life. Just as they actualize the works of the evil one in time and space, so also the one in whom the Spirit dwells brings the works of God into the world of time and space. God calls these works good because they are his works.
St. Paul tends to speak of this in Adamic terms. The body of the Christian, as the result of Christ’s atoning death, is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19-20). This means that, as was the intent with the first created man, the Christian as the presence of God within him as he goes out into the world. The Orthodox Divine Liturgy culminates not in the reception of the Eucharist, but in the dismissal when the faithful, having received Christ into their bodies, are sent out into the world bearing him with them. The entire creation is now the possession of our Lord Jesus Christ who wields all authority within it. We, as his assembly the Church, bring that rule and its effects to realization within the world as we receive God’s creation, bless it and hallow it. This includes the baptismal reception of the people of the world but extends also to every level of the created order, animate and inanimate. This is the work of the church in the world until the last day when there will be no temple because the whole creation will be the dwelling place of the Lord God Almighty and of the Lamb (Rev 21:22).
-
Why does nicname keep posting things that are too long to read?
-
Nic, I’m not reading any of that. We need a TLDNR that’s at max 4 sentences.
-
And just going to put this here too, anyone citing (Rev X:X) can gtfoomf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What’s this book of the Bible about? Well, have you seen the 70s/80s animated movie “Heavy Metal”?
Who wrote this book of the Bible? Literally nobody knows bro.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Overall he makes some decent points, although I think he downplays the influence of early, pre-Roman Angloids on the way the roman church expresses itself in the English speaking world.
Sounds interesting. Like the ancient Britons?
De Young is an Orthodox priest, and while there is some mention of a few prominent reformers in the blog series, he doesn't really touch much on Roman Catholicism, or the pre-schismatic western Church. My guess is that his primarily Orthodox audience is well versed in it, at least from their perspective.
-
What’s this book of the Bible about? Well, have you seen the 70s/80s animated movie “Heavy Metal”?
Who wrote this book of the Bible? Literally nobody knows bro.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think of the Bible as like a scrap book of the most important writings in the world!
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
On the list of known beings who have positively impacted my life, God ain't that high. He weren't much good for me, anyhow, and that's without getting into my having to hallucinate the premise that he/it exists in the first place. Tall order!!
-
On the list of known beings who have positively impacted my life, God ain't that high. He weren't much good for me, anyhow, and that's without getting into my having to hallucinate the premise that he/it exists in the first place. Tall order!!
Of course. That’s the faith part
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
On the list of known beings who have positively impacted my life, God ain't that high. He weren't much good for me, anyhow, and that's without getting into my having to hallucinate the premise that he/it exists in the first place. Tall order!!
Of course. That’s the faith part
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that the good part? The bad part? Seems like a con to me, but I'm just a humble servant.
-
On the list of known beings who have positively impacted my life, God ain't that high. He weren't much good for me, anyhow, and that's without getting into my having to hallucinate the premise that he/it exists in the first place. Tall order!!
Of course. That’s the faith part
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that the good part? The bad part? Seems like a con to me, but I'm just a humble servant.
I guess the faith is that all the good and the bad are just part of life and there’s a purpose that you may not understand but trust in God
Idk though
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
-
(https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/372837-Vine-Deloria-Jr-Quote-Religion-is-for-people-who-re-afraid-of.jpg)
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
This is much closer to my feeling on the topic, subject to the massive qualification that if there is an eternal, all powerful God up there that loves us and is giving us instructions, it’s not so that we can be healthy and happy during this infinitesimally small period on Earth. It’s so we can choose to spend eternity with him when that time is up.
That said I do think there is plenty of objective science saying that living intentionally with purpose is going to provide a better quality of life overall.
