NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I am pretty sure every one here knows I am a Jesus freak, albeit a bad one at times. I admit that I am wrong in some things I do, such as curse, or tell a dirty joke. I know this. However, its bugging me that people are making it seem that I have to be religious, meaning follow all these strict laws and rules, and I have to act in the "christian" way, what ever that means. Well, I have to say something about this. Being a Christian is more than following laws and rituals and all that crap. Just because I am a christian doesn't mean I have to have all the knowledge in the world about the bible, or listen to gospel music. Being a christian means that I am in a relationship with Jesus. And I mean a nonsexual relationship, for all your smart elic twerps out there :p.

Ok, although I said its not a sexual relationships like between a guy and gal dating, let me explain it in those terms. This relationship starts off strong, you get all the funny feelings in your stomach, and you feel nothing but joy. These are among the happiest days in your life. then you start to move in a more serious manner. For a boy and girl dating, this includes kissing, touching and all that. For a christiam, its more of following the spiritual disciplines, which are ways of being closer to God. Eventually, you reach a point where your bond is inseperable. In a good boy/girl relationship, this would be like marriage. For a christian, its that point when you finally die completly to the world, and shift all your focus to serving God.

Anways, I just wanted to say that being a christian doesn't mean I have to follow soome sort of standards that man has created, such as being members of church or something silly. Being a christian is about following in the footsteps in Christ, and most important spreading and living the message he brought. And what was that message? Love. Somehow, this message was lost to christians, and instead they feel that it is second class, and instead laws and regulations are now the most important thing. Thus, christianity has become a religion to many. But to a few, its still a way of life...a relationship.

What do you think? do you agree or disagree?

Also, let it be known that I am not advocating that people go out and sin willfully. We should still **TRY** to obey the rules. Rather, I am saying that they are not as important as before. :)

oh yeah, i forgot to add a link. www.notreligion.com Its a good site talking about how christianity should not be a religion, but a way of life. :)

*snip*

We should still **TRY** to obey the rules. Rather, I am saying that they are not as important as before. :)

Does this mean I can eat meat on Fridays again? :)

Who expects you to be a puritan? Priests where I used to attend church could marry, drink, sing songs about hash bars at church picnic, etc. And that was an Orthodox church.. so I'd think laypeople have some room to be "normal."

I think this is what most religions ultimate try to accomplish - I don't know of any that don't.

Make you have a better way of life, love family, friends, etc, I mean.

Sorry, but the blagoblag is my way of life.

Does this mean I can eat meat on Fridays again? :)

If you want to. Personally, its silly to think that you are satisfying God simply by abstaining from meat. I think God would rather be pleased by you growing closer to him, either through prayer, reading of his word, meditation, whatever.

I think this is what most religions ultimate try to accomplish - I don't know of any that don't.

Make you have a better way of life, love family, friends, etc, I mean.

How ever, most religions end up making people follow laws, if they are to be "good" and "faithful".

Who expects you to be a puritan? Priests where I used to attend church could marry, drink, sing songs about hash bars at church picnic, etc. And that was an Orthodox church.. so I'd think laypeople have some room to be "normal."

Many people in my churches expect. Many people on here say that i'd be a hypocrit if I didn't be a puritan. For example, earlier I made a joke about something to do with Ginnoria being a dirty whore, or something like that, and someone said I was being hypocritical. I guess they expect me to be soft spoken and speak words of Christ everytime I open my mouth? Im sorry, but that's not going to happen. I am far from perfect. Sure, i'd like to be more "pure", as it would show a bit of maturity, but what I believe is that its not expected of me to be perfect. God knows I am going to fudge up, and thats no excuse for me to do so, but its saying that I am not supposed to be perfect. Thats just silly to expect.

Sorry, but the blagoblag is my way of life.

What the crap is that?

Not religion
Not the mommah!

Okay, sorry.

Seriously, though, you can be a Christian without being puritanical, you know. Come on, Zilam, we know you better than that.

What do you think? do you agree or disagree?

Also, let it be known that I am not advocating that people go out and sin willfully. We should still **TRY** to obey the rules. Rather, I am saying that they are not as important as before. :)

Consider it a backlash. Us non-belivers get plastered all day with people shouting "REPENT!!" into ours ears, telling us how we'll burn in hell, how we condem society by allowing gays human rights, how we're sinful for having sex before we're married, how we're killers for saying that abortions are a woman's choice...

I know you're not one of those, but considering that this is a group you voluntarily chose, don't be surprised if people regard you as one of the group. And expect you to at least live up to what's being preached at them...

What the crap is that?
Ya' know, the intertubes.

How ever, most religions end up making people follow laws, if they are to be "good" and "faithful".

That's one of the main reasons I dislike organized religion. In my opinion, it seems like they force people into a set of actions, rather than teach them to be happy.

I mean that religion tries to make you a better person by changing your perception of the world, not by directly controlling what you do. This can be either good or bad since you are essentially conditioning people to act how you want them to.

Well, I have to say something about this. Being a Christian is more than following laws and rituals and all that crap. Just because I am a christian doesn't mean I have to have all the knowledge in the world about the bible, or listen to gospel music. Being a christian means that I am in a relationship with Jesus.

...

Anways, I just wanted to say that being a christian doesn't mean I have to follow soome sort of standards that man has created, such as being members of church or something silly. Being a christian is about following in the footsteps in Christ, and most important spreading and living the message he brought. And what was that message? Love. Somehow, this message was lost to christians, and instead they feel that it is second class, and instead laws and regulations are now the most important thing. Thus, christianity has become a religion to many. But to a few, its still a way of life...a relationship.

What do you think? do you agree or disagree?
I have to disagree on the basis that, as nice as it sounds, that's not what christianity actually is. When you say "I am a christian", you're not just declaring that you're in a relationship with Jesus. If you wanted to do that, you'd just say so. No, the notion of "christianness" carries other information; namely, your wish to be associated with those others who assert a christian identity.

If you wanted to drop the religious aspect of your understanding of God, you cannot claim to "be a christian" while doing so, for the conscious identification with a distinctive collective identity is the very essence of religiosity.

Not the mommah!

Okay, sorry.

Seriously, though, you can be a Christian without being puritanical, you know. Come on, Zilam, we know you better than that.

Wait, are you saying that I couldn't be puritanical? Do i smell a challenge? :p

It's outright lying to say "I'm christian and I'm not religious."

May as well say "i penetrated a woman over and over in the vagina and then in the anus with my male organ, and we did not have sex, it wasn't sex... it was a way of life, a relationship!"

I'm well aware that you false-witnesses - "liars" as we say nowadays - go to hell when you die, according to the christian religion.

Remember, when you die and jesus puts you in hell for being a liar, it was probably because you lied publicly to the effect "I am christian and I am not religious."

save me jesus, beam me up scotty :rolleyes:

I have to disagree on the basis that, as nice as it sounds, that's not what christianity actually is. When you say "I am a christian", you're not just declaring that you're in a relationship with Jesus. If you wanted to do that, you'd just say so. No, the notion of "christianness" carries other information; namely, your wish to be associated with those others who assert a christian identity.

If you wanted to drop the religious aspect of your understanding of God, you cannot claim to "be a christian" while doing so, for the conscious identification with a distinctive collective identity is the very essence of religiosity.

But if we are bound by the law, which is essentially what christianity in a religious sense would be, then Christ came to die for nothing, right? I seem to recall a passage saying that we are not justified by law(religion), but by grace.

Being a Christian is a lifestyle, just like being an american or something. You are american because you are of america. I am a christian because I am of Christ. I follow his basic message, which is to love. Remember, he came not for the religious and righteous, but for the regular people, the sinners. He came to set them free from an impossible system of laws and regulations.

It's outright lying to say "I'm christian and I'm not religious."

May as well say "i penetrated a woman over and over in the vagina and then in the anus with my male organ, and we did not have sex, it wasn't sex... it was a way of life, a relationship!"

I'm well aware that you false-witnesses - "liars" as we say nowadays - go to hell when you die, according to the christian religion.

Remember, when you die and jesus puts you in hell for being a liar, it was probably because you lied publicly to the effect "I am christian and I am not religious."

save me jesus, beam me up scotty :rolleyes:

Please come back when you have something of value to say. :)

But if we are bound by the law, which is essentially what christianity in a religious sense would be, then Christ came to die for nothing, right? I seem to recall a passage saying that we are not justified by law(religion), but by grace.

Being a Christian is a lifestyle, just like being an american or something. You are american because you are of america. I am a christian because I am of Christ. I follow his basic message, which is to love. Remember, he came not for the religious and righteous, but for the regular people, the sinners. He came to set them free from an impossible system of laws and regulations.

It's a bit like saying "I'm Catholic, but I regard myself as a female priest".
Yes, being Catholic is a lifestyle, you could argue. But one that tells you what ot do and what not to do. Same as all other Christian sects.

Wait, are you saying that I couldn't be puritanical? Do i smell a challenge? :p

Eh, I don't know...you strike me as a non puritanical kind of guy...but hey, if you think you can be, go right ahead. We won't stop you.

Please come back when you have something of value to say. :)

Just trying to save you from getting put into hell by jesus when you die, and making sure others aren't lured down this path of deception and lying, and eventual damnation.

I have to disagree on the basis that, as nice as it sounds, that's not what christianity actually is. When you say "I am a christian", you're not just declaring that you're in a relationship with Jesus. If you wanted to do that, you'd just say so. No, the notion of "christianness" carries other information; namely, your wish to be associated with those others who assert a christian identity.

For the record, I'm Jewish, so I could be incorrect on a few things here.

There is no contiguous 'Christian Identity' - what one group of Christians will tell you will see you burn in hellfire will be perfectly acceptable in others - Methodists and milder Protestants really don't care if you swear or get drunk and accept that people are going to want to look at members of the opposite sex, whereas more Puritan beliefs would say these things are grave sins; Catholicism would condemn you for using birth control while most other denominations see it as nothing to be particularly concerned about anymore.

You are confusing Christianity in general with Christian Fundamentalism if you think to-the-letter adherance to the rules is required anymore - people who deliberately sin and still claim to be Christians are being hypocrites, it's true, but he's not claiming that's OK - he's saying that trying to obey the rules while still being part of modern society is good enough, and that seems to be the message from most Christian denominations these days.

Just trying to save you from getting put into hell by jesus when you die, and making sure others aren't lured down this path of deception and lying, and eventual damnation.

:rolleyes: You're ridiculous, you know that?

Maybe I will put it more simply, so people won't be confused.

Its not okay to willfully sin and act out against God, but being a Christian doesn't mean you focus your life around a set of rules that you cannot fulfill all the time.

I hope that makes a little more sense.

What do you think? do you agree or disagree?
I can't agree more:D

Maybe I will put it more simply, so people won't be confused.

Its not okay to willfully sin and act out against God, but being a Christian doesn't mean you focus your life around a set of rules that you cannot fulfill all the time.

I hope that makes a little more sense.

Every religion has it's people and it's denominations that say that you're not a proper Christian/Jew/Muslim if you don't follow every rule every second of every day, it's easier to ignore them and follow the more progressive routes of your chosen religion.

They can shout and bawl all they like, that's their right and privilege to live their God-given lives as they wish. It is not their right to tell you how to live yours - only your interpretation of your chosen holy book can do that, with guidance from religious figures when you feel it neccessary.

But if we are bound by the law, which is essentially what christianity in a religious sense would be, then Christ came to die for nothing, right? I seem to recall a passage saying that we are not justified by law(religion), but by grace.
That's a good way to start, and I entirely agree. I'd recommend to you the works of Brian McLaren and the Emergent Church movement; they're thinking in much the same lines as yourself, and you'd probably find what they have to say very insightful.

Being a Christian is a lifestyle, just like being an american or something. You are american because you are of america. I am a christian because I am of Christ. I follow his basic message, which is to love. Remember, he came not for the religious and righteous, but for the regular people, the sinners. He came to set them free from an impossible system of laws and regulations.
Again, I believe you to be mistaken on the notion of such identities.

Countries are not the territory they occupy; they are the people and society that stand on that territory. To say "I am an American" is to say "I am a member of the American nation", not "I live the American way of life", for many do who do not assert American identity, or "The place I was born or lived as a child is in American territory", for what if the territory changes hands? What's more, it is implicit within the notion of nationality that one is exclusive from the others, and to consciously accept one is to deny its alternatives. The way I see it, if you no longer wish to be associated with the collective American people, you stop calling yourself an American. Spend some time living in a place where the ownership of the territory that you forged a home on is disputed and you'll understand what I mean.

The deciding factor in national identity is a subjective one, and the same is the case of religious identity. You say you "are a christian", but I put it to you that you are seeking to break away from the identity of christianity in your society in your desire to no longer be associated with the christian religion. "Christianity", beyond whatever surface distractions have been put on it, is the collective identity of "christians". To confuse Christianity with an association to God or Jesus Christ is to make a very, very grave mistake (though a popular one).

Christianity and me are not compatable.

I eat meat on Fridays just not Good Friday...

Christianity and me are not compatable.

Why not?

Why not?

I just don't agree with it, or any religion for that matter. And I don't even think there is a God so..

If someone's going to tell me that God will help me, or anyone for that matter, where the hell was he when one of my good friends died of breast cancer?

No, I don't want an explanation, it wont help.

Zilam have you considered Christian Communism?

I just don't agree with it, or any religion for that matter. And I don't even think there is a God so..

If someone's going to tell me that God will help me, or anyone for that matter, where the hell was he when one of my good friends died of breast cancer?

No, I don't want an explanation, it wont help.

I just wanted you to know that it says no where in the bible that God has an obligation to cure everyone of their sicknesses. However, it is promised that God will help us with our suffering and our losses. That's all I can say for ya pal.

Zilam have you considered Christian Communism?

Um...isn't that...Hypocritical? I thought communism denied the existence of God?

Um...isn't that...Hypocritical? I thought communism denied the existence of God?
Soviet communism did. Jesus's ideas are often held to have communistic elements, though, so the existence of a communist society on the back of them is not so far removed.

Um...isn't that...Hypocritical? I thought communism denied the existence of God?

Of course not, many hold to the 'social gospel' in helping the poor dislocated and abject of society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

I just wanted you to know that it says no where in the bible that God has an obligation to cure everyone of their sicknesses. However, it is promised that God will help us with our suffering and our losses. That's all I can say for ya pal.

Oh he so did not help me after she died. Not even a little.

Soviet communism did. Jesus's ideas are often held to have communistic elements, though, so the existence of a communist society on the back of them is not so far removed.

Truth be told, I don't think Christ was/is communist, capitalist, liberal or conservative. We just try to fit our beliefs around him, to make our views seem divine and thus right.

Oh he so did not help me after she died. Not even a little.


Did you even listen for him? Goto him in prayer? Some times we seek an answer, but we don't care to listen for the real answer, only the answer we want to hear. I know this from experience dude. I have gone through similar things in my life when family members and friends died. I asked God why he was cruel and all that, and expected some sort of great revelation to be revealed to me by a burning bush or something. But if I would have listened for an honest answer, it probably would have been somthing like "People are going to die. This proves that life is short. So would you rather spend it being angry at me, or being in love with me?"

