NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

What's blocking effective communication is your use of words that have a different meaning for you than they do for those you are trying to comunicate with.

I already explained that somewhere.you are evading the question, aren't you?

I wouldn't know where to begin with an image......it probably would be inaccurate.then what do you tell your kids who and what the "creator" you pray to is?

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. :)

I suppose I agree to a point. I don't think people should follow a faith or religion for anyone other than themselves. Seeing as this is the case, people shouldn't follow blindly what a religion says even if they don't believe it at all, because then how could it really be your faith and relationship with whatever god one chooses to worship. Getting wrapped up in religious dogma can be dangerous, as is practicing because other people pressure you or something similar. Theres nothing more personal than faith, it should be treated as such.

<snip>

I can't believe that you're saying this. It just seems so out of character.

you are evading the question, aren't you?
trying to ;) I don't know why I believe, I just know that I do.

then what do you tell your kids who and what the "creator" you pray to is?
I don't.

My argument against the majority of Christians I've met, is that they seem to have taken Pascal's Wager too seriously.

Kohlberg's stages of moral development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development)

In my opinion (according to Kohlberg's theorized scale of morality), most religious folk would be either a 2 or a 3, because they are trying to please somebody or because they want to get to heaven, and not get sent to hell. I say this knowing full well that earlier in this particular topic several posters mentioned either or both of these as goals.

What's blocking effective communication is your use of words that have a different meaning for you than they do for those you are trying to comunicate with.

I have made my meaning quite plain. You've already made up your mind and now you're trying to shoehorn my posts to fit the preconceived notions you're carrying into this. Szanth tried to accuse me of redefining the word "fact" when I never even mentioned it. I tried to clarify for the sake of intellectual honesty and that was ignored. With each additional post you make it more obvious that you're not in the least bit interested in exchanging ideas. That's fine. Nobody's trying to force you. Just admit 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.

No, they understand it perfectly. You're just trying to avoid admitting that.
Remember, nothing you say can possibly convince them(and me for that matter) that faith is more accurate then proof. This isn't because they don't understand, it's because it's not true.

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.
*resists urge to laugh*
That's a contradiction, because if he doesn't know his monitor is black even though he can see it, there's no way you can know God exists based on a feeling. Just because you think something is true doesn't mean it is.

trying to ;) I don't know why I believe, I just know that I do. but can't you put your belief into words? neither what nor why?

but can't you put your belief into words?

not sufficient for this conversation.

I can't believe that you're saying this. It just seems so out of character.

:confused: how do you mean?

No, they understand it perfectly. You're just trying to avoid admitting that.
Remember, nothing you say can possibly convince them(and me for that matter) that faith is more accurate then proof. This isn't because they don't understand, it's because it's not true.
No, you've just made the same mistake and now you guys are so invested in proving your erroneous point that you won't let it go at any cost. At no time did I get into the business of trying to "define fact." If you think I did, then you've made a mistake. My point has always revolved around understanding, or if you prefer, perception. No matter how much you keep trying to hammer me with your misconceptions you can't force yourself right.


*resists urge to laugh*
That's a contradiction, because if he doesn't know his monitor is black even though he can see it, there's no way you can know God exists based on a feeling. Just because you think something is true doesn't mean it is.
I invite you to go back to the original post I wrote that triggered this exchange. In it I defined the basic assumptions upon which my post rested. This statement of yours tells me you haven't read it.

I have made my meaning quite plain. You've already made up your mind and now you're trying to shoehorn my posts to fit the preconceived notions you're carrying into this. Szanth tried to accuse me of redefining the word "fact" when I never even mentioned it. I tried to clarify for the sake of intellectual honesty and that was ignored. With each additional post you make it more obvious that you're not in the least bit interested in exchanging ideas. That's fine. Nobody's trying to force you. Just admit it.

You don't need to mention a word to redefine it.
You said that faith is more accurate then the 5 senses.
Generally, information gathered by the senses is a fact unless there's some evidence against it.
So (according to you) faith is more accurate then facts.
Which is even worse then what they say you said.

not sufficient for this conversation.so far you have not put any single aspect of your belief into words. you only referred to a vague idea of a supreme being you call the "creator" and pray to. not much to call a faith, really.

:confused: how do you mean?

Just to make sure, this is the same Soviestan that had (paraphrasing) "There is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet" in his sig up till recently?
It feels weird for you to say, quote, "getting wrapped up in religious dogma can be dangerous".

so far you have not put any single aspect of your belief into words. you only referred to a vague idea of a supreme being you call the "creator" and pray to. not much to call a faith, really.

I fail to see why it would matter to you what I believe specifically, nor do I see why it would matter to you that I believe something generally.

No, you've just made the same mistake and now you guys are so invested in proving your erroneous point that you won't let it go at any cost. At no time did I get into the business of trying to "define fact." If you think I did, then you've made a mistake. My point has always revolved around understanding, or if you prefer, perception. No matter how much you keep trying to hammer me with your misconceptions you can't force yourself right.

Yes you did.
You're saying that faith is proof god exists.
You're even saying that faith is BETTER proof god exists then facts.
And BTW, you can't assume hallucinations unless you're a philosopher, and then whatever you say has no bearing on this argument anyway.


I invite you to go back to the original post I wrote that triggered this exchange. In it I defined the basic assumptions upon which my post rested. This statement of yours tells me you haven't read it.

Just because you SAY something doesn't mean it's true, then.

You don't need to mention a word to redefine it.
You said that faith is more accurate then the 5 senses.
Generally, information gathered by the senses is a fact unless there's some evidence against it.
So (according to you) faith is more accurate then facts.
Which is even worse then what they say you said.

I can't keep repeating myself over and over. It's bad for the digestion. I didn't say that faith was more accurate than fact. That would be illogical since comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. What I said was (since it appears to be too difficult for you to read my posts I'll paste it here for you.):


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.

Then I said

The point is that the 5 senses can be tricked or malfunction. Testimony is based on something more reliable and spiritual.

So to spell it out for you, what I said was that the spiritual source is more reliable than the 5 senses.

If you honestly believe that information gathered by the 5 senses MUST be fact, then you've never heard of hallucinations, schizophrenia, color blindness etc, all cases where some or all of the 5 senses gather inaccurate data and therefore NOT fact. This is precisely why I avoided the discussion of fact.

Now, if you disagree with me on the relative reliability of spirituality or even its existence, I don't care so don't bother belaboring it. I very specifically adressed my original post to the scenario in which those things are true. Here, for your convenience:


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.

I can't make it any cleaer than that, so if you still feel the need to try and characterize my argument as being somehow a redefinition of facts as we know them, then just know you're proving a complete lack of willingness to discuss the issue head on, prefering instead to bog it down with strawmen.

I fail to see why it would matter to you what I believe specifically, nor do I see why it would matter to you that I believe something generally.well, the world matters to me, and everything in it. just so you know.
now in the end you have only a vague idea of some "god" and yet you are vocal about believing and praying etcetera, but you cannot even name what and why you believe. it's all some arbitrary gut feeling with no connexion to the world or to any traditions or beliefs held elsewhere. it's just your private (pretty one-dimensional, it seems) view of a creator. are you even sure you did not just make that all up yourself?

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.

Cartesian Scepticism is cute for a while but you don't want to take it too seriously.

Look at it this way, the only reason you know that your senses can be deceived is because they're self-correcting: a straw in a glass of water may appear distorted to the eye but you only realise that it's distorted after closer examination from your other senses. This makes the senses rather like science, in that they are capable of making mistakes but they are also capable of correcting their own mistakes.

You have no way of knowing that faith or testimony is unreliable because you have no way of falsifying it, you confuse veracity with an absence of correction. This is why the empirical senses are more reliable.

Yes you did.
You're saying that faith is proof god exists.
You're even saying that faith is BETTER proof god exists then facts.
And BTW, you can't assume hallucinations unless you're a philosopher, and then whatever you say has no bearing on this argument anyway.


Just because you SAY something doesn't mean it's true, then.

My latest post went up about the same time this one did. Since your last post is repetitive, I'll let mine answer it too.

Cartesian Scepticism is cute for a while but you don't want to take it too seriously.

Look at it this way, the only reason you know that your senses can be deceived is because they're self-correcting: a straw in a glass of water may appear distorted to the eye but you only realise that it's distorted after closer examination from your other senses. This makes the senses rather like science, in that they are capable of making mistakes but they are also capable of correcting their own mistakes.

You have no way of knowing that faith or testimony is unreliable because you have no way of falsifying it, you confuse veracity with an absence of correction. This is why the empirical senses are more reliable.

Another one misses the point. I don't blame you. Groupthink is really hard to overcome.

I haven't read the whole thread so I'm starting from the top.

The problem isn't Christianity, the problem is the false Christians? that dominate the media. Sort of the same problem Muslims have.

In the area of Christianity we have a group of people that are more interested in governmental and cultural power than with love for their fellow humans. They want to enforce through law their beliefs rather than living a life that others would like to emulate. They help others only when they don't have to touch others. They throw money into a plate but won't stop and help someone broke down on the side of the road. They want to outlaw abortion, but don't want to give a young mother hope that the child will have food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education, etc. They talk of God's creation, but do nothing to protect it, especially if there is a dollar to be had by destroying creation. They in fact do everything Jesus criticized the Pharisees for and avoid the example of God reaching out to the poor, weak, sick, downtrodden.

This could get long, but I think you get the idea. It is too bad that these "conservative christians?" get the headlines as their idols the Pharisees did and as the bombers do in Islam.

Another one misses the point. I don't blame you. Groupthink is really hard to overcome.

How very charitable of you; could it be that so many people are misunderstanding because you're not being very clear?

Let's see, you said "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 which you just 'know' to be true is unfalsifiable and hence incapable of correction, no? You have to take it on faith that this source of knowledge is reliable, and faith less reliable that the senses.

Consider it a backlash. Us non-belivers get plastered all day with people shouting "REPENT!!" into ours ears
No you don't. Ireland, especially Dublin, is not like that.

You're also thinking about a small subset of Christians. Most of us see that there are more important issues than homosexuality, and those who are politically active tend not to concentrate on that. In fact a great number of us think human rights should be applied to all, equally. Even the social action arm (http://www.trocaire.ie/) of the supposedly über-conservative Irish Catholic Church actively promotes egalitarianism as an ideology.

I can't keep repeating myself over and over. It's bad for the digestion. I didn't say that faith was more accurate than fact. That would be illogical since comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. What I said was (since it appears to be too difficult for you to read my posts I'll paste it here for you.):

I read your posts. In fact, after you suggested it last time, I specifically went back and read your original post. It didn't really make much of a difference.

Then I said



So to spell it out for you, what I said was that the spiritual source is more reliable than the 5 senses.

Which means it's more reliable then fact.

If you honestly believe that information gathered by the 5 senses MUST be fact, then you've never heard of hallucinations, schizophrenia, color blindness etc, all cases where some or all of the 5 senses gather inaccurate data and therefore NOT fact. This is precisely why I avoided the discussion of fact.

The five senses might not always give facts, but all facts are perceived by the five senses.

Now, if you disagree with me on the relative reliability of spirituality or even its existence, I don't care so don't bother belaboring it. I very specifically adressed my original post to the scenario in which those things are true. Here, for your convenience:


Wait, did you just have your post as a premise for your post?
That's called circular reasoning. It's never good for your argument.