-
Atonement for the Whole World
August 2, 2019 · Fr. Stephen De Young
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2019/08/02/atonement-for-the-whole-world/
First John 2:2 states that Christ has offered himself as an atoning sacrifice “not only for our sins but also for the whole world.” For most of Christian history, this verse has been used as a football in various theological disputes. First, it was used as a proof text against the Donatists who saw their churches in North Africa as the totality of the church of Christ. Second, it was debated in regard to the condemnation of apokatastasis or universalism. Beginning in the period of the Protestant Reformation, it became a key text in the debate surrounding the Calvinist doctrine of limited or particular atonement. While what St. John has to say to the Johannine community in 1 John may apply in various ways to these later debates, it is quite clear that none of these applications reflect the original context. St. John was not writing against hypothetical first century Donatists or Calvinists. Nor was he writing in support of some universalist notion. Rather, St. John is applying a consistent understanding of atonement centered around the Day of Atonement ritual itself to the sacrificial self-offering of Jesus Christ.
Paradise is the place where God dwells. After the creation of humanity, they were brought into Paradise to dwell with God and with the already created spiritual beings. Humanity was meant to grow to maturity and then depart from Paradise bringing Paradise, the presence of God himself, with him in order to transform the whole creation into Eden. Instead, by partaking of the knowledge of good and evil, humanity became subject to corruption and ultimately death. The first humans were expelled from Paradise, not because of their sin and uncleanness alone, but because for them to live eternally in that state would have made them like the demons, unable to repent (Gen 3:22-24). Rather than bringing Paradise with them, they brought their corruption with them and lived in difficulty within this present world.
The first transgression, in the garden, took place at the instigation of the devil. This pattern, of wicked spiritual powers influencing humanity to perform evil deeds, continued and intensified. This begins with Cain, the archetypal wicked man (Gen 4:6-7). In Second Temple Jewish thought, Cain is the archetypal sinner and wicked man. While his father was told that the ground was cursed because of him, Cain himself was cursed ‘from the ground’ (v. 11). While Adam would bring forth food from the earth by the sweat of his brow (3:17-19), the ground would not at all yield its fruit to Cain (4:12). Unable to live by the work of his hands, Cain founds a city so that he and his lineage create commerce, culture, and warfare.
What was true of Cain plays out in his genealogy (Gen 4:17-24). The corruption of the world continues and culminates in the figure of Lamech whose song to his two wives is emblematic of his sexual immorality and violent murder exceeding his forefather Cain exponentially by his own boast. This moral corruption was paralleled by spiritual corruption (Gen 6:1-7). In the interpretations found within Second Temple Jewish texts, this relationship, as with Adam and Cain, is causal. Rebellious spiritual powers are at work in and through human rebellion to corrupt and destroy the created order. It is the purification from the world of this evil and corruption which necessitates the flood as prophesied at Noah’s birth (Gen 5:28-29). St. John directly references these traditions surrounding Cain and his lineage in regards to the corruption of the world in 1 John 3:12-13. For St. John, the whole world lies under the power of the evil one (5:19) through this corruption. But Christ came to destroy the works of the devil brought about in the world by human persons (3:8).
The name attached to the leader of the supernatural powers involved in this corruption in league with Cain and his descendants in Second Temple literature is typically Azazel. So, for example, 1 Enoch 10:8 says, “The whole earth has been corrupted through the works taught by Azazel, ascribe to him all sin.” The use of this name serves to connect these traditions about the corruption of the world to the Day of Atonement ritual itself. The first of the two goats utilized in the Day of Atonement ritual is the goat ‘for Azazel.’ It is entirely possible that this was, at the earliest stage of the text of Leviticus 16, not a proper name but simply referred to ‘the goat who takes away.’ This is the goat into which the sins of the people were ritually placed by the high priest and which was then sent into the wilderness to die. In later, Second Temple traditions, this was understood to mean that the goat was taking the sins of the people back to whence they came, to the evil spiritual powers who had inspired them.
The Day of Atonement ritual took place annually and took place in addition to the regular cycle of sin and guilt offerings. This means that it served an additional ritual function above and beyond what those sacrifices accomplished. The Day of Atonement ritual, indeed all of the commandments of the Torah, are aimed toward preserving the holiness, purity, and cleanness of the Israelite camp and the later nation. Sin was seen to leave a metaphysical taint, a stain of impurity, on those who committed it and on the world around them. It brings spiritual corruption in the world. For God to continue to dwell within the tabernacle at the center of the camp and later the temple in the midst of the nation, not only must sin be atoned for through sacrifice, but this stain and corruption must be purified.