God doesn't work around our feelings and desires. Sure he'll answer our prayers, sometimes even in the way we want him too, but he doesn't make the world revolve around our desires.

Of course not, many hold to the 'social gospel' in helping the poor dislocated and abject of society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

Like i said, I don't think christ cared much about our ideologies. We are to be healers, helpers and lovers of all, no matter what system it is under. Trying to place Christ in one of the ideological categories is like putting him in a box or something, conforming and fitting to our ideas, instead of vice versa.

Did you even listen for him? Goto him in prayer? Some times we seek an answer, but we don't care to listen for the real answer, only the answer we want to hear. I know this from experience dude. I have gone through similar things in my life when family members and friends died. I asked God why he was cruel and all that, and expected some sort of great revelation to be revealed to me by a burning bush or something. But if I would have listened for an honest answer, it probably would have been somthing like "People are going to die. This proves that life is short. So would you rather spend it being angry at me, or being in love with me?"

God doesn't work around our feelings and desires. Sure he'll answer our prayers, sometimes even in the way we want him too, but he doesn't make the world revolve around our desires.

Not. A. Damn. Thing.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/other/blahhh/dhghdfh.jpg

Oh hell no.

*leaves*

Did you even listen for him?
You need to understand that the ability to listen to God, as you put it, is not easy for a few and not present for the rest. It takes a certain amount of transcension of reality to be able to "communicate with the divine", and outside of the scope of religiosity, such an attitude to the world is interpreted as Schizophrenia and has been progressively eliminated.

You need to understand that the ability to listen to God, as you put it, is not easy for a few and not present for the rest. It takes a certain amount of transcension of reality to be able to "communicate with the divine", and outside of the scope of religiosity, such an attitude to the world is interpreted as Schizophrenia and has been progressively eliminated.


Holy crap, you mean I can be considered schizo for talking to God?

Christianity and me are not compatable.

Same here.

Not. A. Damn. Thing.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/other/blahhh/dhghdfh.jpg

Oh hell no.

*leaves*

So you are saying you didn't talk to God about it, but you expect him to do somoething for you anyways? And it is important that you do know him, not necesarily for the heaven hell thing, that probably the least important thing. its important that you know him, because being in truth and light is a better way to live in the world, than to be in the dark wondering around aimlessly.

Christianity and me are not compatable.

Same here.

can i join this group

Same here.

No, the only reason it seems that way, is because of what people have made it. If it weren't for a few idiots, it'd be clear that being a christian is for any and everyone. Why do you think it spread so quickly, even under the persecution of the strongest empire? Its not because it had great political influence. that didn't come for a few hundred years. It spread so quickly because the message was a universal one- and that is that the world is a bad place, where bad things happen to good people, but through Jesus' sacrifice none of that matters, because in the end you have the reward of being close to someone that really cares.

Aww crap, its 4 30.. i have to get to bed. I didn't even get my paper started..:( Night all.

its important that you know him, because being in truth and light is a better way to live in the world, than to be in the dark wondering around aimlessly.

Who said I'm living in the dark?

My life is great right now.

Holy crap, you mean I can be considered schizo for talking to God?

That's news to you? :eek:

No, the only reason it seems that way, is because of what people have made it. If it weren't for a few idiots, it'd be clear that being a christian is for any and everyone. Why do you think it spread so quickly, even under the persecution of the strongest empire? Its not because it had great political influence. that didn't come for a few hundred years. It spread so quickly because the message was a universal one- and that is that the world is a bad place, where bad things happen to good people, but through Jesus' sacrifice none of that matters, because in the end you have the reward of being close to someone that really cares.

Because people were used to the idea that there absolutely have to be supernatural powers?
I don't think the world is a bad place at all. And I'm looking forward to simply stop existing once I'm dead. The idea of an eternal life doesn't appeal to me at all. And the idea of a benevolent superbeing is simply ridiculously contradictory in my opinion.
I didn't ask for anybody to sacrifice anything, so I really honestly don't care. Jesus wasn't the only poor sod the Romans nailed up.

Who said I'm living in the dark?

My life is great right now.

That's one thing about Christians... they refuse to believe that ;)
Life can't be great. Otherwise, what would Jesus have died for?

Our sins... and it so happens that life isn't great... individual lives might be, but not life itself, otherwise the world would be a utopia...

Who said I'm living in the dark?

My life is great right now.

only if you forget to pay the light bill

Who said I'm living in the dark?

My life is great right now.
Who's to say that living in the dark is a bad thing? If it weren't for varying degrees of darkness, nobody'd be able to see anything.

Zilam if you believe in all or certain parts of Christian superstition, you're Christian and religious. That Christianity isn't a single specific thing isn't news to anyone (with the possible exception of the Pope Nazi).

I have nothing against religion in moderation, but between your little "dead to the world" speech and your very obvious attempt at making your faith appear cool and appealing to others, rather than unhinged and as attractive as a week old roadkill, is worrysome. It's a PG-13 board. Hold off on the conversion business until people are old enough to be liable for their decisions. I'm sure you don't want to be accused of trying to con or brainwash children. Right?

Personally the closest thing I come to religion, is my relationship with reality. Have you looked at it lately? I mean, really looked? It's just one fucking huge wonder to me. Our brains are the most complicated shit we've ever come across, spawned by near-endless refinement of something almost incomprehensibly simple. Hell, tapwater, something you almost certainly take for granted, is as close to magic as anything can get. Not only is it something incredibly simple and useful, produced in an almost unfathomable manner, but the ideas that lead to it? Shit, half is lost in the fog of history, and the rest looks, on the face of it at least, completely insane. And that goes for pretty much everything.

It's very hard not to fall in love with the wonderful chaos of it all, I think. And I think it's a great pitty if you're too busy looking at yourself to appreciate it all. Because that's what religion usually is, in the end. Narcissism, nothing more. I'm sure somewhere in the universe, an intelligent (though possibly rather dense) rock is right now trying to worship the great rock in the sky (or whereever), for creating a universe so perfectly tuned for the existence of rocks.

But whatever makes you happy. Just don't bother other people with it. Unless your personal little insane streak is causing you discomfort, there's no need to bring it to attention all the time. Attentionwhoring's something only a really fucking desperate mother of one can love. Or tolerate, at any rate.

Holy crap, you mean I can be considered schizo for talking to God?
Yup. If you don't adhere to a form of reality that observes physical bodies as the only hosts for personal identities, it's quite probable that you'll be diagnosed with it, hence most people won't reach outside of the notion of physical reality we've established. And probably with good reason too; outside of the bubble is a very strange place indeed.

It's very hard not to fall in love with the wonderful chaos of it all, I think. And I think it's a great pity if you're too busy looking at yourself to appreciate it all. Because that's what religion usually is, in the end. Narcissism, nothing more. I'm sure somewhere in the universe, an intelligent (though possibly rather dense) rock is right now trying to worship the great rock in the sky (or whereever), for creating a universe so perfectly tuned for the existence of rocks.
A sort of semi QFT here. Religion is narcissism, I agree, and the fantastic patterns in the madness of reality are something quite astonishing no matter what level you look at them from. But you're discussing the narcissistic tendencies of the philosophies that religions use for their own interests rather than the religions themselves. The religions are narcissistic because they seek to exclude anyone from their circle that doesn't fit nicely into their way of life; it just so happens that their way of life is also commonly narcissism in itself. There are the odd exceptions to the latter of these (I propose Hinduism as an exception), hence why I think the separation should be made, but you're absolutely right about the nature of Religion its.elf

So, I am pretty sure every one here knows I am a Jesus freak, albeit a bad one at times. I admit that I am wrong in some things I do, such as curse, or tell a dirty joke. I know this. However, its bugging me that people are making it seem that I have to be religious, meaning follow all these strict laws and rules, and I have to act in the "christian" way, what ever that means. Well, I have to say something about this. Being a Christian is more than following laws and rituals and all that crap. Just because I am a christian doesn't mean I have to have all the knowledge in the world about the bible, or listen to gospel music. Being a christian means that I am in a relationship with Jesus. And I mean a nonsexual relationship, for all your smart elic twerps out there :p.

Ok, although I said its not a sexual relationships like between a guy and gal dating, let me explain it in those terms. This relationship starts off strong, you get all the funny feelings in your stomach, and you feel nothing but joy. These are among the happiest days in your life. then you start to move in a more serious manner. For a boy and girl dating, this includes kissing, touching and all that. For a christiam, its more of following the spiritual disciplines, which are ways of being closer to God. Eventually, you reach a point where your bond is inseperable. In a good boy/girl relationship, this would be like marriage. For a christian, its that point when you finally die completly to the world, and shift all your focus to serving God.

Anways, I just wanted to say that being a christian doesn't mean I have to follow soome sort of standards that man has created, such as being members of church or something silly. Being a christian is about following in the footsteps in Christ, and most important spreading and living the message he brought. And what was that message? Love. Somehow, this message was lost to christians, and instead they feel that it is second class, and instead laws and regulations are now the most important thing. Thus, christianity has become a religion to many. But to a few, its still a way of life...a relationship.

What do you think? do you agree or disagree?

Also, let it be known that I am not advocating that people go out and sin willfully. We should still **TRY** to obey the rules. Rather, I am saying that they are not as important as before. :)

For the most part, you're right. But how do you know you're not doing something against Jesus if you delibertaely don't bother to read His words in the Bible? (Try Matthew and Luke)

WWJD rings are inspired from a Bible - because there is, where practical, a standard that Christians are supposed to set their actions by: What would Jesus do in such a situation?

Perhaps more importantly, if you don't read the Bible, then you may never come across something very important attributed to Jesus: The 'golden rule': Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

A sort of semi QFT here.To clarify: all religions I've ever heard of makes humanity the center and necessary prerequisite of the universe, either directly or indirectly. In some it's a mixed blessing, in others it isn't, but they all do it. A very basic form of narcissism, I think, is therefore readily suggested by the evidence.

Our sins... and it so happens that life isn't great... individual lives might be, but not life itself, otherwise the world would be a utopia...

Life's ok. Not just individual. Life on the whole is nice.
And I don't believe that there is something like "sin"

Does this mean I can eat meat on Fridays again? :)

Sure, as long as it smells fishy, quoth the Jezuit.

I agree mostly, but you shouldn't use your view as a rationalization for your bad behavior. If you feel guilty about something and feel you need to justify doing it, then you probably shouldn't be doing it. Just because things are not required don't mean they aren't a good idea, and just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right, and finally just because someone else does something doesn't mean you should.

oh yeah, i forgot to add a link. www.notreligion.com Its a good site talking about how christianity should not be a religion, but a way of life. :)

oy, we Hindus figured that out a while back. Hinduism is more of a life philosophy than religion. Good on ya.

...Being a Christian is more than following laws and rituals and all that crap.
...
For a christian, its that point when you finally die completly to the world, and shift all your focus to serving God.
...
living the message he brought. And what was that message? Love.
...


You know, you really provided an interesting insight about your religion.

Who said I'm living in the dark?

My life is great right now.

but how would you know?

but how would you know?

Easy... he doesn't fall over things or stub his toe too much.

Easy... he doesn't fall over things or stub his toe too much.

I wasn't talking literally. :p

I wasn't talking literally. :p

I think the point is, and I've seen this from my perspective of growing up more or less in a religion, that you can see the effect that "enlightenment" or "piety" have on people, and thus determine that it is not for you.

That was my take on Hinduism. I saw how people could act as a result of it, and realized that there were better ways to determine morality than a bunch of musty old tomes. One of those is common sense, which has helped me considerably.

Christianity is defined by a belief in Jesus as the Son of God. Your way of life is governed by the morals and rules of the culture/society in which you were brought up in, which happens to be a culture in which Christianity was the dominant religion. You are simply using your religion as a way to justify your way of life, but essentially it is no different from any other person's way of life; living by the rule of 'Love' is inherent in our culture, whether inspired by religion or not.

I wasn't talking literally. :p

Well, your the one who claims he's in the dark, right? So the burden of proof would lie in you in this case...

The fact of the matter is, Calling yourself a christian goes beyond simply declaring you have a relationship with Jesus. Christianity as a belief system has a set of dogma. Those who adhere to that dogma are christians.

Those who do not, effectively, are not. If you believe in jesus but not the tenants of christianity, you can not be considered christian. You may be a nondenominational diest, but the term "christianity" contains a lot more of a definition than simply one who believes in christ.

Incidentally I find it rather telling that when you describe a relationship with christ you compare it to a relationship with "a guy and a gal", I guess homosexual relationships don't fit in hm?

Well, your the one who claims he's in the dark, right? So the burden of proof would lie in you in this case...

:p I didn't say anything, I asked a question.

:p I didn't say anything, I asked a question.

I can't answer for the guy you asked, of course, but I would say it's a matter of perception. He sounds like he's happy with his life the way it is and doesn't feel the need for any more or any less light.

Me, I tried believing for a while, but found it's pointless to force myself to lie to myself in order to be able to go on believing in something that my heart and brain tell me is bogus. But then again, that's just me.

I can't answer for the guy you asked, of course, but I would say it's a matter of perception. He sounds like he's happy with his life the way it is and doesn't feel the need for any more or any less light.

Me, I tried believing for a while, but found it's pointless to force myself to lie to myself in order to be able to go on believing in something that my heart and brain tell me is bogus. But then again, that's just me.

I am not here to convert you. It would be stupid for me to try.

My point is how would you know that you were living in darkness.....I mean how does anyone know? I don't know if I am.

I am not here to convert you. It would be stupid for me to try.

My point is how would you know that you were living in darkness.....I mean how does anyone know? I don't know if I am.

Well...belief. I mean you believe you've found truth in your beliefs, and Ruffy likely (though I don't speak for him) feels he's found his own truth in his own beliefs (or lack thereof.) While you can never know for sure... I dunno, I guess it doesn't really matter. What can you know for sure?

I am not here to convert you. It would be stupid for me to try.

My point is how would you know that you were living in darkness.....I mean how does anyone know? I don't know if I am.

Does it feel like it?
What do you think it would feel like? And what would not living in darkness feel like?

Does it feel like it?
What do you think it would feel like? And what would not living in darkness feel like?

Darkness isn't really meant to sound bad, so sorry if when I said that, i offended you. Darkness in this sense means that you don't know God in a personal sense, or that you don't know the Gospel truth. When you are in the dark, you tend to think that either all is ok with life and that the world isnt that bad, or some people see that the world is in a bad shape, but they have no way of reasoning with it. When you are in the light, so to speak, you see that the world is in bad shape, and should be motivated to share the light, or the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Well...belief. I mean you believe you've found truth in your beliefs, and Ruffy likely (though I don't speak for him) feels he's found his own truth in his own beliefs (or lack thereof.) While you can never know for sure... I dunno, I guess it doesn't really matter. What can you know for sure?
yeah, I believe that I have found something, but then again everyone believes they are right.