I can't make it any cleaer than that, so if you still feel the need to try and characterize my argument as being somehow a redefinition of facts as we know them, then just know you're proving a complete lack of willingness to discuss the issue head on, prefering instead to bog it down with strawmen.
You're not willing to discuss this head on. The fact is, you say that faith is somehow a better source of information then the five senses. That's what I (and most people would agree with me on this) call calling faith fact.

The five senses might not always give facts, but all facts are perceived by the five senses.
As much as I disagree with the general scope of Bretonnia's argument, I do have to query this notion. All facts are not necessarily perceived by the five senses; indeed, not all facts are even perceived. Deductive reasoning produces facts that need not have origins in the physical senses, such as mathematical theorems and logical inference by modus ponens in computation.

Indeed, Schizophrenia is a good example of crossed wires in a mistaken perception of something that exists conceptually but not physically. The facts of the case at hand are certainly not those that are perceived by the senses.

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.
Okay, so we've assumed that spirit is removed from form. Can this spirit be an emergent property of form such that, although separate from its core physical structure, it relies on general properties of the physical body to provide its own properties? I'll deal with the discussion in either case, so I guess it's not a big deal.

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.
Hmm. Okay, so we're assuming that testimony includes systemic reasoning about abstract concepts transmitted as higher-level information between personal entities, where belief is something about physical structure as perceived (or not) by the observer. Though I do feel that no human ever "knows" something to be true, instead defining them as axiomatic or primitive givens within their own mapping of reality, that's an issue for another day. While Testimony is perhaps not the best word to use for this sort of thing, I'll accept your definition for it.

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.
Okay, so let's recap here (just to ensure I've gotten the jist of the point). Testimony is an abstract, axiomatic truth held about the nature of reality that has basis outside of empirical observation. Faith is the assertion of the nature of this testimony while also holding it within your own perspective of reality.

Now we have two assertions amid this background that are up for question. Firstly, okay, you know what the path "truly is" when you take it as a given within your personal reality, because it follows on from the definition of testimony, but you haven't said anything about the process of actually coming by these testimonies yet. Perhaps that will come later.

Secondly, where does God come into this? Are you saying that all facts that are non-sensory are divine in nature, and that the existence of facts outside of sensory perception is thus itself evidence of the existence of a divine being? Because that is open to question. The nature of the spirit (as we've suggested it) does not necessarily exclude spiritual communication on levels other than the single, all-inclusive one. One can suppose, as Descartes has, that the evil Demon, rather than the almighty benevolence, is responsible for these extra-sensory perceptions.

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 accept that to commit the assertion to faith must be a personal thing, but we do not yet have any reason to presume that the stated origins of any particular would-be testimony we acquire must necessarily be held to be correct. If I, for instance, have a revelation tomorrow that humanity is rotten to the core and should be eliminated for the good of all, and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me to do it, should the existence of the FSM be treated as a given fact in all consideration of my mindset? The answer is almost certainly not. There are far more important factors involved, such as my genetic predisposition towards schizophrenic behaviour, and to assert that the FSM really did tell me this, while no doubt an awesome thought experiment for all involved, is to miss the much more important fact that I am actually psychotic, or that there was someone hiding behind a curtain whispering and goading me into thinking it. (Allegorical. I hope.)

It comes full circle, really. What is it about the specific interpretations of these testimonies that makes you come to hold them as true?

I can't keep repeating myself over and over. It's bad for the digestion. I didn't say that faith was more accurate than fact. That would be illogical since comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. What I said was (since it appears to be too difficult for you to read my posts I'll paste it here for you.):



Then I said



So to spell it out for you, what I said was that the spiritual source is more reliable than the 5 senses.

If you honestly believe that information gathered by the 5 senses MUST be fact, then you've never heard of hallucinations, schizophrenia, color blindness etc, all cases where some or all of the 5 senses gather inaccurate data and therefore NOT fact. This is precisely why I avoided the discussion of fact.

Now, if you disagree with me on the relative reliability of spirituality or even its existence, I don't care so don't bother belaboring it. I very specifically adressed my original post to the scenario in which those things are true. Here, for your convenience:



I can't make it any cleaer than that, so if you still feel the need to try and characterize my argument as being somehow a redefinition of facts as we know them, then just know you're proving a complete lack of willingness to discuss the issue head on, prefering instead to bog it down with strawmen.

Testimony can not be considered a more reliable source than the 5 senses. To suggest that would be to suggest that hearsay should be a more valid form of legal evidence than an eye witness account.

Testimony can not be considered a more reliable source than the 5 senses. To suggest that would be to suggest that hearsay should be a more valid form of legal evidence than an eye witness account.
He's using an obscure definition of Testimony that essentially tries to encorporate the entire of a priori reasoning into it. That's not what testimony is, of course, but he's trying to say that divinity is a form of a priori axiom taken by the religious. What he hasn't done is explain where it comes from yet.

He's using an obscure definition of Testimony that essentially tries to encorporate the entire of a priori reasoning into it. That's not what testimony is, of course, but he's trying to say that divinity is a form of a priori axiom taken by the religious. What he hasn't done is explain where it comes from yet.

Well that doesn't make sense at all. In order for something to be a priori, one must be able to arrive by that knowledge purely through logical reasoning. That doesn't seem possible in this case.

Well that doesn't make sense at all. In order for something to be a priori, one must be able to arrive by that knowledge purely through logical reasoning. That doesn't seem possible in this case.
Essentially, that's what happens when you assert God to prove God. However, he may have a different kind of asserted basis from which God emerges by reasoning, which I'm waiting to hear from.

Essentially, that's what happens when you assert God to prove God. However, he may have a different kind of asserted basis from which God emerges by reasoning, which I'm waiting to hear from.

Aside from the Ontological Argument, the Teleology, or a generous application of Cartesian thought, I can't for the life of me imagine what that might be.

Being a christian means that I am in a relationship with Jesus.

Does he suc-

And I mean a nonsexual relationship, for all your smart elic twerps out there :p

God damn it.

well, the world matters to me, and everything in it. just so you know.
now in the end you have only a vague idea of some "god" and yet you are vocal about believing and praying etcetera, but you cannot even name what and why you believe. it's all some arbitrary gut feeling with no connexion to the world or to any traditions or beliefs held elsewhere. it's just your private (pretty one-dimensional, it seems) view of a creator. are you even sure you did not just make that all up yourself?

I believe a lot of stuff, it would take hours to explain it all. I don't really see a point in going through my entire world view piece by piece with you. I have seen you post and I can guess that you aren't really interested, your view is so different than mine that I don't think we would ever come to common ground, so I think it's best that we agree to disagree at the beginning.

I believe a lot of stuff, it would take hours to explain it all. I don't really see a point in going through my entire world view piece by piece with you. I have seen you post and I can guess that you aren't really interested, your view is so different than mine that I don't think we would ever come to common ground, so I think it's best that we agree to disagree at the beginning.agree to disagree? that's always the cheesiest excuse when someone has no arguments to back up any particular position.
I have seen you post and I can guess that you aren't really having a position on anything, you only seek out the most comfortable way to somehow fill your ideological and religious void with whatever comes in handy. as I said, you also seem to just make stuff up for yourself. otherwise it should be pretty easy for you to just explain in few words who it is you pray to and based on what your view of god exists.

I propose that a majority of people who believe in a deity do so because their parents instilled a sense of faith in that deity, rather than because of profound religious experiences. Not that they didn't have said experiences, just that they looked for the experiences due to the belief taught to them

5. The patient may notice that the particular convictions that he holds, while having nothing to do with evidence, do seem to owe a great deal to epidemiology. Why, he may wonder, do I hold this set of convictions rather than that set? Is it because I surveyed all the world's faiths and chose the one whose claims seemed most convincing? Almost certainly not. If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence.

Linky (http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html)

I guess that makes me in the minority...

I propose that a majority of people who believe in a deity do so because their parents instilled a sense of faith in that deity, rather than because of profound religious experiences. Not that they didn't have said experiences, just that they looked for the experiences due to the belief taught to themhow could they then distinguish experiences from fantasies?

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.

But when it comes to your individual beliefs, what non-logical assumptions is he making?

If you are saying (and I think you are) that you know you make some "illogical" assumptions when you embrace your faith, then what are the corresponding illogical assumptions made by an agnostic atheist?


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.

It's not so much the name, as the qualities you ascribe to the Creator.

In other words, there are differences between Christ and, say, Vishnu that go beyond the fact that their names are different.

why does he care which creator I pray to?
How do you know he doesn't?

And really, why WOULDN'T the Creator care?

Do you think a loving, benevolent God would maybe object to people, say, worshiping it by torturing and murdering other human beings? Do you think that your God might object to people worshiping Him by going out and raping children?

I'm using very extreme examples, but it's to make a point. I'm absolutely positively 100% sure that you set some limits on what kinds of worship your God approves of. So the question is, how do you know that the limits you ascribe to God actually line up with what God wants? How did you arrive at these limits? Did God tell you, or did you set up limits based on your personal beliefs?

No you don't.
Yes, we really do.

Do you really think you will get anywhere by denying the experiences of non-believers? This is like telling women, "Nuh-uh, you do not get sexually harassed." Or telling black people that racism is dead and they're just making up all the cases of racism they encounter.

It's extremely insulting, and also deeply ignorant.

No you don't. Ireland, especially Dublin, is not like that.

You're also thinking about a small subset of Christians. Most of us see that there are more important issues than homosexuality, and those who are politically active tend not to concentrate on that. In fact a great number of us think human rights should be applied to all, equally. Even the social action arm (http://www.trocaire.ie/) of the supposedly über-conservative Irish Catholic Church actively promotes egalitarianism as an ideology.

I take it you haven't walked down O'Connell street recently, then? Or did the guy with the speaker boxes proclaiming that we are all sinners but Jesus loves us escape your attention? He's usually on the corner of Earl street.

And I'm not referring to the majority of Christians. I'm talking about the Christians I'm forced to hear everytime I want to shop at Ann Summers. And those people who were picketing outside Stringfellows. That kind.

I take it you haven't walked down O'Connell street recently, then? Or did the guy with the speaker boxes proclaiming that we are all sinners but Jesus loves us escape your attention? He's usually on the corner of Earl street.

And I'm not referring to the majority of Christians. I'm talking about the Christians I'm forced to hear everytime I want to shop at Ann Summers. And those people who were picketing outside Stringfellows. That kind.
Oh, but those Christians don't count. They're bad Christians, so the harassment from them doesn't count as real harassment.

:rolleyes:

Oh, but those Christians don't count. They're bad Christians, so the harassment from them doesn't count as real harassment.

:rolleyes:

Well, I always say if you stick on a red nose and wear baggy pants, don't be surprised if people call you a clown and assume you'll do cartweels for them.