This is enacted within the Day of Atonement ritual. The sins of the people are placed upon the goat and sent away and the blood of the second goat is used to cleanse the sanctuary, the place where Yahweh himself dwells because this is the place in which that corruption and taint are the most dangerous. When the Torah was kept, it preserved first the camp in the wilderness and then the nation of Judah as holy and pure islands in the midst of a world which had been subjected to evil spiritual powers through sin and death. Those of the nations, ruled over by demons whom they worshiped, were unclean. Animals from outside the camp were unclean. Even physical objects were unclean and had to be cleansed and dedicated before they could be used in the sanctuary and then annually cleansed at the Day of Atonement.
The same literature which connects the corruption of the world in the earlier chapters of Genesis to Azazel and the cleansing ritual of the Day of Atonement also envisions an ultimate fulfillment to that ritual. Texts such as the Apocalypse of Abraham, which has been preserved for us in Slavonic by the Orthodox Church, describe an ultimate eschatological Day of Atonement at the end, connected with the coming of the Messiah, in which not only the sins of the people will be cleansed, but the entire world will be set free from the corruption of sin and death. This is fulfillment in the original sense, that the pattern of the old covenant is filled to overflowing by what is accomplished in the new. This event will represent a fulfillment of the entire Torah in that what the Torah merely managed and controlled on a small scale, this latter Messianic fulfillment will deal with once and for all.
That Christ’s atoning, sacrificial death represents this fulfillment is ubiquitous among the New Testament authors. The Synoptic Gospels, and St. Matthew’s Gospel, in particular, present Christ as fulfilling the role of both goats through his suffering and death. St. Luke in his two-volume work, his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles follows the same trajectory at the pivot point from one volume to the next. The end of St. Luke’s Gospel culminates in Christ’s self-revelation on the road to Emmaus followed by the continued praise and worship offered by the original Christian community in the temple. This parallels the events of the Maccabean revolt in which the climactic battle at Emmaus was followed by the rededication of the temple after it had been desecrated and abandoned under Antiochus Epiphanes. This Lukan rededication of the people as a temple is followed at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles by the coming of the Holy Spirit, the presence of Yahweh himself, to fill not a new building, but his people. The sacrifice of Christ had not only purified and cleansed them to allow the Spirit to dwell within them but had also expanded the boundaries of the camp to encompass the entire world, such that Gentiles and even wild animals were no longer unclean (Acts 10:9-23).
Though this final purification of the world is accomplished in principle in Christ’s death and resurrection, it finds its application in the world of time and space over the course of the period preceding Christ’s return. That all food is clean finds its expression in the lives of the faithful when that food is received with prayer and thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4). For St. John, Christ came to destroy the works of the evil one (1 John 3:8). This finds its fruition within the community of the church. “We know that we are from God and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (5:19). Just as those who are, like Cain, from the Devil bring sin and corruption and death into the world, so also those who are from God bear fruit of purification and life. Just as they actualize the works of the evil one in time and space, so also the one in whom the Spirit dwells brings the works of God into the world of time and space. God calls these works good because they are his works.
St. Paul tends to speak of this in Adamic terms. The body of the Christian, as the result of Christ’s atoning death, is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19-20). This means that, as was the intent with the first created man, the Christian as the presence of God within him as he goes out into the world. The Orthodox Divine Liturgy culminates not in the reception of the Eucharist, but in the dismissal when the faithful, having received Christ into their bodies, are sent out into the world bearing him with them. The entire creation is now the possession of our Lord Jesus Christ who wields all authority within it. We, as his assembly the Church, bring that rule and its effects to realization within the world as we receive God’s creation, bless it and hallow it. This includes the baptismal reception of the people of the world but extends also to every level of the created order, animate and inanimate. This is the work of the church in the world until the last day when there will be no temple because the whole creation will be the dwelling place of the Lord God Almighty and of the Lamb (Rev 21:22).
