If you don't believe, then why get angry? [Archive]

rogerSIMIAN

08-30-2008, 11:37 AM

If people's mental maps and sense of self are tied up in a particular viewpoint on a subject (religion, politics, philosophy etc) then any viewpoint that contradicts this could be seen as a threat, if their beliefs are quite rigid. I think atheists can be just as prone to this kind of defensiveness as religious people.

But it might also be a reaction to how aggressively people with religion sometimes push their beliefs. Proselytising (trying to convert others to your own religious belief system) is very unattractive. This is why I have a lot more time for Buddhism. Even Hinduism has its proselytisers - Hari Krishna devotees shaking tins at you on the high street. As far as I know Buddhists have never traditionally been into directly trying to convert. Well, sure, they might send a monkey king, a pig, a sea creature and a boy called Tripitaka that looks a lot like a girl to deliver some scrolls from China to far off lands (ref: "Monkey" Japanese tv series), but when was the last time you had Buddhists knocking on your door thrusting pamphlets at you and pestering you for your loose change?

I don't believe in God but I hang about with people who do. None of them have ever tried to convert me, so that's cool. I think I pester them a lot more with my wacky ideas. :-) I'm quite interested in Eastern philosophies like Taoism and Buddhism - and I guess that having a vague belief that life has some meaning that I'll never fully understand gives more comfort than full hardline atheism would - but I think I mostly have a kind of Darwinian view of the world. I find it fascinating to try and work out what it is Nature "wants" in any given situation.

Eg - are women's and children's voices higher pitched than men's because higher-pitched sounds are good for close communication but don't travel too far (therefore less likely to attract predators); whereas bassier sounding voices will travel much greater distances, which would be handy whilst hunting - to scare off attackers and send information over longer distances?

Roger

08-30-2008, 12:59 PM

I do get angry when it gets to being fanatic - and when the church (or churches of the different beliefs) get involved.
They have always used believing for their own political power plays - nothing more, nothing less.
I totally agree with you on this. The "church" indeed has it's own agenda.

According to the Bible, church is when two or more Christians are together and worship the Lord. Which to my mind means it's about the people, not the building.

EthanRunt

08-30-2008, 01:02 PM

I get annoyed when people push their religion, try and say everyone is stupid except them, are so closed in they don't see other people have minds too, but if people don't go all "Oh praise the lord, for he has given us this gift" On me it's all fine.

hippieking

08-30-2008, 01:35 PM

I have to agree with sisch, I absoulutely hate it when someone interupts me when I'm trying to do something and then ask if they could do it for me. I don't want to change my religion.

Killian

08-30-2008, 02:42 PM

Thorny subject for a topic, Roger... good test of the spirit of the community, here I feel :)

Ok, my take... I pretty much agree with what's been said already; people can believe whatever they want about anything and I'm fine with it... it's when it crosses the line into impinging on my private thoughts and feelings and telling me I'm wrong to think that way; that's a big no-no.

I personally don't subscribe to the "bearded chap who lives in the sky" populist view of Christianity... indeed, I don't follow a religion at all, to be frank. Anyone who wishes to worship or praise any diety (be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, Pagan, Jedi... whatever) should be perfectly free to do so as they please... provided they don't start trying to tell me I'm wrong, will go to hell for being a godless heathen (yes, I've had some rabid wierdo throw that at me during my days when I used to do the whole "scientific debate vs religion" thing in the pub... the thing was, the person who said it happened to be standing behind us when she said it and wasn't even part of the conversation..), or belittle or demean me for having my own opinion on the matter.

Conversely, I'm not going to do the same to them, either (whether I happen to believe they are proceeding from a false premise or not, I don't have the right to harangue someone for believing something that I don't, anymore than they have the right to do it to me).

Any party (be it religious, political or whatever) that requires lots of shouting, waving of bits of paper and generally poo-pooing anyone else who has a slightly different take on their belief system needs to take a step back and look at themselves a bit.

I'm not down on religion at all... what I am down on is ORGANISED religion (i.e. a bunch of self-appointed individuals who dictate doctrine for everyone else to follow, and anyone who doesn't follow that doctrine is regarded with suspicion or downright hatred... which is an odd thing for a religion which preaches "live and let live", IMO...) Organised religion has been the worst thing to ever be created, IMO (take a look at the Spanish Inquistion... the persecution of the Hugenots under Louis XV, the Catholics during Elizabeth I's reign, etc, etc)... history is replete with people who used religion for their own ends and the Church during the Middle Ages was notoriously corrupt.

Get rid of the organised bit, and I think religion would be a lot more widely accepted than it is. I think a lot of the "ingrained dislike" people in the 21st century have of it is purely down to the way it's portrayed itself in the past.

My 2 cents, any road...

Roger

08-30-2008, 05:27 PM

So far I have totally agreed with all the posts.

I was a late convert to Christianity, I was 36, and I wasn't brought up that way. I was always taught to decide for myself. So when I try to follow my faith I go by what I read in the Bible.

A few interesting things I pulled out of it, that you don't ever hear about.

You can divorce under two different circumstances. Adultery and abandonment. Never heard any church talk about that one.

Not to follow the word of man, without first checking scripture. That makes a lot of church doctrine very wrong.

Not to think we are better than others, because we sin too. The Bible says as much.

Not to judge non-Christians. Which to my mind includes not ramming things down peoples throats, or by making them think they are stupid for having different beliefs. God says it's his job to judge and not ours.

We are to love our neighbour, regardless of who they are. This is a real tough one, but see my third point. ;)

To show God's love through our actions.

Jesus says to be loving, not hateful.

The Bible is the guide/rulebook for Christians. It is not for us to expect non-believers to follow it.

When Christians judge others it really annoys me. I realise that is judging, but we are allowed to judge other Christians. ;)

So when a "Christian" next tries to ram it down your throat. Tell him that you feel he is judging you and that they are not allowed to do that. But also tell them not to take your word on it, check scriptures. If they ask for which part of the Bible it's from, then you can tell them that it's not you job to know that. You don't need to be aggressive about it, just be adamant that they need to check it.

A_N_D

08-30-2008, 06:24 PM

The Bible was written by men (fallible creatures, by any definition, whether scientific or spiritual), not any "God", and in a politically-charged time when hallucinogens were quite popular and when men like Jesus (preachers and prophets and Messiahs) were a dime a dozen.

"Faith" is defined as a belief in something for which there is no proof.
As there is zero scientific basis to believe in a sentient God, everything else is either semantics, personal interpretation, or wishful thinking.

As far as getting angry, I rarely do, but here's an example of what pisses me off:

I started at a new company about five months ago. I had been there for a few weeks when I went out to a birthday lunch with some co-workers, most of whom I barely knew.

During lunch, the topic of the man-woman who recently gave birth to a baby came up, and one of my co-workers began to explain her take on gays and transsexuals. In the course of this discussion - in which she went out of her way not to appear judgmental - she accidentally revealed her selfish bias, her sense that she knew better than everyone else in the world when she said:

"Well, I don't judge anybody, but when you know the truth in the Bible, you know that that sort of of thing is wrong..."

From then on, I knew that this woman could NEVER be swayed from her Biblical "truths", and would never accept that a single iota of that book, written by men, might be mistaken.

That is not only blind faith, but monstrous arrogance, to think that you know a universal "truth" that applies to everyone (whether they believe it or not) based on a book written by fallible men.

That's why I occasionally "hate" religious zealots - they are monstrously arrogant, self-righteous, judgmental, and think everyone else is going to Hell if they don't accept the words of mad old men.

You're free to believe whatever you want - that you're psychic, reincarnated, or a wizard - I should be free to not be forced to hear about your scientifically baseless conclusions.

Roger

08-30-2008, 07:58 PM

An interesting post AND!

I have a real problem with the same kind of people, and for the same reasons pretty much. In particular on the issue of homosexuality, as that was the issue in question.

As I understand it, and I should add that nobody, however much they claim that they do, does not understand the Bible completely. It says that as a Christian it that we are not to practise homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that we can't be gay. It also doesn't mean we have to hate gay people.

What we are supposed to do is not judge homosexuals who are not Christians, and to show them love.

To be hateful towards homosexuals is people forwarding their own agendas. There are many things as Christians that we are not supposed to do. Like telling lies or being vulgar, or thinking bad thoughts against anyone. Hey guess what, I am guilty of all of those things. Even the most pious "Christian" is guilty of such things. And as the Bible says, any sin is as bad as any other. So how can I, a person who lies, swears and thinks bad things and commits many other sins, turn around and tell someone that being gay is wrong. It is no more wrong than anything I do. As the Bible says "He without sin cast the first stone!" Well that's me buggered, (oops I sinned again! ;)) it don't look like I am going to be throwing stones anytime soon.

I will add on a personal level that I have a great fondness for gay men on the whole. This is because they don't hide behind macho BS, I often feel that they can be totally themselves and fully express their emotions. I also have great respect with the dignity that many gay men face up to prejudice with.

I suppose this is a good time to explain why I believe. I don't expect this to change what anyone else thinks.

I had a revelation. This was at a time when I wasn't looking for anything, it wasn't through logical thought, nor through drugs or drink. To be honest it is not something I wanted at all, to be honest. It didn't fit in with my world view at all.

This revelation I had happened while I was reading a book. I think it was about Rorke's Drift if I remember correctly. I had a vision where it was as if everything became clear to me. I don't have the words to explain what I saw. But after it finished I was left with the words "it's all true!" This was in relation to the Bible.

I can't say whether this was real or not, but it certainly seemed very real to me indeed. In fact so much so that I became a believer instantly. To go through an experience that strongly and still deny it, was not possible for me.

Over time the feeling I was left with has never faded.

I know my experience doesn't fit in very well with what many people think, including many "Christians" who look at me as if I'm mad.

The Bible tells Christians how to live their lives. It doesn't tell them to tell other people how to live their lives. In fact it forbids it.

So I totally understand why you get angry sometimes with these religious zealots. They make me so angry too. :taz:

I see Religion as man made. I see faith as a belief in God. I am not religious, but I have a very strong faith.

I do accept everyone else has the right to believe or not to believe in whatever way they choose.

Another hurdle a lot of these zealots can't get past is how I can hang out with what they see as "sinners". God says "love the sinner, not the sin!" So if I am deserving of love even though I sin, then it seems to me that so is everyone else.

It really frustrates me how over the years that people have twisted the words of the Bible to fit their own agendas.

I can say I was totally amazed when I read the Bible. It said so much that is different to what the organised church has said. The church has a lot to answer for, and the person mentioned earlier is a product of that wrong thinking.

riott007

08-30-2008, 09:19 PM

sgporsche48

08-30-2008, 09:38 PM

I live in the Bible belt and maybe SG knows a little about this too.

A know a little but not a whole lot.

I've been mostly forced to go to a Methodist church all of my life, which in itself is not too bad considering Methodism is basically where the lack-a-daisical Christians go.

However, I have gone to a Christian private school (like riott, although definitely not as severe) for almost all of my schooling. We have a chapel service every day and it's usually about 45 minutes long. I'm rather fond of the hymns (note, hymns, not the god-awful, gouge my eyes out with a spoon and then self-rape Christian "rock") so it isn't horrible, but still we are being forced to sit there and participate, which in my mind is never the best way to make someone a fan of something.

I've seen most of my friends make the quick progression to atheism because of the constant force-feeding of religion in my state. I'm not considering myself an atheist because I do believe there is a god but haven't really found the right religion that suits me, but what does a 16 year old know?

Whenever the topic of religion comes up, I notice a lot of people are quick to offer their opinions and then dismiss whatever others have to say (especially religious zealots and fanatical atheists). It really annoys me how selfish and self-righteous some people can be when it comes to religion. If you're religious, great, good for you. If you're atheist, great, good for you. It's not ruining my day that you're this and you aren't going to change the what I believe.

That's about all I can say about the matter, and again, what does a 16 year old know, anyway?

Killian

08-30-2008, 10:19 PM

...the day someone can't have an opinion that they feel they can voice honestly is a sad day... so you have every right to have your say, my friend; just because you are 16 doesn't mean you don't have valid points to raise about things that're important to you.

Jase180

08-30-2008, 10:59 PM

Faith in religion is hope for the fearful masses.

rogerSIMIAN

08-31-2008, 12:13 AM

*A Question For The Christians*

Christianity traditionally says that one of the differences between humans and animals is that humans have a soul and animals don't. What are your views on that?

Personally I think that humans are animals who evolved consciousness and an enhanced intelligence as a tool for surviving in various different environments. It's made us a good all-rounder over tens of thousand of years: less likely to go the way of creatures that evolved to only survive in one particular climate or to eat specific types of food. I don't particularly think that Nature (or God, if you believe in God) sees us as any more important than other living creatures. And it seems natural to me that if the soul does exist (and it feels to me like it maybe does) then it exists in everything alive not just in humans.

So, what are your views on the soul, Pilgrims? :001_smile:

sisch

08-31-2008, 03:58 AM

I agree 100%, Roger -everything on earth is made of the same few basic components and evolved from there.

So, if there is a soul (of which I'm not sure), I'm sure animals have one, too...

Another thing is, much of what we call "free will" is influenced strongly by instincts. I would go so far as to say all our conscious decisions are coloured strongly by instincts.. thus making it hard to know if free will exists, or if it's just delusional...

We are animals with a very thin "coating" of civilisation.... which comes off all to easily (to be observed in war very easily - the atrocities that happen during every war show how thin the coating really is).

Oops - I hope the question wasn't for christians only....:001_tongue:

Del

08-31-2008, 06:52 AM

"Faith" is defined as a belief in something for which there is no proof.
As there is zero scientific basis to believe in a sentient God, everything else is either semantics, personal interpretation, or wishful thinking.

Ahh, but that is but one definition of faith. You can have faith in something that has much proof, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Scientific proof is also not the only kind of proof we have and the only kind of proof we believe. For example one may believe in democracy without a laboratory or understanding of complex mathematics. Or, in a court of law for example a witness can be just as valuable as DNA.

Also, I wonder if by referring to God as sentient you mean to say there might be scientific evidence of insentient God? :p

Christianity traditionally says that one of the differences between humans and animals is that humans have a soul and animals don't. What are your views on that?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe the Bible ever states that animals do not have a 'soul'. Biblically, animals worship God (and so do the rocks, apparently) and he looks after them. According to Luke 12:6, not even sparrows are forgotten by god.

According to the Bible and therefore Christianity, humans are just different. They are made in God's image (not necessarily physically of course) and he prefers them. They have the ability to do right and wrong, whilst animals do not. We have an understanding of morality, we have laws, music, art, society. Despite technically being animals, we do not behave in the same way - to the point that some would classify humans as a virus.

Personally, I'm rather agnostic with theistic tendencies. I've had experiences that make belief in god a tangible thing that I can not readily deny, yet I do not fully know who God might be. I lean towards Christianity, but do not believe the Bible. It's difficult to explain without writing at length.

Roger

08-31-2008, 06:58 AM

I live in the Bible belt and maybe SG knows a little about this too. Basically, if you don't go to church, you are a nobody.

I also grew up going to a Christian private school. (I'm not rich..I was a charity case) Every day, it was church from 8am to 12pm, lunch and then school studies. Saturday a day of rest and then back to church on Sunday for 6 hours. I remember having to memorize chapters of the bible...and if you failed at reciting...you would either be put in the corner to stand up for hours, embarrassed until you wet yourself (which I did once) or smacked on the hand with a ruler because only lazy stupid children would fail at such a task.

The principle had a huge paddle with holes in it and often my brother and I would be spanked for doing various things (mainly for saying the lords name in vain for being smacked on the hand with a ruler or for crying for being smacked on the hand with a ruler...and sometimes acting like poor ghetto children.) Which is one of the reasons, i swear so much to this day...because of those people.

Despite all this, they did not knock the faith in God out of me...but I refuse to go back to church nor will I ever support anything that is church related.
This demonstrates precisely what is wrong with organised religion.

Riott has a faith that is simple and as the Bible says, that is all you need. She does commits sins (as we all do). But, the school which told her and punished her for being bad are far, far worse. They are abusing, humiliating, teaching hate, and turning people away from God. In fact they are doing the exact opposite of what they say they are doing. They are evil in my mind, and Riott most certainly is not.

What would Jesus do?