Just to make sure, this is the same Soviestan that had (paraphrasing) "There is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet" in his sig up till recently?
It feels weird for you to say, quote, "getting wrapped up in religious dogma can be dangerous".

yes, it is I. I don't feel all religious teachings are bad or dangerous, as long as thats what you truly believe. Whats dangerous to me is blindly following all aspects of a given religion without questioning them or if you don't believe in it all.

agree to disagree? that's always the cheesiest excuse when someone has no arguments to back up any particular position.
I am not interested in formating arguments to back up my faith. I don't really feel I should have to.
I have seen you post and I can guess that you aren't really having a position on anything, you only seek out the most comfortable way to somehow fill your ideological and religious void with whatever comes in handy. as I said, you also seem to just make stuff up for yourself. otherwise it should be pretty easy for you to just explain in few words who it is you pray to and based on what your view of god exists.
I believe what I do because that's what I believe, it really doesn't affect you, I don't see why you need me to make some sort of faith statement. However, here you go. I am a fundamentalist Christian......

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The authenticity of Christ's miracles


How do you know he doesn't?
from prior experience.

And really, why WOULDN'T the Creator care?
I'm sure the creator does care...I was talking about UB.

Do you think a loving, benevolent God would maybe object to people, say, worshiping it by torturing and murdering other human beings? Do you think that your God might object to people worshiping Him by going out and raping children?

I'm using very extreme examples, but it's to make a point. I'm absolutely positively 100% sure that you set some limits on what kinds of worship your God approves of. So the question is, how do you know that the limits you ascribe to God actually line up with what God wants? How did you arrive at these limits? Did God tell you, or did you set up limits based on your personal beliefs?

I don't know. I have said that a few times. I believe what I am doing is correct, there is no way for me to know anything.

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

I didn't miss the bus, but I ran my ass off for a good ten blocks. =)

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.

But you still use the word "know" - as in, you can know something for certain even if it's not a fact? But that's the definition of a fact. Something that's true. If you know it for certain, then unless you're dillusional, it's a fact.

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

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

I'm actually kind of honored - I've seen so many people on this forum use the word "strawman", but never have I had it used against my argument. Wednesday, March 20th, 2007 - my first accusatory strawman is created.

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.

Just because it's not scientifically provable doesn't mean it's not true, and vice-versa - just because science believes something to be true doesn't make it fact. This is why they use the word "theory", because science is learning new things all the time. If you know it for a fact, then it's a fact. If you know it out of belief, then it's a belief.

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.

Well, I just have to shrug and disagree. I don't need a faith to keep me standing, and you do. I don't believe anything because it makes me feel better - if that were true I'd be all rosey-eyed and trusting the world's governments and not reading the newspaper and not watching CNN. No, far from it, what I believe makes me very uncomfortable, and very afraid.

I don't think I'm better than you - logical does not equal better. It helps, but it's not necessarily a goal. I have very illogical friends, but they're goofy and say weird things - they're funny, because they're illogical, and I consider us to be equal.

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.

All faith is a crutch, not just yours. I assume I know what's true, only sometimes, and in certain contexts, and even then I'm still not 100% sure most of the time. I just seem to be right this time in my conclusion, based on the evidence: You were going through a rough time in your life, previous to that time you were a staunch athiest, and suddenly when you're at your weakest and most vulnerable moment you choose christianity because you believe god spoke to you - even though you still don't know if that's what god wanted. Seems very illogical to me.

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.

Well technically the christian god has no name. Or it does, and we don't know it.

And yes, this is why many consider religion to be silly and illogical - it's wrought with circular logic. You believe because you believe because you believe.

and that makes me sad, that you think everything is so superficial.

Not everything, just most things.

I don't claim to know the will of God.....I don't know what would give you the idea that I did.

Well, the fact that you've chosen a form of worship is a sign that you think you know what god wants. You just guessed just in case? Seems much more loyal to stay neutral and figure it out for sure, and if you never find out, then god will surely understand because he never really told you.

you obviously do, or you wouldn't have said that you were "more logical" than me.

Again, logical doesn't equal better.

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.

Well first, that's a double-negative, so he's implying that he knows something. Secondly, he knows -something-, he's just rehashing the infamous quotes from previous philosophers who say things like "Only he who realizes that he knows nothing can truly know himself" etc, etc - which I disagree with. We know quite a bit. We're learning more every day. Spiritually, however, we don't know jack - but that doesn't mean we don't know ANYTHING. Not by a longshot.

But the difference between you and I is that you admit knowing nothing, yet you still go to church and act like you do. In church, you pray, and assume god is listening. You may even sing with the chorus, and assume god hears your worship - the biggest assumption of all, however, is that god cares. I assume none of these things, therefore we are not the same.


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.

Circular reasoning is very popular in faith-related circles. Once one sees how little evidence they have for faith, the logical being will usually disavow said faith and try to find the truth. Of course, if one were truly logical in the first place, they would most likely not have faith to begin with.

Keep in mind, I speak of faith - the insistance and self-driven belief that you and those like you are spiritually correct in how you see the almighty creator as being and what you see him wanting. Faith keeps you from seeing truth. When confronted with truth, faith screams out and says no in defiance, because true faith is unshakeable, because it is completely ungrounded in fact and logic.

Well first, that's a double-negative, so he's implying that he knows something. Secondly, he knows -something-, he's just rehashing the infamous quotes from previous philosophers who say things like "Only he who realizes that he knows nothing can truly know himself" etc, etc - which I disagree with. We know quite a bit. We're learning more every day. Spiritually, however, we don't know jack - but that doesn't mean we don't know ANYTHING. Not by a longshot.

it's a song......Jesse Michaels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Michaels) was in a band that I listened to growing up. I don't really think that punk bands are concerned with grammar, at least I never found them to be. ;)

I don't know. I have said that a few times. I believe what I am doing is correct, there is no way for me to know anything.
I'm not asking you to know, I'm asking you to think. I have absolutely no problem with people not knowing all the answers. What I'm curious about is why you feel comfortable making some assumptions about your God, but not others, and why you choose to make the assumptions that you make.

I'm not asking you to know, I'm asking you to think. I have absolutely no problem with people not knowing all the answers. What I'm curious about is why you feel comfortable making some assumptions about your God, but not others, and why you choose to make the assumptions that you make.

oh, that. I can't say because I will sound insane. ;)

I am not interested in formating arguments to back up my faith. I don't really feel I should have to. Well, from previous experience with you I know you in fact can't. You live in your own private bubble of self-styled convenient faith and are proud of it. You will never be able to really inform anyone else about your "creator". I've dealt with people like you all my life.

Well, from previous experience with you I know you in fact can't. You live in your own private bubble of self-styled convenient faith and are proud of it. You will never be able to really inform anyone else about your "creator". I've dealt with people like you all my life.

I can. I just won't. I have dealt with people like you before, and I am uninterested in this conversation.

You go get Dinaverg to question me, I like him, he deserves my time, or even better go dig up Grave_n_Idle, he could probably explain it all to you...

it's a song......Jesse Michaels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Michaels) was in a band that I listened to growing up. I don't really think that punk bands are concerned with grammar, at least I never found them to be. ;)

Point stands, he was saying what philosophers have been saying - and to both, I disagree.

Point stands, he was saying what philosophers have been saying - and to both, I disagree.

I think there are some things we will never truly know, as far as the crutch, my crutch is assuming that I might know, same as yours, we just think we know different things.

I can. I just won't. I have dealt with people like you before, and I am uninterested in this conversation.

You go get Dinaverg to question me, I like him, he deserves my time, or even better go dig up Grave_n_Idle, he could probably explain it all to you...

While I recognize your right to refrain from arguing or doing anything we ask you to, it does make you seem in the wrong. I use the word "wrong" lightly, since there is no right and wrong in this scenario, but it still applies in the context of trying to understand whether or not your method of faith is any more than a form of spiritual masturbation. For lack of better terms.

While I recognize your right to refrain from arguing or doing anything we ask you to, it does make you seem in the wrong. I use the word "wrong" lightly, since there is no right and wrong in this scenario, but it still applies in the context of trying to understand whether or not your method of faith is any more than a form of spiritual masturbation. For lack of better terms.

I said earlier that I am a fundamentalist Christian, I don't think that's any secret around here......apparently so though.

I think there are some things we will never truly know, as far as the crutch, my crutch is assuming that I might know, same as yours, we just think we know different things.

Well of course, there are some things, but that's a far shot from the pretentious "we don't know anything" line.

Right, your crutch is your assumption that you might know. But what's mine? I don't see anything under my arms at the moment. I don't assume anything about god or what he/she/it/they might want, therefore no crutch. We're not the same.

Well of course, there are some things, but that's a far shot from the pretentious "we don't know anything" line.

Right, your crutch is your assumption that you might know. But what's mine? I don't see anything under my arms at the moment. I don't assume anything about god or what he/she/it/they might want, therefore no crutch. We're not the same.

can you scientifically prove your entire world view and philosophy? if not then it's your crutch. you believe what you believe about the world because it makes you feel good.

I said earlier that I am a fundamentalist Christian, I don't think that's any secret around here......apparently so though.

Sorry to poke at you there, but I seem to remember that at some stage, you told me that you don't believe in what Paul taught.
What exactly is your definition for "fundamentalis Christian", as it's apparently not someone who believes in the bible as a guide. Not even just the NT...

Sorry to poke at you there, but I seem to remember that at some stage, you told me that you don't believe in what Paul taught.
What exactly is your definition for "fundamentalis Christian", as it's apparently not someone who believes in the bible as a guide. Not even just the NT...

Paul's letters are occasional in nature, meaning that you have to go back through and figure out what occasion they were written for. I go back through and figure out who it was written to, why, when, etc. They were meant to deal certain specific situations, it makes sense to figure out what situations those were.

I said earlier that I am a fundamentalist Christian, I don't think that's any secret around here......apparently so though.

I'm sorry, when I say "method of faith", I meant how you came about to be faithful, how you validate your faith on a constant basis, if you realize it's quite possible it's all hullabaloo, etc.

But while we're on the subject, let's branch it out a bit:

Fundamentalism. 6000 years. Two originators of the species. The garden, the snake, the devil's rebellion in heaven. The literal word of the bible.

You believe in all of that?

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.

Why are so many 'religious' people so screwed up? I've even been told that I can't behave ethically because I don't believe in a god. As well as the track records of so many religious people over the centuries.

I'm sorry, when I say "method of faith", I meant how you came about to be faithful, how you validate your faith on a constant basis, if you realize it's quite possible it's all hullabaloo, etc.
I already explained that as best I could as well.

But while we're on the subject, let's branch it out a bit:

Fundamentalism. 6000 years. Two originators of the species. The garden, the snake, the devil's rebellion in heaven. The literal word of the bible.

You believe in all of that?
fundamentalist Christians believe in 5 fundamentals.

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The authenticity of Christ's miracles

I already explained that as best I could as well.


fundamentalist Christians believe in 5 fundamentals.

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The authenticity of Christ's miracles

Sorry, but Paul's letters ARE scripture. With very clear instructions, including that women shouldn't speak in church, for example.
Do you honestly believe that?

can you scientifically prove your entire world view and philosophy? if not then it's your crutch. you believe what you believe about the world because it makes you feel good.

Again, no. I believe what I believe about the world because as far as I can tell, it's mostly true. Politicians are corrupt, governments are hostile, people are scared.

I have no worldview or philosophy that branches out into areas I really don't know about. I know Fairfax. I know a good amount of Northern Virginia. Beyond that, into the rest of the country, into the rest of the world, I have no first-hand experience, so I go by what I can find from other people. This is not a crutch, because I don't lean on it. I don't need it. It's constantly changing. No crutch.