That's a pretty good summary of the Bible. Speaking of atonement, I was just listening to the podcast w/ NT Wright. The corner of Christianity that I grew up in was pretty obsessed with the penal substitutionary aspect of atonement and tended to neglect the wider meaning that Fr DeYoung discusses here.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/russell-moore-show/nt-wright-bible-most-misunderstood-verse-romans-atonement.html (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/russell-moore-show/nt-wright-bible-most-misunderstood-verse-romans-atonement.html)
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
“The Presence of God is fire. Those who have something in common with the Lord, will feel the fire as a flame of quickening love encompassing all things. For the rest, it will be a fire that consumes all things.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_o8eV7q61I&list=PLxcntdlvObPgDGgBg1mYsUxnfGcyTBKcc&index=19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOhLBLbM6kU&list=PLxcntdlvObPgDGgBg1mYsUxnfGcyTBKcc&index=20
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail constantly, but it does feel good to think I might be.
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail constantly, but it does feel good to think I might be.
Brother, the Bible is chalk full of people failing and God loving them through it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail constantly, but it does feel good to think I might be.
Brother, the Bible is chalk full of people failing and God loving them through it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also full of god killing all their babies and basically scorch earthing the planet at least once because people were bad. It’s a mixed bag with god tbh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail constantly, but it does feel good to think I might be.
Brother, the Bible is chalk full of people failing and God loving them through it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also full of god killing all their babies and basically scorch earthing the planet at least once because people were bad. It’s a mixed bag with god tbh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Precisely what I was going to say.
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail constantly, but it does feel good to think I might be.
Brother, the Bible is chalk full of people failing and God loving them through it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also full of god killing all their babies and basically scorch earthing the planet at least once because people were bad. It’s a mixed bag with god tbh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Precisely what I was going to say.
Part of the point of those old stories like the flood is that God promised never to do that again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
And how ever many thousands of years ago that story was first told was a pretty radical/progressive idea about a God.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think the American version of Christianity is highly bastardized and turns me off quite a bit. The churches I attended growing up and into my early 20's were more or less just country clubs.
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail constantly, but it does feel good to think I might be.
Brother, the Bible is chalk full of people failing and God loving them through it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also full of god killing all their babies and basically scorch earthing the planet at least once because people were bad. It’s a mixed bag with god tbh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Precisely what I was going to say.
Part of the point of those old stories like the flood is that God promised never to do that again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Says who
-
I think the American version of Christianity is highly bastardized and turns me off quite a bit. The churches I attended growing up and into my early 20's were more or less just country clubs.
I'd say everything is bastardized starting at the point where they demanded money and became a part of government (which is the vast, vast majority of the history of Christianity)
-
ALL those pages of horseshit that nic posted (no offense personally to nic) is humans twisting crap to fit their own agendas. Centuries and Centuries of selfish humans twisting and spinning it to best satisfy their own desires.
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail constantly, but it does feel good to think I might be.
Brother, the Bible is chalk full of people failing and God loving them through it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also full of god killing all their babies and basically scorch earthing the planet at least once because people were bad. It’s a mixed bag with god tbh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Precisely what I was going to say.
Part of the point of those old stories like the flood is that God promised never to do that again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
also one time some kids made fun of this bald guy so he cursed them in god's name and god sent a bear to kill 42 of the kids. if I were god I'd just choose to not do that in the first place.
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail constantly, but it does feel good to think I might be.
Brother, the Bible is chalk full of people failing and God loving them through it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also full of god killing all their babies and basically scorch earthing the planet at least once because people were bad. It’s a mixed bag with god tbh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Precisely what I was going to say.
Part of the point of those old stories like the flood is that God promised never to do that again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
also one time some kids made fun of this bald guy so he cursed them in god's name and god sent a bear to kill 42 of the kids. if I were god I'd just choose to not do that in the first place.
That's one of my favorite stories from the Bible.
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail constantly, but it does feel good to think I might be.
Brother, the Bible is chalk full of people failing and God loving them through it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also full of god killing all their babies and basically scorch earthing the planet at least once because people were bad. It’s a mixed bag with god tbh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Precisely what I was going to say.