Does it feel like it?
What do you think it would feel like? And what would not living in darkness feel like?
I don't know what it would feel like. I imagine it wouldn't feel like anything. For example I am always reminded of the movie The Matrix (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/)when I think about this (well, recently, not when I thought about it before The Matrix), those people had no idea that the lives they were living weren't "real", in their minds everything was fine.........they had no clue what was really going on.

Darkness isn't really meant to sound bad, so sorry if when I said that, i offended you. Darkness in this sense means that you don't know God in a personal sense, or that you don't know the Gospel truth. When you are in the dark, you tend to think that either all is ok with life and that the world isnt that bad, or some people see that the world is in a bad shape, but they have no way of reasoning with it. When you are in the light, so to speak, you see that the world is in bad shape, and should be motivated to share the light, or the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


This is not only borderline offensive, it's blantantly false. Let's go through this. Darkness means living without a knowledge of god and the truth of the gospels.

Conversly, thus, being in the light means having a personal knowledge of god and the truth of the gospels.

Those "in the light" see the world is in bad shape and are motivated to fix it. Those "in the dark" do not.

Ergo, logical conclusion. Those who accept the gospel of jesus christ work towards fixing the world. Those who do not, are not.

I wonder what Ghandi, Einstein and Jefferson would think of that (a hindu, a jew, and a non denominal diest). The idea that religion, and specifically CHRISTIAN religion is the source of morality and goodness, and those of us who don't believe are just wallowing in the dark without a sense of right and wrong or a drive to fix the world is just absurd. And it is this sense of misguided satisfaction that follows religious folk around that makes people like me, already ambivalent about religion, move entirely away from it. The idea of if you think you're so superior to me, why in hell would I want to be affiliated with you?

The idea that I somehow "need" religion to feel good about myself, or to work to better the world, and make things better than they are, and that without it I simply cant, is so patantly absurd that it is probably one of the main reasons people move away from religion in the first place. We really dont like being told we're somehow defective or insufficient because we don't think like you.

We also delight in pointing out the irony of delivering that message, given the content of it.

The fact of the matter is, Calling yourself a christian goes beyond simply declaring you have a relationship with Jesus. Christianity as a belief system has a set of dogma. Those who adhere to that dogma are christians. Ah, but that goes in to the debate of good works or faith. Its been determined that both are really needed, but it is grace (or the accepting of Christ's grace) that delivers us from bondage. That's what first makes one a christian. Like I said, I'm not saying that we are not supposed to obey laws or what not. I'm saying that we shouldn't put those above our relationship with God.



Incidentally I find it rather telling that when you describe a relationship with christ you compare it to a relationship with "a guy and a gal", I guess homosexual relationships don't fit in hm?

Actually, i thought about that above hand but i didn't feel at the time the need to write out every possible relationship scenario, man-man-, man-woman, woman-woman, human-beast, adult-child, etc. I'd have to list a long time to please every one, no? So i decided to use the most common relationship.

Darkness isn't really meant to sound bad, so sorry if when I said that, i offended you. Darkness in this sense means that you don't know God in a personal sense, or that you don't know the Gospel truth. When you are in the dark, you tend to think that either all is ok with life and that the world isnt that bad, or some people see that the world is in a bad shape, but they have no way of reasoning with it. When you are in the light, so to speak, you see that the world is in bad shape, and should be motivated to share the light, or the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And how do you know that it's not us in darkness who have it figured out? While you just keep deluding yourself?
There's so many tricks your brain can play on you that a slightly altered perception of the world is nothing special at all...

Life's ok. Not just individual. Life on the whole is nice.
And I don't believe that there is something like "sin"
Oh yeah sure, seeing starving children on the street is real nice...
For me, "sin" would be to go against oneself...

I don't know what it would feel like. I imagine it wouldn't feel like anything. For example I am always reminded of the movie The Matrix (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/)when I think about this (well, recently, not when I thought about it before The Matrix), those people had no idea that the lives they were living weren't "real", in their minds everything was fine.........they had no clue what was really going on.

I always thought it was a really lousy Sci-Fi rip-off of so many good books who dealt with that subject.
One of my questions always was : Does it make the slightest bit of difference for those people? I personally wouldn't care if my real body was dozing away somewhere while my ficitional body had a good life.

And how do you know that it's not us in darkness who have it figured out? While you just keep deluding yourself?
There's so many tricks your brain can play on you that a slightly altered perception of the world is nothing special at all...

we don't know it, any more than you do. that was my point.

This is not only borderline offensive, it's blantantly false. Let's go through this. Darkness means living without a knowledge of god and the truth of the gospels.

Conversly, thus, being in the light means having a personal knowledge of god and the truth of the gospels.

Those "in the light" see the world is in bad shape and are motivated to fix it. Those "in the dark" do not.

Ergo, logical conclusion. Those who accept the gospel of jesus christ work towards fixing the world. Those who do not, are not.

I wonder what Ghandi, Einstein and Jefferson would think of that (a hindu, a jew, and a non denominal diest)


I didn't say that people in the dark couldn't fix problems in the world. Thats not what I am getting at. I am talking about problems on a spiritual level. People in the dark will see that there is no spiritual problem with the world, or see that there is a spiritual problem, but have no answer on fixing it. People intune with God, or those in the light seek to fix these spiritual problems. What i was talking about has nothing to do with humanly or political problems, although the Christian, and anyone else with a heart should seek to fix said problems.

I always thought it was a really lousy Sci-Fi rip-off of so many good books who dealt with that subject.
One of my questions always was : Does it make the slightest bit of difference for those people? I personally wouldn't care if my real body was dozing away somewhere while my ficitional body had a good life.

it wasn't a great movie, but it's popular enough for me to use as an illustration to people who may not know of other things.

And how do you know that it's not us in darkness who have it figured out? While you just keep deluding yourself?
There's so many tricks your brain can play on you that a slightly altered perception of the world is nothing special at all...


Because I have been on both sides of the spectrum? Heck, I have been on all sides more or less. But everytime I think about it long and hard, this is what comes to me as making the most sense. I mean, how could it not? I just wish God would reveal himself to people as he has done with me. It would transform even the biggest skeptic in an instant.

Ok, although I said its not a sexual relationships like between a guy and gal dating, let me explain it in those terms. This relationship starts off strong, you get all the funny feelings in your stomach, and you feel nothing but joy. These are among the happiest days in your life. then you start to move in a more serious manner. For a boy and girl dating, this includes kissing, touching and all that. For a christiam, its more of following the spiritual disciplines, which are ways of being closer to God. Eventually, you reach a point where your bond is inseperable. In a good boy/girl relationship, this would be like marriage. For a christian, its that point when you finally die completly to the world, and shift all your focus to serving God.

Sounds like a deeply unhealthy co-dependent relationship, to me. Particularly the bit about how you "die completely to the world" and make your whole focus the service of God. Any marriage that functions that way is profoundly fucked up, and I would run like hell from any relationship that started to turn into that.

Actually, i thought about that above hand but i didn't feel at the time the need to write out every possible relationship scenario, man-man-, man-woman, woman-woman, human-beast, adult-child, etc. I'd have to list a long time to please every one, no? So i decided to use the most common relationship.

How about just refering to romantic relationships as exactly what they are, namely "romantic relationships" which would basically cover every possible base, non?

Because I have been on both sides of the spectrum? Heck, I have been on all sides more or less. But everytime I think about it long and hard, this is what comes to me as making the most sense. I mean, how could it not? I just wish God would reveal himself to people as he has done with me. It would transform even the biggest skeptic in an instant.

Let me swing this the other way for you. WHy should I have to buy into your dillusion? I'm fine, you're the one who believes in imaginary people.

I didn't say that people in the dark couldn't fix problems in the world. Thats not what I am getting at. I am talking about problems on a spiritual level. People in the dark will see that there is no spiritual problem with the world, or see that there is a spiritual problem, but have no answer on fixing it. People intune with God, or those in the light seek to fix these spiritual problems. What i was talking about has nothing to do with humanly or political problems, although the Christian, and anyone else with a heart should seek to fix said problems.
I've yet to see a single religious person provide a single solution to any defined "spiritual problem." All we get is, "pray more." "Find God." "Be spiritual."

Whatev. If you claim there is a "spiritual problem," then define it using clear, specific terms. Then provide clear, specific ways that you will solve this problem, and clear, specific reasons why superstition is required to solve this problem.

Let me swing this the other way for you. WHy should I have to buy into your dillusion? I'm fine, you're the one who believes in imaginary people.
While you are the one believing God is imaginary...

I tend to make fun of people who are hyper-religious because in general, such people are incredibly judgmental of the 'sinful' actions of others, but much more tolerant of their own actions.

As long as you walk your talk, I take no issue with you.

Once you start talking pure and sinless, while dressing prostitutes up in red patent leather shoes and asking them to bark like a dog for you? Damn rights I'm going to pointing out the inconsistencies.

While you are the one believing God is imaginary...

Some people believe there are little faeries living in their garden.

Am I wrong for assuming first off that said faeries don't exist?

Does my disbelief constitute a religious belief?

For a christiam, its more of following the spiritual disciplines, which are ways of being closer to God. Eventually, you reach a point where your bond is inseperable. In a good boy/girl relationship, this would be like marriage. For a christian, its that point when you finally die completly to the world, and shift all your focus to serving God.

Focusing completely on God doesn't really leave you time to focus on maintaining your relationship, now does it?

Sounds like a deeply unhealthy co-dependent relationship, to me. Particularly the bit about how you "die completely to the world" and make your whole focus the service of God. Any marriage that functions that way is profoundly fucked up, and I would run like hell from any relationship that started to turn into that.

I never understood this. This kind of idea suggest that someone of faith is nothing more than a sycophant, where everything you do is for god. I've raised this argument and gotten the canned response "god created you, so you should do everything for him."

This makes the relationship with god more of a relationship with parents, rather than a romantic one, as my parents could be said to have "created" me. However this fails to. I certainly don't make the focus of my life doing things for my parents, and no reasonable person should

While you are the one believing God is imaginary...

I was merely playing devil's advocate, I have not stated my personal belief one way or the other. However if one wishes to posit that those not believing in god are in "the wrong" one must also open himself up to the counter argument that those who do not believe are right, and he is merely dillusional.

Do you love your parents? How about your brothers and sisters? If you have children, do you love them? Do you love your own life?

If so, then you are a bad lover of Jesus Christ the Lord. Luke 14:26.

Have you murdered an infidel today?

If not, then you are a bad lover of Jesus Christ the Lord. Luke 19:27.

Christ Himself said in all of the synoptic gospels that the Old Testament stands ETERNALLY AS LAW until after the Second Coming of His Kingship. That means that it is your DUTY as a servant of the word of the one true G-D whose name is JEALOUS (Exodus 34:14) to harbor genuine hatred for homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13), disobediant children (20:9), the consumption of scallops, lobster, or clams (11:9-11), the uncircumsized (Genesis 17:14), and non-believers (Jeremiah 1:16).

Religious moderation is a lie that has been pulled over the eyes of hundreds of millions of Christians. Jesus Christ really DID die for your sins, and He really WILL send you to hell for disobeying His word! If you truly believeth on Him, as He says you must to be saved, how could you possibly disobey His word?

Christ did not let Himself undergo the most brutal form of torture humanity has ever devised so that your faith can be nothing more than a "feel-good," highly homoerotic thing for you. Christ died to create a Kingdom of God on Earth. We are the mustard seed and while some of us are genuinely striving to carve out the Glorious Kingdom of the Lord to prepare for His Return one day, you are sitting in the shade of the mustard seed and plucking flower petals while having obviously sexual fantasies about Jesus.

Grow up.

I didn't say that people in the dark couldn't fix problems in the world. Thats not what I am getting at. I am talking about problems on a spiritual level.

Then you should have said that.

People in the dark will see that there is no spiritual problem with the world, or see that there is a spiritual problem, but have no answer on fixing it. People intune with God, or those in the light seek to fix these spiritual problems. What i was talking about has nothing to do with humanly or political problems, although the Christian, and anyone else with a heart should seek to fix said problems.

Fine then. Define for me this spiritual problem. Then define for me its solution.

All I've ever gotten on this line is that the spiritual problem is "people don't believe in god" and the solution is "they should start believing in god."

It's remarkably egotistical for a group to define the presence of other groups who don't think like they do a "problem".

So go ahead, what is this great spiritual problem you are talking about, other than people not believing like you do?

I never understood this. This kind of idea suggest that someone of faith is nothing more than a sycophant, where everything you do is for god. I've raised this argument and gotten the canned response "god created you, so you should do everything for him."

This makes the relationship with god more of a relationship with parents, rather than a romantic one, as my parents could be said to have "created" me. However this fails to. I certainly don't make the focus of my life doing things for my parents, and no reasonable person shouldexactly, it's more like "you created me, but now it's my own life and i am no-one's servant". and that's how it must be.

While you are the one believing God is imaginary...we don't know about the others, but the biblical one is.

Focusing completely on God doesn't really leave you time to focus on maintaining your relationship, now does it?

doesn't really leave time to do all the things he tries to justify in the OP either.

exactly, it's more like "you created me, but now it's my own life and i am no-one's servant". and that's how it must be.

as much as it pains me to agree with you on most things, I agree with you here. The rationale just doesn't work.

Am I wrong for assuming first off that said faeries don't exist?

Does my disbelief constitute a religious belief?
I say yes to both.
However if one wishes to posit that those not believing in god are in "the wrong" one must also open himself up to the counter argument that those who do not believe are right, and he is merely dillusional.
I don't think that anyone believing in anything is in the wrong. Only instance I can think of with belief being wrong is when that belief becomes a means to justify unethical bahaviour towards individuals who don't share the same interpretation of a given faith.
we don't know about the others, but the biblical one is.
could you define "we" and why is the biblical God imaginery?

doesn't really leave time to do all the things he tries to justify in the OP either.

How do you figure? If your focus is on God then you will want to live a Godly lifestyle, helping those in need, meditating, praying, praising God and so on.

as much as it pains me to agree with you on most things, I agree with you here. The rationale just doesn't work.why?

I say yes to both.

How can a disbelief in anything be considered a religion?

I don't think that anyone believing in anything is in the wrong. Only instance I can think of with belief being wrong is when that belief becomes a means to justify unethical bahaviour towards individuals who don't share the same interpretation of a given faith.

Read the thread. The OP has stated that those who do not believe in the truth of the gospel are "in darkness" and thus not able to see, or heal, the spiritual problems of the people. Likewise only through belief in the gospels can this be achieved.

I would define that as "a wrong position" wouldn't you?

why?

We have a tendancy to be on very polar opposites on many things it seems (especially Israel) but I agree with you that this view of how one should deal with god just doesn't square away with conventional thinkings of living ones life.

I didn't say that people in the dark couldn't fix problems in the world. Thats not what I am getting at. I am talking about problems on a spiritual level. People in the dark will see that there is no spiritual problem with the world, or see that there is a spiritual problem, but have no answer on fixing it. People intune with God, or those in the light seek to fix these spiritual problems. What i was talking about has nothing to do with humanly or political problems, although the Christian, and anyone else with a heart should seek to fix said problems.