I'll never be in a mental slump and try to dig my way out of it through "Well at least I have an opinion about Arnold Schwarzeneggar as the governor of California." like I can - and need to - use it to help me. But again, I don't, because that's silly.

I have no equivalent mantra of "the lord Jesus Christ loves me/is watching over me/will be with me when I die so everything's alright" because I don't need it. That's a crutch, and I can walk perfectly fine on my own.

Sorry, but Paul's letters ARE scripture. With very clear instructions, including that women shouldn't speak in church, for example.
Do you honestly believe that?

Inerrancy does not mean literally. I believe that Paul was writing to specific people about a specific problem in his letter, since that problem no longer plagues us today it doesn't apply to us.

Inerrancy does not mean literally. I believe that Paul was writing to specific people about a specific problem in his letter, since that problem no longer plagues us today it doesn't apply to us.

Er.. so you believe in the inerrancy of your interpretation, then? :confused:

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.

Delusion, delusion, all is delusion. Tell yourself something often enough and you'll start to believe it. Sorry

Inerrancy does not mean literally. I believe that Paul was writing to specific people about a specific problem in his letter, since that problem no longer plagues us today it doesn't apply to us.

It seems like everyone's got a different interpretation, and therefore a different idea of what god wants - surely god wanted to prevent this monumental error in reading comprehension and direction-following, and everything is literal, right?

Unless god really doesn't care and just wants you to interpret things to whatever you want them to be, in which case, why even bother writing the bible?

Er.. so you believe in the inerrancy of your interpretation, then? :confused:

I believe that if you are going to study the Bible you need to have historical context. People who are ignorant of the who, what, where, why, and when of the Bible tend to misunderstand the message, and often use things out of context to further their own view of what they think is right.

It seems like everyone's got a different interpretation, and therefore a different idea of what god wants - surely god wanted to prevent this monumental error in reading comprehension and direction-following, and everything is literal, right?
no, not exactly. Everything in the Bible is not literal, there are allegories, and metaphors, etc. Everything is in there to teach something though.

Unless god really doesn't care and just wants you to interpret things to whatever you want them to be, in which case, why even bother writing the bible?
I don't know.

Delusion, delusion, all is delusion. Tell yourself something often enough and you'll start to believe it. Sorry

Seems to be so. The individual interpretation of the bible as it fits people's ideas, the "soul-searching" and convincing yourself that when you speak to yourself, you speak to god, and whatever you hear back could be a sign to what you asked...

Just feels like god's not really involved at all, it's mostly just the person sitting there talking to himself, interpreting things for himself.

Seems to be so. The individual interpretation of the bible as it fits people's ideas, the "soul-searching" and convincing yourself that when you speak to yourself, you speak to god, and whatever you hear back could be a sign to what you asked...

Just feels like god's not really involved at all, it's mostly just the person sitting there talking to himself, interpreting things for himself.
guess so.

bye.

no, not exactly. Everything in the Bible is not literal, there are allegories, and metaphors, etc. Everything is in there to teach something though.


I don't know.

Right, you don't know, which is fine, but now we're finally getting to the point: You don't care.

You don't know, and you don't care. You don't question the bible, even though you know there's so much about it that doesn't make sense - you just leave it at that, and accept whatever makes sense to you in whatever way you can think.

That's very presumptuous, very pretentious, very self-fellating.

So now we've gotten to the heart of it. You're a christian because it's a religion with which you can follow in your heart while leaving your mind behind you. Out of sight, out of mind.

Now I realize I just made a big detective's speech, and those are normally riddled with assumptions, so I'll give you this chance to point out any inconsistencies in my argument.

I believe that if you are going to study the Bible you need to have historical context. People who are ignorant of the who, what, where, why, and when of the Bible tend to misunderstand the message, and often use things out of context to further their own view of what they think is right.

But also consider this: Why would it be in the bible at all if it were just referring to specific people, specific times, while not naming names or places or dates?

guess so.

bye.

*shrugs* If you want to leave, I of course can't stop you.

At this point I invite any other christians (Zilam?) to step in and we can start again where we left off with Smunk.

I believe that if you are going to study the Bible you need to have historical context. People who are ignorant of the who, what, where, why, and when of the Bible tend to misunderstand the message, and often use things out of context to further their own view of what they think is right.

I won't argue with that, but I can't help wondering how you can find inerrancy in things that once were true, but are no longer true. Inerrancy to me implies infallibility, which again implies "not limited to a certain era and area". If you translate inerrancy into everday English, it's "something that's never wrong". Now, there are metaphors and other figures of speech, which can be argued not be supposed to be taken literally, but there are also a lot of very cruel, hateful, spiteful and (in my opinion) morally wrong things in there that are no metaphors by any strech of the imagination.
Now, you're arguing that those only apply to a very limited time and number of people. Which somehow contradicts inerrancy on a very basic level....

It seems like everyone's got a different interpretation, and therefore a different idea of what god wants - surely god wanted to prevent this monumental error in reading comprehension and direction-following, and everything is literal, right?

Unless god really doesn't care and just wants you to interpret things to whatever you want them to be, in which case, why even bother writing the bible?

Eaxctly, if the Bible truely held Gods word then why would God let it have been re-written? Why do we have so many versions?

no, not exactly. Everything in the Bible is not literal, there are allegories, and metaphors, etc. Everything is in there to teach something though.


I don't know.

Of course. Biblical inerrancy does not in any way imply biblical literalism. Your Holy Book can be true, and exact, without necessarily being literal in its description of events.

Take for instance, by contrast, Hindu texts. There are several events in them that we can historically verify, like the war between Ceylon and southern India described by the Ramayana. However at the same time, many of the elements of the narrative in the Ramayana are allegorical, often for the purpose of adding value judgment to various events of the stories, and as a means to say "See that? Don't do it, it's bad."

Of course. Biblical inerrancy does not in any way imply biblical literalism. Your Holy Book can be true, and exact, without necessarily being literal in its description of events.

Take for instance, by contrast, Hindu texts. There are several events in them that we can historically verify, like the war between Ceylon and southern India described by the Ramayana. However at the same time, many of the elements of the narrative in the Ramayana are allegorical, often for the purpose of adding value judgment to various events of the stories, and as a means to say "See that? Don't do it, it's bad."

Right, but that's your interpretation. Get it? If you can interpret it at all, it can be wrong, and is therefore not infallable.

Right, but that's your interpretation. Get it? If you can interpret it at all, it can be wrong, and is therefore not infallable.

Not true. That only becomes an issue with the concept of a single objective truth. If belief is inherently interpretive, which at least one philosopher (John Wisdom, in his essay "Gods") attempted to assert, then two distinct interpretations on the nature of the divine can be true.

Not true. That only becomes an issue with the concept of a single objective truth. If belief is inherently interpretive, which at least one philosopher (John Wisdom, in his essay "Gods") attempted to assert, then two distinct interpretations on the nature of the divine can be true.

Belief can be as interpretive as it wants, but if god specifically wants you to do or not do something, and you interpret it differently than what he wants, then how is that following that god?

Belief can be as interpretive as it wants, but if god specifically wants you to do or not do something, and you interpret it differently than what he wants, then how is that following that god?

I don't really know how to answer that. In Hinduism, and in many of the non-Abrahmic religions, morality isn't dictated exclusively by the gods, but held to be something inherent.

I don't really know how to answer that. In Hinduism, and in many of the non-Abrahmic religions, morality isn't dictated exclusively by the gods, but held to be something inherent.

That's quite possible, but with the subject at hand (christianity), morality is (so they say) dictated by god himself - without god there is no morality.

Regardless, it just seems weird to me that a book made out to be the word of god - infallable word of god, mind you - has such random crap in it that it can be completely ignored and passed off as something that held relevance only at the time of writing, as if god is that short-sighted.

That's quite possible, but with the subject at hand (christianity), morality is (so they say) dictated by god himself - without god there is no morality.

Regardless, it just seems weird to me that a book made out to be the word of god - infallable word of god, mind you - has such random crap in it that it can be completely ignored and passed off as something that held relevance only at the time of writing, as if god is that short-sighted.

Right, my point was that I'm not qualified to answer for Christianity on this subject.

Also, something that's been on my mind for a while.

There's a passage in the bible that goes something along the lines of "Does even nature not show you that to have long hair is a shame unto a man who doth wear it so?" - which is, correct me if I'm wrong, following the logic of "When you get old, your hair falls out, so you shouldn't have so much hair ni the first place".

Now, wtf kind of sense does that make? Sure, your hair falls out when you get old, so what. Most of us spend the majority of our lives with a full head of hair - how is this one part of your life suddenly a lesson from nature itself saying "Hey get that hair tfo your head you hippie"?

This is the kind of logic that got into THE BIBLE. The fucking bible. It talks about length of hair. HAIR, MAN! Why. Seriously. Why would god allow such a ridiculous and meaningless, if not utterly illogical and stupid verse be entered into his holy tome of scripture?

Also, something that's been on my mind for a while.

There's a passage in the bible that goes something along the lines of "Does even nature not show you that to have long hair is a shame unto a man who doth wear it so?" - which is, correct me if I'm wrong, following the logic of "When you get old, your hair falls out, so you shouldn't have so much hair ni the first place".

Now, wtf kind of sense does that make? Sure, your hair falls out when you get old, so what. Most of us spend the majority of our lives with a full head of hair - how is this one part of your life suddenly a lesson from nature itself saying "Hey get that hair tfo your head you hippie"?

This is the kind of logic that got into THE BIBLE. The fucking bible. It talks about length of hair. HAIR, MAN! Why. Seriously. Why would god allow such a ridiculous and meaningless, if not utterly illogical and stupid verse be entered into his holy tome of scripture?

My guess would be hygiene. Especially given that it was written in an era when people were lucky if they took a bath once a year. You steep anything useful in mysticism and you don't have to worry about explaining the science.

My guess would be hygiene. Especially given that it was written in an era when people were lucky if they took a bath once a year. You steep anything useful in mysticism and you don't have to worry about explaining the science.

Yeah but A: Jesus had long hair, and B: Couldn't god simply explain to us to take baths more often? Maybe give us the recipe for soap (which wasn't really invented until around the 1900's)?

Yeah but A: Jesus had long hair, and B: Couldn't god simply explain to us to take baths more often? Maybe give us the recipe for soap (which wasn't really invented until around the 1900's)?

*Shrug* You'd have to ask him. :p

*Shrug* You'd have to ask him. :p

Sadly, there are those who would tell me to do so, and they'd keep a straight face doing it.

Ah, I missed much.

Did anyone ever explicitly tell NeoBret that he was taking the definintion of fact, and applying it to a different word? That he didn't metion the word 'fact', but used its definition?

Yeah but A: Jesus had long hair, and B: Couldn't god simply explain to us to take baths more often? Maybe give us the recipe for soap (which wasn't really invented until around the 1900's)?

How do you know Jesus had long hair? You were around for that? Or maybe you just found a photograph from that era...

Linky (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011%20;&version=9;)

I'm not saying that it makes sense, just that it should probably be read in context. It could be said that he took a Nazarite vow in preparation for his preaching.