Well I'm sure he wouldn't be using a ruler on people's knuckles for a start.

Jesus loves people, he doesn't hate them.

Establishments like that would be loved by Satan. After all they are doing his work for him.

That's about all I can say about the matter, and again, what does a 16 year old know, anyway?
SG you are wise beyond your years. I always think of you as being 23. But your opinion is important regardless of your age.

*A Question For The Christians*

Christianity traditionally says that one of the differences between humans and animals is that humans have a soul and animals don't. What are your views on that?

As I said before I don't understand how everything works in the Bible. Because of this I am not going to make up something to fit in, just to "justify" a point. I always think it is foolish when "Christians" do that.

wackyal3000

08-31-2008, 07:11 AM

As I said before I don't understand how everything works in the Bible. Because of this I am not going to make up something to fit in, just to "justify" a point. I always think it is foolish when "Christians" do that.

So I accept that only humans have souls, but I have no idea how that works.

But not understanding and still believing is a major part of our Religion. I've met a few atheists who appear to be that way because they tried to understand. Christianity is about unquestioning faith.

Norrie

08-31-2008, 07:26 AM

I guess you'd call me agnostic. I just don't care whether a "supreme being" exists or not. Doesn't affect my life.

I grew up in a devoutly Catholic environment. My oldest brother was a Jesuit priest for 7 years. I, and my 3 siblings (even the ex priest), stopped going to church years ago. My parents, devout, devout Catholics, never made any kind of fuss.

Their argument was that religion is a personal thing; not their job to proselytise.

I despise the Catholic church for many, many things. Yet, I'm grateful for the fact that it has become my mother's whole life since my father died. Mind you, that's the people, not the institution.

I'm not a huge fan of dogma or absolutism of any description; be it creed or atheism.

I feel I've ramble somewhat.

rogerSIMIAN

08-31-2008, 12:17 PM

IMy oldest brother was a Jesuit priest for 7 years.

I take it it wasn't his first 7 years: "Give me the boy until he is seven and I give you the Man". :-) I'm interested in the Jesuits. My friend is an Irish-American practicing Catholic. She doesn't believe in the organized aspects of the religion and doesn't believe that the the bible should be read literally but she does go to mass and believes in prayer and the rituals of Catholicism. Anyway, she describes the Jesuits as the Intellectuals of the Catholic church - they use logic to explore things from every angle. I heard an interview with Elmore Leonard (author of "Get Shorty" etc) a few months ago. He was saying that he was taught by the Jesuits and it makes total sense him going from that to writing Crime novels - which are all about detection and using logic to solve puzzles. What did your brother make of it?

As I said before I don't understand how everything works in the Bible. Because of this I am not going to make up something to fit in, just to "justify" a point. I always think it is foolish when "Christians" do that.

Yes, I think that all of the World's major Religions have started out with positive messages. The problems occur because people find it easier to mould the words of sacred documents or reinterpret them in order to validate a viewpoint on the world that they already have.

I was mainly just asking the question about the soul and animals 'cause I don't actually know whether most Christians believe only humans have a soul or if that's one of the aspects that's up for debate.

Another thing is, much of what we call "free will" is influenced strongly by instincts. I would go so far as to say all our conscious decisions are coloured strongly by instincts.. thus making it hard to know if free will exists, or if it's just delusional...

Yes, I think even attraction and revulsion are governed largely by instinct. Beauty traditionally ties in with symmetry and symmetry is a good indicator of whether or not your potential partner's ancestors have had diseases. The things that revolt us in nature - pus, bad smells, spots, blemishes, insects, rats (of the non-pet variety) are associated with disease. Atrocity, death and dismemberment revolt us because instinct tells us to flee from those, prevent it happening to ourselves, help the species survive.

Oops - I hope the question wasn't for christians only....:001_tongue: All may enter here! Heeheehee.

Roger

08-31-2008, 12:48 PM

One thing has been coming up again and again, and that is, regardless of our personal beliefs, we mostly feel that organised religion is a bad thing.

Del

08-31-2008, 11:19 PM

Yeah, my experience of organised religion hasn't been too great. It would have been, if the pastor (read: vicar, priest, big cheese) hadn't been so autocratic. Of course they'd argue it was entirely theocratic, but when you give one man the authority of god, bad things start to happen.

But as, as an ex die-hard theist I'd have to say that being organised about meeting with other like-minded people is a good thing. The original meaning of church referred to the people rather than the building and institution.

One thing that didn't sit right with me was the unspoken idea that when you have faith in something, it is unquestioning trust. I remember having long discussions with them that mine was a questioning faith. They could not seem to grasp the possibility.

A_N_D

09-01-2008, 01:21 AM

Just to be sorta-semi-so-so clear - I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. It is just as arrogant to claim there is NO superior being as it is to be sure there IS one. I think that my puny mind couldn't wrap itself around the real concept of where we all came from if it tried, but I'm trying (and aren't we all just a little curious?).

So, I'm totally fascinated, Roger.

Tell me, given all that you have said, how you reconcile, as a Christian, the passages:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Lev.18:22

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

Do you, as many other Christians I have conversed with, summarily dismiss the words of Leviticus as Old Testament edicts replaced with the New Testament of Jesus the Christ? Are the above passages related to homosexuality to be dismissed like the invocations to kill those who wear two different kinds of cloth, or work on the Sabbath, or touch the unclean skin of a pig (bye-bye, pro football) because they are in the Old Testament?

I think it's fascinating that while the Bible repeatedly refers to "Sodomites", it doesn't really specifiy what they did to make them such exceedingly great sinners, though most bible believers I know of equate "Sodomite" with homosexual. (See, however, Ezekiel 16:49, which claims the sins of Sodom were pride, gluttony, sloth, greed, and failure to help the poor.)

Does your religion condemn homosexuality or not?

I am confused when you say:

"It says that as a Christian it that we are not to practise homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that we can't be gay. It also doesn't mean we have to hate gay people."

If homosexuality (being gay) is okay, and there is no reason to "hate" gays, why do the rules change when they act on their sexuality and have homosexual relations? God expects them to be gay and never have sexual relations?

?

A_N_D

(Fascinating discussion, by the way - 14 new posts came up on this thread just while I was typing this response... now, I have to catch up and post again!)

Ahh, but that is but one definition of faith.

Faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

--Yahoo! Education

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

--Dictionary.com

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

--Merriam-Webster

Yes, there is indeed more than one definition of 'faith', Del. I never implied that one couldn't "have faith in something that has much proof" (of which there is still none for "God"), nor that the two were "mutually exclusive" (I believe in oxygen, for instance).

Scientific proof is the only kind of proof we have, Del, no matter what you believe. Show me a 'proof' completely unmeasurable by scientific experiment, and I will eat my hat - and yours, too.

Without proof, you have faith. Period. Your belief, right or wrong.

(An eyewitness, by the way, is one of the least reliable means of producing evidence in a court of law - DNA is one of the most - that argument was just plain ridiculous, no offense)

You wonder if by referring to God as sentient I mean to say there might be scientific evidence of an insentient God?

No, that was not what I meant to say, and you know it.

A_N_D

(FASCINATING discussion!) :)

On the soul...

I used to hunt with my grandfather. I never actually killed anything bigger than a rabbit, but I watched the grownups kill deer. And even then, that small, I knew what the light going out in that animal's eyes meant - that it had shut down, that its electricity, its spark, its life had gone away.

Heather and I have discussed this for hours: I'll entertain the thought of a finite soul as soon as someone explains to me which direction it goes when you die. Up, sideways, out, does it dissipate, does it go everywhere?

Del

09-01-2008, 01:56 AM

Scientific proof is the only kind of proof we have, Del, no matter what you believe. Show me a 'proof' completely unmeasurable by scientific experiment, and I will eat my hat - and yours, too.

Prove to me scientifically that democracy is the best form of government. Or are there other kinds of proof that make someone believe in it?
I have personal proof of god's existence that cannot be measured scientifically, as does Roger, I believe. Scientific proof is the only reliable proof, it is not the only kind of proof.

But you're asking me the impossible. Almost all things are measurable by scientific experiment. I don't see how being able to verify something through science denies say, a witness account.

You wonder if by referring to God as sentient I mean to say there might be scientific evidence of an insentient God?

No, that was not what I meant to say, and you know it.

It was a joke, actually. So yes of course I know it. :p I sometimes forget to add smilies in posts like that.

A_N_D

09-01-2008, 02:10 AM

I always try to leave my sense of humor at the door when entering the Grand and Tewwible Oz discussion...

it helps keep me from laughing at appropriate moments! ;)

I've found that Buddhists laugh easiest and most fairly. I wanna learn how to do that...

And I don't think is "faith" is necessarily a bad thing - well, not always, anyway, unless you have in mind a Crusade or an Inquisition or say, faith in 72 waiting virgins and the dignity of martyrdom with countless innocent casualties...

A_N_D

rogerSIMIAN

09-01-2008, 06:16 AM

On the soul...

I used to hunt with my grandfather. I never actually killed anything bigger than a rabbit, but I watched the grownups kill deer. And even then, that small, I knew what the light going out in that animal's eyes meant - that it had shut down, that its electricity, its spark, its life had gone away.

Heather and I have discussed this for hours: I'll entertain the thought of a finite soul as soon as someone explains to me which direction it goes when you die. Up, sideways, out, does it dissipate, does it go everywhere?

The traditional deathbed vision - traveling through a tunnel towards a white light - has been recreated in laboratory circumstances by electrically stimulating a specific part of the brain. I saw a documentary about this and I seem to remember they tried it on a few subjects with very similar results. The bit of the brain stimulated is the last to close down during death. So maybe what feels and seems like a soul leaving a body is just electrical signals dying out in the brain.

Perhaps the soul is energy and rather than going specifically up or down (with all that implies) it dissipates or is converted into something else, but still retains some extra unknowable essence rather than just being purely physically converted. Am I right in saying that scientifically speaking energy = movement and that this movement has a weight (I'm not very scientific but this sounds familiar). So this additional energy (the extra spark that can't be seen with our scientific instruments) could be the 21 grams. It could be what we consider the soul.

Even if the soul does exist, it doesn't necessarily follow that there are invisible sentient beings fighting over it for visitation rights in a celestial court. :-)

I say I don't believe in God but I kind of do. It's just that my idea of God equates to Nature, the Nature of all things, rather than to a wizened gentleman with a flowing white beard. (Heehee - ok, I'm mocking the Judeo-Christian religion a bit here, but it's a gentle warm-hearted mockery.) From our human perspective, this Nature of Things could seem to have sentience. Because of the way we see the world, we tend to personify things. So maybe we created God in our own Image rather than the other way around: in a certain light the unknowable mechanics of life, the universes and all they contain can look a bit like a human figure in the shadows.

Ooh, I like that - need to scribble that down in my book of heavy thoughts, man. :bong smoker3 smily:

:euro:.

FredTheDuck

09-01-2008, 12:56 PM

I've seen most of my friends make the quick progression to atheism because of the constant force-feeding of religionThat sounds like me, too...

I went to a Catholic primary school (up to age 11, for anyone who isn't English/doesn't know the english schooling system), and am, on my Dad's side, from a pretty devout family of Irish Catholics. :clover:

So, this school... every thursday morning was a two-hour mass, where the local priest would come in, and every other school morning, for the same two hours of each day, we'd sit in a classroom and practice hymns. Bibles came out four days a week (the other day we spent bible time doing sport), and we read what we were told to read. If we tried to read other bits of the bible, which I often did, and got caught doing it, then we'd have to sit and do lines for the rest of the afternoon. And since I read several times faster than the majority of the class, and every time I said "finished!", the response was "well read it again then.", so many of my afternoons were spent writing over and over something along the lines of "God does not wish me to read parts of his book that I have not been told to until I am old enough to understand them". Might not have been exactly that, and it did vary with who was teaching us, but it was something along those lines.

Also, we were expected to give up our sundays - EVERY one of them, to go to church. If we didn't, we had to beg for forgiveness...usually to the priest, occasionally the head if the priest was absent.

Truth be told, they never once mentioned Judaism, Islam, Atheism...or any other religions (unless you count protestants), and so every one who wasn't a Catholic (or protestant, there were about five there) was referred to as "sinners" or "mislead ones" or "demons". In fact, there was once that we were told that anyone who refused to acknowledge God's existance was a devil themselves.

Although - I knew nothing else. Devoutly Catholic at home, devoutly Catholic at school, as it was all I knew.

High school was what changed me though - everyone else (including teachers, occasionally, but they didn;t want you to hear them) swearing, some teachers (including my Religion teacher) were even openly atheist, so to start with, I avoided them, and then started to go "actually, these people aren't so bad...", and started to question everything else I'd been taught before.

Eventually, I got to the stage when I actually asked what God was, and was given the answer "An omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being", and denied that such a thing could exist, considering that I was having a bit of a bad year, in that I'd lost a few close relatives, a couple of friends, and was being much more exposed to the horrors of the world... so, I adjusted, turned atheist, and tried to learn a sense of humour... still working on that one though... :whistling:

Luckily - I didn't end up in the Catholic high school that I should have been in, otherwise I reckon I'd still be pretty much the same person I was then...but older :52::cursing:

Which brings me back around to the point of the thread - I personally, do not get angry until people start acting as if I'm stupid for not believing in God, or start cramming it down my neck with endless bible references and crap like that. It's definitely already been said, but still... discussions are about voicing opinions, and that was mine. :tooth:

:sleeping:

Killian

09-01-2008, 01:06 PM

On a serious note, and following on from a point touched on in Fred's post, I'd venture that it seems mortality is a big defining point in determining one's religious viewpoint (almost, and pardon the pun here, a "crisis of faith").

It either seems to awaken someone's faith, reassert it for those that have lost it or completely stamp it out of existence for anyone who doubted in the first place.

I have to admit, I fall firmly into the latter camp; when my father died many years ago, I remember having quite a heated "discussion" at the time on the existence of God with the vicar (I'm a "default" Christian, i.e. C of E :)); to be fair to the guy, he listened very patiently and didn't try to smother me with platitudes or shove a Bible down my throat about it, but simply because he couldn't answer any of my questions convincingly enough about life, death, the loss of loved ones, etc, what little faith I had still smouldering away deep down was firmly quenched.

Not to say that people who draw great strength from their faith which helps them through difficult times are wrong; far from it (more power to them)... it's just that personally I've always found more support and love from family and friends during difficult times than from religious faith.

Roger

09-01-2008, 01:13 PM

One thing that didn't sit right with me was the unspoken idea that when you have faith in something, it is unquestioning trust. I remember having long discussions with them that mine was a questioning faith. They could not seem to grasp the possibility. I can grasp it. :)

Just to be sorta-semi-so-so clear - I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. It is just as arrogant to claim there is NO superior being as it is to be sure there IS one. I think that my puny mind couldn't wrap itself around the real concept of where we all came from if it tried, but I'm trying (and aren't we all just a little curious?).

So, I'm totally fascinated, Roger.

Tell me, given all that you have said, how you reconcile, as a Christian, the passages:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Lev.18:22 I see that as telling me that I am not supposed to practise homosexuality.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13 This I am not 100% sure of, but as I see it is an old testament statement. A lot of the rules changed with the death of Jesus. Like sacrificing animals. He became the sacrifice. I kind of think that could cover the stoning people to death thing.

Do you, as many other Christians I have conversed with, summarily dismiss the words of Leviticus as Old Testament edicts replaced with the New Testament of Jesus the Christ? Are the above passages related to homosexuality to be dismissed like the invocations to kill those who wear two different kinds of cloth, or work on the Sabbath, or touch the unclean skin of a pig (bye-bye, pro football) because they are in the Old Testament? Good question!

I see a lot of the old Testament as history and process. For the definitive answer, I don't know. But my hunch is not so far different from what you say.

Take the death penalty for example. A lot of Christians say that the Bible says that we should have it. I don't agree. If I am wrong and it is God's will, I am prepared to stand before him and say that I don't agree with it.

I think it's fascinating that while the Bible repeatedly refers to "Sodomites", it doesn't really specify what they did to make them such exceedingly great sinners, though most bible believers I know of equate "Sodomite" with homosexual. (See, however, Ezekiel 16:49, which claims the sins of Sodom were pride, gluttony, sloth, greed, and failure to help the poor.) Sodomites are as you described them. To say it means homosexual is people twisting the word of the Bible to fit their own agenda.