I say you're in the dark for believing in all this spirituality/god nonsense. To be in the light, you have to see the world for what it is, through empirical observation and reason.

It's outright lying to say "I'm christian and I'm not religious."

May as well say "i penetrated a woman over and over in the vagina and then in the anus with my male organ, and we did not have sex, it wasn't sex... it was a way of life, a relationship!"

I'm well aware that you false-witnesses - "liars" as we say nowadays - go to hell when you die, according to the christian religion.

Remember, when you die and jesus puts you in hell for being a liar, it was probably because you lied publicly to the effect "I am christian and I am not religious."

save me jesus, beam me up scotty

This reminds me of one of my favorite exchanges between a Christian and an atheist:

"I'm not religious, I have a deeply personal relationship with Jesus Christ!

"OK then, I'm not an atheist, I have a deeply personal relationship with reality!"

How can a disbelief in anything be considered a religion?
Not that much of religion, since you'd need to have more than that, but it can function as a belief system.
I would define that as "a wrong position" wouldn't you?I haven't read anywhere a statement saying something in the likes "you must convert to stop living in the dark"... heck, I love living in the dark... I can see the light better from the shadows:D

How do you figure? If your focus is on God then you will want to live a Godly lifestyle, helping those in need, meditating, praying, praising God and so on.
Your statement would be true if people focused on a God of the World. If God is the relationships between people and each other, the world around them and the world of concepts hanging above them, then focusing on it would indeed encourage a benevolence towards all of these things.

However, such a God is not the one that is propagated by the label you mentioned earlier. The way Christianity talks of God identifies him as a force external to and peripheral to, not enclosed within, the world around us. To focus on that kind of God is to look away from the world and to lose sight of the things that we really need to see.

I just wish God would reveal himself to people as he has done with me. It would transform even the biggest skeptic in an instant.
I believe I have "seen God" exactly as you have, and while not skeptical of the experience, I am certainly skeptical about the relationship between what you call "christianity" and that vision itself, and question why you would decide to call yourself a christian to the exclusion of any other religious identification as a result of it. Just because they have seen it too and have a nice, pretty explanation for it doesn't mean they're necessarily right about it.

I haven't read anywhere a statement saying something in the likes "you must convert to stop living in the dark"... heck, I love living in the dark... I can see the light better from the shadows:D

Page 6, post 77:

Darkness in this sense means that you don't know God in a personal sense, or that you don't know the Gospel truth.

Darkness defined as believing in the truth of the gospel, so belief in the truth of the gospel (which effectively means "be christian) is necessary to dispell that darkness.

Darkness defined as believing in the truth of the gospel, so belief in the truth of the gospel (which effectively means "be christian) is necessary to dispell that darkness.
Enough of the freakin' darkness metaphor. A man in a realm with nothing but light is as blind as the man in a realm with nothing but darkness.

How do you figure? If your focus is on God then you will want to live a Godly lifestyle, helping those in need, meditating, praying, praising God and so on.
define Godly lifestyle

Enough of the freakin' darkness metaphor. A man in a realm with nothing but light is as blind as the man in a realm with nothing but darkness.

Not necessarily. Only if there's too much light, and it damages his retinas.

Not necessarily. Only if there's too much light, and it damages his retinas.
It doesn't matter if it damages his retinas or not; if nothing blocks light then no sense of shape or colour can be seen. Light needs darkness in order for vision to work.

Enough of the freakin' darkness metaphor. A man in a realm with nothing but light is as blind as the man in a realm with nothing but darkness.

don't look at me, I didn't make it.

Relating to the OP:

I agree that following Christ is the defining characteristic of a Christian, but there is some value to observing moral standards of behavior as best one can.

Not that I'm talking about dailiy rituals and so forth, but rather, to understand how Jesus would want you to live and behave, and to do your level best to adhere to it. Rules matter because we, as sinful humans, require guidance and leadership. We are subject to our own wants and temptations that could easily cloud our judgement and lead us on a path that strays away from His footsteps.

Just as arbitrarily following some set of rules doesn't define one as a Christian, one also can't honestly claim to be a true example of a follower of Christ by just playing it fast and loose. To say "I accept Jesus and therefore I'm saved" is not carte blanche to do whatever one wants on the notion that all sin is paid for and therefore inconsequential.

It doesn't matter if it damages his retinas or not; if nothing blocks light then no sense of shape or colour can be seen. Light needs darkness in order for vision to work.

Not really. It needs to reflect off of something, sure, but it doesn't need darkness to work.

Relating to the OP:

I agree that following Christ is the defining characteristic of a Christian, but there is some value to observing moral standards of behavior as best one can.

Not that I'm talking about dailiy rituals and so forth, but rather, to understand how Jesus would want you to live and behave, and to do your level best to adhere to it. Rules matter because we, as sinful humans, require guidance and leadership. We are subject to our own wants and temptations that could easily cloud our judgement and lead us on a path that strays away from His footsteps.

Just as arbitrarily following some set of rules doesn't define one as a Christian, one also can't honestly claim to be a true example of a follower of Christ by just playing it fast and loose. To say "I accept Jesus and therefore I'm saved" is not carte blanche to do whatever one wants on the notion that all sin is paid for and therefore inconsequential.

darn skippy. :D

Not really. It needs to reflect off of something, sure, but it doesn't need darkness to work.
Sure it does. If light is not totally reflected then some degree of darkening occurs, i.e. the absorption of light of certain ranges in the spectrum. If light is totally reflected then it would be like a world completely made up of mirrors. It wouldn't matter what their orientation was; you'd still get the complete light source directed into your eyes, which would be totally worthless in determining information about the world around you.

darn skippy. :D

Hmm? You follow these rules to better follow Christ, is that the gist of it?

Hmm? You follow these rules to better follow Christ, is that the gist of it?

I try to be a moral person because it's better for everyone involved. I feel it brings me closer to God too.

Sure it does. If light is not totally reflected then some degree of darkening occurs, i.e. the absorption of light of certain ranges in the spectrum. If light is totally reflected then it would be like a world completely made up of mirrors. It wouldn't matter what their orientation was; you'd still get the complete light source directed into your eyes, which would be totally worthless in determining information about the world around you.

Who says it's all mirrors? For one, materials can let some light through and reflect the rest, some of the light could simply go on forever, and I'm awful certain we can see stars, can't we? We don't seem to have much trouble determining information about them.

I try to be a moral person because it's better for everyone involved. I feel it brings me closer to God too.

Key objective: Be moral because it's good. Side Benefit: Godliness.

I say yes to both.

I don't think that anyone believing in anything is in the wrong. Only instance I can think of with belief being wrong is when that belief becomes a means to justify unethical bahaviour towards individuals who don't share the same interpretation of a given faith.

could you define "we" and why is the biblical God imaginery?

Well you're the one with the burden of proof - 'we' are inquiring minds, and 'you' are required to prove to us that god exists.


And living for god is pathetic. It's wasting everything you've been given - if I were a christian, and believed god gave me this life, I would live it as I saw to live it, but I would -not- live FOR god, because that defeats the purpose of living at all.

Even 'living' for him after you die, it's pointless still because what the hell are you going to do for him in heaven, fetch the guy grapes? He's god, he gets his own damned grapes with the blink of his eye. Anything he wants done, he can get done by himself with less effort than it takes for us to breathe.

Live for yourself, make your life worth something more than a useless hand helping a god that's already got a billion of his own.


If I were god I'd be -sorely- disappointed in christians. "I give you life! I give you the ability to exist and do as you please. I give you the ability to think, construct, love, hate, and create lightbulbs! Exist and be free! ... Wtf are you doing! You built a big house with a cross and you're on your knees trying to talk to me all the time! Why the hell did I even give you free will?!"

Maybe I will put it more simply, so people won't be confused.

Its not okay to willfully sin and act out against God, but being a Christian doesn't mean you focus your life around a set of rules that you cannot fulfill all the time.

I hope that makes a little more sense.

Sorry if this has already been said... And this is only my PERSONAL opinion... So I'm not saying this and claiming I'm right...
As far as I know, Christianity only has ONE set of rules...And that would be the commandments. You only really need to focus your life around two of these rules and the others will follow... 1) Love thy God
2) Love thy neighbour, and do unto them as you would do unto yourself.
If you love God, you will follow his rules...
Btw, I understand what you are saying.

Who says it's all mirrors? For one, materials can let some light through and reflect the rest, some of the light could simply go on forever, and I'm awful certain we can see stars, can't we? We don't seem to have much trouble determining information about them.
Sure, you can see stars, but not when the sky is lit up by the sun. The problem about a world with no darkness would be the inability to distinguish between anything; not the inability for the light itself to reach the observer.

Sorry if this has already been said... And this is only my PERSONAL opinion... So I'm not saying this and claiming I'm right...
As far as I know, Christianity only has ONE set of rules...And that would be the commandments. You only really need to focus your life around two of these rules and the others will follow... 1) Love thy God
2) Love thy neighbour, and do unto them as you would do unto yourself.
If you love God, you will follow his rules...
Btw, I understand what you are saying.

Apparently with the new testament, the old testament is thrown out. Some christians believe this, others don't.

Key objective: Be moral because it's good. Side Benefit: Godliness.

uh......I don't know if I would say "side benefit", it's just what happens.....I mean, if I take a shower, I do it to get clean, also it relaxes me. see? maybe not. :( I suck at analogies.

Sure, you can see stars, but not when the sky is lit up by the sun. The problem about a world with no darkness would be the inability to distinguish between anything; not the inability for the light itself to reach the observer.

One doesn't need darkness to distinguish anything, just varying levels of light would work. And in the daytime, I know you can see the sun. Unless it's too bright and, as I said in the beginning, damages your retina. That's your only limitation on seeing in a world of light.

uh......I don't know if I would say "side benefit", it's just what happens.....I mean, if I take a shower, I do it to get clean, also it relaxes me. see? maybe not. :( I suck at analogies.

It's something I'd been thinking about. You and Jocabia, really. Going with your analogy thing, even if it didn't relax you, you'd still take a shower, aye? I figure even if the two of you were atheists, you'd not change in any substantial way, except maybe more free time on Sundays. You'd do what you always do, because you figure it's the right thing to do.

One doesn't need darkness to distinguish anything, just varying levels of light would work. And in the daytime, I know you can see the sun. Unless it's too bright and, as I said in the beginning, damages your retina. That's your only limitation on seeing in a world of light.

Technically there is no such thing as darkness, just a lack of light. There's no source of darkness - you can't project darkness, just prevent light from going in a certain area.

One doesn't need darkness to distinguish anything, just varying levels of light would work. And in the daytime, I know you can see the sun...
But varying levels of light implies darkness, since certain levels of light are not getting through, doesn't it?

uh......I don't know if I would say "side benefit", it's just what happens.....I mean, if I take a shower, I do it to get clean, also it relaxes me. see? maybe not. :( I suck at analogies.

If I may:

The point of "following the rules" is to learn by doing. Every single one of Jesus' instructions to us teaches us how to be better at loving our neighbors, obeying God the Father and setting an example for others. When we strive to obey, we improve ourselves. It's not a side effect... It's the point.

God isn't on a power trip. He doesn't order us around because He likes to watch us jump through hoops. The entire reason why we have those rules is because the very act of obeying them is what improves us as people.

For example: Giving food and clothing to the poor helps us to learn humility by (ideally) letting us learn to empathize with those who are in a position in their lives where we might not have been ourselves. By joining together in such an effort, a community is strengthened.

Another example: By abstaining from gambling one distances himself/herself from a potential addictive behavior that could lead to debt or even poverty.

A final example: By remaining monogamous to one's spouse there is no risk of destroying the marriage through infidelity, nor is there a risk of venerial disease entering the marriage union.

The benefits from some of the 'rules' are obvious, others aren't. I tried to choose from a range to illustrate the point. Life is just better when you follow Jesus' teachings on what to do and what to stay away from.

Technically there is no such thing as darkness, just a lack of light. There's no source of darkness - you can't project darkness, just prevent light from going in a certain area.

This sidebar has actually raised an important concept: Sin isn't the source of darkness, it is the absence of Light. When we sin, we distance ourselves from God, placing barriers between ourselves and Him and thus depriving ourselves of the opportunities to receive His blessings and the benefits of a life lived according to His Commandments.

Darkness defined as believing in the truth of the gospel, so belief in the truth of the gospel (which effectively means "be christian) is necessary to dispell that darkness.
The post is a statement, not an imperative... Darkness in the christian point of view basically means just that, though the post doesn't state this point of view as being the wrong one and in need of a change.

Also, let it be known that I am not advocating that people go out and sin willfully. We should still **TRY** to obey the rules. Rather, I am saying that they are not as important as before. :)

But, if Jesus truly died for our sins, wouldn't it be ungrateful of us not to commit them?

But varying levels of light implies darkness, since certain levels of light are not getting through, doesn't it?

You've got 100 candelas on one side, and 150 on the other. You could tell the difference, light-blocking not necessary.

Moreover, darkness, noun-wise, would just be an absence of light, in it's entirety. It obviously implies darker, but not darkness.

As to Szanth, then the metaphor becomes even more meaningless then when it started.

Religion is a load of dangerous nonsense anyway. People can be good without religion but religion and the teachings of people's imaginary friends can lead good people to do dispicable acts. Relgious texts are also open to corruption during the time in which they were written. It is not the word of God if a human has written it down.

For example: Giving food and clothing to the poor helps us to learn humility by (ideally) letting us learn to empathize with those who are in a position in their lives where we might not have been ourselves. By joining together in such an effort, a community is strengthened.

I could have figured that out myself. most reasonable, compassionate people can, buddy Jesus or no.

Another example: By abstaining from gambling one distances himself/herself from a potential addictive behavior that could lead to debt or even poverty.

*shrug* One must always take precautions with money, you prolly learn that from parents, not Bibles.

A final example: By remaining monogamous to one's spouse there is no risk of destroying the marriage through infidelity, nor is there a risk of venerial disease entering the marriage union.

...Supressing my polygamist tendencies for a moment, that sounds like something derived from basic logic. "If I don't have sex with other people, I won't get a divorce for having sex with other people."

Life is just better when you follow Jesus' teachings on what to do and what to stay away from.

For the most part, yeah. But that may be because generally, 'Jesus' teachings' are just the reasonable things to do.

But if we are bound by the law, which is essentially what christianity in a religious sense would be, then Christ came to die for nothing, right? I seem to recall a passage saying that we are not justified by law(religion), but by grace.

If you consider yourself no longer bound by the law then why object to gay marriage?

You've got 100 candelas on one side, and 150 on the other. You could tell the difference, light-blocking not necessary.

Moreover, darkness, noun-wise, would just be an absence of light, in it's entirety. It obviously implies darker, but not darkness.
*Shrug*

If you say so.

Holy crap, you mean I can be considered schizo for talking to God?

Only if He talks back.