Samson's birth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=13&version=9)

And as for the post addressed to me earlier . . . You can't tell whether or not the spiritual experiences in question are faked or real. They could be either, manufactured by a brain who wanted them, or by a God who wanted a person to have them. Impossible to disprove, but rather like masturbating your mind.

Ah, I missed much.

Did anyone ever explicitly tell NeoBret that he was taking the definintion of fact, and applying it to a different word? That he didn't metion the word 'fact', but used its definition?

I don't know if we did so in as many words.

I don't know if we did so in as many words.

I bet you used too many words. Keep it succinct, eh?

I bet you used too many words. Keep it succinct, eh?

The words a priori started floating around, and NeoBret stopped responding.

Ah, I missed much.

Did anyone ever explicitly tell NeoBret that he was taking the definintion of fact, and applying it to a different word? That he didn't metion the word 'fact', but used its definition?

I missed pretty much everything...and its my thread!

The words a priori started floating around, and NeoBret stopped responding.

I noticed, Myu scared him off.

The problem isn't fundamentalism beliefs, it's fundamentalism actions. Of course in truth and in the Bible, actions reflect your beliefs. The problem is that fundamentalists tend to have no feeling for the poor, weak, sick, downtrodden. Their beliefs as they express them are opposite of this, but there actions show no compassion (love) for those beneath them. They demand rather than love. They legislate rather than work for goals. If you ask them they will deny this, but look at the actions not at the words.

Unfortunately, those actions are what the world sees as fundamentalist beliefs. The world doesn't really care if you take Genesis literally. It does care if those beliefs interfere with education of scientists. The world doesn't care if you think everyone not properly baptized is going to hell, they do care if you don't stop and help someone broke down along the side of the road. The world agrees that abortion is bad, it just doesn't understand why you approach the subject with legislation and hate, while at the same time denying aid for the mother in the realm of food, clothing, shelter, education that would give hope for the child.

If you want to have fundamentalist beliefs, you also need to have Christian actions. Otherwise you are by your actions destroying the good name of "Christian".

How do you know Jesus had long hair? You were around for that? Or maybe you just found a photograph from that era...

Linky (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011%20;&version=9;)

I'm not saying that it makes sense, just that it should probably be read in context. It could be said that he took a Nazarite vow in preparation for his preaching.

Samson's birth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=13&version=9)

And as for the post addressed to me earlier . . . You can't tell whether or not the spiritual experiences in question are faked or real. They could be either, manufactured by a brain who wanted them, or by a God who wanted a person to have them. Impossible to disprove, but rather like masturbating your mind.

No, of course I have no idea about anything back then really. Nobody does. What science can't tell us with archaeology and what historians can't tell us through lineage, people think they can get by relying on the church and the bible.

Which I disagree with, but whatever.

Going with what the church says he looks like, considering it's their savior and their book, (we've all seen the photos of him looking like he just came off the set of The OC, apparently that's how the church has imagined him to look) he had long hair.

The problem isn't fundamentalism beliefs, it's fundamentalism actions. Of course in truth and is the Bible, actions reflect your beliefs. The problem is that fundamentalists tend to have no feeling for the poor, weak, sick, downtrodden. Their beliefs as they express them are opposite of this, but there actions show no compassion (love) for those beneath them. They demand rather than love. They legislate rather than work for goals. If you ask them they will deny this, but look at the actions not at the words.

Unfortunately, those actions are what the world sees as fundamentalist beliefs. The world doesn't really care if you take Genesis literally. It does care if those beliefs interfere with education of scientists. The world doesn't care if you think everyone not properly baptized is going to hell, they do care if you don't stop and help someone broke down along the side of the road. The world agrees that abortion is bad, it just doesn't understand why you approach the subject with legislation and hate, while at the same time denying aid for the mother in the realm of food, clothing, shelter, education that would give hope for the child.

If you want to have fundamentalist beliefs, you also need to have Christian actions. Otherwise you are by your actions destroying the good name of "Christian".

Quote for untruth. I, among many many others, do not believe abortion is bad.

Ah, I missed much.

Did anyone ever explicitly tell NeoBret that he was taking the definintion of fact, and applying it to a different word? That he didn't metion the word 'fact', but used its definition?

Several times.

Several times.

Ah, all that stuff.

I can't keep repeating myself over and over. It's bad for the digestion. I didn't say that faith was more accurate than fact. That would be illogical since comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. What I said was (since it appears to be too difficult for you to read my posts I'll paste it here for you.):



Then I said



So to spell it out for you, what I said was that the spiritual source is more reliable than the 5 senses.

If you honestly believe that information gathered by the 5 senses MUST be fact, then you've never heard of hallucinations, schizophrenia, color blindness etc, all cases where some or all of the 5 senses gather inaccurate data and therefore NOT fact. This is precisely why I avoided the discussion of fact.

Now, if you disagree with me on the relative reliability of spirituality or even its existence, I don't care so don't bother belaboring it. I very specifically adressed my original post to the scenario in which those things are true. Here, for your convenience:



I can't make it any cleaer than that, so if you still feel the need to try and characterize my argument as being somehow a redefinition of facts as we know them, then just know you're proving a complete lack of willingness to discuss the issue head on, prefering instead to bog it down with strawmen.

Look how much ya'll let him talk. By the end of the post, he has managed to get back to simply denying whatever you've said. Far too much extraneous detail is put into your responses, one might prefer to stick to what is important, and shave off any pointless bits of the other's posts. And when that means you're removing the entire post, your argument is done.

Ah, all that stuff.



Look how much ya'll let him talk. By the end of the post, he has managed to get back to simply denying whatever you've said. Far too much extraneous detail is put into your responses, one might prefer to stick to what is important, and shave off any pointless bits of the other's posts. And when that means you're removing the entire post, your argument is done.

*shrugs* Feel free! I'm not even sure he's on this thread anymore. Lol. It's become kinda dead since Smunk left, which makes me sad.

*shrugs* Feel free! I'm not even sure he's on this thread anymore. Lol. It's become kinda dead since Smunk left, which makes me sad.

Yeah. Really though, that rantlette up there is about debates on NSG in general.

The problem isn't fundamentalism beliefs, it's fundamentalism actions. Of course in truth and in the Bible, actions reflect your beliefs. The problem is that fundamentalists tend to have no feeling for the poor, weak, sick, downtrodden. Their beliefs as they express them are opposite of this, but there actions show no compassion (love) for those beneath them. They demand rather than love. They legislate rather than work for goals. If you ask them they will deny this, but look at the actions not at the words.

Unfortunately, those actions are what the world sees as fundamentalist beliefs.

You just got done saying that actions are more important than beliefs. I happen to agree with that, so I don't remotely see why it is "unfortunate" that the world judges fundamentalism by its actions rather than its ideals. Who the fuck cares what somebody "believes," if they act in a manner that completely belies those beliefs?


The world doesn't really care if you take Genesis literally.

There are a great many people in the world who are prepared to kill those who do not take Genesis literally. And it only takes one of them to seriously ruin your day.


It does care if those beliefs interfere with education of scientists.

Actually, "the world" seems to have a history of demonizing and attacking scientists whenever science doesn't support religious preconceptions. Even today, scientists are continually expected to pay lip service to superstition and pad all the nasty details and facts in order to protect "people of faith" and "spirituality."


The world doesn't care if you think everyone not properly baptized is going to hell, they do care if you don't stop and help someone broke down along the side of the road.

I'd say it's an even split, these days. In my country, you're going to have a much easier time getting funding for the first cause than for the second.


The world agrees that abortion is bad, it just doesn't understand why you approach the subject with legislation and hate, while at the same time denying aid for the mother in the realm of food, clothing, shelter, education that would give hope for the child.

"The world" agrees no such thing. Indeed, a great many people in the world believe that the right to abort one's own pregnancy is a fundamental right, and that fundamental rights should be defended, protected, and upheld. In the Western world, at least one in every three women will have an abortion at some time during her life. The fact that you choose to close yourself off to this does not speak highly about your ability to offer insight on "the world."


If you want to have fundamentalist beliefs, you also need to have Christian actions. Otherwise you are by your actions destroying the good name of "Christian".
I don't think any particular actions can redeem the complete and utter failure that is fundamentalist superstitious beliefs. The best you can do is pass for an adult by adhering to basic standards of decency.

There are a great many people in the world who are prepared to kill those who do not take Genesis literally. And it only takes one of them to seriously ruin your day. I've never seen a report of this. I have seen reports of fundies threatening violence.


Actually, "the world" seems to have a history of demonizing and attacking scientists whenever science doesn't support religious preconceptions. Again the actions of fundie people are opposed to their words and "beliefs".

"The world" agrees no such thing. Indeed, a great many people in the world believe that the right to abort one's own pregnancy is a fundamental right, and that fundamental rights should be defended, protected, and upheld. In the Western world, at least one in every three women will have an abortion at some time during her life. The fact that you choose to close yourself off to this does not speak highly about your ability to offer insight on "the world."
According to the polls most people support the right to choose, but even those who choose don't see it as a "good". I know of at least a half dozen abortions and I don't know of one woman that had one that considers it a "good". Most had an abortion due to a lack of hope or other options at the time. This goes back to my point. Fundies want to use the legal system to enforce belief while not offering the hope of food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education, etc to the mother and child. Try to get a fundie to vote for welfare.

And yet one of the basics of the Bible is to care for those at the bottom. You see the problem is, what words of the Bible are your fundamental beliefs? Fundies believe in the things that aid them personally but not those that aid others. Mat 7:22-23 These words are directed toward the actions of fundies by Jesus. Jesus himself saw the problem with mentally believing but not having the love in one's actions. The Fundamentalists of his time were the same as fundamentalists today. And he saved his severest condemnation for them because they knew the words but not the heart.

Yes, we really do.
I can't speak for America; I was talking about where I live.

I take it you haven't walked down O'Connell street recently, then? Or did the guy with the speaker boxes proclaiming that we are all sinners but Jesus loves us escape your attention? He's usually on the corner of Earl street.
No I've never noticed that guy. The last possibly Christian-related hullabaloo I saw on O'Connell St was some anti-abortion protest recently.

And I'm not referring to the majority of Christians.[/QUOTE
And yet you think a backlash against them is OK.

But you are lying:
[QUOTE]Us non-belivers get plastered all day with people shouting "REPENT!!"
All day? I bet that almost every Christian you know does not behave at all like that.

into ours ears telling us how we'll burn in hell, how we condem society by allowing gays human rights
"Jesus loves you" is not the same as "you'll burn in hell", obviously. And you still don't hear it constantly.

Again, most Christians agree with human rights, and this fact is quite publicly evident. You're just refusing to see the good because you want to be a bigot.

how we're killers for saying that abortions are a woman's choice
Do you object because of the emotive language, or because they disagree with you?

Oh, but those Christians don't count. They're bad Christians, so the harassment from them doesn't count as real harassment.

:rolleyes:
Not at all, but it sounds to me like people are exaggerating the presence of obnoxious Christians in order to justify their anti-Christian bigotry.

Fundies believe in the things that aid them personally but not those that aid others. Mat 7:22-23 These words are directed toward the actions of fundies by Jesus. Jesus himself saw the problem with mentally believing but not having the love in one's actions. The Fundamentalists of his time were the same as fundamentalists today. And he saved his severest condemnation for them because they knew the words but not the heart.
By "fundies" you clearly mean "hypocrites". Fundamentalist is the least correctly used word of our times, IMO.