Does your religion condemn homosexuality or not? I don't have a religion, I have faith. This annoys a lot of Christians because I refuse to have a denomination. They tell me I must have one. So I say "in that case my denomination is Christian!" ;)

I am confused when you say:

"It says that as a Christian it that we are not to practise homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that we can't be gay. It also doesn't mean we have to hate gay people."

If homosexuality (being gay) is okay, and there is no reason to "hate" gays, why do the rules change when they act on their sexuality and have homosexual relations? God expects them to be gay and never have sexual relations?

What God expects I have no idea, and I am not prepared to second guess his mind.

But people can be many things. But it seems to me that a lot of people are homophobic in the church, and use the Bible to forward that agenda.

Homosexuality is classed as a sin in the Bible. But so are many other things: Lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, sex outside of marriage, envy, laziness, greed, drunkenness, looking at the opposite sex in regard to sexual desires, and many more things. Now I admit I have been guilty of all of those things at one time or another. So who am I to judge someone who is gay.

If I am wrong, then I am prepared for God to judge me for it. Because I believe my motives follow his main teachings, and that is to love a person regardless of their sins. Jesus used to hang out with hookers and tax collectors (those guys were a lot worse back then).

As Jesus said "love the sinner not the sin!" In context we are all sinners. So it tells me to be nice to everyone and love them for the person they are, and not to judge them for what they do. So if someone is a homosexual, to my mind I should give them as much respect and love as the most pious Christian. Although in my experience the homosexual is often the better person of the two.

I hope that helps a bit. But remember I follow what the Bible says, not what man tells me it says. ;)

A_N_D

09-03-2008, 08:40 PM

The traditional deathbed vision - traveling through a tunnel towards a white light - has been recreated in laboratory circumstances by electrically stimulating a specific part of the brain. I saw a documentary about this and I seem to remember they tried it on a few subjects with very similar results. The bit of the brain stimulated is the last to close down during death. So maybe what feels and seems like a soul leaving a body is just electrical signals dying out in the brain.

Penn and Teller explore this particular (scientific, not religious!) phenomenon in their oh-so-aptly-named HBO series, "Bullshit".

Reading the rest of the thread - will comment more.

A_N_D

Roger -

All fascinating answers, and clearly honest ones from your perspective, which I respect to no end. I cannot argue your belief in a God for which there is no proof, as we are clearly not having a scientific discussion, but rather one based on feelings, emotions, personal interpretations, and faiths. I think you would agree that your faith is not based on any replicatable scientific principle, yes? This isn't a bad thing, merely a clarification of the terms of the discussion.

Some more questions and musing, then...

I see "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Lev.18:22" as the writings of an old, homophobic scribe - a man - a couple thousand years ago, not as the word of any sentient God who decided upon that rule or burned it onto a papyrus scroll somewhere.

Hmmm... What else...

With all due respect, I don't think you answered this:

"If homosexuality (being gay) is okay, and there is no reason to "hate" gays, why do the rules change when they act on their sexuality and have homosexual relations? God expects them to be gay and never have sexual relations?"

I wasn't asking you to second-guess God (and I apologize if my words came across that way), but to tell me what the Bible says, and subsequently what you believe, per your interpretation of what the Bible says. I was asking if the Bible says that "gay happens" as a creation of God (which we all are, by my understanding), then why is being what God made you a bad thing?

Um, lesseee.... Bourbon and religion, bourbon and religion...

Okay, since you have essentially conceded that Christ's promise of a New Testament pretty much eradicated most of the Old Testament laws (except the ones that can be conveniently dredged up as political fodder)... Could you tell me where in the New Testament homosexuality per se, is condemned? It's an honest question. I could Google the answer, but I'm more interested to know a Christian's gut answer (without Googling it!).

I'm fixated on the homosexuality discussion - I know - but only because it is one of the most easily identifiable contradictions of the Christian Bible for me, as is "Why would a loving, forgiving, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God allow a busload of children to go over a cliff in Brazil?".

Free associating...

If we are all created in God's image, then so are gays, who are not setting out to hurt anyone or do anything "unnatural" (I hate it when the right wing says "Well, if we allow gays to marrry each other, next they'll be marrying their dogs or have eleven spouses.") How can God create a creature who is hard-wired to "sin" and expect them to live their lives against their very nature or face the wrath of God? If God is onmiscient, he knows when someone is born gay, knows whether or not they are going to perform the act of physical lovemaking (with someone they love, or not), and therefore knows from the moment of their conception (and before) that they are doomed to eternal damnation. Not to equate the two by any means, but he also knows every sinner and what sins they are going to commit before they are committed. Therefore, God creates men (or continues to allow the species to propogate, or both) that he knows are destined to burn in Hell for eternity. What is the point, the sick, cruel point of creating human beings with futile existences? That is like raising ants in an ant farm, just to burn them alive with a magnifying glass to exercise your power.

Just because I can is God's thing throughout the Old Testament. So is spite, jealousy, revenge, hate, floods, and rains of fire. When the New Testament came into being, did God just take a chill pill and kick back, to impartially observe (or perform the occasional miracle - which is even harder to believe), for the rest of the things to occur that he has preordained? Diest City is a depressing place, if you really think about it.

Here's another free association... I don't understand the kind of loving God that could spawn a tale like the frankly repugnant litany of sickening cruelties that is the tests of Job... And can you imagine if someone told you to prove you love them by killing your own child? You would think that m'fer was batshit insane, not to put too fine a point on it...

I could go on and on, but this'll spark a few more paragraphs of discussion. Have I mentioned that this is fascinating?

One more thing - no matter how anyone may take my pixelated tone - I mean no harm by anything I am asking. I've asked these same things of my own Catholic priest - just before I left the faith.

A_N_D

Norrie

09-04-2008, 02:18 AM

I always had a problem with the "God is love" / "Burn in Hell" Catholic issue.

The late great Bill Hicks put it far, far, better than I ever could:

Christianity's such a weird religion.
The image you're brought up with is that
eternal suffering awaits anyone who
questions God's infinite love.

Roger

09-04-2008, 11:42 AM

Penn and Teller explore this particular (scientific, not religious!) phenomenon in their oh-so-aptly-named HBO series, "Bullshit".

Reading the rest of the thread - will comment more.

A_N_D
My Dad had a near death experience, with the white light at the end of the tunnel, the works. He would sometimes talk about it, but he never gave an explanation, because he said he didn't have one to give.

Roger -

All fascinating answers, and clearly honest ones from your perspective, which I respect to no end. I cannot argue your belief in a God for which there is no proof, as we are clearly not having a scientific discussion, but rather one based on feelings, emotions, personal interpretations, and faiths. I think you would agree that your faith is not based on any replicatable scientific principle, yes? This isn't a bad thing, merely a clarification of the terms of the discussion.
It is not based on scientific principle as far as I am aware. But I believe science would be able to prove it, if we had God's knowledge.

Some more questions and musing, then...

I see "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Lev.18:22" as the writings of an old, homophobic scribe - a man - a couple thousand years ago, not as the word of any sentient God who decided upon that rule or burned it onto a papyrus scroll somewhere.
I take that as meaning that Christians shouldn't practise homosexuality.

Hmmm... What else...

With all due respect, I don't think you answered this:

"If homosexuality (being gay) is okay, and there is no reason to "hate" gays, why do the rules change when they act on their sexuality and have homosexual relations? God expects them to be gay and never have sexual relations?"
In the same way as not committing adultery or having sex before marriage. I take these as guidelines for Christians. I am not to judge non-Christians who do any of these things. I have committed adultery and I have had sex before marriage. It's not OK, but I have still done it.

I wasn't asking you to second-guess God (and I apologize if my words came across that way), but to tell me what the Bible says, and subsequently what you believe, per your interpretation of what the Bible says. I was asking if the Bible says that "gay happens" as a creation of God (which we all are, by my understanding), then why is being what God made you a bad thing?
What God made is a good thing, but we all have free will.

Whether we are born gay or not, I don't know. I don't see the Bible telling me one way or the other.

If someone is not a Christian I can not say it is a bad thing, because I would then be judging that person. That's a real big no no according to the Bible. A Christian who commits homosexuality is sinning. But A Christian who judges non-Christians is going directly against God's word. Which is not to judge non-believers, because that is for him to do, not us. A lot of Christians seem to choose to miss this one.

Um, lesseee.... Bourbon and religion, bourbon and religion...

Okay, since you have essentially conceded that Christ's promise of a New Testament pretty much eradicated most of the Old Testament laws (except the ones that can be conveniently dredged up as political fodder)... Could you tell me where in the New Testament homosexuality per se, is condemned? It's an honest question. I could Google the answer, but I'm more interested to know a Christian's gut answer (without Googling it!).
I am not aware of it being condemned in the New Testament, and if it is acceptable in God's eyes, I would personally think it good, as love is hard enough to find without any restrictions.

I'm fixated on the homosexuality discussion - I know - but only because it is one of the most easily identifiable contradictions of the Christian Bible for me, as is "Why would a loving, forgiving, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God allow a bus load of children to go over a cliff in Brazil?".
This comes back to freewill again. God could force us to love and adore him. But as I understand it, he wants us to love him, because we want to. For this we have to have freewill.

As for the bus thing. God says that the innocent and the guilty alike will suffer tragedy.

Free associating...

If we are all created in God's image, then so are gays, who are not setting out to hurt anyone or do anything "unnatural" (I hate it when the right wing says "Well, if we allow gays to marry each other, next they'll be marrying their dogs or have eleven spouses.")
I hate that too. It is people's own agendas.

How can God create a creature who is hard-wired to "sin" and expect them to live their lives against their very nature or face the wrath of God? If God is omniscient, he knows when someone is born gay, knows whether or not they are going to perform the act of physical lovemaking (with someone they love, or not), and therefore knows from the moment of their conception (and before) that they are doomed to eternal damnation. Not to equate the two by any means, but he also knows every sinner and what sins they are going to commit before they are committed. Therefore, God creates men (or continues to allow the species to propagate, or both) that he knows are destined to burn in Hell for eternity. What is the point, the sick, cruel point of creating human beings with futile existences? That is like raising ants in an ant farm, just to burn them alive with a magnifying glass to exercise your power.
Freewill again.

Just because I can is God's thing throughout the Old Testament. So is spite, jealousy, revenge, hate, floods, and rains of fire. When the New Testament came into being, did God just take a chill pill and kick back, to impartially observe (or perform the occasional miracle - which is even harder to believe), for the rest of the things to occur that he has preordained? Diest City is a depressing place, if you really think about it.
God hates all sin, and everyone who sins will go to hell. In the old testament sacrifice could apparently atone for sin. A very strange concept to me, but that is what the Bible says.

In the new testament it says that Jesus was the sacrifice to atone for our sins. In other words when God judges our sins, Jesus takes the blame for us.

All we have to do is believe that he died for this reason (our sins) and ask him to forgive us.

That is how simple faith is!

Here's another free association... I don't understand the kind of loving God that could spawn a tale like the frankly repugnant litany of sickening cruelties that is the tests of Job... And can you imagine if someone told you to prove you love them by killing your own child? You would think that m'fer was batshit insane, not to put too fine a point on it...
I thought it was crazy sounding too. But the reason was to prove his faith. When it came to the point of sacrificing his son. God told him to stop, because he had proved his faith.

I could go on and on, but this'll spark a few more paragraphs of discussion. Have I mentioned that this is fascinating?
Yes it is for me too. :)

The church has twisted the words of the Bible so badly over the years. :crying:

One more thing - no matter how anyone may take my pixelated tone - I mean no harm by anything I am asking. I've asked these same things of my own Catholic priest - just before I left the faith.

A_N_D I realise that, and your questions have been good. :)

If I can explain my faith a little, then I am very pleased. :)

Dulci

09-04-2008, 12:02 PM

A person's religion is too intertwined with where they are born/live for me to put any stock in the idea of there being one true faith.

A_N_D

09-04-2008, 12:06 PM

Elbow

09-04-2008, 12:09 PM

From a Baptist prospective

Rules
From a bee's prospective, someone smacking it is unreasonable. From the person that is allergic to a sting, wise.
Christians believe that God is pure and that to allow anything not pure into Heaven, all of Heaven would be tainted.
The question shouldn't be why would God allow people to go to Hell. It should be why is there Hell and is warning me about my choice enough or fair.

Love
It's risky at best to assume one common standard for love. It's more dangerous to require another's love be based on our understanding. Christians think that love is not only an emotion. They believe love is developed or worked at. I guess if a child of a Christian broke the law, they would still love their child as they dialed the police.

Sex
Old testament law was written to separate the Hebrews (Jews) from the Gentiles. Today, Christians live under the covenant of Grace.
All people live under this condition now, not just one peoples.
Anything written as law before Christ's declaration is old covenant and no longer "required" somethings might still be wise, like stoning a bad kid, but it's not the law. Easy way to separate them is, before the book of Mathew (OT). Jesus said, no sex before marriage and marriage between one man and one woman. This command from a Christian's view means no gay sex at all.

Salvation
Because no one is perfect, mature Christians believe that the only difference between them and non-Christians is the grace of salvation. They believe that to be "saved" one must have a true desire to not sin. If a person repents, truly means it in their heart and asked Christ for salvation, then a week later sins, the question is not if they're saved, it's were they ever really saved. Only that person and God can know that.

Faith
A Christian's job is not to prove God, it's to be a witness to His grace in their life. Only the Holy Spirit can prove Himself.
As many things on earth can't be seen, or proven, we know they're true. Ever have a feeling of being watched, and when you turn around someone's looking at you? Another example: Just because we can't see something, that doesn't mean it's not real.
I just typed a phrase in white. It's there, but we can't see it at this moment. Do you believe me? You can prove me a liar or not. But, you'll have to make an effort. All faith requires effort, all people have faith in something or someone. Mature Christians believe that blind faith is foolish. They are told by what they call 'sound' doctrine to test the Spirit. Testing God by standing on a freeway is not what they think. If God says, accept me or burn, they believe it's there duty to find out why He says that and by doing so, they will see and understand. Or, find that God is bad, or not real.

Norrie

09-04-2008, 12:35 PM

One simply cannot logically have it both ways.

A_N_D

Unfortunately, it's been my experience of Christians (Moslems are very different, I lived in a Moslem country for 6 years) that when you mention logic, they slip into the old cliche of:

"that's because God is beyond your 'human' understanding"

I don't get this idea of the new testament overruling the old in certain cases, but not others.
The old testament was written by men to control people.
The new testament was written to update that control in 4th (or 5th, can't remember) century.

A wise man once said:

Control with people: a thousand policemen on the street.
Control with God: one policeman in the head.

(anyone else notice Elbow's Freudian slip up?) :)

Killian

09-04-2008, 12:36 PM

Just playing Devil's Advocaat here for a sec...

It could theoretically be argued that, as God is aware of all that we do, say or think, he/she/it is well aware that we are capable of doing, thinking and saying anything, but we are given the choice to break from the eventual fate we have in store (predestination) by the free will we have been given...and in that case, being omniscient, God would be aware of that result, too... but (here's the kicker), has to give people the chance to change via their own action or inaction and experience, to allow them the chance to "redeem" themselves.

It's kinda like giving a psychopath a loaded gun, putting him in a room with a load of people and seeing if he can avoid pulling the trigger... hardly likely, but there is a chance, however slim, that he won't...

Of course, that doesn't stand up logically, but it kinda makes a point, I hope :)

Having said all that, it all depends on what level of omniscient we are talking about, here... the real "see and know all things" kind , or the limited "based on your current situation, pyschology and previous form, I can predict with almost 100% certainty what you will do in any given situation" kind (which, let's be honest, isn't really omniscience at all...)

From my point of view, religion doesn't stand up very well to logical arguement, to be frank; there are too many inconsistancies, outright contradictions and other flaws that contravene my established world-view for me to see the attraction of it (the Old/New Testament thing mentioned by A_N_D being a prime example).

However, I DO believe that "faith" is a very different kettle of fish from "religion", and indeed is a very deeply personal thing that can't be expressed easily; faith allows someone to reconcile the problems in their belief system (which, let's be honest, is deeply flawed in EVERY major religion) in a way that works for them... which is a good thing.

They say faith can move mountains, and we've all seen examples of people overcoming incredible obstacles by the use of it... but not all faith needs to be of a religious nature...