So you are saying you didn't talk to God about it, but you expect him to do somoething for you anyways? And it is important that you do know him, not necesarily for the heaven hell thing, that probably the least important thing. its important that you know him, because being in truth and light is a better way to live in the world, than to be in the dark wondering around aimlessly.

Some of us here have our own gods and our own ways. To suggest that we are wandering around aimlessly because we don't worship YOUR god is, quite frankly, insulting.

It's something I'd been thinking about. You and Jocabia, really. Going with your analogy thing, even if it didn't relax you, you'd still take a shower, aye? I figure even if the two of you were atheists, you'd not change in any substantial way, except maybe more free time on Sundays. You'd do what you always do, because you figure it's the right thing to do.

you are probably right. Although being a Christian gives me a lot of comfort, before....things were not like they are now. I could (being skeptical) chalk it up to more maturity now than I had then, but I don't really think that's all there is to it, I feel more. I can't explain it, which is why I don't often try. If other people had my personal experience they would understand, but nobody can have my own personal experience because they aren't me.

you are probably right. Although being a Christian gives me a lot of comfort, before....things were not like they are now. I could (being skeptical) chalk it up to more maturity now than I had then, but I don't really think that's all there is to it, I feel more. I can't explain it, which is why I don't often try. If other people had my personal experience they would understand, but nobody can have my own personal experience because they aren't me.

Hmm.

Well, Christianity should be glad you didn't get around to 'experiencing' with the Koran first, I suppose. :p

Hmm.

Well, Christianity should be glad you didn't get around to 'experiencing' with the Koran first, I suppose. :p

I actually grew up in a "Christian home" and rebelled a lot, then explored other religions, and then I decided I was an atheist for a while, then an angry atheist, then decided that I didn't believe in anything.......then I had one of those rock bottom God speaking to me in the whale type of things happen and have been mostly like I am now since.

I actually grew up in a "Christian home" and rebelled a lot, then explored other religions, and then I decided I was an atheist for a while, then an angry atheist, then decided that I didn't believe in anything.......then I had one of those rock bottom God speaking to me in the whale type of things happen and have been mostly like I am now since.

Okay, see, now why doesn't God talk to someone when they're happy? In the paraphrased words of some comedian on Comedy Central I didn't really pay attention to:

"Everyone complains about fair-weather friends, but what I hate are foul-weather friends. 'You're here now that my dog died, where we you when I wanted to play frisbee!?'"

I lol'd.

That aside, why rock bottom? Why the point when people reach their least psychologically stable, contemplating suicide and other unpleasantries?

This sidebar has actually raised an important concept: Sin isn't the source of darkness, it is the absence of Light. When we sin, we distance ourselves from God, placing barriers between ourselves and Him and thus depriving ourselves of the opportunities to receive His blessings and the benefits of a life lived according to His Commandments.

Well, I was speaking literally, not spiritually or metaphorically.

But if you wanna get metaphorical, we don't know anything about god. Certainly not if he prefers light or darkness, as those are signals sent to the eye - when you're dead you have no use for eyes, and when you're god you technically created both light and dark, and have no preference for either.

Okay, see, now why doesn't God talk to someone when they're happy? In the paraphrased words of some comedian on Comedy Central I didn't really pay attention to:

"Everyone complains about fair-weather friends, but what I hate are foul-weather friends. 'You're here now that my dog died, where we you when I wanted to play frisbee!?'"

I lol'd.

That aside, why rock bottom? Why the point when people reach their least psychologically stable, contemplating suicide and other unpleasantries?

Because at that point they're at the stage, mentally, where it's either "I believe in this random book and all its crap" or "I kill myself".

If they were mentally healthy they wouldn't make that decision. :P

Okay, see, now why doesn't God talk to someone when they're happy? In the paraphrased words of some comedian on Comedy Central I didn't really pay attention to:

"Everyone complains about fair-weather friends, but what I hate are foul-weather friends. 'You're here now that my dog died, where we you when I wanted to play frisbee!?'"

I lol'd.

That aside, why rock bottom? Why the point when people reach their least psychologically stable, contemplating suicide and other unpleasantries?

I would suppose it's hard to hear that things aren't right when everything is happy, I mean, if you tell someone that they are spiritually bankrupt when they just got a raise and they have a spouse who loves them and their dog plays fetch all the time........they really don't care.

although if I were being a skeptic I would say that it's probably some sort of psychological failing in humans, I mean my dog doesn't have religious revelation every time I take him to the vet (at least I don't think he does)

if I were still angry atheist, I would say that it's easier for the church to manipulate you when you are psychologically unsound.

I would suppose it's hard to hear that things aren't right when everything is happy, I mean, if you tell someone that they are spiritually bankrupt when they just got a raise and they have a spouse who loves them and their dog plays fetch all the time........they really don't care.

although if I were being a skeptic I would say that it's probably some sort of psychological failing in humans, I mean my dog doesn't have religious revelation every time I take him to the vet (at least I don't think he does)

if I were still angry atheist, I would say that it's easier for the church to manipulate you when you are psychologically unsound.

Which is basically what I said.

But because you've read a book and subscribed to the idea that there's some guy up in the sky who doesn't want you to do certain things because he's that anal retentive, you choose the third door and ignore the psychological and emotional situation and just call it an act of god speaking to you.

I could have figured that out myself. most reasonable, compassionate people can, buddy Jesus or no.

*shrug* One must always take precautions with money, you prolly learn that from parents, not Bibles.

...Supressing my polygamist tendencies for a moment, that sounds like something derived from basic logic. "If I don't have sex with other people, I won't get a divorce for having sex with other people."

For the most part, yeah. But that may be because generally, 'Jesus' teachings' are just the reasonable things to do.

You seem a little defensive. We'd agree that religion isn't required for people to figure that stuff out, but then again, they don't always. Every single item listed is something people have a problem with, and often. Simple human understanding isn't enough, in and of itself as it pertains to the population as a whole.

I would suppose it's hard to hear that things aren't right when everything is happy, I mean, if you tell someone that they are spiritually bankrupt when they just got a raise and they have a spouse who loves them and their dog plays fetch all the time........they really don't care.

although if I were being a skeptic I would say that it's probably some sort of psychological failing in humans, I mean my dog doesn't have religious revelation every time I take him to the vet (at least I don't think he does)

if I were still angry atheist, I would say that it's easier for the church to manipulate you when you are psychologically unsound.

...god could make it work...:p

Sides, it doesn't quite seem to be about the spiritual bit. It gives you comfort, comparing to when your life was fucked up by a couple orders of magnitude. If the guy, his wife, and Fido here are comfortable, and doing those things one simply finds to be the reasonable things to do, what's the difference? Getting in earlier for the breakfast menu at McDonald's?

Well, I was speaking literally, not spiritually or metaphorically.

But if you wanna get metaphorical, we don't know anything about god. Certainly not if he prefers light or darkness, as those are signals sent to the eye - when you're dead you have no use for eyes, and when you're god you technically created both light and dark, and have no preference for either.

Well, I would assert that a Christian knows wuite a bit about his/her Heavenly Father. Since the Bible uses metaphors of light and darkness rather heavily, the preference is clear. And as we are talking about metaphor, spiritual eyes see better than physical ones. :)

You seem a little defensive. We'd agree that religion isn't required for people to figure that stuff out, but then again, they don't always. Every single item listed is something people have a problem with, and often. Simple human understanding isn't enough, in and of itself as it pertains to the population as a whole.

Simple understanding is certainly enough. The problem is the sheer number of those that lack that. And you know what? Those people who lack it, and say they're christians? It still doesn't change anything. They still don't give, they still gamble, and they still sleep around.

Which is basically what I said.

But because you've read a book and subscribed to the idea that there's some guy up in the sky who doesn't want you to do certain things because he's that anal retentive, you choose the third door and ignore the psychological and emotional situation and just call it an act of god speaking to you.

I don't ignore, I came to that conclusion after a lot of soul searching.

I don't expect everyone to come to that conclusion, nor do I expect them to believe my experience to be any sort of "evidence" of God. I do expect that people would be tolerant and respect my decision.

Well, I would assert that a Christian knows wuite a bit about his/her Heavenly Father. Since the Bible uses metaphors of light and darkness rather heavily, the preference is clear. And as we are talking about metaphor, spiritual eyes see better than physical ones. :)

So far as metaphor goes, anyone can see that. Else atheists couldn't write or read poetry.

Well, I would assert that a Christian knows wuite a bit about his/her Heavenly Father. Since the Bible uses metaphors of light and darkness rather heavily, the preference is clear. And as we are talking about metaphor, spiritual eyes see better than physical ones. :)

I would assert that a christian knows jack about his/her heavenly father, since the bible uses metaphors rather heavily.

Regardless of what the bible says, the fact remains that if god exists, he created both light and dark - unless there's another source of all creation we don't know about, and -he- created dark.

Which is basically what I said.

Perhaps, but I'm a much smoother talker than you.

You need lessons from Smoove B (http://homepages.theonion.com/PersonalPages/sB/).

I don't ignore, I came to that conclusion after a lot of soul searching.

I don't expect everyone to come to that conclusion, nor do I expect them to believe my experience to be any sort of "evidence" of God. I do expect that people would be tolerant and respect my decision.

I'm tolerant of it, but I don't have to respect it. I see it as a silly conclusion you came to because you saw it to be the most fitting to your personality and your life. "Soul-searching" just means "I thought about it and wanted to do this because of no reason other than innately wanting to do it".

Perhaps, but I'm a much smoother talker than you.

You need lessons from Smoove B (http://homepages.theonion.com/PersonalPages/sB/).

I purposely speak roughly at times to get the point across better.

I'm tolerant of it, but I don't have to respect it. I see it as a silly conclusion you came to because you saw it to be the most fitting to your personality and your life.

I meant respect my right to make the decision. Lots of people make decisions I don't respect, but I respect their right to make them.

"Soul-searching" just means "I thought about it and wanted to do this because of no reason other than innately wanting to do it".
uh......not so much.

I purposely speak roughly at times to get the point across better.

*shrug* Personally, when the square peg isn't fitting, I'll switch to the round one.

I meant respect my right to make the decision. Lots of people make decisions I don't respect, but I respect their right to make them.


uh......not so much.

Well yeah, of course you have the right to decide such a thing. It's your life. Respecting the rights of someone else, regardless of agreement with such decisions or rights, is tolerance.


And yeah, pretty much.

*shrug* Personally, when the square peg isn't fitting, I'll switch to the round one.

:) you don't annoy me as much as everyone else most days <--- compliment

*shrug* Personally, when the square peg isn't fitting, I'll switch to the round one.

Not my fault I have a square penis.

Not my fault I have a square penis.

...

I probably set myself up for that.

Well yeah, of course you have the right to decide such a thing. It's your life. Respecting the rights of someone else, regardless of agreement with such decisions or rights, is tolerance.
how come then when someone makes a statement that doesn't agree with someone else's choice they are labeled "intolerant"? is it okay to decry certain positions and choices and not others?


And yeah, pretty much.
your life must be so sad.

The triangular peg is also a possibility.

:) you don't annoy me as much as everyone else most days <--- compliment

Yay! ^_^

I never understood this. This kind of idea suggest that someone of faith is nothing more than a sycophant, where everything you do is for god. I've raised this argument and gotten the canned response "god created you, so you should do everything for him."

This makes the relationship with god more of a relationship with parents, rather than a romantic one, as my parents could be said to have "created" me. However this fails to. I certainly don't make the focus of my life doing things for my parents, and no reasonable person should
More importantly, any parent who expects their child to live for them is a complete and total failure as a parent. It's the same as those 14 year old girls who have a baby because they want to have something to love them...it's selfish and fucked up, and completely unacceptable from a real parent.

how come then when someone makes a statement that doesn't agree with someone else's choice they are labeled "intolerant"? is it okay to decry certain positions and choices and not others?



your life must be so sad.

Eh? If someone makes a statement like "I hate them fags", it's bigoted, ignorant, and in my opinion, stupid - but as long as they don't say it -to- "them fags", or do anything against "them fags", they're still tolerating them.


My life's just fine and dandy without being convinced god spoke to me. And even if he did speak to me I'd have the mental aptitude to at least ask him which religion he represents, if any, as opposed to just assuming christianity right off the bat.

The triangular peg is also a possibility.



Not even on the internet have I seen a triangular penis.

Religion is a load of dangerous nonsense anyway. People can be good without religion but religion and the teachings of people's imaginary friends can lead good people to do dispicable acts.

I think there is a much more common problem with any moral code that is grounded in "faith" or religion as we know it: it's not so much that religion can lead people to do bad things, it's that it stunts moral growth.

A lot of religious morality is carrot-and-stick morality. Be good and you'll get a reward, be bad and you'll be punished. You want to be good so that Daddy is happy with you, and you want to avoid making Daddy mad at you.

This is a fine system of morality for a 3 year old, but for a normal adult human being it is pathetic.

There is also the problem of totally devaluing the world and real life. We see it clearly with the OP, where this individual is actually proud of being dead to the world and detached from reality. The real world is seen as less important than what may or may not happen after death. Real live mortal issues become secondary to myth and superstition. Real live human beings are less important than supernatural beings and magical spirits. To me, that's fucking tragic. These people will miss their entire life, their only life, preparing for something else. Even if that something else does exist (which I don't personally believe for one tiny instant), they've still missed out on an entire lifetime that they could otherwise have fully experienced.

Eh? If someone makes a statement like "I hate them fags", it's bigoted, ignorant, and in my opinion, stupid - but as long as they don't say it -to- "them fags", or do anything against "them fags", they're still tolerating them.
really? then how come you get to say things to me about my faith?


My life's just fine and dandy without being convinced god spoke to me. And even if he did speak to me I'd have the mental aptitude to at least ask him which religion he represents, if any, as opposed to just assuming christianity right off the bat.

I love how you assume things about me that aren't true, it makes me remember that you aren't interested in learning anything, but only in hearing yourself talk.

I love how you assume things about me that aren't true, it makes me remember that you aren't interested in learning anything, but only in hearing yourself talk.
I'm not trying to get in the middle of anything, here, I just noticed an interesting point that is tangentially related to what you are talking about.

To the people who believe that God has contacted them in some way, how DID you decide which God was speaking to you? How did you know it was (for instance) the God of the Bible as opposed to one of the countless other gods? How do you know that you are worshiping or honoring that particular god in the way it wishes?

To the people who believe that God has contacted them in some way, how DID you decide which God was speaking to you? How did you know it was (for instance) the God of the Bible as opposed to one of the countless other gods? How do you know that you are worshiping or honoring that particular god in the way it wishes?
personal gusto. what else?

really? then how come you get to say things to me about my faith?




I love how you assume things about me that aren't true, it makes me remember that you aren't interested in learning anything, but only in hearing yourself talk.

I get to say things about your faith based on facts and science and reason. I can't imagine anyone saying "I hate them fags" and backing it up with science and reason, but if they can, then more power to them.


I love how you dodge my points.

I'm not trying to get in the middle of anything, here, I just noticed an interesting point that is tangentially related to what you are talking about.