I agree that the loudmouth right-wing Christians of America are disturbingly similar to the Pharisees of the NT. But also remember that this is only the US you are talking about; Christians throughout the world have many different political views, and most are to the left of the people you're talking about.

I agree that the loudmouth right-wing Christians of America are disturbingly similar to the Pharisees of the NT. But also remember that this is only the US you are talking about; Christians throughout the world have many different political views, and most are to the left of the people you're talking about.

On war and poverty, perhaps. On gay rights and abortion, probably not.

On war and poverty, perhaps. On gay rights and abortion, probably not.
O RLY? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_Spain)

You really are very reluctant to see Christians as anything other than what the Christian right media machine presents to you, aren't you?

In my country, for example, those who align most with the US government positions on the broad issues of war and poverty are atheist neo-liberals. Your apparent equation of atheist with left-wing and Christian with right-wing is US-Amero-centric.

Hugo Chavez is a famous contemporary example of a Christian political leader who is not at all right wing.

Some Christians agree with the legality of abortion, some don't. I do not have statistics, but pretty much all of Europe has legalised it in a democratic manner.

I do not agree with the legality of abortion. I see it as a human rights issue. I view my opposition to capital punishment, war, abortion and the global inequality of wealth as being closely tied together, based around human life, dignity and compassion. I could not, in good conscience, support any of them, because it would be, and feel, inconsistent. I do not regard myself as any less left-wing for my opinon.

O RLY? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_Spain)

Some Christians agree with the legality of abortion, some don't. I do not have numbers, but pretty much all of Europe has legalised it in a democratic manner (not in the same way as America)

I wasn't aware that "the world" encompassed the US and Europe alone.

I could not, in good conscience, support any of them, because it would be, and feel, inconsistent.

Since it's beyond absurd to treat fetuses as persons with full human rights, this problem does not exist for me.

Edit:

You really are very reluctant to see Christians as anything other than what the Christian right media machine presents to you, aren't you?

MLK, Leonardo Boff, Oscar Romero, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Camilo Torres, Gustavo Gutierrez, Daniel and Phillip Berrigan, Leo Tolstoy, Dorothy Day....

Hmm, no.

In my country, for example, those who align most with the US government positions on the broad issues of war and poverty are atheist neo-liberals. Your apparent equation of atheist with left-wing and Christian with right-wing is Amero-centric.

I don't believe I've made either equation.

Christianity as an institution tends to be in favor of class society, even if it prefers certain kinds of reform; see the Catholic hierarchy's reaction to Liberation Theology, for instance. Historically it has aligned itself with conservatism against radical reformers, and the substantive attacks on power and privilege (that is, beyond papal rhetoric) that have come from it have overwhelmingly come from dissidents. This doesn't say much about CHRISTIANS, merely about CHRISTIANITY (or really, the institutions of organized religion in general, not the teachings of Jesus.)

Atheism certainly has no intrinsic tendency towards leftism, though for cultural reasons there is a correlation in the US.

While I recognize your right to refrain from arguing or doing anything we ask you to, it does make you seem in the wrong. I use the word "wrong" lightly, since there is no right and wrong in this scenario, but it still applies in the context of trying to understand whether or not your method of faith is any more than a form of spiritual masturbation. For lack of better terms.

She often discusses her faith with people who disagree with it. To people like myself and GnI. She gets tired of feeling under attack by people on NSG who have nothing better to do than to justify their own beliefs by harrassing her about hers. Not discuss. Harass. Tell her she's crazy or all religious individuals are. Tell her she's illogical, irrational, etc. I read up on some of your other replies to her and you hit it on the head. People are all wondering, seeking ultimate truth. I, Smunk, and lots of religious people believe it is unknowable, but you can have beliefs about it. That's rational. UB believes he not only has knowledge of absolute truth but that he proved God doesn't exist. If people were being true to being dedicated to logic and rational thought, they'd be all over UB way before they'd be attacking Smunk.

UB, amusingly, uses as much faith as anyone else. He loses arguments all the time on logical points and just plugs his fingers in his ears and screams. What is the point of trying to explain your faith to someone who is just going to attack you because they're angry with God. And, rest assured, UB is angry with God. What is it Shakespeare said about people who protest too much?

He can claim it's because he feels they behave the same way, but Smunkee doesn't. So either he's doesn't know what individuals are and his bigotry is unbounded or he does and simply doesn't care that he's attempting to beat down someone who not only isn't like that, but doesn't like people who are.

Ex:
Well, from previous experience with you I know you in fact can't. You live in your own private bubble of self-styled convenient faith and are proud of it. You will never be able to really inform anyone else about your "creator". I've dealt with people like you all my life.


If you'd actually like to discuss Smunk's faith with her, she's happy to do it with just about anyone who has a remotely open mind. Trying to get her to open up to the trolls isn't likely to work.

According to the polls most people support the right to choose, but even those who choose don't see it as a "good".

I don't see them as bad either. They just are.

Ah, I missed much.

Did anyone ever explicitly tell NeoBret that he was taking the definintion of fact, and applying it to a different word? That he didn't metion the word 'fact', but used its definition?

Man, I tried to read this thread, but besides the rather reasonable people I know already, and who are really saying things we've all said before, there was just too much tripe from both extremes to sift through. Has anyone read this thread all the way through?

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

No!

*Slaps Wrist with ruler*

By "fundies" you clearly mean "hypocrites". Fundamentalist is the least correctly used word of our times, IMO.

I agree that the loudmouth right-wing Christians of America are disturbingly similar to the Pharisees of the NT. But also remember that this is only the US you are talking about; Christians throughout the world have many different political views, and most are to the left of the people you're talking about.

Exactly correct. The problem is those fundies that get the press are the "conservative christians?". Their actions reflect their inner workings, not their stated beliefs. Just as the hypocrites--conservative--fundamentalists--detailed regulation followers-- of Jesus time. As you stated, those (including Jesus) who follow the Christian doctrine would be considered liberal. They worry and try to aid the poor, sick, weak, downtrodden, etc. Try to discuss social problems with anyone that labels themself "Fundamentalist, Conservative, christian?" They simply aren't interested or outright hostile.

The problem (as it was in Jesus day) is the rules and stories of the OT were to teach actions and an internal caring. Today as then, the rules are not as important as the actions that reflect an internal love of fellow humans. Re: "The Good Samaritan" the priests were following the rules to the T. They didn't understand the greater meaning of the rules. Yet they were considered the "Fundamentalist Jews" of the time.

I don't see them as bad either. They just are.

I think if we did a poll a neutral response wouldn't lift the needle. A positive would do only slightly better.

As I said above, I've known those who have had abortions. They all see abortion as a negative, but the bigger negative would have been a pregnancy with no hope. An abortion is a procedure that very few make without reservations and regrets. Usually it becomes a major part of the woman's psyche.

If the question is the right to an abortion, they would be extremely supportive.

As with anything you will be able to find that person that falls outside of the norm.

You sound much like I did on my pathway to atheism. ;)

You sound much like I did on my pathway to atheism. ;)

You should really be more specific as to who you're talking about as you didn't quote anyone.

You sound much like I did on my pathway to atheism. ;)

I went through atheism, agnostic, and a bunch of isms on my way to my own religion based on the writings of the world peoples. Basically Christian in the original sense, not the present sense. But as I studied the religions of the world it became obvious that there is a common thread. Then I found that the Bible allows for this common thread as it states that anyone that can look at creation and see a creator and honor that creator has seen that which became the Jesus of 30 years. Most Christians only recognize those 30 years even though a REAL fundamentalist sees the creator throughout the Bible and throughout most other inspired religious writings. Most other writings also recognize the basics of Christianity. The debate is over the details of culture rather than foundational beliefs. Jesus said in my father's house are many rooms. God in his wisdom has reached out and given the same message to all peoples. And he did it in a way that each would understand. Since I'm in a Christian culture I understand best the Christian slant. To be an atheist is to deny an instinct that is inherent and cross cultural in the human animal.

Christianity (and several other religions by the way) only has two rules: Love God, Love everyone else. All of the other rules are commentary on those two. All of the stories of the Bible and most other religious writings are commentary on those two. If the "fundamentalists" would simply look at every rule and story as a commentary on those two, if the pharisees would have looked at every rule as a commentary on those two, Jesus would not have stated Mat 7:22. And people would come to belief through observation of the acts of Christians, rather being repelled by the acts of those using the name Christian.

You should really be more specific as to who you're talking about as you didn't quote anyone.

Give him a break. It was his first post. Don't drive away a new friend.

No I've never noticed that guy. The last possibly Christian-related hullabaloo I saw on O'Connell St was some anti-abortion protest recently.

I'm sure he'll be there on Saturday. Go and have a look. He was giving out to me one day for going into Ann Summers.


And yet you think a backlash against them is OK.

If you howl with the wolfs, don't be surprised if a farmer shoots you.


But you are lying:

All day? I bet that almost every Christian you know does not behave at all like that.

I'm lying? I never said that all Christians do that. And the majority of people I choose to spend time with are not Christian. Nice accusations you're making here....
In my experience you can't go near Christians without being told soon enough that you are a sinner and need to accept the punishment of Jesus' love...


"Jesus loves you" is not the same as "you'll burn in hell", obviously. And you still don't hear it constantly.

And yet, I keep hearing that again and again, sometimes even in the same sentence, from self-proclaimed saviours calling themselves Christian.


Again, most Christians agree with human rights, and this fact is quite publicly evident. You're just refusing to see the good because you want to be a bigot.


Oh, so you've reached the level of name-calling already, have you?
How do you know so precisely what I see and hear?


Do you object because of the emotive language, or because they disagree with you?

Both.


Not at all, but it sounds to me like people are exaggerating the presence of obnoxious Christians in order to justify their anti-Christian bigotry.

I'm not anti-Christian. I just wished they'd finally leave people in peace.

O RLY? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_Spain)

You really are very reluctant to see Christians as anything other than what the Christian right media machine presents to you, aren't you?

In my country, for example, those who align most with the US government positions on the broad issues of war and poverty are atheist neo-liberals. Your apparent equation of atheist with left-wing and Christian with right-wing is US-Amero-centric.

Hugo Chavez is a famous contemporary example of a Christian political leader who is not at all right wing.

Some Christians agree with the legality of abortion, some don't. I do not have statistics, but pretty much all of Europe has legalised it in a democratic manner.

I do not agree with the legality of abortion. I see it as a human rights issue. I view my opposition to capital punishment, war, abortion and the global inequality of wealth as being closely tied together, based around human life, dignity and compassion. I could not, in good conscience, support any of them, because it would be, and feel, inconsistent. I do not regard myself as any less left-wing for my opinon.

Er... what does Spain legalising gay marriage have to do with Christians? If I recall correctly, Chrisitans mostly played the role of protestors in the proceedings. The pope himself felt the need to urge the Spanish government to take back their reforms.

And the fact that Europe has for the most part legalised abortions is despite of Christianity, not because of it.

I noticed, Myu scared him off.
That's unfortunate. Your original question of the origin of their axioms shall remain unanswered, I guess.