Looking at religious writings (i.e. The Bible, from a westernised Christian perspective) from an unbiased viewpoint (which, the subject being religion, isn't really possible one way or another, as religion is the one thing EVERYONE has a personal view on which they find almost impossible to divorce themselves from), the very act of human beings trying to transcribe the words and deeds of an "all powerful, omniscient being" is pointless and ultimately futile (thus the issues we have with differing "doctrines"), as how the hell are they going to have the same perspective as the "one" they are writing about? It just isn't possible. (Sure, you can SAY you know what God was saying when he burned the bush, smote the Egyptians, sent his son to die for our sins... but we DON'T know for sure; the mere difference in viewpoint and knowledge precludes that automatically; after all, it's not as if we have God's phone number and can ring him/her/it up and say "this Ark thing... what was all that about?").

Obviously, they can't. Thus, scribes imposed their OWN views, beliefs, etc on the text, naturally coloured by their experiences, current political climate, own beliefs, etc... lo and behold, the scriptures get produced.

IMHO, anyone who tries to live by (forgive the terrible pun) "the gospel truth" of a religious work is on a hiding to nothing, based on the above hypothesis. However, reading the book with an open mind and interpreting the "events" it "documents" in one's OWN WAY leads to a different result, I think. If more people used religious scriptures as a "rough guide to examining problems in life" than a "how to" guide or instruction manual, I think we'd see a very different form of religion around...

Wandered in and out a bit there, but I hope it made sense...

(PS Yes, Norrie... I hope no one goes seperating mine... :))

rogerSIMIAN

09-04-2008, 12:37 PM

Old testament law was written to separate the Hebrews (Jews) from the Genitals.

Heehee. I think you mean the "Gentiles".

But those are interesting perspectives on this, Elbow. I liked the bee allergy analogy.

Elbow

09-04-2008, 12:59 PM

lol - yes, sex on the mind.

New Testament (testicles) is for Christians now, OT is a history for Christians now. OT has no authority today for Christians.

Norrie

09-04-2008, 01:05 PM

lol - yes, sex on the mind.

And Roger got the quote up before your edit too :oops:

Roger

09-04-2008, 01:19 PM

This is an awesome discussion...

So, Rog, most of your answers came down to "free will".

Here's my problem. Either God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, knows every action we will ever take in advance (our actions are preordained ), or we have free will (not preordained and subject to change).

Your proposition of free will implies that God can really, really hope (and know, being omniscient and all) that I'll do one thing, and yet I can turn around and do another - surprising God (and proving him not so omniscient after all).

One simply cannot logically have it both ways.

A_N_D God is everywhere and everywhen and all powerful indeed. I see no contradiction with having freewill.

Reading the Bible it tells me we have the choice to decide our fate. It also says that God knows what that will be. The reason this is not a contradiction is because he is outside of time. After all he is everywhen at once. So from the moment he wanted to have real love, and created man, he would have known all that would happen. Which is also shown by the large amount of prophesy in the Bible.

When you think about God as being outside of time, it is not a contradiction.

Elbow

09-04-2008, 01:20 PM

Last edited by Elbow; Today at 01:00 PM. Reason: oops

Norrie

09-04-2008, 01:34 PM

God is everywhere and everywhen and all powerful indeed. I see no contradiction with having freewill.

Reading the Bible it tells me we have the choice to decide our fate. It also says that God knows what that will be. The reason this is not a contradiction is because he is outside of time. After all he is everywhen at once. So from the moment he wanted to have real love, and created man, he would have known all that would happen. Which is also shown by the large amount of prophesy in the Bible.

When you think about God as being outside of time, it is not a contradiction.

Wow Roger, that's a deep faith you have there. Admirable.

If I was still a believer, the notion that God is outside time, and knows all that will be, would kill my belief for sure.

The idea that God created us, knowing all that will come, makes him a voyeuristic, sadistic, impotent (rather than omnipotent), bathetic fool to me.

That's not creating life. That's the celestial equivalent of watching reality TV. Higher being? Feck that.

Uber

09-04-2008, 03:40 PM

Roger

09-04-2008, 04:02 PM

Has anyone posted anything about 'God' being a communal energy we all share and have inside each and everyone of us; not some old dude you sits on a throne surrounded by angels and punishing those who dare to think and enjoy life.

I have a somewhat distorted view and my wife, Mrs Uber, is a clairvoyant. She doesn't do reading for money, and she has an accuracy of 98%, so i am inclined to believe her.
It's interesting you should say that. Up until I was about 18 I could predict future events, but I never had any control over it.

It also fits comfortably with what I was saying about time.

You can prove if someone can tell the future or not. There are a lot of fakes (who charge), or people who have De Javu and think they have seen the future. The best way is to tell someone before it happens, or write it down (I wish I had). When it comes true, there's all the proof you need.

For myself I told people of my predictions, but generally by the time they had happened people had forgotten that I had told them. Although I did have one occasion when I was 18, which was the last premonition I had. I saw my myself receiving the news of my Grandfathers death.

I grieved for about 3 weeks after this. I was so disturbed by this that I told my Mother in detail what happened in my vision, which she incidentally was in.

12 years later my grandfather died and my vision played out in real life. My mother said "Is this the moment you told me about all those years ago?"

I'd say predicting something 12 years in advance and have someone remember it was pretty strong proof to myself, and my mother.

Jase180

09-04-2008, 04:56 PM

Prove to me scientifically that democracy is the best form of government. Or are there other kinds of proof that make someone believe in it?
I have personal proof of god's existence that cannot be measured scientifically, as does Roger, I believe. Scientific proof is the only reliable proof, it is not the only kind of proof.

But you're asking me the impossible. Almost all things are measurable by scientific experiment. I don't see how being able to verify something through science denies say, a witness account.

I have stayed out of this for many reasons, then I read your post Del.

Personal proof? or an experience generated from yourself that you have no logical explanation for, or burning bush, booming voice telling you "Del, its God..its all true"

Saying you have "proof" is silly. Plain silly. You have faith in your belief, a faith supported by your personal experience and feelings, nothing more. thats not proof. Thats just a belief.

Thats akin to me saying I have proof that God doesnt exists.

"Prove it" you would say, "Go on prove it". And using your logic, I would then be reduced to saying I can't, but it is true.

Because you or anyone says something, that simply does not make it true.

Math is a universal truth. It defines the basics of what makes the Universe work, proved again and again. Thats Proof. If I throw a ball in the air, it will come down, thats proof. Saying God is real because I believe it, is arrogance. A sin of sorts aint it?

The mere fact that Christianity is only being discussed is further "proof" of how wrong Christians are. Many other older religions exists, to suggest their faith is less real than anyone elses is the same logic that leads to the failure of the dogma.

Prove to me that The Romans and the Egyptians were wrong? What, you say Ra isnt real? prove it.

They have as much faith as anyone, yet the Jebus folks dismiss them. So unless God itself broke the heavens and "proved" his existence, then its all theory of faith. Nothing more.

Religion is a universal thing, and be it Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto etc and like all faith, sacred only to those who practice it.

It's interesting you should say that. Up until I was about 18 I could predict future events, but I never had any control over it.

Weird side note, with 90% accuracy so far in my life, 2-3 minutes before an Earthquake I have always known and blurted it out. It weirds people out.

Can be having a chat at the office, middle of a meeting and i just blurt it out, and volia. Not kidding.

Weird but true!

FredTheDuck

09-04-2008, 05:39 PM

Up until I was about 18 I could predict future events, but I never had any control over it. Hmm... that's weird. I have a similar thing... sort of.

It is future events - yes, and I do have no control over it, but I rarely mention anything to anyone, as often I just assume it's just me being odd... however, again, they always were true things.

The most recent prediction that I can explain within the understanding of most people quite easily (as in, without going into too much depth in my personal life) is at Wimbledon, the English tennis tournament thingy. Last year, shortly after the first time I saw Rafael Nadal playing (although against who I don't remember), I had a weird moment, as if I wasn't in my own head (not really an out of body experience, I wouldn't call it), and said, without thinking "he's not won it this year, but he definitely has next year." In fact, I don't even remember saying it, just getting weird looks across the room and going "what? what did I say?" and them repeating it to me word for word. And so - it came true!

Scares the hell out of me when I realise that I knew it would happen though... another example was knowing what my last girlfriend's face was before I'd even met her...

However, I can't seem to make the connection between that and Religion or faith... just seems like the brain running ahead of itself to me.

Spooky, eh? That there's two, I mean :p

riott007

09-04-2008, 06:06 PM

Feckin heathens....all heathens!!

Jase180

09-04-2008, 06:50 PM

I'm more of a heathen heretic blasphemer

sisch

09-04-2008, 07:36 PM

I'm more of a heathen heretic blasphemer

Oh yes, please heathenly blaspheme to me, Jase... *ahem* sorry, got carried away here... :devil2:

To come back to the original question of this thread - If you don't believe, then why get angry? - I think people do get angry because they feel they will never get to a consensus about this.

Reading about the unquestioning faith some of you have in this thread makes me feel - I dunno - kinda helpless? Because try as I might, I just can't understand it. My mind isn't made like that, I simply have to question everything.

If I believe in anything, it is that
-we are accountable to ourselves for our actions.
-that what we make of our lifes lies in our own hands. You want to attain a goal, you go for it - and it's your decisions that make it either work or not.
- there is no such thing as fate.
- you have to believe in yourself, and ultimately it is your doings that shape your life.

All that might be over-simplified, too, I'm aware of that.

And another thing - if there were an omnipotent, higher being, seeing all, knowing all - why should that being care for us at all? It would most probably watch us like we do an anthive... interested in how everything goes together... that's it? Would anyone of you try to "rescue" a single ant?

For me, just contemplating my life were preordained is a very frightening thought... and I simply refuse to think of, for example, being gay as a sin. Why? Or having sex before marriage. Why should that be a sin? Why is everything nice a sin? It's just a way to control the masses, by instilling fear of hell or whatever...

It all makes no sense to me.

Ultimately the question for me is - why should I believe in something that makes me feel bad about almost everything I do? Where is that helping me in living a fullfilled life?

rogerSIMIAN

09-04-2008, 08:24 PM

And another thing - if there were an omnipotent, higher being, seeing all, knowing all - why should that being care for us at all? It would most probably watch us like we do an anthive... interested in how everything goes together... that's it? Would anyone of you try to "rescue" a single ant?

Very good point that.

A_N_D

09-04-2008, 08:28 PM

Quoting Elbow:

"Easy way to separate them is, before the book of Mathew (OT). Jesus said, no sex before marriage and marriage between one man and one woman. This command from a Christian's view means no gay sex at all. "

Keeping in mind that you have a single source for this historical figure's actual words (and not the interpretation of politically oppressed people who had little understanding of their world, natural laws, or scientific proofs), please quote chapter and verse where Jesus the Christ (the words in red, ha-ha) said what you just attributed to him in the Christian Bible.

Quote somebody, you gotta give the source (please), so I can see it (and interpret it) for myself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Still reading the thread, will add more

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoting Elbow:

On "Salvation"

"Because no one is perfect, mature Christians believe that the only difference between them and non-Christians is the grace of salvation. They believe that to be "saved" one must have a true desire to not sin. If a person repents, truly means it in their heart and asked Christ for salvation, then a week later sins, the question is not if they're saved, it's were they ever really saved. Only that person and God can know that."

God created Jeffrey Dahmer. Was he crossing his fingers and hoping that Jeff would "see the light" and choose the 'right' free will choice, and decide not to kidnap, murder, rape, and eat people? Or did he know, from the beginning , exactly what Jeff was going to do - which would doom him to eternal damnation - and then go ahead and create him, anyway?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Still reading...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, quoting Elbow:

"Faith
A Christian's job is not to prove God, it's to be a witness to His grace in their life. Only the Holy Spirit can prove Himself."

Without clear definitions of "Christian", a "Christian's Job", the "Holy Spirit", or "[God] proving [Himself]", we may not be having the same conversation. The Bible is, simply put, a singular source for these ideas, ideals, and ultimatums that you equate with universal truths for us all. I would bet my finger (pick one, or two, even) that you and I would define those three terms very, very differently.

Even so, I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, that the Golden Rule of treating others as you would like to be treated really is universal (and exists in almost every religion), that there is a greater power at work in the universe than I (which does not limit itself to simplistic, self-destructive, selfish, human emotions like love, hate, passion, power, vengeance, jealousy, etc.)... I believe that God has not "proven" himself to anyone in a long, long time - the span of recorded human history, in fact, since we've been fighting, fucking, and killing just to live through the day since day one - because if he was ever really there (and "cared" as some prefer to believe "He" does), he'd have shown himself by now.

"As many things on earth can't be seen, or proven, we know they're true."

What on earth can't be proven by scientific testing? I am all ears.

"Ever have a feeling of being watched, and when you turn around someone's looking at you?"

Ever seen an animal respond to a predator in close proximity? This phenomenon can be measured, and proved, scientifically.

"Another example: Just because we can't see something, that doesn't mean it's not real.
I just typed a phrase in white. It's there, but we can't see it at this moment. Do you believe me? You can prove me a liar or not. But, you'll have to make an effort. All faith requires effort, all people have faith in something or someone."

First off, if there was no text, and you were lying, what difference would it make whether I actually believed you or not? You'd still have been lying! You'd be an asshole for tricking me and I'd be an idiot for falling for the gag. (I'm not calling you an asshole, Elbow- I'm digging the discussion - but it's a funny line and I had to have it)

There are a thousand arguments beyond the inability to "see" God that would lead a logical inquirer to ask additional questions about His existence, nature, content, and purpose.

If we stopped with your rationale, we would never have discovered oxygen, nitrogen, helium, etc., or air currents, or microbes, or or or or or or or or or (the Periodic Table of the Elements is a bigass bitch)

"Mature Christians believe that blind faith is foolish. They are told by what they call 'sound' doctrine to test the Spirit. Testing God by standing on a freeway is not what they think. If God says, accept me or burn, they believe it's there duty to find out why He says that and by doing so, they will see and understand. Or, find that God is bad, or not real."

So, we are encouraged to "test the Spirit"? Ohmigod, this is delicious. Tell me, how precisely are we allowed to do that? If you say you don't know and that this is one of those "unknowables", then I am going to think that God, as a manufacturing company, would get shut down quick for sending out such a complicated product without an instruction manual.

It isn't you Elbow, or you, Rog, it's the idea that I try to go down a path of enlightenment and suddenly get told "Oh, that thing will always be beyond your knowledge." The funny thing is, I believe exactly that.

The true nature of the "being" or "entity" or "higher power" that enables us all to be here (that spark in the deer's eyes,for those who read my earlier posts) cannot be captured, contained, or conveyed in a 1,970 year old book written by men, the fallible creatures of "His" creation. To claim that such knowledge could be held in a book filled with legends, myths (many retold over thousands of years), archetypes (also seen over thousands of previous years, in other religions - see ancient Egyptology for some initial mindblowers about the Holy Trinity, then please, research on), is an insult to the Great and Tewwible Whatever that actually spawned us. It limits it, inhibits it, saddles it, yokes it, minimizes its real glory - that it is truly beyond our understanding.

Thus, I am an agnostic. I am neither so arrogant to claim that I know the "truth" based on a singular religious figure (or book), or to claim that "science" (the "religion of logic") equals God. I don't know.

Maybe I'm wrong about everything. Maybe one day, after my arteries choke off from the grease, cheese, and sausage sandwiches, or after the lungs seize up, blackened and charred by 392,000 cigarettes, or the liver turns into a brick after 7,000 bourbons...

I will actually have to "kneel" before a sentient "God" that I know for a fact (if the Bible is to be believed) has razed entire cities of men, women and innocent children to the ground; has overseen, acknowledged and permitted rape, murder, incest, and a host of other sins; and has determined that I am supposed to believe on, yes, blind faith, in Him.

I can't do it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

STILL reading...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Killian's post , for me, was spot on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoting Roger:

"When you think about God as being outside of time, it is not a contradiction."

Yes, it is. God "knows" from the infinite point (by your definition) of creation that a being is going to be doomed to damnation. The rest of Norrie's post hits the contradiction squarely on the head. Benevolent, forgiving, and kind, or cruel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoting Sisch:

"Why is everything nice a sin?"