To the people who believe that God has contacted them in some way, how DID you decide which God was speaking to you? How did you know it was (for instance) the God of the Bible as opposed to one of the countless other gods? How do you know that you are worshiping or honoring that particular god in the way it wishes?

I don't know, I assume. I pray a lot and I assume that I can figure out what's right with common sense and meditation. I did spend a lot of time trying to figure out what exactly was going on, saw a lot of psychiatrists, checked myself into the hospital, tried to explain it away, I couldn't, I still can't. It's possible that I am so insane that they can't diagnose it........I guess.

I don't recommend anyone take anything I say as "truth" unless I have a source.......and then they should probably check out the source. I don't have any evidence for what I believe, I just believe it because I think it's right.

I get to say things about your faith based on facts and science and reason. I can't imagine anyone saying "I hate them fags" and backing it up with science and reason, but if they can, then more power to them.


I love how you dodge my points.

show me your science. I want a source. I want evidence, I want proof, I want empirical data that proves that I am wrong.

I don't know, I assume. I pray a lot and I assume that I can figure out what's right with common sense and meditation. I did spend a lot of time trying to figure out what exactly was going on, saw a lot of psychiatrists, checked myself into the hospital, tried to explain it away, I couldn't, I still can't. It's possible that I am so insane that they can't diagnose it........I guess.

I don't recommend anyone take anything I say as "truth" unless I have a source.......and then they should probably check out the source. I don't have any evidence for what I believe, I just believe it because I think it's right.

Right, so you just assumed god wanted you to be christian because you weren't sure about what he really wanted.

Makes perfect sense.

I don't know, I assume. I pray a lot and I assume that I can figure out what's right with common sense and meditation. I did spend a lot of time trying to figure out what exactly was going on, saw a lot of psychiatrists, checked myself into the hospital, tried to explain it away, I couldn't, I still can't. It's possible that I am so insane that they can't diagnose it........I guess.

I don't recommend anyone take anything I say as "truth" unless I have a source.......and then they should probably check out the source. I don't have any evidence for what I believe, I just believe it because I think it's right.
I'm not trying to be an ass, here, so I hope this doesn't sound ruder than I intend, but...

How can you be comfortable "assuming" anything about God? If I really believed there was some superpowered being who created the universe and who wanted something from me, there is no way in hell I would ever presume to assume, if you know what I mean. The risks are just far too great, as I see it.

show me your science. I want a source. I want evidence, I want proof, I want empirical data that proves that I am wrong.

I don't have to give anything. You're the one with the burden of proof, claiming there's a supernatural being and he wants us to do certain things. Give me proof god -does- exist and that you're right.


Wait, you can't. You not only can't prove he exists, but you have no idea, if he does exist, what religion he represents.

show me your science. I want a source. I want evidence, I want proof, I want empirical data that proves that I am wrong.
Well, to make it fair, Smunk, you will first have to provide us with a testable definition of God. Otherwise it's pointless to challenge anybody to provide scientific evidence regarding your God. We don't know what you are defining as "god" in the first place, in other words, so you're first going to have to tell us what we are looking for and how we could provide evidence for or against it.

Because I have been on both sides of the spectrum? Heck, I have been on all sides more or less. But everytime I think about it long and hard, this is what comes to me as making the most sense. I mean, how could it not? I just wish God would reveal himself to people as he has done with me. It would transform even the biggest skeptic in an instant.

Well, I could argue I've been there and done that, too.
And I prefer this side of the spectrum.
I'm not sceptic so much as I just don't care about if god exists or not. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me. The only thing that keeps rubbing me the wrong way are people who think they have it all figured out just cause they found something that works for them, and can't understand that it's not very likely to work for the entire rest of the world.

I don't know, I assume. I pray a lot and I assume that I can figure out what's right with common sense and meditation. I did spend a lot of time trying to figure out what exactly was going on, saw a lot of psychiatrists, checked myself into the hospital, tried to explain it away, I couldn't, I still can't. It's possible that I am so insane that they can't diagnose it........I guess.

I don't recommend anyone take anything I say as "truth" unless I have a source.......and then they should probably check out the source. I don't have any evidence for what I believe, I just believe it because I think it's right.
to summarize what you just wrote: you're a clinical case with no clue at all.

I'm not sceptic so much as I just don't care about if god exists or not. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me.
Word. I've yet to be given any good reason why I should believe in any particular God.

Some people use the threat-or-bribe thing, of course, like bribing me with Heaven or trying to scare me with Hell, but I'm not prepared to sell my life for random promises.

Other people insist that God's love feels great, but I've done a lot of coke and I know that not everything that feels great is good for you. Besides, I feel great already, so I don't really need to mainline Lord in order to get my rocks off.

Still other people insist that God will help me through life. I'm sorry if some people aren't fortunate enough to have the kind of great family and friends I have, but I honestly can't think of any kind of support that I might need that I couldn't get from my loved ones. I have enough to live for right here on Earth.

Well, I could argue I've been there and done that, too.
And I prefer this side of the spectrum.
I'm not sceptic so much as I just don't care about if god exists or not. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me. The only thing that keeps rubbing me the wrong way are people who think they have it all figured out just cause they found something that works for them, and can't understand that it's not very likely to work for the entire rest of the world.

Indeed. Like Smunk, Zilam has presumed upon the wishes and will of god, based on what they personally want and can live with - though it wouldn't be nearly as bad if they would admit to doing so, rather than to claim they've made the right choice because god has spoken to them.

Right, so you just assumed god wanted you to be christian because you weren't sure about what he really wanted.

Makes perfect sense.
I don't know, there is no way to know.

I'm not trying to be an ass, here, so I hope this doesn't sound ruder than I intend, but...

How can you be comfortable "assuming" anything about God? If I really believed there was some superpowered being who created the universe and who wanted something from me, there is no way in hell I would ever presume to assume, if you know what I mean. The risks are just far too great, as I see it.
doing the best I can with what I believe to be true, can't prove it, worthless to try.

I don't have to give anything. You're the one with the burden of proof, claiming there's a supernatural being and he wants us to do certain things. Give me proof god -does- exist and that you're right.


Wait, you can't. You not only can't prove he exists, but you have no idea, if he does exist, what religion he represents.

I never said God does exist, in fact I never say that. I think God exists, I think pink is a pretty color, I think that my dog is smarter than my neighbor's dog.

You claim that God doesn't exist, I claim I don't know.



Well, to make it fair, Smunk, you will first have to provide us with a testable definition of God. Otherwise it's pointless to challenge anybody to provide scientific evidence regarding your God. We don't know what you are defining as "god" in the first place, in other words, so you're first going to have to tell us what we are looking for and how we could provide evidence for or against it.

I don't want evidence. I don't think there is any either way. Someone wants to tear down my faith using "science and reason" I think I am within my rights to ask them to put forth some "science and reason" instead of snarky comments and assumptions and B.S. that passes for critical thought around here.

Word. I've yet to be given any good reason why I should believe in any particular God. Some people use the threat-or-bribe thing, of course, like bribing me with Heaven or trying to scare me with Hell, but I'm not prepared to sell my life for random promises.

I think that's the first time I've seen you - possibly anyone - on this forum say "word" as anything other than a noun.

EDIT: That's not a bad thing, by the way. Just a random observation. I'm actually surprised I haven't seen it more often.

to summarize what you just wrote: you're a clinical case with no clue at all.

it's possible. it's possible that's true of you.

Well, to make it fair, Smunk, you will first have to provide us with a testable definition of God. Otherwise it's pointless to challenge anybody to provide scientific evidence regarding your God. We don't know what you are defining as "god" in the first place, in other words, so you're first going to have to tell us what we are looking for and how we could provide evidence for or against it.:) Well, Rastafarians always say "who feels it knows it"... which is of course the dumbest excuse evar

I don't want evidence. I don't think there is any either way. Someone wants to tear down my faith using "science and reason" I think I am within my rights to ask them to put forth some "science and reason" instead of snarky comments and assumptions and B.S. that passes for critical thought around here.
I can understand why you'd be pissed, I just think you can't issue challenges unless you define the terms.

I never said God does exist, in fact I never say that. I think God exists,...
You claim that God doesn't exist, I claim I don't know. why do you pray and to what?

to summarize what you just wrote: you're a clinical case with no clue at all.
You know, there are less asinine ways of making your point. :P

For instance, how's this for a question:

Smunkee, do you believe there are people who believe they hear God, but who are actually experiencing some form of mental illness? If so, how do you differentiate your own experience from theirs?

In a good relationship, this would be like marriage. For a christian, its that point when you finally die completly to the world, and shift all your focus to serving God.

Saluton,
i had a few friends who were cool to be with. Then over the period of a year, they zombified. They closed their minds. Told with no facial expression, (almost a military response with them) that it is not right to question god.

All i asked them was if he/she/it is so loving, why the hurricanes, drought, and death from disease?
Why the hate of tribal people?
Why the hate of homosexuals?
Why the treatment of women as 2nd class citizens?

I have known them for 20 years, I am 25; but they walked away. We have not talked since. :( :( :(

Remember that your friends will miss you. Your family will miss you. Your sense of humor will miss you.

No one likes a broken record.
-Rafe

I can understand why you'd be pissed, I just think you can't issue challenges unless you define the terms.

He thinks he knows the terms, let him use what he thinks is right. I would love to see it.

I don't have enough information about God to define it for anyone, I don't claim I do, he assumes that I am here to convert people and I am not.

I respect your right to be agnostic Bottle, it doesn't bother me, it doesn't diminish my faith, I won't try to change your mind. I don't understand why I am not afforded the same amount of respect.

You know, there are less asinine ways of making your point. :P

For instance, how's this for a question:

Smunkee, do you believe there are people who believe they hear God, but who are actually experiencing some form of mental illness? If so, how do you differentiate your own experience from theirs?
i only shortened the hospital story and the i-don't-know story, that's all

why do you pray and to what?
I pray to achieve clarity, and I pray to the creator whom I believe hears my prayers.

You know, there are less asinine ways of making your point. :P
he doesn't have those skills.

For instance, how's this for a question:
k

Smunkee, do you believe there are people who believe they hear God, but who are actually experiencing some form of mental illness?
yes, a lot of them.

If so, how do you differentiate your own experience from theirs?
still working on it. I haven't ruled out some sort of mental disorder in my own case.

yes, a lot of them.


still working on it. I haven't ruled out some sort of mental disorder in my own case.
Fair enough.

I don't know, there is no way to know.

Exactly.

doing the best I can with what I believe to be true, can't prove it, worthless to try.

Mhm.

I never said God does exist, in fact I never say that. I think God exists, I think pink is a pretty color, I think that my dog is smarter than my neighbor's dog.

You claim that God doesn't exist, I claim I don't know.


Here's where we divide ourselves. I don't claim god doesn't exist - I claim there's no proof he DOES exist. Like you, I have no clue. I have no idea at all what god wants, where he is, what he wants from me, what his hair looks like, etc - but the point we're different is where I choose not to be any religion because I have no reason to, and you choose christianity because you feel it suits you.

I just want no mistakes made and no misinterpretations here: You're christian, not because god told you to be, not because god spoke to you, not because you have the answers, but because that's the religion you most closely identify with, and at the time of your conversion you felt you needed a religion to rely on. Like you said earlier, it just makes you feel better.


I don't want evidence. I don't think there is any either way. Someone wants to tear down my faith using "science and reason" I think I am within my rights to ask them to put forth some "science and reason" instead of snarky comments and assumptions and B.S. that passes for critical thought around here.

I don't want to tear it down, I'd just like some purpose for it. Why is it there? What's the point if we're all just flying blind out here, no idea what god wants, why would we separate ourselves into little groups that all claim to be representative of god? Granted, I'm pretty snarky, and I do assume quite a bit, but regardless of snarkiness I'm still the more logical out of the two of us, and my assumptions are usually correct or on the right path to getting there.

.

I pray to achieve clarity, and I pray to the creator whom I believe hears my prayers.Who do you pray to? And for what reason (not aim) ?

Word. I've yet to be given any good reason why I should believe in any particular God.

Some people use the threat-or-bribe thing, of course, like bribing me with Heaven or trying to scare me with Hell, but I'm not prepared to sell my life for random promises.

Other people insist that God's love feels great, but I've done a lot of coke and I know that not everything that feels great is good for you. Besides, I feel great already, so I don't really need to mainline Lord in order to get my rocks off.

Still other people insist that God will help me through life. I'm sorry if some people aren't fortunate enough to have the kind of great family and friends I have, but I honestly can't think of any kind of support that I might need that I couldn't get from my loved ones. I have enough to live for right here on Earth.

Most of the arguments I've heard from believers in the past on why they believe boil down to fear.
Fear of hell, fear of non-existance, fear of insufficiency, fear of not being loved, fear of loneliness...
No offence to anyone, it's just the impression I get.

Here's where we divide ourselves. I don't claim god doesn't exist - I claim there's no proof he DOES exist. Like you, I have no clue. I have no idea at all what god wants, where he is, what he wants from me, what his hair looks like, etc - but the point we're different is where I choose not to be any religion because I have no reason to, and you choose christianity because you feel it suits you.
because after my long search it feels right, not like my shoes look good with my bag.......it's something more than that.



I don't want to tear it down, I'd just like some purpose for it. Why is it there? What's the point if we're all just flying blind out here, no idea what god wants, why would we separate ourselves into little groups that all claim to be representative of god? Granted, I'm pretty snarky, and I do assume quite a bit, but regardless of snarkiness I'm still the more logical out of the two of us, and my assumptions are usually correct or on the right path to getting there.
I don't find you to be more logical than me, I find you to assume things just like I do, just because you think the things you assume are right doesn't make you any more logical than me, in fact it puts us on the same level.

Who do you pray to? And for what reason (not aim) ?
I pray to the creator, I pray because it helps me to achieve clarity in my life.

I don't know what you are looking for here.

Most of the arguments I've heard from believers in the past on why they believe boil down to fear.
Fear of hell, fear of non-existance, fear of insufficiency, fear of not being loved, fear of loneliness...
No offence to anyone, it's just the impression I get.
that's the impression I get as well from a lot of people.

I get the impression from a lot of atheists that they don't like Christianity because it's not convenient for them, not all of them mind you, just a good majority.

He thinks he knows the terms, let him use what he thinks is right. I would love to see it.

I don't have enough information about God to define it for anyone, I don't claim I do, he assumes that I am here to convert people and I am not.

I respect your right to be agnostic Bottle, it doesn't bother me, it doesn't diminish my faith, I won't try to change your mind. I don't understand why I am not afforded the same amount of respect.

I don't know what terms you speak of. I haven't given any terms other than those I've given myself - if I'm to confirm or deny the existence of any supreme being, I need to know which supreme being we're talking about. Even amongst christians, the aspects of god differ greatly, so tell me about who you think god is and I'll do my best to find out if he exists based on the evidence at hand.

I respect Bottle because she is much like myself. She's not sure what god wants or if a god exists, and so she chooses to remain neutral, which is basically what I do. I don't respect your faith because it's a crutch, and you deny it's a crutch. If you were to admit that you're christian because you need to be christian or you feel lost or weak or helpless or whatever you felt before you were christian, then I'll respect your decision.