Maybe I can fill in in his place? As a mystic with a western affiliation, I can easily stand in on the Christian side and tackle a few of their issues for you.

That's unfortunate. Your original question of the origin of their axioms shall remain unanswered, I guess.

Maybe I can fill in in his place? As a mystic with a western affiliation, I can easily stand in on the Christian side and tackle a few of their issues for you.

Go for it, this topic needs a replacement christian or two.

That's unfortunate. Your original question of the origin of their axioms shall remain unanswered, I guess.

Maybe I can fill in in his place? As a mystic with a western affiliation, I can easily stand in on the Christian side and tackle a few of their issues for you.

I am a Christian. I don't find much in this topic worth answering, but I admit that I couldn't make it through more than a few pages. The extremists on both sides were too much for me. If people want to ask questions of a Christian I'm happy to answer them.

I am a Christian. I don't find much in this topic worth answering, but I admit that I couldn't make it through more than a few pages. The extremists on both sides were too much for me. If people want to ask questions of a Christian I'm happy to answer them.

Woot.


Alrighty, here we go. Buckle up.



Why did you become a christian?

Why did you remain a christian?

I'm assuming you'll refuse to convert to another religion, say, Hinduism - please explain why.

Are you a fundamentalist (going by the criteria listed by Smunk in this thread)?

If so, why? If not, why?

What is god's ultimate plan?

Do you have any ideas on why a perfect being would bother creating anything if he was already perfect to begin with?

On the concept of free will, wouldn't it be an insult to god's gift of intelligence to not use it to question him? An insult to god's gift of free will to use it without being restricted by the torment of hell?

How do you know Jesus was the messiah?

Why have faith?

Why trust the bible?

Do you feel that you need religion in your life, or is it something you just want, like a taco craving, rather than an epipen when you go into anaphylactic shock?

Do you believe anyone can know anything about god for sure?

Why do you feel the bible was written the way it was, with such an ability to be interpreted incorrectly?

What's your opinion on Lucifer/Satan? Subquestion, do you feel the story of the rebellion in heaven was a metaphor or do you take it literally? Either way, please explain why.

The bible leaves a slight opening in for a polytheistic argument - do you believe there could be other gods? If so, please explain your thoughts on how they would relate to the abrahamic god.





Let's just start out with these questions first, and we'll work our way up. :3

This is putting me in the mood to set up an "Ask a Hindu" thread. Too bad those are apparently banned.

Woot.


Alrighty, here we go. Buckle up.

Mind if I do this a bit at a time. I reply to NS during times when my scripts are running or after I've completed a paper and someone is proof-reading it. During the gaps. I don't have huge gaps and these are big questions.


Why did you become a christian?

Originally, I encountered Christianity when I was a child. My family didn't go to Church but I often went with friends because I enjoyed learning about almost anything and God and Jesus were more interesting things to learn about. I loved to read and read almost anything I could find, this includes the Bible.

As one would expect, I found the Bible confusing. I saw no evidence for the loving God (I read it in order) that Christians described. I started looking around and I found little evidence in my fellow Christians as well. The people who talked about charity and kindness were the same people I saw making fun of homeless people and talking about one another behind their backs, etc.

Keep in mind that at the same time I was going through some really rough times. My sister was in the hospital dying. I was trying to deal with having been molested for over a year and I was dealing with it alone. I was convinced that because the molester was a girl and I didn't enjoy it that something was wrong with me. I was 9. Yes, 9. What kind of 9-year-old weighs these kinds of things in life? Well, if you were standing in front of me, you'd be looking at him.

So I struggled in life and in the faith. I was violent but at the same time sort of chivalrous. A bit of a Batman complex.

(sorry, work to do. I'll finish later.) Feel free to ask more questions.

Originally, I encountered Christianity when I was a child. My family didn't go to Church but I often went with friends because I enjoyed learning about almost anything and God and Jesus were more interesting things to learn about. I loved to read and read almost anything I could find, this includes the Bible.

As one would expect, I found the Bible confusing. I saw no evidence for the loving God (I read it in order) that Christians described. I started looking around and I found little evidence in my fellow Christians as well. The people who talked about charity and kindness were the same people I saw making fun of homeless people and talking about one another behind their backs, etc.

Keep in mind that at the same time I was going through some really rough times. My sister was in the hospital dying. I was trying to deal with having been molested for over a year and I was dealing with it alone. I was convinced that because the molester was a girl and I didn't enjoy it that something was wrong with me. I was 9. Yes, 9. What kind of 9-year-old weighs these kinds of things in life? Well, if you were standing in front of me, you'd be looking at him.

So I struggled in life and in the faith. I was violent but at the same time sort of chivalrous. A bit of a Batman complex.

(sorry, work to do. I'll finish later.) Feel free to ask more questions.

Oh of course, I understand if you want to answer in parts. I'm just glad I finally have someone answering them at all.



So how did you get through that period of your life while remaining faithful, and how has it affected you as you are today?






EDIT: Also, I'd like to mention that these series of questions are for -anyone- who follows the christian faith, and they can answer and participate as they wish.

This is putting me in the mood to set up an "Ask a Hindu" thread. Too bad those are apparently banned.

Why would they be banned?

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.
I support you 100% in your assertion that being a Christian is not about following rules. However, if you truly have religious or spiritual mind-set, there is one rule that is inescapable and that overshadows (and, one could say, dictates) all the other rules and puts them in perspective, and that is the Golden one. If you're treating others as well as you'd treat yourself, and knowing why you are doing that, then it should be obvious why you are not supposed to curse or tell dirty jokes to those who don't necessarily want to hear them.

Ok, although I said its not a sexual relationships like between a guy and gal dating, let me explain it in those terms.
Hahaha!

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
Well, there are no other standards. We are the ones (the Adam) whom God gave the task to name things. We make the rules, as you say, and "standards" are part of that.

...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. :)
Good post.

Why would they be banned?

I dunno, someone had an "Ask a...(Christian I think)" thread a few weeks back and while it kept up, someone mentioned early on that the mods weren't fond of such threads.

He came to set them free from an impossible system of laws and regulations.
Mind if I quote you?

I dunno, someone had an "Ask a...(Christian I think)" thread a few weeks back and while it kept up, someone mentioned early on that the mods weren't fond of such threads.

Eh I don't see why. Really all the threads here are just people answering questions.

Eh I don't see why. Really all the threads here are just people answering questions.

As I recall that thread became pretty contentious pretty quickly, and more or less dissolved into a pool of theist vs. atheist bickering...a bit like this thread in fact :P

Oh of course, I understand if you want to answer in parts. I'm just glad I finally have someone answering them at all.

So how did you get through that period of your life while remaining faithful, and how has it affected you as you are today?

EDIT: Also, I'd like to mention that these series of questions are for -anyone- who follows the christian faith, and they can answer and participate as they wish.

I didn't. I'll explain further in a moment.

As I recall that thread became pretty contentious pretty quickly, and more or less dissolved into a pool of theist vs. atheist bickering...a bit like this thread in fact :P

Snarkiness =/= bickering. :p

Give him a break. It was his first post. Don't drive away a new friend.

A: I don't think I was being unfriendly there, just giving the poster some needed advice.

B: I don't know that he's a new friend. For all I know he's the atheist equivalent of Deep Kimchi Online.

As I recall that thread became pretty contentious pretty quickly, and more or less dissolved into a pool of theist vs. atheist bickering...a bit like this thread in fact :P

[Pulls out the walker - and looks really confused because most of you should remember this unless all you old timers have gone senile]

A long time ago sonny there was a spate of "Ask a . . ." threads, it soon reached a point where they were being mocked with threads such as "Ask a dog" or "Ask a toaster" and through all of nation states general the only threads that could be found started with Ask A . . . it was at this point that the mods said fuck no you guys aren't doing that shit anymore and banned "Ask a . . ." threads.

Man, I tried to read this thread, but besides the rather reasonable people I know already, and who are really saying things we've all said before, there was just too much tripe from both extremes to sift through. Has anyone read this thread all the way through?

I mentioned you, actually. *nodnod*

Focusing completely on God doesn't really leave you time to focus on maintaining your relationship, now does it?
Thing is, you do that in the context of all the activities of your regular life. It's a mind-set, like optimism.

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."
More like, everything you do *is* an act of god; you have "no choice" in the matter, because that's the way you've defined yourself, just as the optimist defines himself by looking at the bright side (which gives rise to the often mistaken concepts of predetermination and pre-destiny, which aren't really "pre-" at all).

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.
It doesn't have to be that way, if you simply understand that eternity is "now", the moment with no beginning and no ending, the "point in the time-line" (haha) where consciousness resides. The "servant" is one who acts and lives in the moment in accordance with God.

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.
Actually, I think this analogy works better for the 'enlightened' spiritual person, as well. To use Plato's cave as an example, the person in the light is the person in the cave looking at the shadows on the wall, for you cannot have shadows without light. The shadows on the walls are not shadows to the people in the cave, and if "God" is to be found at all, it's in the "shadowy" life-forms passing by the caves that cast images on the wall.

With such an analogy in hand, people who are 'living in the dark,' as Zilam said, are those who are actually drowning in the light.

I didn't. I'll explain further in a moment.

Agh, cliffhangers...

Originally, I encountered Christianity when I was a child. My family didn't go to Church but I often went with friends because I enjoyed learning about almost anything and God and Jesus were more interesting things to learn about. I loved to read and read almost anything I could find, this includes the Bible.

As one would expect, I found the Bible confusing. I saw no evidence for the loving God (I read it in order) that Christians described. I started looking around and I found little evidence in my fellow Christians as well. The people who talked about charity and kindness were the same people I saw making fun of homeless people and talking about one another behind their backs, etc.

Keep in mind that at the same time I was going through some really rough times. My sister was in the hospital dying. I was trying to deal with having been molested for over a year and I was dealing with it alone. I was convinced that because the molester was a girl and I didn't enjoy it that something was wrong with me. I was 9. Yes, 9. What kind of 9-year-old weighs these kinds of things in life? Well, if you were standing in front of me, you'd be looking at him.

So I struggled in life and in the faith. I was violent but at the same time sort of chivalrous. A bit of a Batman complex.

(sorry, work to do. I'll finish later.) Feel free to ask more questions.

So here I am fighting and violent and ridiculous in some ways and charitible and a credit to my community in others. Wildly confused. Yeah, odd that I'd be doing all this at 9, no? See what happens with two parents working almost double full-time.

So I hit 10, my sister is still sick and she comes home from the hospital for Christmas. (I'll just copy an excerpt from a writing of mine to save time).

-
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8671397&postcount=355

I didn't write that for NS. I just copied it in for that thread.

Anywho, that puzzled me for a long time. I would see people doing good things with no request for reward. Not even a clue to their identity. No personal value to that good deed whatsoever. It was a new experience to me.

I knew I wanted to be that kind of person. The opposite of these people I was encountering. People could think I was an awful person on the surface, could condemn me to death, to torture for my deeds, provided my deeds, my actual actions served some higher purpose. I want to be a service to fellow man. Maybe not always, maybe. But definitely, I figured I could help provided I modeled myself after Santa Claus. (Hey, this makes sense when you're about 10). I take that back. It makes sense now.