I think you and I should get together in private and discuss what's naughty and what's nice. Just so we're clear, you know? :D

A_N_D

Elbow

09-04-2008, 08:32 PM

A_N_D

09-04-2008, 09:53 PM

The more you have invested in the anthill, the more likely you'll want to protect it, even the single ant. Love can be a powerful investment.

I think if religious sects would not pervert their original teachings, there would be a lot less reason to rightly think them hypocritical, power mad, and full of contradictions.

A_N_D
Marriage
Please read:
Matt 19:5 read from verse one
Mark 10:7 read from one through twelve

Sex before marriage
(Paul speaking) Paul never spoke to Christ other than on the road to Damascus
1 Corin 7:8 & 9 read from verse one

The Matt & Mark verses speak to the topic, I just added the Corinthians to help. Both new testament and under the new covenant.

New versions may say differently, my notations were from a Baptist prospective as I noted.

The anthill example is charming and sweet, and I've even had an art farm, but I also used to burn ants with a magnifying glass when I was a kid. Am I going to Hell for that? ;)

So...

Matthew says (and Matthew alone, as an 'eyewitness' - notoriously unreliable in a simple court of law, especially when it comes to reconstructing exact conversations - ever heard of 'hearsay'?):

3 Some Pharisees came to [Jesus] to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4 "Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' [a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Now, please tell me if you believe that this passage means it is a man's duty, purpose, charge to leave his mother and father and marry a woman. I will follow up on your response.

Your Baptist version of the Bible is interesting, since some early manuscripts do not contain the words "and be united to his wife" in Mark 10:7. (Google it)

1 Corinthians 7:8 and 9 crack me up. I can almost see the writer, twenty years after Jesus' death, in 55, 56 AD, hunched over a glittering candle with an unrequited woody. I wonder if he was ugly or a boor or had bad breath and couldn't get a date.

"Corinthians 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

This passage says that if you can't keep it in your pants (and I'm sorry, but sex was for damned sure created by "God", because there is nothing else in the universe that feels so good), that get married and abuse that poor woman for the rest of your life with your hairy, sweaty belly and your "ya wanna do it?" approach to foreplay. (I am laughing my ass off right now, but please know that I feel guilty about it - no, really - if I'm wrong, remember, God is not going to find me so amusing).

My point in the end of all of this, is that you have one source to research for this stuff, one source as the genesis, sustenance, and proof of your faith and all of its minutiae. One collection of very carefully, very politically selected (research assignment: The Apocrypha) texts bound into a single book, and written by men.

Believing in oxygen, which I can't see, taste, hear, smell, or really touch? Piece of cake by comparison. I'm not convinced, and neither are you guys. Fancy that - and we didn't have to kill one another to agreeably disagree!

I have to say that this conversation hasn't gotten the least bit less fascinating throughout, and you and Roger are troopers for putting up with me. The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who come by on the weekends (and whom I always invite inside for coffee and conversation) usually leave in the first ten minutes.

:)

To bring it back to the topic of the thread - what you guys believe doesn't anger me one bit. I just never want it thrust or legislated on me.

A_N_D

Killian

09-04-2008, 10:04 PM

For me, this particular topic just illustrates how a mature, creative and intelligent community can have a serious conversation about a particularly inflammatory topic without it descending into childishness, moronic quotations, personal attacks and general flaming... and yet still agree to disagree about certain aspects of the subject in question...

Yay us I say! :)

Hotwax

09-04-2008, 10:12 PM

In short, I do not believe in God because there is no proof that he exists. Therefore, I refuse to put my time and effort into going to church every Sunday for, following certain rules from, and praying to a person that may not even exist. Seems a waste of time to me. I believe in Karma. Countless times I have done something or said something that would be frowned upon (nothing too horrible or illegal, though) and right after I had done that thing something would happen, like I would bump into a sharp corner on a table and cut myself or bruise something, trip over my shoes and fall down, etc. Whether it be an outside force or a person living high up in the clouds keeping an eye on us that decided what just happened, I feel more inclined to believe the former. Religion to me is silly in general, as every one seems to all have their problems (some more serious than others), and while I don't go around school telling people that there is no god, if anybody asked me, well, I certainly wouldn't mind telling people. I need some factual evidence he exists before I go off worshiping everything he believes in, revolving my lifestyle around him, etc.

Okay, so that wasn't exactly short. :)

A_N_D

09-04-2008, 10:17 PM

Okay, so that wasn't exactly short. :)

You're worried about running long, Raven? Have you seen my posts in this thread? ;)

A_N_D

rileyman

09-04-2008, 11:11 PM

My point in the end of all of this, is that you have one source to research for this stuff, one source as the genesis, sustenance, and proof of your faith and all of its minutiae. One collection of very carefully, very politically selected (research assignment: The Apocrypha) texts bound into a single book, and written by men.

In the discussions I've had in the past with those of a devout religious nature, this is where it always ends. They view their scripture as being divinely influenced, the men simply being conduits for the word of God.

To answer the thread's question: People get angry when they feel it's being pushed too strongly, either on them or on the populace in general.

I used to get angry, many years ago. No longer. I don't begrudge anyone their opinions on something so personal. Faith can come about from a variety of reasons -- from one's environment to simply having an epiphany while pondering existence. Practice it, talk about it, teach your own children it, whatever. If it's pushed on me, I just smile it off (and maybe poke a little fun while I'm at it :balloon: ).

Del

09-05-2008, 12:51 AM

I have stayed out of this for many reasons, then I read your post Del.

Personal proof? or an experience generated from yourself that you have no logical explanation for, or burning bush, booming voice telling you "Del, its God..its all true"

Saying you have "proof" is silly. Plain silly. You have faith in your belief, a faith supported by your personal experience and feelings, nothing more. thats not proof. Thats just a belief.

No, personal proof of something as powerful as a god. Perhaps I believe in a sentient big bang, I don't know. Belief is an effect in this case, not a cause. Must I write my autobiography here to please you? Or can you not simply accept that this is the case for me and move on?

And what's all true? Christianity? I already stated I was agnostic. As an agnostic I accept the possibility (strong possibility in my case, like any good theory) of god, but I have no idea who he might be and I'm strongly suspicious of those who claim they do know.

Here's my problem. Either God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, knows every action we will ever take in advance (our actions are preordained ), or we have free will (not preordained and subject to change).

Yeah, it's such a lovely paradox that always seems to perplex Christians I meet since they have normally never thought of that before.
Of course though, knowledge of future actions is not the same as direction of future actions. Things are not necessarily the way they are because god willed them to be so, things may be the way they are and god knows them to be so. The world is not necessarily fated (or destined) by god and until we invent time travel or discover alternate dimensions then our future and definitely our past may be stuck where it is anyway.

However, it may be possible that god, as a being with infinite knowledge, has the capability to extrapolate all possible outcomes from all possibilities. Therefore god does know what's going to happen, because he's seen every alternate future. That makes his predictive powers somewhat arbitrary, but hey. It means God can say, "Jimmy will become a brain surgeon." because he has extrapolated that as the outcome of Jimmy getting an A in Biology and his mother buying him that book about the human mind, as the most probable possible future. Unless of course Jimmy makes mistakes, but then, God, as a being capable of extrapolating outcomes, knows the route those mistakes will take him anyway.

So basically he could possibly know where every fork leads to. Perhaps theists should not say "God knows the future" and instead say "God knows the futures."

Roger

09-05-2008, 03:47 AM

Quoting Roger:

"When you think about God as being outside of time, it is not a contradiction."

Yes, it is. God "knows" from the infinite point (by your definition) of creation that a being is going to be doomed to damnation. The rest of Norrie's post hits the contradiction squarely on the head. Benevolent, forgiving, and kind, or cruel.

So even if God knowing from an infinite point all who are damned, it still doesn't take away from him doing it. The aim is to have people love him freely, regardless of knowing who would be damned.

Ultimately the question for me is - why should I believe in something that makes me feel bad about almost everything I do? Where is that helping me in living a fulfilled life?

You should only believe if you know it in your heart. Otherwise it is hypocritical. Any true Christian won't judge what you do. You are not a believer in God, so why would you follow his rules, or feel guilty about it if you don't? You don't believe in him, so why would it make a difference to you?

That really is the question I was asking. If you don't believe then why feel bad?

A few personal feelings here: I don't think any less of someone because they are not Christian. What care about is you all as people. I like all of you, you are interesting and diverse people. From my point of view God loves you regardless of what you believe. That is a good example for me to follow. You don't need to do the same, as these are my beliefs and not yours. You should be true to what you believe.

Before I was a Christian, if I was in Church (weddings, funerals etc) I would bow my head when people prayed, but I would not say amen. I would stand when hymns were sung, but I would not sing them.

I respected the people there, but I wouldn't say words that I didn't believe.

Being honest to your own beliefs is important. We all have our own beliefs, even if that is that we believe nothing. Be true to yourself.

rogerSIMIAN

09-05-2008, 10:11 AM

That's interesting to hear how your beliefs changed, Roger.

My ideas have changed a lot over the years and I quite like the idea of not having fixed beliefs. I decided to be a devout Christian for several months when I was about 12 or 13 - starting each day teaching myself guitar and then reading from the little Gideon's Bible we'd been given in school. But, even at that age, I soon realised it wasn't for me 'cause it was such a black and white religion - "this is right", "that is wrong" - and the world just didn't seem as clear cut as that to me. There seemed to be a lot of grey where Christians only saw black or white. And, also - my hormones were starting to kick in and they were a far more powerful motivator for me than Gideon's. :-)

You'll see how much of a fad my Christian phase was when I say that my next idea was to become a white Rastafarian. Heeheehee. I was listening to a lot of reggae, dub and ska and started reading books about Marcus Garvey. But then I told some friends and they laughed. They laughed quite a lot. That kinda killed off my Rastafarianism.

Just after I turned 15 I watched a film that Bruce Lee directed, called "The Silent Flute" and it really tantalised me because it was full of zen-like little nuggets of wisdom and quite mysterious. That led to me reading through all my Dad's books about Eastern philosophies, especially "The Tao of Physics" by a physicist, Dr Fritjof Kapra, which was "an exploration of the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism". What I read about Taoism, Buddhism and Zen seemed to ring true to me. They were basically saying that life is full of change and that clinging onto things too tightly (material possessions, nostalgia, grievances) will only bring you heartache.

I borrowed some books by the German novelist Herman Hesse from my Uncle and, at the end of reading "Siddhartha", I had a little moment of epiphany where everything seemed right and the room seemed to glow just a little brighter. I knew it wasn't any kind of religious vision. I've had the same effect happen by scribbling for ages with my left hand (which is supposed to stimulate the right side of your brain, where most of the creativity is). I knew it was just my brain telling me - "this sounds right!". I'd been quite uptight, tense, nervous as a teenager but, almost immediately after reading those books (over a weekend I think), I chilled out a hell of a lot and stopped worrying about things that weren't really very important.

The way I practiced my own brand of Taoism was to watch 1980s tv shows like "Minder" and "Auf Weidersehen, Pet", whilst making 100s of little origami paper frogs (which I learned from a book in our art class). Hahaha. Well, it seemed to work for me. I think the main draw of the Eastern religions and philosophies for me at that age was that they didn't seem quite so prudish about sex. Pretty important for a teenager. They weren't telling me I'd rot in hell for masturbating or for noticing that girls were getting curvier. At the very least my new "beliefs" gave me confidence and within a few weeks I'd had my first snog (french kiss) with a ginger lass called Tracey. Try to top that, Gideon's Bible! :-)

I also liked the fact that Taoism and Buddhism were more like spiritual philosophies than religions. They didn't try to tell me where we came from - there is no origin myth about the creation of the universe - and they don't have gods (apart from in areas where Buddhism merged with the beliefs that already existed, eg Tibet). I've not had any interest in shaving my head or joining a Buddhist monastery or anything like that. I would like to learn to meditate though because it's a good relaxation tool. (I think prayer is a form of meditation.) I just have the vague belief that there is some kind of purpose to existence, that life has a meaning that I'll never fully understand. That's all the comfort I need really. Practically it does seem to work out that things go much smoother for me if I follow the natural flow of things (which is quite often the opposite of following the crowd).

So, apart from that vague sense of spiritual belief I mostly look at the world fairly analytically: wondering why, in an evolutionary sense, things are the way they are. That seems to fit fairly snugly with Taoist philosophies, which are all about change and about doing as nature does.

Roger

09-05-2008, 10:53 AM

I would like to learn to meditate though because it's a good relaxation tool. (I think prayer is a form of meditation.)

That is a very interesting point and not something I had considered before. But there are similarities, especially with the feeling of calmness that can be gained.

I learnt to meditate through a psychologist on the NHS. There is a scientific way to meditate as well as spiritual ways to meditate. Prayer can sometimes feel similar, although it can be approached in a very different way.

For myself prayer is more like a conversation than a ritual. I pray pretty much in the same way as I talk.

The whole post Roger made was very interesting, I enjoyed reading it. Maybe all teenage boys feel like worshipping Tracey! :thumbup:

BTW if Taoism fits your life then why not. My life code that I followed before I became a Christian was based mainly on the words of Neil Peart. The drummer and lyricist with Rush. Well it certainly fit in with my life view! :laugh:

Uber

09-05-2008, 11:01 AM

a good punching bag is as good as the old and out dated meditation. It amazes me how people want to move forward by holding onto the past. Is that like walking away while holding onto a pole?

rogerSIMIAN

09-05-2008, 12:25 PM

a good punching bag is as good as the old and out dated meditation.

Screaming along with Pixies albums can work wonders too. :-)

My life code that I followed before I became a Christian was based mainly on the words of Neil Peart. The drummer and lyricist with Rush. Well it certainly fit in with my life view! :laugh:

Heeheehee - love it!

That is a very interesting point and not something I had considered before. But there are similarities, especially with the feeling of calmness that can be gained.

I learnt to meditate through a psychologist on the NHS. There is a scientific way to meditate as well as spiritual ways to meditate. Prayer can sometimes feel similar, although it can be approached in a very different way.

For myself prayer is more like a conversation than a ritual. I pray pretty much in the same way as I talk.

I've thought this for a while: that whether the God you pray to exists or not, prayer will be benificial because it's a way of focusing your thoughts and thinking about your life: a form of meditation. Surely good for mental health. Going to confession, for Catholics, must be quite a good way of offloading troubles.

Maybe all teenage boys feel like worshipping Tracey! :thumbup:

Yeah, I think most religions could be improved by having a ginger lass called Tracey dishing out kisses. :rockon:

sisch

09-05-2008, 03:04 PM

You should only believe if you know it in your heart. Otherwise it is hypocritical. Any true Christian won't judge what you do. You are not a believer in God, so why would you follow his rules, or feel guilty about it if you don't? You don't believe in him, so why would it make a difference to you?

That really is the question I was asking. If you don't believe then why feel bad?

That really is the crux for me, Roger - why should people be made to feel bad about natural things like love or sex? (I'm sorry I'm riding around so much on this, but it just lends itself so easily to doing that) - it is something completely natural, without which we wouldn't even exist! And if there is a god, he would certainly not have made it as enjoyable if he wouldn't want us to enjoy it, rather than just see it as a means to get children, would he?
So why tell people sex before marriage is a sin? It just really seems like the bible (or maybe thats just the interpretation of the church) puts the stamp "sin" on this to gain control. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's not that I feel bad about not believing - I feel it's a shame that people are forced to feel bad about absolutely natural things - because they believe strongly and are forced to feel bad about it! It's not good for the psyche. Don't tell me they could ask for forgiveness - yeah, maybe god forgives them, but they would have to forgive themselves too to find a way to carry on, and that can be very hard? (I'm feeling that I'm not able to express my meaning very well here).

Uber

09-05-2008, 10:30 PM

rogerS, you attributed a quote to me, and i think it was Roger the Hugger

Leora

09-05-2008, 11:52 PM

THIS IS DEL POSTING!!! :P Not Leora, I am not Leora! (I just realised now she's logged in...and I've written all this crap...whoops)

That really is the crux for me, Roger - why should people be made to feel bad about natural things like love or sex?

Yeah, and this is often a crucial issue for teenagers who are Christians, since it's normal for them to start experimenting and exploring. It's traditionally seen as being rebellious.