I respect people on crutches, because they're injured. However, if they're using crutches and claiming they are, in fact, not using crutches, then I'll simply challenge them to a race. Sadly, when I try to get them to see the wood under their arms helping them stand up, they resort to namecalling and claims of me simply "not getting it" or saying that I'm somehow lost or that it's "too late" for me.

I don't believe you're trying to convert anyone. I'd be quite confused if you were to try to convert someone after having admitted you weren't sure god existed. It would certainly remove much of your ability to do so.

From what I've seen, Smunk, you're a good person. I just don't respect your crutch as nearly as much as I respect you.

This is directed toward Szanth.

What is your problem? Do you derive some sort of sick pleasure in trying to tear down Smunk's faith? What do you care what she believes or why she believes it? You who pretend that your every thought, word and deed are fundamentally based in science and reason. You don't believe what she does? That's very nice. What are you now, supposed to be some kind of shining example of what we all ought to be? Arrogant.

From where I'm sitting, I see someone who seeks to self-validate by punching holes in someone else. That's about as pathetic as it gets. Smunk's right to believe and her reasons for doing so aren't subject to your approval.

Nobody's questioning your right to post whatever self-righteous drivel you want on here. What I am questioning is your motivations for doing so and the obvious hypocrisy with which you do it. You deride Christians because you associate racism or homophobia or whatever else with it, and yet your responses to Christianity itself are replete with the same sort of "We're better than you" flavor that you claim to hate so much in racists.

Smunkeeville: You owe them no answers. if you find it difficult to articulate what you feel and why, don't worry about it. I think there's some value in the idea that a person can't really understand until he or she feels it for himself/herself. That way, true belief remains sincere and not parroted from another. keep the faith. :)

I don't find you to be more logical than me, I find you to assume things just like I do, just because you think the things you assume are right doesn't make you any more logical than me, in fact it puts us on the same level.
Can you be more specific? About both, I mean?

What assumptions are you talking about with Szanth, and what assumptions are you making yourself?

I pray to the creator, I pray because it helps me to achieve clarity in my life. What creator? Who do you address? Enki? Yah? Brahma? Atum?
And I ask not for your aim or purpose, but for the motivation, the reasons, the things on which you base your assumption that there is a god who listens.

still working on it. I haven't ruled out some sort of mental disorder in my own case.

You guys proud of yourselves?

because after my long search it feels right, not like my shoes look good with my bag.......it's something more than that.




I don't find you to be more logical than me, I find you to assume things just like I do, just because you think the things you assume are right doesn't make you any more logical than me, in fact it puts us on the same level.

*shrugs* Then our perspectives and definitions are too far apart to really relate to eachother effectively. Your shoes, your bag, your faith - I consider them all to be the same thing, with the same general purpose. I don't believe it's any more than that at all.

Right, I assume things, but I wouldn't presume, and certainly not on the will of god.

I don't think there is such a thing as "level". We're neither higher nor lower in reference to eachother, we're just different and it seems it'll stay that way.

This is directed toward Szanth.

What is your problem? Do you derive some sort of sick pleasure in trying to tear down Smunk's faith? What do you care what she believes or why she believes it? You who pretend that your every thought, word and deed are fundamentally based in science and reason. You don't believe what she does? That's very nice. What are you now, supposed to be some kind of shining example of what we all ought to be? Arrogant.

From where I'm sitting, I see someone who seeks to self-validate by punching holes in someone else. That's about as pathetic as it gets. Smunk's right to believe and her reasons for doing so aren't subject to your approval.

Nobody's questioning your right to post whatever self-righteous drivel you want on here. What I am questioning is your motivations for doing so and the obvious hypocrisy with which you do it. You deride Christians because you associate racism or homophobia or whatever else with it, and yet your responses to Christianity itself are replete with the same sort of "We're better than you" flavor that you claim to hate so much in racists.

I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Szanth in particular, but this kind of thing really bugs me.

If there are going to be discussions of faith/religion around here, then those of us who don't believe in God deserve to participate without being required to pretend we do believe or flatter the egos of those who believe.

When we discuss (for instance) racism around here, are we all obligated to pretend that we think it's a-okay for racists to be racist? When we debate communism/capitalism, are we all supposed to throw in some BS about how everybody has the right to think what they think?

OF COURSE we all have the right to choose what we think, that goes without saying, and I'm not going to waste my time fluffing people's tender feelings before I get to the meat of the issue.

Being critical is not disrespectful. There are ways to be disrespectful while also being critical, but the two don't have to go together. It's almost always bullshit when people start crying about how evil non-believers are attacking people of faith, because what's being attacked is the FAITH, not the believer. What's being attacked is the often-flawed thinking that is going on. That's fair fucking game around here.


Smunkeeville: You owe them no answers. if you find it difficult to articulate what you feel and why, don't worry about it.

Nobody around here "owes" anybody else anything. We're here for recreation. However, I think if a person CHOOSES to make their own beliefs the subject of a discussion, then they shouldn't be surprised when people around here get critical about those beliefs. Smunkee's been around here quite a while, and knows the score.


I think there's some value in the idea that a person can't really understand until he or she feels it for himself/herself. That way, true belief remains sincere and not parroted from another. keep the faith. :)
I don't think it's every good to be proud of one's inability to articulate something. It's understandable, sure, and it's not something you should really beat yourself up about, but don't walk around acting like it's an accomplishment if you can't communicate something. That's a limitation of being human, and a normal one, but it's not something you should take pride in.

You guys proud of yourselves?
Quit acting like Smunkee is some helpless flower being trampled by the big mean atheists. Smunkee is tough as nails and has handled far worse around here. Don't insult her by pretending that our text on this forum has caused her to break down or something.

You guys proud of yourselves?

Um, what? :confused:

To the people who believe that God has contacted them in some way, how DID you decide which God was speaking to you? How did you know it was (for instance) the God of the Bible as opposed to one of the countless other gods? How do you know that you are worshiping or honoring that particular god in the way it wishes?

This is a really good question. People don't ask it enough, and I hope that when you ask it, you're sincerely curious and not just setting a trap. From what I've seen of your posts, I think you're the former, which I respect, so I'll answer it.

There are a couple of premises that have to be accepted in order to be open to this, and we may or may not agree on those premises. If we disagree, then let's just leave it at that. Firstly, one must accept the idea that they have a spirit. The nature of that spirit isn't important at this stage, only that one exists.

Next, one must accept the premise that there is a difference between belief and testimony. Belief is something you do when data from your 5 senses convinces you that some fact is true. It is subject to change. I believe that my car is blue because so far, every time I've seen it it's been blue. If at some point I am diagnosed with a condition where my eyes send the wrong color information to my brain, then I may have to believe something else, like perhaps my car has been green all this time. I believed up until last year that our solar system contained 9 planets. Now that the definition for planets has changed slightly, I now believe we have 8 planets plus a few dwarf planets.

Testimony is something else entirely. Testimony is what you know to be true based on some source of knowledge apart form the 5 senses. If you believe that you have a spirit, this is no great leap of logic.

When Christians talk of their true belief, they're refering to this Testimony. It's not scientifically provable (as far as I know) because it's localized within the individual at a spiritual level. Now, when a person says they have a testimony, we pretty much have to take their word for it, for better or worse. Do all Christians have a Testimony? No. They don't. Many believe because it's what they've been told to believe. That's true of any religion. That isn't a testimony because it's subject to what they see and are told. It's possible to convince them of something else entirely.

Faith is when you hold to that testimony and recognize it for what it is. When you experience that singular moment when you gain a testimony, it's how you know what the path truly is. It's how you know God is there and in that moment, you have His complete attention. He testifies to you of the truth.

I think that there is good reason for this, since any act of conversion must be an individual thing, and it must be sincere. If it WERE provable outside the individual, then there's be no need since you could convince others if its truth through scientific data... But then they'd only have belief for themselves, not a testimony.

So when someone says that you can't really know until you've experienced it for yourself, they're being quite serious and honest. You can choose whether to take their word for it or not, but what you can't do is conclusively prove them wrong.

I hope that answers your question, Bottle. :)

So, I am pretty sure every one here knows I am a Jesus freak, albeit a bad one at times. I admit that I am wrong in some things I do, such as curse, or tell a dirty joke. I know this. However, its bugging me that people are making it seem that I have to be religious, meaning follow all these strict laws and rules, and I have to act in the "christian" way, what ever that means. Well, I have to say something about this. Being a Christian is more than following laws and rituals and all that crap. Just because I am a christian doesn't mean I have to have all the knowledge in the world about the bible, or listen to gospel music. Being a christian means that I am in a relationship with Jesus. And I mean a nonsexual relationship, for all your smart elic twerps out there :p.

Ok, although I said its not a sexual relationships like between a guy and gal dating, let me explain it in those terms. This relationship starts off strong, you get all the funny feelings in your stomach, and you feel nothing but joy. These are among the happiest days in your life. then you start to move in a more serious manner. For a boy and girl dating, this includes kissing, touching and all that. For a christiam, its more of following the spiritual disciplines, which are ways of being closer to God. Eventually, you reach a point where your bond is inseperable. In a good boy/girl relationship, this would be like marriage. For a christian, its that point when you finally die completly to the world, and shift all your focus to serving God.

Anways, I just wanted to say that being a christian doesn't mean I have to follow soome sort of standards that man has created, such as being members of church or something silly. Being a christian is about following in the footsteps in Christ, and most important spreading and living the message he brought. And what was that message? Love. Somehow, this message was lost to christians, and instead they feel that it is second class, and instead laws and regulations are now the most important thing. Thus, christianity has become a religion to many. But to a few, its still a way of life...a relationship.

What do you think? do you agree or disagree?

Also, let it be known that I am not advocating that people go out and sin willfully. We should still **TRY** to obey the rules. Rather, I am saying that they are not as important as before. :)

In other words, dogma is worth less than dog shit.

Quit acting like Smunkee is some helpless flower being trampled by the big mean atheists. Smunkee is tough as nails and has handled far worse around here. Don't insult her by pretending that our text on this forum has caused her to break down or something.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just convinced that there are those who are essentially fishing for something they can use to "prove" the believer is full of it, and that just struck me as exactly the sort of statement that would serve such a purpose.

This is directed toward Szanth.

Shoot.

What is your problem? Do you derive some sort of sick pleasure in trying to tear down Smunk's faith?

I do no such thing.

What do you care what she believes or why she believes it?

I don't, really, but this is called a debate. We discuss things based on what the two parties (her and me) believe and have learned from their perspective, hopefully coming to some sort of middle or inbetween where we can find a commonality. In this case, I don't see that happening, but that doesn't mean this has been a waste - not at all. I enjoy debating and talking to people because I enjoy people. I respect Smunk, and I enjoy her presence on the forums, as I'm sure most others do. With someone like this, though, someone that you converse with on a daily basis, it's natural for me to want to figure out how they think, and indeed, why they think that way. It's getting to know people.

You who pretend that your every thought, word and deed are fundamentally based in science and reason.

Nowhere close to what I pretend. I pretend I'm somewhat important on these forums, because it makes me feel better than if I'd just constantly reminded myself "Hey, you don't have nearly as much heft in your arguments as that guy over there who's been here for four years" or "You're nowhere near as clever or lovable as Lunatic Goofballs, and there's a good chance you won't ever be". I pretend that I know what I'm doing with my life - with my career, with my fiancee, with my family - but in truth, I'm flying blind all the way. I have no idea what to do in 90% of my life, so I'm winging it. I don't, however, pretend that I'm a computer with an advanced logical reason chip - I can be wrong, and I often am - but it's only after being challenged and having my questions answered can I say that I was wrong.

You don't believe what she does? That's very nice. What are you now, supposed to be some kind of shining example of what we all ought to be? Arrogant.

Far from it. While I wish more people were as neutral, yet cynical, as I can sometimes be, for the majority of it I believe people need their own answers and cannot find them within someone else. I'm probably the least arrogant person you'll ever meet - though it's kind of ironic, that in saying so, I seem arrogant.

From where I'm sitting, I see someone who seeks to self-validate by punching holes in someone else. That's about as pathetic as it gets. Smunk's right to believe and her reasons for doing so aren't subject to your approval.

I'm no bully. I don't need to punch holes in anyone to self-validate. As I said before, I can pretend that all by myself without anyone else helping me. I do, however, have questions - and believe it or not, these questions exist with or without me directly asking them to someone. I'm just curious and driven enough to take these questions and show them to people - if Smunk can't handle being shown these questions, then that says nothing about me and quite a bit about her. But she's handled herself pretty well so far, I think.

While her beliefs are not subject to my approval, they are subject to opinion and on a forum like this, they're subject to question.

Nobody's questioning your right to post whatever self-righteous drivel you want on here. What I am questioning is your motivations for doing so and the obvious hypocrisy with which you do it.

I've already told you my motivations for being here and doing this. If I didn't respect Smunk, I wouldn't be here. I'd have already gotten bored and left for something else. I don't go on stormfront and debate them because I don't care what they think - I don't respect those people at all, and I don't respect their opinions, therefore spending the time to talk to them isn't worth it. I respect most of the people on this board. I enjoy being here.

You deride Christians because you associate racism or homophobia or whatever else with it, and yet your responses to Christianity itself are replete with the same sort of "We're better than you" flavor that you claim to hate so much in racists.

I disagree. Fundamentalist christians are, without a doubt, one of the most irritating and infuriating groups that I know of. They're right up there with fundamentalist muslims, fundamentalist jews, and Mormons (joke, joke). I'm no better than Smunk in that both of us admit to not knowing anything about the nature of god - but I consider myself to be allowed the ability to think less of her if she denies that her faith in christianity is built upon nothing but her own personal choices and wishes.


.

I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Szanth in particular, but this kind of thing really bugs me.

If there are going to be discussions of faith/religion around here, then those of us who don't believe in God deserve to participate without being required to pretend we do believe or flatter the egos of those who believe.

When we discuss (for instance) racism around here, are we all obligated to pretend that we think it's a-okay for racists to be racist? When we debate communism/capitalism, are we all supposed to throw in some BS about how everybody has the right to think what they think?

OF COURSE we all have the right to choose what we think, that goes without saying, and I'm not going to waste my time fluffing people's tender feelings before I get to the meat of the issue.

Being critical is not disrespectful. There are ways to be disrespectful while also being critical, but the two don't have to go together. It's almost always bullshit when people start crying about how evil non-believers are attacking people of faith, because what's being attacked is the FAITH, not the believer. What's being attacked is the often-flawed thinking that is going on. That's fair fucking game around here.

Nobody around here "owes" anybody else anything. We're here for recreation. However, I think if a person CHOOSES to make their own beliefs the subject of a discussion, then they shouldn't be surprised when people around here get critical about those beliefs. Smunkee's been around here quite a while, and knows the score.