Part of the point of those old stories like the flood is that God promised never to do that again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1290150406.1384/bg,f8f8f8-flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u1.jpg)
-
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
Sounds like you’re living a life that makes God happy to me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fail constantly, but it does feel good to think I might be.
Brother, the Bible is chalk full of people failing and God loving them through it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also full of god killing all their babies and basically scorch earthing the planet at least once because people were bad. It’s a mixed bag with god tbh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Precisely what I was going to say.
Part of the point of those old stories like the flood is that God promised never to do that again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Says who
Historians
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
(https://media.surlyhorns.com/monthly_2024_01/image.png.8295f4b12734a22964324fedb10e1d0c.png)
-
What a bunch of absolute horseshit. The notion that slowing killing someone via throwing rocks at them in an angry mob is the will of God is just the biggest LOL evidence of the corrupt influence of evil men on the so called “word of god.” It’s the word of lots of dudes with lots of mumped up ideas.
-
Preach, brother.
-
Imagine if the current crop of well known holy men would write their own book and it be added to the bible. Can you imagine how awful, self serving, and corrupted that would be?
Why should we think anything else happened 300-500 years after Jesus died? Everyone likes to say history repeats itself, history rhymes, etc. Why wouldn't we think that those in power, or prominence, at that time would have better "truth" than some corrupt bad person who collects checks preaching about how you're going to hell, all the while watching his wife get piped by the pool guy?
-
Can’t even imagine what the 10 commandments would look like today.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife (unless you are the pool boy in which case get in there bub)
-
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, but sometimes you just have to be a man, and sometimes a man just has to do what a man's gotta do.
-
Thou shalt not kill unless it’s someone knocking on your door and you have a sweet gun and have been getting super scared online with your bros over made up nightmare, and completely unreal, scenarios.
-
they would absolutely write in something about not taxing the church
-
Do whatever you want.
-
Do whatever you I want.
-
“Honor your Corporate Officers and your Board of Directors, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you”
-
"Love your neighbor as yourself (unless your neighbor is from a shithole country or is infected with Woke Mind Virus)"
-
Everyone's really getting some good digs in.
IF, you want to live a life that makes God happy.
THIS is the part that I object to most. Certainly I have defects of character that include anti-authority stuff. Beyond that, I still find the idea of "pleasing" the all powerful god to be absurd. Why does something that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, need my validation?
INSTEAD, I choose to believe that the "rules" are not there to please God, and are instead there to help reveal the path to true contentment in this life...the stuff I am supposed to experience and learn in this life. If we live a good life (kindness, love, tolerance, etc) then we get the truly good things in life and not simply the superficial good things from hedonism. Like Plato's allegory of the cave...hedonism (and selfishness in general) are like staring at the shadows in the back of the cave thinking you are seeing the real truth.
Alan Watts once described faith as not knowing, but that the not knowing is OK. I CHOOSE to have faith in a God, and simultaneously acknowledge that I have zero way of knowing for sure. I do this, because when I pray to a god (of my own understanding) to help direct my thinking and free me of selfishness, my life is better. WAY better than it ever was when I struggled with thinking I needed absolute BELIEF in the Lutheran Christian god (which I would have never ever been able "believe" in 100%).
FWIW, I don't really think any of this is incompatible with my understanding of "why Christians are supposed to do good things and avoid bad things." I get your point about, "I try to avoid hedonism, not because I think the avoidance will please a god, but because I think avoiding hedonism is good for me." But it's not really a far leap to square that circle if you start with the premise that basically every Christian is supposed to start with: "God wants good things for me, and doing good things pleases him." In other words, good things tend to be good for you and please God.
Perhaps a lot of these biblical rules (i.e. avoid hedonism even though it feels so damn good) were implemented because they were/are good for people, and God wants people to live in a way that was good for them. Anyway, all that to say, I don't think your post I quoted is necessarily contradictory to why good Christians act in a particular way.
-
I agree, and further agree with your implied statement that it’s all about the Golden Rule.