They wouldn't like to think of it as 'being made to feel bad' rather, developing a conscience. It's just that Christianity has stricter morality than colloquial sensibilities (What most people agree is bad - murder, stealing, cheating on your partner). However, this does not give Christian leaders the right to demand their high morality on others. Many of these people are married have already lived their life (usually doing the things they're telling others not to do) and teach that these things are wrong (possibly to save them from what they've 'been through'.)

Personally I don't believe it's natural to feel bad about anything, since if god doesn't exist then there is no rules. Anarchy is the natural state as all rules are created by ourselves and are therefore completely and utterly arbitrary. Ahh, but that's nothing to do with this thread. :P

It's slightly hypocritical though (coming back to my original point), since rules for looking after our slaves have been abandoned (found in Paul's letters in the NT) why not rules for love and sex? We've changed and matured a lot since then.
And we have condoms.

Roger

09-06-2008, 07:21 PM

That really is the crux for me, Roger - why should people be made to feel bad about natural things like love or sex? (I'm sorry I'm riding around so much on this, but it just lends itself so easily to doing that) - it is something completely natural, without which we wouldn't even exist! And if there is a god, he would certainly not have made it as enjoyable if he wouldn't want us to enjoy it, rather than just see it as a means to get children, would he?
So why tell people sex before marriage is a sin? It just really seems like the bible (or maybe thats just the interpretation of the church) puts the stamp "sin" on this to gain control. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's not that I feel bad about not believing - I feel it's a shame that people are forced to feel bad about absolutely natural things - because they believe strongly and are forced to feel bad about it! It's not good for the psyche. Don't tell me they could ask for forgiveness - yeah, maybe god forgives them, but they would have to forgive themselves too to find a way to carry on, and that can be very hard? (I'm feeling that I'm not able to express my meaning very well here).
You make perfect sense.

As far as I see it, it is the church is who tries to make people feel bad, for control.

The church has so much to answer for.

I don't see God trying to make people feel bad about things. He tells Christians what they should do, but not to feel bad. He encourages us to feel joy.

Elbow

09-06-2008, 08:34 PM

I don't see God trying to make people feel bad about things. He tells Christians what they should do, but not to feel bad. He encourages us to feel joy.

That's sure the way I feel about it Roger.
Misguided church members and leaders reading into scripture to prove their personal views, control, gain wealth, etc. do a lot of harm.

Killian

09-06-2008, 08:49 PM

rogerSIMIAN

09-06-2008, 09:04 PM

rogerS, you attributed a quote to me, and i think it was Roger the Hugger

Oh, yeah - sorry about that. That should've said Roger. I must've got mixed up when I was copying the quote boxes.

Roger

09-07-2008, 08:55 AM

I think the general consensus is that it's not religion per se that's at fault for any of the bad press it gets, but the "higher ups" in the hierachy of the established and recognised religious bodies (and therefore the most visible proponents of a particular viewpoint and publically recognised "spokespeople" for religion in general), pontificating about how people should live their lives that cause most of the problems... Totally agreed. Which is why I have faith and not religion. Religion is man made.

That's sure the way I feel about it Roger.
Misguided church members and leaders reading into scripture to prove their personal views, control, gain wealth, etc. do a lot of harm.
Amen, preach it brother! :clap:

Sorry, I got a little carried away there! :4:

rogerSIMIAN

09-07-2008, 09:30 AM

Totally agreed. Which is why I have faith and not religion. Religion is man made.

The Bible is surely as man-made as the Christian Religion is: even if it is the eye-witness accounts of the Apostles or the Old Testament prophets, you just have to look at the variations between the Books, or between the denominations, to see how differently people will see and interpret the same event. Then you need to factor in all the changes that were made over the centuries (a lot of the anti-sex message was added later, for example) and the difficulties of translating into other languages, where one word can be interpreted in many different ways. You could say that God was guiding all of these changes and interpretations but, if that's the case, then it makes sense that "He" is also influencing the thoughts in your head and the feelings you have.

So, if Faith is all the modern Christian needs, would it not be better to lay the two-thousand year old documents aside and have a direct relationship with your God through prayer? Then your moral guide in any given situation would be whatever "He" put into your heart or mind.

(Small-print: But if God starts telling you to load up your sniper rifle and make your way to the top of the local supermarket, please seek advice from your GP, 'cause that's not Religion or Faith. It's bad drugs or schizophrenia talking to you. Haha.)

Dulci

09-07-2008, 10:24 AM

Killian

09-07-2008, 10:45 AM

"If you don't believe, then why get angry?"

Because I don't want to be served what I view as platitudes when something tragic happens - things like, "It must have been God's plan" or "God needed another angel" or "God works in mysterious ways" or "It was just her time" only end up getting me angry at times when I need the most emotional support. The sad part is I know that the people who say this to me are sincerely trying to offer comfort, so it's a conflicting kind of anger.

...here, here... :surrender:

If some people with religious beliefs would actually take a leaf out of their own books and try to understand that there are people out there that don't share them and don't want certain comments made towards them at a very stressful time (as well meant as they may be), I think a lot of people would be a lot happier. If you believe and draw great comfort from it, more power to you; I don't and can't. Equally, you don't shove your beliefs down my throat and I won't shove my fist down yours... (ok, slightly over the top, there, but you get my drift :clown:)

I do, however, think it's a sad state of affairs when people find they can't talk openly about their faith in non-preachy terms (kudos to Roger for laying himself bare, figuratively speaking (not literally, for which I think we should ALL praise God :001_tt2:) without being lambasted for it, and I'm glad we have proved that a conversation of this depth and breadth can be held here with an unparalleled maturity.

So, (coming back to the original question) being preached at by "true believers" who think my life is being lived wrong (it's MY life, thanks very much; I'll live it how I want; I don't and won't tell you how to live yours, so do me the courtesy of extending me the same consideration), in conjunction with the aforementioned dislike of pontificating church leaders trying to tell everyone, whether they are "religious" or not, how they should live their lives, is why "If you don't believe, then why get angry?" for me, at any rate.

Roger

09-07-2008, 11:13 AM

So, if Faith is all the modern Christian needs, would it not be better to lay the two-thousand year old documents aside and have a direct relationship with your God through prayer? Then your moral guide in any given situation would be whatever "He" put into your heart or mind.

An excellent point indeed!

There are many versions of the Bible and some have been monkeyed with more than others. There are some modern versions which are direct translations of the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

When I look things up in the Bible I tend to reference several versions at the same time.

"If you don't believe, then why get angry?"

Because I don't want to be served what I view as platitudes when something tragic happens - things like, "It must have been God's plan" or "God needed another angel" or "God works in mysterious ways" or "It was just her time" only end up getting me angry at times when I need the most emotional support. The sad part is I know that the people who say this to me are sincerely trying to offer comfort, so it's a conflicting kind of anger.
I understand what you are saying.

At times like that it is all very well God knowing what we are going through, but being human we want people to understand what we're going through too. The downside is that to do that people usually have to have been through a similar experience.

For example if someone loses someone they are very close to, I can understand how they feel. I was close to my Dad who died literally in my arms. So I know how people feel when they go through it.

With tragedy and especially with death, most people never know what to say. It is different for everyone. For me it was best for me to talk about them, to get my emotions out. A lot of people I guess are scared of bringing these emotions out of us because they might feel as if they are the ones who upset us.

When my Dad died so many people said "I'm really sorry!"

I'd reply "you don't need to be, it wasn't your fault!"

I think I made a few people feel bad by doing that, but I really hated the platitudes. Honesty is better.

Back to my Dad again, when he was first ill and we were alone for the first time he said to me "It's bad isn't it? I'm a gonna!"

I replied "Yes you are!"

He was so grateful, because I was honest with him.

When we are ill people often seem to hide the truth from us. It is not doing people justice in all cases. I know if I had a terminal illness, I wouldn't want it sugar coated. I would want the truth. Bad news is always far better than doubt.

I do, however, think it's a sad state of affairs when people find they can't talk openly about their faith in non-preachy terms (kudos to Roger for laying himself bare, figuratively speaking (not literally, for which I think we should ALL praise God :001_tt2:) without being lambasted for it, and I'm glad we have proved that a conversation of this depth and breadth can be held here with an unparallelled maturity. That is one of the things I love about TMU! :)

I may have posted that while I was bare. I'll leave it to your imaginations! :001_tt2:

So, (coming back to the original question) being preached at by "true believers" who think my life is being lived wrong (it's MY life, thanks very much; I'll live it how I want; I don't and won't tell you how to live yours, so do me the courtesy of extending me the same consideration), in conjunction with the aforementioned dislike of pontificating church leaders trying to tell everyone, whether they are "religious" or not, how they should live their lives, is why "If you don't believe, then why get angry?" for me, at any rate. Good reason to feel angry about it. The same thing makes me cross too.

It is your life and you have the God given right to live it as you will (freewill), and I as a "true believer" want judge you for it. Whether it's wrong or not, is not my decision to make!

I am just supposed to love you all. Sounds like a good time for a group hug, and it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, a hug is still a precious thing indeed! :60:

Del

09-07-2008, 11:30 AM

...you need to factor in all the changes that were made over the centuries (a lot of the anti-sex message was added later, for example)

I hear there was changes made, but I'd really like to know what they were. Which bits were changed? I hear that assertion made a lot, mostly by laymen when the scholars are telling a completely different story. Never heard that the anti-sex messages (again, which ones?) were added later.
I'm interested, wouldn't mind if someone could cite a source for that.

By professionals, The Bible is considered a reliable historical document (truthfulness of fanciful events such as virgin births and men crossing water is irrelevant to this). There's literally thousands of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament to cross check (in comparison to other historical documents which we simply seem to take for granted that they're truth, such as the works of Herodotus, Suetonius, Pliny, Tactus, the amount of manuscripts we have to cross check is in the tens, not thousands). It's an impossible collection of books to change.

rogerSIMIAN

09-07-2008, 11:45 AM

There are some modern versions which are direct translations of the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

Oh, I'd be quite interested to look at those.

Back to my Dad again, when he was first ill and we were alone for the first time he said to me "It's bad isn't it? I'm a gonna!"

I replied "Yes you are!"

He was so grateful, because I was honest with him.

When we are ill people often seem to hide the truth from us. It is not doing people justice in all cases. I know if I had a terminal illness, I wouldn't want it sugar coated. I would want the truth. Bad news is always far better than doubt.

Shows a strong relationship that you were able to be so honest with your Dad at a time like that, Roger.

I also thinkthat a lot of "sugar coating" is maybe people wanting to protect themselves from the truth, as much as the person who is ill.

People find it very uncomfortable knowing what to say to somebody who's grieving. In my experience people who're bereaved usually prefer talking directly about the subject (with empathy of course) than pussy-footing around the issue.

rogerSIMIAN

09-07-2008, 12:05 PM

I hear there was changes made, but I'd really like to know what they were. Which bits were changed? I hear that assertion made a lot, mostly by laymen when the scholars are telling a completely different story. Never heard that the anti-sex messages (again, which ones?) were added later.

Sorry, I don't know. I often watch documentaries about stuff like this but I don't take notes - haha. I think St. Augustine, in the dark ages, helped make Christianity particularly prudish. But I'll let you do the research. :-)~

But the Old Testament, for starters, is full of God telling everybody to "Reproduce! Reproduce! Reproduce!":

"Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." ( Genesis 8:17 ; 9:1 ).

Killian

09-07-2008, 12:57 PM

I may have posted that while I was bare. I'll leave it to your imaginations! :001_tt2:

:eek:...shudders....:scared:

Del

09-07-2008, 11:07 PM

Sorry, I don't know. I often watch documentaries about stuff like this but I don't take notes - haha. I think St. Augustine, in the dark ages, helped make Christianity particularly prudish. But I'll let you do the research. :-)~

Well, I don't think St. Augustine lived in the dark ages for starters. :p I know that he championed interpreting the Bible literally. Since he lived in around 300-400CE, I think, then any changes he made would have been irrelevent. We have complete manuscripts dating back over 200 years before his death.

The eraser was invented in 1770. :stuart:

Believing every word you hear on TV, even in documentaries, is a bad plan. Controversial studies with little evidence are often put on air, because they get good ratings.

rogerSIMIAN

09-08-2008, 09:34 AM

Well, I feel suitably chastised, Del, and you've helped make this a really fun conversation. :-)~

Elbow

09-08-2008, 12:08 PM

RS
unlike me, at least you know the spelling difference between Hebrews and...errr...non-Hebrews. (not taking a chance on my spelling again) :w00t:

rogerSIMIAN

09-08-2008, 01:17 PM

RS
unlike me, at least you know the spelling difference between Hebrews and...errr...non-Hebrews. (not taking a chance on my spelling again) :w00t:

Heeheehee. An honest Freudian slip. :laugh:

thebiz

09-08-2008, 03:40 PM

Here's another free association... I don't understand the kind of loving God that could spawn a tale like the frankly repugnant litany of sickening cruelties that is the tests of Job... And can you imagine if someone told you to prove you love them by killing your own child? You would think that m'fer was batshit insane, not to put too fine a point on it...

I thought it was crazy sounding too. But the reason was to prove his faith. When it came to the point of sacrificing his son. God told him to stop, because he had proved his faith.

This is gunna sound nitpicky but the story of Job involved God allowing Satan to plunge Job in poverty, kill Jobs family and then subsequently replacing his family with a new one (second families are always superior to the original...) and restoring his wealth after he "passed the test". You are both probably referencing Abraham who was asked to sacrifice his child. God provided a sacrificial ram to replace the child. Somewhat nicer ending than the slaughter of Jobs son's and daughters.

Might seem like a small deal but actually quite different and important OT (Old Testament, not off topic hehe) stories when considering man's conceptions/perceptions of his dieties.

A_N_D

09-08-2008, 08:56 PM

This is gunna sound nitpicky but the story of Job involved God allowing Satan to plunge Job in poverty, kill Jobs family and then subsequently replacing his family with a new one (second families are always superior to the original...) and restoring his wealth after he "passed the test". You are both probably referencing Abraham who was asked to sacrifice his child. God provided a sacrificial ram to replace the child. Somewhat nicer ending than the slaughter of Jobs son's and daughters.

Might seem like a small deal but actually quite different and important OT (Old Testament, not off topic hehe) stories when considering man's conceptions/perceptions of his dieties.

Biz -

It was poor writing on my part - I originally intended to reference both. They're both the sick tests of a petty, jealous, insecure "God".

Good catch, and thanks for the clarification!

A_N_D

Roger

09-09-2008, 11:34 AM

They're both the sick tests of a petty, jealous, insecure "God".

Or possibly an all powerful, all knowing God. Depending on your point of view of course. Or if you don't believe then they are a made up story that is of little personal importance or relevance! ;)

Norrie

09-09-2008, 11:55 AM

Or possibly an all powerful, all knowing God. Depending on your point of view of course. Or if you don't believe then they are a made up story that is of little personal importance or relevance! ;)

You see Roger, there is that "all knowing" nonsense again.

Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems with the "leap of faith"

If God (easier to type) is all knowing, and outside time; why bother? We've been here before, with no answer.

If He, or She, (I like Robin Williams' reasoning why God is a man: "If God was a woman, there would be no war. Just some REALLY intense negotiations every 28 days") is omniscient (to know) and omnipotent (to change), why bother?

No surprise, no change, no reason. No entropy, no point. So why create?

(genuinely interested)

Dulci

09-09-2008, 12:06 PM

"If you don't believe then why get angry?"

Because I see so many injustices propagated by people believing they are carrying out God's will. I'll just touch on the ones closest to my heart:

Women who are stoned to death by their families for immorality.
Women who cover themselves up from head to toe while their husbands acclimate to Western society and wear jean cut-offs and flip flops.
Men who are taught that they should be grateful they were not born women.
Women who are told that men are the teachers and women should only listen.
Sons who grow up believing that their mothers are inferior to their fathers.
Women who are taught that to question their father or husband is to question God.
People who believe that to be reincarnated as a woman is bad karma.
Women who are taught that they should be ashamed of their sensuality because it is sinful.
Women who are discarded by their husbands because they can't have children and are therefore not following God's will of procreation.