That's fine, but there are those who cross the line. You can see it in their attitudes and methods. They're not on here to conduct a reasonable and honest debate. They can't conceive of the idea of "agreeing to disagree" or respecting one another's positions. They're spiteful and yes, I take exception to that. Not that I can't handle spite, but I get annoyed when its disguised as intellectualism.





I don't think it's every good to be proud of one's inability to articulate something. It's understandable, sure, and it's not something you should really beat yourself up about, but don't walk around acting like it's an accomplishment if you can't communicate something. That's a limitation of being human, and a normal one, but it's not something you should take pride in.

Not taking pride in it, only saying that one shouldn't be discouraged. If I think there's some value in the subject being difficult to articulate it's for reasons I discussed in another post where I answered your query about how one knows about their religion.

Testimony is something else entirely. Testimony is what you know to be true based on some source of knowledge apart form the 5 senses. If you believe that you have a spirit, this is no great leap of logic.

Sorry, that just sounds like you're dressing up belief (not belief as you define it earlier - your earlier definition of belief I would call verifiable FACT - but belief as in "I have no proof of this but I think it's true") in fancy clothing and trying to pass it off as fact.

.

Since I wanted to reply to everything as a whole I didn't see much value in quoting the whole text, but this way someone can easily link back to it.

My issue with your approach, Szanth, is that you seem to hold someone (in this case Smunkeeville) up to a standard of proof that 1)can't be met by atheists any better than someone who believes and 2)wouldn't be accepted by a skeptic even if it were offered.

I get riled by that because I have seen that mentality destroy someone's faith. Do I think Smunk's faith is weak enough to be vulnerable to it? No. I don't know her and it wouldn't be for me to say if I did. But I have seen it happen. I resent it. I've been reading this thread back a while and yuo're not just asking simple questions in an effort to understand. If that's what you intend to do, then I invite you to sincerely go back over your posts and try to see it from the other perspective.

Sorry, that just sounds like you're dressing up belief (not belief as you define it earlier - your earlier definition of belief I would call verifiable FACT - but belief as in "I have no proof of this but I think it's true") in fancy clothing and trying to pass it off as fact.

No, I believe you've missed my point. Addressing that very issue was the whole purpose of my post.

That's fine, but there are those who cross the line. You can see it in their attitudes and methods. They're not on here to conduct a reasonable and honest debate. They can't conceive of the idea of "agreeing to disagree" or respecting one another's positions. They're spiteful and yes, I take exception to that. Not that I can't handle spite, but I get annoyed when its disguised as intellectualism.

Not taking pride in it, only saying that one shouldn't be discouraged. If I think there's some value in the subject being difficult to articulate it's for reasons I discussed in another post where I answered your query about how one knows about their religion.



I usually leave the "agreeing to disagree" for the end, when we can in fact not do anything else but agree to disagree, because all points have been talked about. If we did that at the end, or even the middle, of a debate or argument, we'd never actually get anywhere and never really learn anything about eachother.

Sorry, that just sounds like you're dressing up belief (not belief as you define it earlier - your earlier definition of belief I would call verifiable FACT - but belief as in "I have no proof of this but I think it's true") in fancy clothing and trying to pass it off as fact.

I agree. But his definition of "fact" and our definition of "fact" is, apparently, entirely different.

Since I wanted to reply to everything as a whole I didn't see much value in quoting the whole text, but this way someone can easily link back to it.

My issue with your approach, Szanth, is that you seem to hold someone (in this case Smunkeeville) up to a standard of proof that 1)can't be met by atheists any better than someone who believes and 2)wouldn't be accepted by a skeptic even if it were offered.

I get riled by that because I have seen that mentality destroy someone's faith. Do I think Smunk's faith is weak enough to be vulnerable to it? No. I don't know her and it wouldn't be for me to say if I did. But I have seen it happen. I resent it. I've been reading this thread back a while and yuo're not just asking simple questions in an effort to understand. If that's what you intend to do, then I invite you to sincerely go back over your posts and try to see it from the other perspective.

Going back over my posts, I see that I've told you that I'm snarky and cynical. If being such things delegates me to the land of the assholes in your book, then so be it.

If being asked questions can shake one's faith, then maybe they were hoping for more than just faith, and the questions just let them see they weren't getting it.

I usually leave the "agreeing to disagree" for the end, when we can in fact not do anything else but agree to disagree, because all points have been talked about. If we did that at the end, or even the middle, of a debate or argument, we'd never actually get anywhere and never really learn anything about eachother.
I think you crossed the line.


I agree. But his definition of "fact" and our definition of "fact" is, apparently, entirely different.
This is what I'm talking about. Show me in that post where I used the word "fact" or attempted to define it.

Go ahead, I dare you. Then, after you've failed to do so, I invite you to re-evaluate your snarky approach.

Going back over my posts, I see that I've told you that I'm snarky and cynical. If being such things delegates me to the land of the assholes in your book, then so be it.

If being asked questions can shake one's faith, then maybe they were hoping for more than just faith, and the questions just let them see they weren't getting it.

I'm curious, do you suppose that on some level acknowledging being snarky and cynical somehow changes the fact that they are not particularly objective or intellectual approaches?

Being snarky and cynical doesn't make someone an asshole. What makes them an asshole is when they do it and try to pass it off as being objective and open minded.

Asking questions is one thing. It's how we gain understanding. Asking smartassed leading questions in an attempt to attack someone's opinion is another. Why are you afraid to admit there's a difference?

I think you crossed the line.


This is what I'm talking about. Show me in that post where I used the word "fact" or attempted to define it.

Go ahead, I dare you. Then, after you've failed to do so, I invite you to re-evaluate your snarky approach.

"Testimony is something else entirely. Testimony is what you know to be true based on some source of knowledge apart form the 5 senses. If you believe that you have a spirit, this is no great leap of logic."

"Something you know to be true". Looks like you're trying to define fact using that. Of course, I have a different definition. Just because you "know" something to be true doesn't mean it really is true. You can be mistaken, no matter how badly you want it to be "fact".

Snarkiness re-evaluated. Snarkiness approved.


I'm going home now, gotta catch the 401 bus. I'll be back tomorrow. Bai2uppls.

but how would you know?

I really don't feel any other reaction than "This is life."

I'm pretty dead set on the there is no God concept, so I don't see how there is darkness. Other than in Star Wars, naturally. :p

I'm curious, do you suppose that on some level acknowledging being snarky and cynical somehow changes the fact that they are not particularly objective or intellectual approaches?

Being snarky and cynical doesn't make someone an asshole. What makes them an asshole is when they do it and try to pass it off as being objective and open minded.

Asking questions is one thing. It's how we gain understanding. Asking smartassed leading questions in an attempt to attack someone's opinion is another. Why are you afraid to admit there's a difference?

Oh fine, one more post.

My questions are asked. If you believe them to be smartassed, then that sounds like a personal issue. They're definitely snarky, and definitely cynical, but that doesn't mean they're not intellectual or that they're driven by a negative emotion.


Now I really have to go.

"Testimony is something else entirely. Testimony is what you know to be true based on some source of knowledge apart form the 5 senses. If you believe that you have a spirit, this is no great leap of logic."

"Something you know to be true". Looks like you're trying to define fact using that. Of course, I have a different definition. Just because you "know" something to be true doesn't mean it really is true. You can be mistaken, no matter how badly you want it to be "fact".

Snarkiness re-evaluated. Snarkiness approved.


I'm going home now, gotta catch the 401 bus. I'll be back tomorrow. Bai2uppls.

I hope you don't miss the bus, and on the assumption that you read this later, I'll respond.

So you maintain that I have some sort of distorted definition of fact, despite not being able to show me where I tried to define it, but are now pretending that you successfully did.

Strawman argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman)

All the while maintaining the illusion of objectivity and intellectual honesty. Quite slippery.

What I'm trying to define there isn't fact it's understanding. I was quite specific when I said that testimony isn't of itself scientifically provable and therefore I am not addressing the issue of fact.

If you're going to make and/or support oppressive laws because of your religion, you better damn well follow that religion to the fucking letter.

Since I wanted to reply to everything as a whole I didn't see much value in quoting the whole text, but this way someone can easily link back to it.

My issue with your approach, Szanth, is that you seem to hold someone (in this case Smunkeeville) up to a standard of proof that 1)can't be met by atheists any better than someone who believes and 2)wouldn't be accepted by a skeptic even if it were offered.

I get riled by that because I have seen that mentality destroy someone's faith. Do I think Smunk's faith is weak enough to be vulnerable to it? No. I don't know her and it wouldn't be for me to say if I did. But I have seen it happen. I resent it. I've been reading this thread back a while and yuo're not just asking simple questions in an effort to understand. If that's what you intend to do, then I invite you to sincerely go back over your posts and try to see it from the other perspective.

Faith needs to be thought about and questioned by the one who holds it. If it can be destroyed by others questioning it online can one realy be said to have had faith to begin with?

No, I believe you've missed my point. Addressing that very issue was the whole purpose of my post.

Then address it better, without referring to "knowing" something that lays beyond the evidence of your five senses. You can not know what you can not perceive you can only believe in it.

I don't know what terms you speak of. I haven't given any terms other than those I've given myself - if I'm to confirm or deny the existence of any supreme being, I need to know which supreme being we're talking about. Even amongst christians, the aspects of god differ greatly, so tell me about who you think god is and I'll do my best to find out if he exists based on the evidence at hand.

I respect Bottle because she is much like myself. She's not sure what god wants or if a god exists, and so she chooses to remain neutral, which is basically what I do. I don't respect your faith because it's a crutch, and you deny it's a crutch. If you were to admit that you're christian because you need to be christian or you feel lost or weak or helpless or whatever you felt before you were christian, then I'll respect your decision.

I respect people on crutches, because they're injured. However, if they're using crutches and claiming they are, in fact, not using crutches, then I'll simply challenge them to a race. Sadly, when I try to get them to see the wood under their arms helping them stand up, they resort to namecalling and claims of me simply "not getting it" or saying that I'm somehow lost or that it's "too late" for me.

I don't believe you're trying to convert anyone. I'd be quite confused if you were to try to convert someone after having admitted you weren't sure god existed. It would certainly remove much of your ability to do so.

From what I've seen, Smunk, you're a good person. I just don't respect your crutch as nearly as much as I respect you.

I don't have a crutch any more than anyone else around here does, including you. You believe what you believe because it makes you feel better, you think you are better than me because you are arrogant.
Can you be more specific? About both, I mean?

What assumptions are you talking about with Szanth, and what assumptions are you making yourself?
He assumes my faith is a crutch, he assumes that he knows what is true. I assume that what I think I know is true, neither of us are dealing in facts. He claims he is more logical than me, I just don't see it.

What creator? Who do you address? Enki? Yah? Brahma? Atum?
And I ask not for your aim or purpose, but for the motivation, the reasons, the things on which you base your assumption that there is a god who listens.
I don't see why the name given the creator matters. I believe the creator listens because I do, I don't have proof, I have belief.

*shrugs* Then our perspectives and definitions are too far apart to really relate to eachother effectively. Your shoes, your bag, your faith - I consider them all to be the same thing, with the same general purpose. I don't believe it's any more than that at all.
and that makes me sad, that you think everything is so superficial.

Right, I assume things, but I wouldn't presume, and certainly not on the will of god. I don't claim to know the will of God.....I don't know what would give you the idea that I did.

I don't think there is such a thing as "level". We're neither higher nor lower in reference to eachother, we're just different and it seems it'll stay that way.
you obviously do, or you wouldn't have said that you were "more logical" than me.
Quit acting like Smunkee is some helpless flower being trampled by the big mean atheists. Smunkee is tough as nails and has handled far worse around here. Don't insult her by pretending that our text on this forum has caused her to break down or something.
thanks ;)

if it makes anyone feel better, I have never claimed to know anything.

to quote Jesse Michaels "All I know is that I don't know nothing"

I am fine with that. Nobody knows, I believe, they don't, we are all the same.
If you're going to make and/or support oppressive laws because of your religion, you better damn well follow that religion to the fucking letter.
I don't support oppressive laws, so it doesn't matter right?

I think you crossed the line.


This is what I'm talking about. Show me in that post where I used the word "fact" or attempted to define it.

Go ahead, I dare you. Then, after you've failed to do so, I invite you to re-evaluate your snarky approach.

You used the word belief in a manner that he and I reserve for the word fact. I do not believe that my computer monitor is black and decorated with stickers, I know this for a fact because I am looking at it.

I don't support oppressive laws, so it doesn't matter right?
Right.:)

I don't support oppressive laws, so it doesn't matter right?

Haven't I seen you argue against allowing gay marriage?

Faith needs to be thought about and questioned by the one who holds it. If it can be destroyed by others questioning it online can one realy be said to have had faith to begin with?

That's an excellent point.

A person can indeed lost their testimony through weak faith. They can be persuaded by others to abandon what they know to be true to accept somethign else that's more popular or easy. As to whether the person really had honest faith to begin with-- we can't know, since to conclude that they never really had faith to begin with simply because they lost it is circular reasoning. Again, we can only take their word for it.

I don't see why the name given the creator matters. It's not about the name, it's about who and how the "creator" is.

I have belief. In what?

Haven't I seen you argue against allowing gay marriage?

:eek: never. :mad: I don't tend to like people who do argue against it.

Then address it better, without referring to "knowing" something that lays beyond the evidence of your five senses. You can not know what you can not perceive you can only believe in it.

But here you're asking me to prove the very thing which I have already acknowledged I can't prove to you. You must chose to either take my word for it or not, until the day you experience it for yourself.

It's not about the name, it's about who and how the "creator" is.
why?

In what?

in a supreme being who loves me.

:eek: never. :mad: I don't tend to like people who do argue against it.

My mistake, mea maxima culpa.

why?



in a supreme being who loves me.

Because Enki is very different than Jehova. WHICH creator you believe in influences a lot about what you do in regards to your belief.

My mistake, mea maxima culpa.

forgiven ;)

for future reference, I am actually a libertarian, so I don't like the government dictating crap like that.

You used the word belief in a manner that he and I reserve for the word fact. I do not believe that my computer monitor is black and decorated with stickers, I know this for a fact because I am looking at it.

But essentially you're holding your hand up and refusing to see the point of view I'm offering, and in so doing blocking effective communication. You insist on applying your and Szanth's own interpretation of what I'm saying rather than making the effort to understand it for what it is.

You don't know that your monitor is black because you could (hypothetically) be hallucinating, or have an optical defect. You believe what your senses (in this case, sight alone) tell you. The point is that the 5 senses can be tricked or malfunction. Testimony is based on something more reliable and spiritual.

Because Enki is very different than Jehova. WHICH creator you believe in influences a lot about what you do in regards to your belief.

why does he care which creator I pray to?

why?because I want to know how folks come to believe what they believe.
what is your idea of who and how the "creator" you pray to is?

in a supreme being who loves me.just that? no more specific image?

why does he care which creator I pray to?because there are so many to possibly choose from.

because I want to know how folks come to believe what they believe.
I already explained that somewhere.

just that? no more specific image?
I wouldn't know where to begin with an image......it probably would be inaccurate.