Norrie

09-09-2008, 12:13 PM

thebiz

09-09-2008, 12:25 PM

Or if you don't believe then they are a made up story that is of little personal importance or relevance! ;)

Gotta disagree strongly here Roger. I have little interest in the debate over the existence of God but I certainly see the pervasiveness of religion in the commerce, law, politics and behaviors of modern society (and more specifically for me, within the united states). Even as made up stories they continue to influence (in both good and bad ways) generations of children, thinkers, leaders and the like as they are told and retold.

Religious texts are signs of where we came from (either as a creation story or as a reference to how we thought of ourselves and our existence at the time) and point for many as to where we should go (either as a direct act/decision or in the slower changes in our moral and ethical laws). As a member of a society that is so heavily influenced by these texts that I am carrying numerous mentions to a heavenly creator on my person at this moment (and while raised snake handler, I am not a religious person), I cannot insulate myself from this fact. Therefore important and relevant regardless of whether I believe. And this is why I posted at all.

Roger

09-09-2008, 01:09 PM

You see Roger, there is that "all knowing" nonsense again.

Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems with the "leap of faith"

If God (easier to type) is all knowing, and outside time; why bother? We've been here before, with no answer.

If He, or She, (I like Robin Williams' reasoning why God is a man: "If God was a woman, there would be no war. Just some REALLY intense negotiations every 28 days") is omniscient (to know) and omnipotent (to change), why bother?

No surprise, no change, no reason. No entropy, no point. So why create?

(genuinely interested)Why God would create I have no idea.

The all knowing bit is not nonsense to me. But I can totally understand why it is to others. It is only 8 years since I was a non-believer and I know all the arguments against believing, because I used to use them often.

It is a personal experience that was so strong that I, who was a confirmed agnostic if you will, was so amazed by this experience that I was instantly converted. I don't expect others to believe because of anything I say, because I know it would have made no difference to me if someone had shared a similar experience with me. But I would like people to know that my faith is from this experience.

I could think of many reasons logically why my experience would not have been real, except for the fact it happened to me.

In short Norrie I don't expect you to believe what I believe, and I am very happy for you to have your own beliefs or non-beliefs. It is your free choice to do that. :)

"If you don't believe then why get angry?"

Because I see so many injustices propagated by people believing they are carrying out God's will. I'll just touch on the ones closest to my heart:

Women who are stoned to death by their families for immorality.
Women who cover themselves up from head to toe while their husbands acclimate to Western society and wear jean cut-offs and flip flops.
Men who are taught that they should be grateful they were not born women.
Women who are told that men are the teachers and women should only listen.
Sons who grow up believing that their mothers are inferior to their fathers.
Women who are taught that to question their father or husband is to question God.
People who believe that to be reincarnated as a woman is bad karma.
Women who are taught that they should be ashamed of their sensuality because it is sinful.
Women who are discarded by their husbands because they can't have children and are therefore not following God's will of procreation.
Those are all very good reasons indeed to get angry.

Even amongst the majority of the population that I come across, prejudice against women still exists. Although most people would say that they are not guilty.

When I tell people that I look after my wife full time, people often tell me I am wonderful. When I say what about women who do the same thing they tell me it is a woman's job to do that.

The sad thing about this is that it is almost always women who say this to me.

So that leads me to two possible conclusions:

1) Many women feel it's their place to look after people.

2) They don't think men are capable of looking after people.

Either way is prejudice, either against men or women. I think maybe 2 might be closer to the truth, and in many cases with good reason. When people are sitting in a room and someone says "how about some coffee?"

Who gets up and makes it?

Maybe we should have a battle of the sexes thread? :tt1:

Roger

09-09-2008, 01:14 PM

Gotta disagree strongly here Roger. I have little interest in the debate over the existence of God but I certainly see the pervasiveness of religion in the commerce, law, politics and behaviors of modern society (and more specifically for me, within the united states). Even as made up stories they continue to influence (in both good and bad ways) generations of children, thinkers, leaders and the like as they are told and retold.

Religious texts are signs of where we came from (either as a creation story or as a reference to how we thought of ourselves and our existence at the time) and point for many as to where we should go (either as a direct act/decision or in the slower changes in our moral and ethical laws). As a member of a society that is so heavily influenced by these texts that I am carrying numerous mentions to a heavenly creator on my person at this moment (and while raised snake handler, I am not a religious person), I cannot insulate myself from this fact. Therefore important and relevant regardless of whether I believe. And this is why I posted at all.
That is a very interesting point indeed. I was not thinking of how ingrained religion is in American culture. I should add that you are in fact correct in what you say. I stand corrected! :)

Dulci

09-09-2008, 01:15 PM

Those are all very good reasons indeed to get angry.

Even amongst the majority of the population that I come across, prejudice against women still exists. Although most people would say that they are not guilty.

When I tell people that I look after my wife full time, people often tell me I am wonderful. When I say what about women who do the same thing they tell me it is a woman's job to do that.

The sad thing about this is that it is almost always women who say this to me.

So that leads me to two possible conclusions:

1) Many women feel it's their place to look after people.

2) They don't think men are capable of looking after people.

Either way is prejudice, either against men or women. I think maybe 2 might be closer to the truth, and in many cases with good reason. When people are sitting in a room and someone says "how about some coffee?"

Who gets up and makes it?

Maybe we should have a battle of the sexes thread? :tt1:

I'm not focusing on general prejudice against women (that would indeed be a whole nother thread!). I'm talking about religions that advocate this as a directive from God.

Norrie

09-09-2008, 01:25 PM

I think that we may need to step back here and take a breath.

Faith is to me, in spite of Del's pseudo intellectual ramblings, a leap.

Those of us who never made that leap, cannot really argue with those that have.

To me, faith and religion are very different things.

You have faith, fine. be content in yourself.
You have religion. Leave me the feck alone.

We talk about judging and prejudice so much nowadays. I'm not gay, don't judge. I'm not Jewish, don't judge. I'm not Hindu, don't judge. I'm not Christian, don't judge. Hell, I'm not female, guess what? Don't judge!

All faith, conviction, ethics, and morals are great if it gets you through life. But don't ever, ever, ever, try to impose them on others.

Seems simple don't it? But, I guess I don't try to control by faith, fear, hatred and lies. Shame really, I'd be a great dictator!

Dulci

09-09-2008, 01:50 PM

I have a playful tone normally on forums, I know, so when I type "seriously" it can come across as anger. It's just the business side of me coming out, so don't worry. I'm a very direct writer on subjects that actually matter.

When I'm mad, you'll know it. :63:

Norrie

09-09-2008, 01:54 PM

I doubt anyone thought you were particularly angry, Dulci.

Roger made that error in his tread title :) (Sorry Rog)

Jase180

09-09-2008, 02:02 PM

Why God would create I have no idea.

The all knowing bit is not nonsense to me. But I can totally understand why it is to others. It is only 8 years since I was a non-believer and I know all the arguments against believing, because I used to use them often.

It is a personal experience that was so strong that I, who was a confirmed agnostic if you will, was so amazed by this experience that I was instantly converted. I don't expect others to believe because of anything I say, because I know it would have made no difference to me if someone had shared a similar experience with me. But I would like people to know that my faith is from this experience.

I could think of many reasons logically why my experience would not have been real, except for the fact it happened to me.

I find that interesting, as amazing things happen to people all the time, but to declare instant conversion over a single event ...a bit mind boggling to me.

Doesnt logic play a role in your life, or is it all focused on magical things that happened "to you"?

Did all rational just walk out the door? Now, to be clear I dont wanna seem harsh, Im just curious how you tossed out 1 moment as you say, it was all the proof you needed to change your beliefs (which btw proof seems to go against the faith bit)

So please, explain this a bit more

Norrie

09-09-2008, 02:13 PM

I find that interesting, as amazing things happen to people all the time, but to declare instant conversion over a single event ...a bit mind boggling to me.

Doesnt logic play a role in your life, or is it all focused on magical things that happened "to you"?

Did all rational just walk out the door? Now, to be clear I dont wanna seem harsh, Im just curious how you tossed out 1 moment as you say, it was all the proof you needed to change your beliefs (which btw proof seems to go against the faith bit)

So please, explain this a bit more

Not to speak for Roger or anyone else Jase.
But, isn't that the very definition of a leap of faith?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you cannot explain anything like that logically. It's too personal, so it belongs to you. And you should never force it on others. Neither should you force on others your logic for lack thereof.

Not having a go at anyone by the way, fascinating discussion.

sisch

09-09-2008, 06:13 PM

When I tell people that I look after my wife full time, people often tell me I am wonderful. When I say what about women who do the same thing they tell me it is a woman's job to do that.

The sad thing about this is that it is almost always women who say this to me.

So that leads me to two possible conclusions:

1) Many women feel it's their place to look after people.

2) They don't think men are capable of looking after people.

Either way is prejudice, either against men or women. I think maybe 2 might be closer to the truth, and in many cases with good reason. When people are sitting in a room and someone says "how about some coffee?"

Who gets up and makes it?

Maybe we should have a battle of the sexes thread? :tt1:

Uh oh, better not, Roger, because that could get me really going.... and further get me very, very angry.

Dulci is right, a lot of those things are still indoctrinated through religion - one of the most despicable things to me is that in some religions women still get cut - by other women!!! - so that they feel no sexual pleasure, because that is sinful - women do that to women - it's just unbelievable to me! And that's probably one of the reasons I'm so much anti-religion (or at least the way religion is seen by the church).

A woman is worth as much as any man - and not only there to cook, clean, and get children.

I'll leave it at that - it's a whole new thing and would need a thread of it's own... but as I said: better let sleeping lions lie...

Roger

09-09-2008, 07:05 PM

I'm not focusing on general prejudice against women (that would indeed be a whole nother thread!). I'm talking about religions that advocate this as a directive from God. I am 100% in agreement with you on that.

I think that we may need to step back here and take a breath.

Faith is to me, in spite of Del's pseudo intellectual ramblings, a leap.

Those of us who never made that leap, cannot really argue with those that have.

To me, faith and religion are very different things.

You have faith, fine. be content in yourself.
You have religion. Leave me the feck alone.

We talk about judging and prejudice so much nowadays. I'm not gay, don't judge. I'm not Jewish, don't judge. I'm not Hindu, don't judge. I'm not Christian, don't judge. Hell, I'm not female, guess what? Don't judge!

All faith, conviction, ethics, and morals are great if it gets you through life. But don't ever, ever, ever, try to impose them on others.

Seems simple don't it? But, I guess I don't try to control by faith, fear, hatred and lies. Shame really, I'd be a great dictator! I agree totally with you on these points, except for the dictator bit. You have too much of a heart for that.

I have a playful tone normally on forums, I know, so when I type "seriously" it can come across as anger. It's just the business side of me coming out, so don't worry. I'm a very direct writer on subjects that actually matter.

When I'm mad, you'll know it. :63: Well I get angry about those things myself. I hate prejudice!

I doubt anyone thought you were particularly angry, Dulci.

Roger made that error in his tread title :) (Sorry Rog) I put that in the title to spark the debate a bit. Maybe it is I who should be sorry.

I find that interesting, as amazing things happen to people all the time, but to declare instant conversion over a single event ...a bit mind boggling to me.

Doesnt logic play a role in your life, or is it all focused on magical things that happened "to you"?

Did all rational just walk out the door? Now, to be clear I dont wanna seem harsh, Im just curious how you tossed out 1 moment as you say, it was all the proof you needed to change your beliefs (which btw proof seems to go against the faith bit)

So please, explain this a bit more I understand where you are coming from on this, and have wondered about it myself. But I guess it comes under the revelation type of thing. Might be the wrong word, I try to avoid religous jargon as a rule, as it seems to confuse things.

Like when someone says being "covered in the blood of the lamb", it is enough to make you go "omg they are sacrificing animals!"

But back on track: When you experience something that is very believable to yourself, it is very hard to deny it happened.

I do use logic, but on it's own I don't think it is enough. But I believe if we had all the facts about God, it would be possible to scientifically and logically to prove all the things that he has done. Although I don't see that as happening.

Not to speak for Roger or anyone else Jase.
But, isn't that the very definition of a leap of faith?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you cannot explain anything like that logically. It's too personal, so it belongs to you. And you should never force it on others. Neither should you force on others your logic for lack thereof.

Not having a go at anyone by the way, fascinating discussion. Yes it is indeed a fascinating discussion. It is nice to talk to intelligent people without it turning into a flame war or spam fest. I have a great deal of respect for all of you! :)

Uh oh, better not, Roger, because that could get me really going.... and further get me very, very angry.

Dulci is right, a lot of those things are still indoctrinated through religion - one of the most despicable things to me is that in some religions women still get cut - by other women!!! - so that they feel no sexual pleasure, because that is sinful - women do that to women - it's just unbelievable to me! And that's probably one of the reasons I'm so much anti-religion (or at least the way religion is seen by the church).

A woman is worth as much as any man - and not only there to cook, clean, and get children.

I'll leave it at that - it's a whole new thing and would need a thread of it's own... but as I said: better let sleeping lions lie...
Female circumcision is a terrible practise, it is a hideous torture which lasts a lifetime.

I am anti-religion too. In fact religion makes me very angry indeed. Possibly more so than many people. This is because I love my God, and I see all this religion from the church giving him a bad name. Using God's name to further a person's personal agenda is blasphemy. Taking God's name in vane. Damn right it makes me angry!

On the topic of women an equality, they are certainly worth as much as any man. I personally have a very high regard of women. Especially since I have had a lot more involvement with them.

At one time I saw women as violent and controlling. That was until I managed to get away from such women. I then learnt that women are very caring, interesting and loving people. They also have incredible stamina and patience. I now like women very much as people.

It's funny how a few personal experiences can change our lives!

Warning! Roger has a tendancy to ramble and go off topic.

rogerSIMIAN

09-09-2008, 07:20 PM

Dulci is right, a lot of those things are still indoctrinated through religion - one of the most despicable things to me is that in some religions women still get cut - by other women!!! - so that they feel no sexual pleasure, because that is sinful - women do that to women - it's just unbelievable to me!

Yeah, it's institutionalised brutality and it's so ingrained into specific cultures that it's now the women who carry it on from generation to generation.

But religion isn't the only offender. Until fairly recently, Western doctors were also performing this procedure...

"To the contemporary Western mind it sounds mad, a sadistic piece of science fiction. But clitoridectomies were performed in this country in the early part of the century. That was your grandmother's or great grandmother's time, when some of the most eminent, celebrated surgeons in the land routinely took knife in hand and skillfully removed various parts of a woman's genitalia for reasons of insanity, hysteria and, oh yes, hygiene... Records show that clitoridectomies were still being performed in certain mental hospitals as late as the 1930s."

Nancy Friday, "Women On Top" (1991)

"Hysteria" often included such things as being an unwed mother. Even when surgery wasn't authorised, women classified by a doctor as such could be locked in "insane asylums" indefinitely.

In the psychiatric hospital where I worked in the mid-1990s there were a few elderly women who had been in asylums so long that they were completely institutionalised and it was almost impossible to distinguish them from the patients with chronic psychotic conditions. They'd been hidden away in the places like these because the "immorality" of being an unmarried mother was seen as a form of insanity. One old woman had been there for 60 or 70 years because she was deaf!

Back to religion... Some of the stories about Ireland's Magdalene Asylums, run by the Catholic Church for "Fallen Women" until as late as 1996 are pretty brutal. The Scottish director Peter Mullen made a film set in the 1960s about the subject that's supposed to make quite uneasy watching.

A_N_D

09-09-2008, 08:59 PM

Or possibly an all powerful, all knowing God. Depending on your point of view of course. Or if you don't believe then they are a made up story that is of little personal importance or relevance! ;)

Whether I believe it or not, it's damned important that far too many people want Christian dogma - to be American law.

And Roger, if God was "all knowing", a "test" of any kind could not really exist, as I've outlined. God "knows" the answers in advance, and has either created creatures that he "knows" will fail, or not.

C'mon.

Any Christian, please...

Does the Bible, that you believe in, condemn me and Norrie to eternal damnation because we cannot logically accept the existence of your God?

It is a yes-or-no question. There may be stuff that comes after, by way of your personal interpretation - but it is fundamentally a yes-or-no question.

A_N_D

(I am not angry - haven't been once throughout this discussion until a participant PM'd me to "chat" about the points raised in this thread. This is a public discussion for the edification, enlightenment, and opportunity to contribute - of all involved. My word is no more law than anyone else's)

Del

09-09-2008, 11:00 PM

Faith is to me, in spite of Del's pseudo intellectual ramblings, a leap.

How are my ramblings pseudo intellectual? And where precisely did I say that faith is not a 'leap'? I said it's not necessarily blind, not necessarily lacking in logic and not necessarily lacking in proof.
I have faith that you'll respond to this post, for example. That is not blind, there's logic behind it and proof is that you've been posting in this thread, so it is likely.

Faith in god is different, but I don't have faith in god.

I wonder if the anger mentioned in Roger's OP includes being insulting.

riott007

09-10-2008, 12:39 PM

Do you think it ever crosses God's mind that we are all retarded?

thebiz

09-10-2008, 12:55 PM

Do you think it ever crosses God's mind that we are all retarded?

Thats why he never calls....

Norrie

09-10-2008, 02:36 PM

Do you think it ever crosses God's mind that we are all retarded?

Well, we did create him in our own image :)

Killian

09-10-2008, 03:09 PM

Well, we did create him in our own image :)

...you know, I can't really think of an answer to that...

:4:

Roger

09-10-2008, 03:11 PM

Whether I believe it or not, it's damned important that far too many people want Christian dogma - to be American law.

And Roger, if God was "all knowing", a "test" of any kind could not really exist, as I've outlined. God "knows" the answers in advance, and has either created creatures that he "knows" will fail, or not.

C'mon.

Any Christian, please...

Does the Bible, that you believe in, condemn me and Norrie to eternal damnation because we cannot logically accept the existence of your God?

It is a yes-or-no question. There may be stuff that comes after, by way of your personal interpretation - but it is fundamentally a yes-or-no question.

A_N_D

I'm afraid we will have to agree to differ on the point of an all knowing God.

The Bible says that all people will be judged before God, and unless they are free from sin, that they are condemned to damnation. All have sinned, so that would be a yes.

But my point is, if you don't believe it shouldn't be a problem for you.

Look at it the other way around for the moment. I believe I will go to heaven when I die. You probably believe that when I die there will be nothing. I have no problem that you think I won't be going to heaven.

I should add that I don't assume that someone will be going to hell, regardless of their current beliefs. I also don't think any less of someone who doesn't believe.

God says he made man in his image, so who am I that can treat someone in the image of God badly?

That doesn't mean that I don't treat people badly, but I do try not to do it.

Uber

09-10-2008, 04:07 PM

You know what they say: God created man, then he rested. Then God created woman, and no one has rested since.

A_N_D

09-10-2008, 09:03 PM

I'm afraid we will have to agree to differ on the point of an all knowing God.

The Bible says that all people will be judged before God, and unless they are free from sin, that they are condemned to damnation. All have sinned, so that would be a yes.

But my point is, if you don't believe it shouldn't be a problem for you.

Look at it the other way around for the moment. I believe I will go to heaven when I die. You probably believe that when I die there will be nothing. I have no problem that you think I won't be going to heaven.

I should add that I don't assume that someone will be going to hell, regardless of their current beliefs. I also don't think any less of someone who doesn't believe.

God says he made man in his image, so who am I that can treat someone in the image of God badly?

That doesn't mean that I don't treat people badly, but I do try not to do it.

I think the answer I have been fishing for, from a "believer", is that no matter whatyour Scripture says, and no matter how much you want to believe, you don't "really know."

Which is why I am an agnostic. I don't "really know" either.

And no man is free from sin - guess we're all doomed. Unless you're saying that I can rape, murder, and generally be an asshole, and as long as I genuinely feel bad about it and ask for forgiveness, that it's all water under the bridge...

Makes no sense to me.

A_N_D

(still not "angry")

Roger

09-11-2008, 04:20 AM

I think the answer I have been fishing for, from a "believer", is that no matter whatyour Scripture says, and no matter how much you want to believe, you don't "really know."

Which is why I am an agnostic. I don't "really know" either.

And no man is free from sin - guess we're all doomed. Unless you're saying that I can rape, murder, and generally be an asshole, and as long as I genuinely feel bad about it and ask for forgiveness, that it's all water under the bridge...

Makes no sense to me.

A_N_D

(still not "angry")

I used to be agnostic and I didn't know. But since I "experienced" God, I do know. I admit I don't know everything about the Bible, but I do know the important bit.

Faith is in the heart and not the head. Many people say they have an open mind on the subject, when what is needed is an open heart.

As for raping, murdering and all those bad things, yes you could do them, and if you asked for forgiveness you would be forgiven. But the thing is that once you believe you tend to try not to do bad things.

It is like when people say that they won't ever get to heaven because of what they have done in their lives. They are wrong. There is always the chance of forgiveness whatever you have done in your life.

Take two people, one has gone to church all his life, the other was in a gang and murdered people.

The church goer has sung the songs and said all the right words, but in his heart he has not felt God. He is going to hell.

The gang member one day has a revelation and believes in God with all his heart. He will go to heaven.

Following church doctrine is a very slippery slope. The Bible says that many people like this will come before him and he will say "I never knew you at all!" They need to believe in God and not the church doctrine.

The more time goes by, the more I realise how much the church has screwed God's word up. It has so much to answer for.

So back to my point: As an agnostic who can put his hand on his heart and say "I don't know!" You are a far better person than a church goer who tells you what you should and shouldn't do. Why? Because you are honest to your beliefs, they are not!

(Not angry here, except against the Church)

rogerSIMIAN

09-11-2008, 04:31 AM

Take two people, one has gone to church all his life, the other was in a gang and murdered people.

The church goer has sung the songs and said all the right words, but in his heart he has not felt God. He is going to hell.

The gang member one day has a revelation and believes in God with all his heart. He will go to heaven.

Oh, what gang were you in, Roger?

Heehee - just joshing. :-)

:euro:

Roger

09-11-2008, 06:11 AM

Oh, what gang were you in, Roger?

Heehee - just joshing. :-)

:euro:
I was in the Huckleberry Huggers! :60:

rogerSIMIAN

09-11-2008, 06:43 AM

I was in the Huckleberry Huggers! :60:

Word!

:euro:

Del

09-11-2008, 07:32 AM

And no man is free from sin - guess we're all doomed. Unless you're saying that I can rape, murder, and generally be an asshole, and as long as I genuinely feel bad about it and ask for forgiveness, that it's all water under the bridge...

Well, technically that's not what the Bible teaches. Forgiveness is a word we use instead of repentance, which in turn is a word we use instead of Metanoia, which is Greek. The connotations of which aren't just saying 'sorry' or asking for 'forgiveness'. Metanoia essentially means to have a complete change of mind. So in the context of Christianity and sin etc, it means to basically to have the intent in not doing those things again.
If you murder someone, go to jail, get converted to Christianity (or whatever) and actually repent of what you've done, there is an implication of a promise where you won't 'sin' again. If you carry on being an asshole, yet feel bad about it, as you say, then you aren't being repentant.
Or in modern terms, you're not a criminal who is trying to reform. Asking for forgiveness constantly, saying you're sorry, no matter how heart-felt is meaningless if you continue the way you are.

Or that could be a load of BS. It's the concept of hell that turns me off Christianity completely and if you've read the Bible, Jesus talks a lot about it - more than he does about heaven. I don't mind there being some sort of cosmic justice or being accountable for my actions, but I've always disagreed with torture/death penalties etc as punishment/deterrent.

A_N_D

09-11-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_N_D
"And no man is free from sin - guess we're all doomed. Unless you're saying that I can rape, murder, and generally be an asshole, and as long as I genuinely feel bad about it and ask for forgiveness, that it's all water under the bridge..."

Quote:
Originally posted by Del
"Well, technically that's not what the Bible teaches. Forgiveness is a word we use instead of repentance, which in turn is a word we use instead of Metanoia, which is Greek. The connotations of which aren't just saying 'sorry' or asking for 'forgiveness'. Metanoia essentially means to have a complete change of mind. So in the context of Christianity and sin etc, it means to basically to have the intent in not doing those things again..."

It was a rhetorical, smartass statement on my part, Del (which I thought was pretty obvious - guess not). Your argument only serves to feed right back into my point about God "knowing" in advance whether someone will genuinely repent or not.

Vicious circles make me dizzy.

Nice job with all of the word definitions, though... Father Paul's Homilies?

A_N_D

Del

09-11-2008, 11:20 PM

It was a rhetorical, smartass statement on my part, Del (which I thought was pretty obvious - guess not). Your argument only serves to feed right back into my point about God "knowing" in advance whether someone will genuinely repent or not.

And of course there is my original argument in response to that on previous pages, which you appear to have missed. :p And no, it didn't look like a rhetorical smartass statement. Looks like Roger missed that too, hmm? So why single me out?

Nice job with all of the word definitions, though... Father Paul's Homilies?

Erm, what?

riott007

09-12-2008, 07:24 AM

lmao

Mefune Akira

09-24-2008, 11:55 PM

I attended Catholic school. Ive read the bible twice, cover to cover. Ive researched Judaism, Christianity, Roman Catholicism and dozens more. I have seen first hand speaking in tongues, faith healing and demon exorcisms.

Its all false. All of it.

Yes, it is true, bible religions do anger me. Why? Because of the damaging impact it has on humanity itself.

First off, I know most have blind “faith” in religion to cope with both life altering tragedies and everyday hardships. They use the very notion of an all powerful god who watches over them as a security crutch, much like alcohol and drugs. I used to rely on the bible god during times of sorrow as well, but I now feel I am a much stronger human being for seeking the truth. It isn't an easy truth to accept and is a terrifying step to take for most, much like rehab.

Why angry? Did you know bible religions generate trillions of dollars worldwide? Did you know a child dies every 5 seconds in Africa due to Malaria, AIDS and starvation? Do you realize if just a half of the bible religions wealth went into helping others of this world, the Earth would be the heaven they seek in the first place? Think about that one for a sec. The truth is the bible is a socially dangerous concept created by men thousands of years ago to lay down an absolute, post death, law that no one could escape. That was the sole purpose of the creation of the bible. It was an ideal notion for the time.

What baffles me is the sheer obtuseness of having blind faith in anything without question. Questioning is what defines us as ever evolving human beings. Many are to afraid to stand on their own two feet. To afraid to live their lives sorely on their own accord. I feel like someone who awoke from a dream and now looks in from the outside and see so many trapped in their own insecurity.

Just for S & G's, ask yourself, if this bible god is perfect and all knowing, doesn't that mean he knew Eve would pick the apple or man would go bad and he would have to commit global genocide with rain? If god, heaven and hell do exist and he knows you will never believe in him and will send you to hell for all eternity, why did he create you in the first place? Just to see you burn? Doesn't all of that sound like a kid playing with his toys?

My religion is to be a good father, husband, son, brother and fellow human being. If that isn't enough to get me into a heaven, then perhaps I don't want to be there.

This was in no way meant to offend baskets with fake grass.

Fospherous

09-25-2008, 03:22 PM

I believe, But I'm not over the top...

But it does annoy me when Religions go at one anothers throats, which is very annoying and especially with these people who make Doomsday predictions that turn out wrong and they end up commiting suicide over nothing, It just makes me tick sometimes.

Roger

09-25-2008, 03:59 PM

A very good post Mefune!

I understand what you mean by not an easy truth to accept. That is I correctly understood that you mean mortality.

It was something I struggled with for many years. It was particularly bad when I hit 30 and it lasted for 2 years. Almost every waking moment, and much of my dreaming moments were filled with the fear and sheer terror of dying.

Now it would be predictable to think that I would say that I then found Jesus and I had no more fear. Well that is not what happened to me.

I wrestled with this fear and I eventually faced up to it, and came to terms with my own mortality. It certainly isn't an easy thing to accept comfortably.

My faith came 4 years later, and fear of dying certainly had nothing to do with my becoming a believer.

The accusations you make against man's church, I agree 100% with. As for the knowing and allowing, I wrote about that earlier in the thread when I talked about God being outside of time, and freewill. But if you want me to explain specifics as I understand it from the Bible, I am more than happy to do so.

It is good that you have gone your own way and are true to yourself. It is far better than the days when you were in the church and were fooling everyone, and worst of all yourself. To have convictions and stick by them regardless of what any man says is a very good trait indeed. So find your own way. I did, but my journey was kind of the reverse of yours. ;)

Jase180

09-25-2008, 04:14 PM

TheFlyingDuDe

09-25-2008, 05:32 PM

Believing is such a strong thing, you can do so much with just believing. Do you know how people walk over glowing coals? They just believe it, not just think they aren´t but if you really believe you will not feel any pain, will not get a blister from burning, nothing, from sheer believing they are cold. This is a fact profen many times and actually even sometimes used by sport coaches to show their player what they are able to do. We can creat our own world in our head and if we strongly believe in something it can at least parts of it, come true.

I´ve heard about religions, went to churches, buddhistic temples and to a moshee once and talked to the people of the religion about their believes. Each and every one of them had total faith in what they said. If it´s 2000 year old stories about men dieing coming back alive and being god son, a god that always watches you, all of us, every moment of our life... or that their religious leaders let´s himself be reborn, that he can find the comeplete happyness by meditating for years, doing nothing but eating, sleeping and meditation at best in a cave away from everyone else... You get the idea, they all have their believes that if judged soberly sound pretty ridicoules. Still there is nothing wrong with that, I mean you live only once and in my oppinion you should do whatever makes you happy in that one life you have. So I have nothing against believing at all, quiet oppositly, I think believing is good you can get a lot of power and hope out of believing. I think everyone does want do believe in something and everyone does belive in something if it´s in a god or in being a good person to your fellow humans, and that´s a good thing.
I as well have my own believes, which thou do not equal any religion we know and don´t feature any god...
So in my oppinion your question is asked wrong... "If you´re not religious, then why get angry?" would fit better...

Anyway, the reason why I get angry about religions is that hate and destruction they bring, what really enrages me are those people saying I´m send by my god the only god and want to convert you... It´s not the believe that enrages me it´s the religions, like Mefune said look at how many money the church got, how many they spend on keeping a senile old men(sorry not ment to be offensive) alive, when they could save thousands of children in africa with that money... 90% of all wars humanity has led were based on religious differences.

Like I said believing is good, but if just every religion would accept the believes of others and not say ours is the only truth and everyone has to follow us, if nececarry we´ll use weapons.
Everyone should believe whatever he believes in and can share that with others, if wanted, but don´t force it on people and don´t say yours is the only truth, it´s the only truth for you but not for everyone so keep that "fact" that it´s the only truth to you and live in peace with the rest.

Just my thoughts, not ment offensive in any way.

Roger

09-25-2008, 06:14 PM

A good post TFD! :)

I agree that people should choose for themselves.

I also agree that people using religion as an excuse to hate is very wrong. It goes against the values of just about every religion. I can't really think of any modern religion that preaches to kill and hate as it's core values.

Fundamentalists do, and they are wrong, regardless of which religion they put their name to. Whether it is a suicide bomber, or an abortion clinic bomber.

Mefune Akira

09-25-2008, 11:31 PM

Roger

09-26-2008, 06:12 AM

Roger my friend, you never cease to amaze me with you gentleman's candor. My mind is always open and I would love to read your thoughts about god being outside of free will and time. Just to clarify, the “not an easy truth to accept” is indeed about mortality, but also that the bible contains moral atrocities and scientific impossibilities, which in turn, discredits its very ideals. However, as I said, I have an open mind and I'm always willing to discuss contemplative suggestions and alternate interpretations such as the core of the bibles purpose it true, but perhaps man's words got it wrong.

Man has twisted the Bible a lot to fit his own agenda. What I read in the Bible was not the same as I see many people portray it.

God is outside time, say in a similar way to the 5th dimension. So he knows what happens in time at any and all moments. I would say that it is fair to assume that God would know who would follow him and who wouldn't. The way I see it is that he wants to be loved freely, so even though he knew there was a high failure rate, he still went ahead with all the creating mankind stuff anyway.

God could force everyone to love him, but it is not the same as genuine love which is given freely. So we have the freewill to do as we wish.

I know my way of looking at the Bible doesn't fit well with the church. But it could be that I get my ideas directly from the text, rather than what others tell me it means.

I get a lot of inspiration from my Dad. His faith was a s simple as it come. I didn't even know he had a faith until about a month before he died. He kept it to himself, he felt it was a very personal and private relationship that he had with God. He said all these church people make it so complicated, when really it is very simple.