I started to lose my faith, actually. I had this silly notion that calling yourself Christian saved you while you behaved in a way I certainly didn't want to be associated with. Oddly, what I miss about that time is that my view of the world, in terms of seeing how one should be was so unclouded. Now, we have to balance responsibility with our works. I have to ensure I meet the needs of all who depend on me so I have to balance things I want to do and don't. Etc. The mouths of babes and all.

Now, I'm about 13. In terms of faith really struggling. I would have to say I always had faith in one form or another, because I was pretty mad at God. I thought he was unfair. "Unfair" was something I saw a lot of back then.

And I went to live with my uncle. A man who never talked about faith, but just oozed goodness. A man who sacrificed to save me from myself and all of the people who were confusing me. A man who taught me that I had a responsibilty to the world, to everyone I encounter. A man who taught me that whether we know it or not, we're a force in the world, a force of change and that if we aren't aware of that force we can have a bad influence.

(Hey, you asked a complicated question)

So I'm in my room and in my heart. Not praying. Not really talking to anyone, specifically, but just hurting. My heart literally hurt. Everything felt wrong. Not teenager kind of wrong. Guilty kind of wrong. The kind of wrong I still feel when I do things I'm not proud of. And I was just sort of asking questions to the air. Complaining about how things are unfair. Complaining about how people who seem to ask less questions of the world seem to get more answers or are, at least, more satisfied with the answers they get. That I see so many good poor people and so many bad rich ones. That everything is "unfair".

And, I just feel this thing happening to me. I can't explain it exactly, because you're not me, but it was liks I figured it out. I felt right. My heart stopped hurting. I realized that I needn't seek the approval of others (I wish I could say now I don't, but I do and way to often). That I needn't look to other PEOPLE for answers to questions they can't answer. It was so clear so logical.

And I didn't leave that room feeling like I KNEW the answers to questions I had, but I felt like they were out there and that if I learned them, I would like those answers. I felt like I could listen to my heart and that God had put that wrong and right feeling there for me as a guide. And I could think back to all the wrong things I'd done in my life and how my heart had been telling me then and all the right things where it was the same.

So here I just have a simple faith in God. No more. No less. At this point, at 13, I'm not Christian. But I have a faith, a clean, clear faith in a higher power. (more later)

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.
Haha. :D

So here I am fighting and violent and ridiculous in some ways and charitible and a credit to my community in others. Wildly confused. Yeah, odd that I'd be doing all this at 9, no? See what happens with two parents working almost double full-time.

So I hit 10, my sister is still sick and she comes home from the hospital for Christmas. (I'll just copy an excerpt from a writing of mine to save time).

-
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8671397&postcount=355

I didn't write that for NS. I just copied it in for that thread.

Anywho, that puzzled me for a long time. I would see people doing good things with no request for reward. Not even a clue to their identity. No personal value to that good deed whatsoever. It was a new experience to me.

I knew I wanted to be that kind of person. The opposite of these people I was encountering. People could think I was an awful person on the surface, could condemn me to death, to torture for my deeds, provided my deeds, my actual actions served some higher purpose. I want to be a service to fellow man. Maybe not always, maybe. But definitely, I figured I could help provided I modeled myself after Santa Claus. (Hey, this makes sense when you're about 10). I take that back. It makes sense now.

I started to lose my faith, actually. I had this silly notion that calling yourself Christian saved you while you behaved in a way I certainly didn't want to be associated with. Oddly, what I miss about that time is that my view of the world, in terms of seeing how one should be was so unclouded. Now, we have to balance responsibility with our works. I have to ensure I meet the needs of all who depend on me so I have to balance things I want to do and don't. Etc. The mouths of babes and all.

Now, I'm about 13. In terms of faith really struggling. I would have to say I always had faith in one form or another, because I was pretty mad at God. I thought he was unfair. "Unfair" was something I saw a lot of back then.

And I went to live with my uncle. A man who never talked about faith, but just oozed goodness. A man who sacrificed to save me from myself and all of the people who were confusing me. A man who taught me that I had a responsibilty to the world, to everyone I encounter. A man who taught me that whether we know it or not, we're a force in the world, a force of change and that if we aren't aware of that force we can have a bad influence.

(Hey, you asked a complicated question)

So I'm in my room and in my heart. Not praying. Not really talking to anyone, specifically, but just hurting. My heart literally hurt. Everything felt wrong. Not teenager kind of wrong. Guilty kind of wrong. The kind of wrong I still feel when I do things I'm not proud of. And I was just sort of asking questions to the air. Complaining about how things are unfair. Complaining about how people who seem to ask less questions of the world seem to get more answers or are, at least, more satisfied with the answers they get. That I see so many good poor people and so many bad rich ones. That everything is "unfair".

And, I just feel this thing happening to me. I can't explain it exactly, because you're not me, but it was liks I figured it out. I felt right. My heart stopped hurting. I realized that I needn't seek the approval of others (I wish I could say now I don't, but I do and way to often). That I needn't look to other PEOPLE for answers to questions they can't answer. It was so clear so logical.

And I didn't leave that room feeling like I KNEW the answers to questions I had, but I felt like they were out there and that if I learned them, I would like those answers. I felt like I could listen to my heart and that God had put that wrong and right feeling there for me as a guide. And I could think back to all the wrong things I'd done in my life and how my heart had been telling me then and all the right things where it was the same.

So here I just have a simple faith in God. No more. No less. At this point, at 13, I'm not Christian. But I have a faith, a clean, clear faith in a higher power. (more later)

*coughcough*

Sooooo...Szanth is probably gonna wonder how that sudden heart feeling links to believing in a god. Were I to take that tack, I'd probably mention when I'm troubling over a logic puzzle, and suddenly it clicks, and everything seems right. Mebbe you just had a bigger puzzle, n' got a bigger high?

But besides that, my questions were more towards a what if scenario. what if you weren't Christian, if you weren't explicitly following Christ? What would change about you? Don't you do what you do, because you know it's the right thing to do?

So here I am fighting and violent and ridiculous in some ways and charitible and a credit to my community in others. Wildly confused. Yeah, odd that I'd be doing all this at 9, no? See what happens with two parents working almost double full-time.

So I hit 10, my sister is still sick and she comes home from the hospital for Christmas. (I'll just copy an excerpt from a writing of mine to save time).

-
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8671397&postcount=355

I didn't write that for NS. I just copied it in for that thread.

Anywho, that puzzled me for a long time. I would see people doing good things with no request for reward. Not even a clue to their identity. No personal value to that good deed whatsoever. It was a new experience to me.

I knew I wanted to be that kind of person. The opposite of these people I was encountering. People could think I was an awful person on the surface, could condemn me to death, to torture for my deeds, provided my deeds, my actual actions served some higher purpose. I want to be a service to fellow man. Maybe not always, maybe. But definitely, I figured I could help provided I modeled myself after Santa Claus. (Hey, this makes sense when you're about 10). I take that back. It makes sense now.

I started to lose my faith, actually. I had this silly notion that calling yourself Christian saved you while you behaved in a way I certainly didn't want to be associated with. Oddly, what I miss about that time is that my view of the world, in terms of seeing how one should be was so unclouded. Now, we have to balance responsibility with our works. I have to ensure I meet the needs of all who depend on me so I have to balance things I want to do and don't. Etc. The mouths of babes and all.

Now, I'm about 13. In terms of faith really struggling. I would have to say I always had faith in one form or another, because I was pretty mad at God. I thought he was unfair. "Unfair" was something I saw a lot of back then.

And I went to live with my uncle. A man who never talked about faith, but just oozed goodness. A man who sacrificed to save me from myself and all of the people who were confusing me. A man who taught me that I had a responsibilty to the world, to everyone I encounter. A man who taught me that whether we know it or not, we're a force in the world, a force of change and that if we aren't aware of that force we can have a bad influence.

(Hey, you asked a complicated question)

So I'm in my room and in my heart. Not praying. Not really talking to anyone, specifically, but just hurting. My heart literally hurt. Everything felt wrong. Not teenager kind of wrong. Guilty kind of wrong. The kind of wrong I still feel when I do things I'm not proud of. And I was just sort of asking questions to the air. Complaining about how things are unfair. Complaining about how people who seem to ask less questions of the world seem to get more answers or are, at least, more satisfied with the answers they get. That I see so many good poor people and so many bad rich ones. That everything is "unfair".

And, I just feel this thing happening to me. I can't explain it exactly, because you're not me, but it was liks I figured it out. I felt right. My heart stopped hurting. I realized that I needn't seek the approval of others (I wish I could say now I don't, but I do and way to often). That I needn't look to other PEOPLE for answers to questions they can't answer. It was so clear so logical.

And I didn't leave that room feeling like I KNEW the answers to questions I had, but I felt like they were out there and that if I learned them, I would like those answers. I felt like I could listen to my heart and that God had put that wrong and right feeling there for me as a guide. And I could think back to all the wrong things I'd done in my life and how my heart had been telling me then and all the right things where it was the same.

So here I just have a simple faith in God. No more. No less. At this point, at 13, I'm not Christian. But I have a faith, a clean, clear faith in a higher power. (more later)

Just to confirm, you -are- 13 right now?

Also, up to this point I'll respond just so I don't run into a clusterfuck of things I have to reply to all at once. :3

So you had a moment of awakening, or a realization, that didn't quite answer your questions but still put your worries to rest. I'll go with that - not like I haven't had a few myself - but here's where I'm confused.

Many christians say the same thing and say it was a gift or action of god, as I believe you do as well, but then many of them, afterward, turn to the bible, whereas you have not.

What do you think is the most prominent reason for such a difference between those christians, and you, that would cause such a differing reaction?

*coughcough*

Sooooo...Szanth is probably gonna wonder how that sudden heart feeling links to believing in a god. Were I to take that tack, I'd probably mention when I'm troubling over a logic puzzle, and suddenly it clicks, and everything seems right. Mebbe you just had a bigger puzzle, n' got a bigger high?

But besides that, my questions were more towards a what if scenario. what if you weren't Christian, if you weren't explicitly following Christ? What would change about you? Don't you do what you do, because you know it's the right thing to do?

Yeah that's another good point - what if you'd been raised Jewish, or Buddhist; would your viewpoint still be that of a christian, after having read the bible and experiencing the same things?

I assume you would feel the same, but you just wouldn't consider yourself christian. Instead you may consider yourself nondenominationally spiritual, yet keep the general teachings of Jesus as good guidelines on how to live. That's just my guess, though.

Just to confirm, you -are- 13 right now?

I think that was more of a story-telling present tense. He's not 13 now....err...I think.

I think that was more of a story-telling present tense. He's not 13 now....err...I think.

Yeah that's what I thought too, but I wanted to be sure. I'd be pleasantly surprised to find a 13-year-old this mature, articulate and intelligent.

Hell, I'm glad I found someone of any age like that. On the internet, no less!~

Just to confirm, you -are- 13 right now?

At that point in the story. I'm 32.

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.
I totally agree, and I think that the problem stems from people throwing themselves into what they call religion without yet having realised the 'Kingdom of God' of their own mythology. Myu mentioned the Emergent Church, which, if it is successful, and I expect it will be, will replace such childish analogies of God with more a rational and mature attitude towards the symbols and language of Christianity.

Also, up to this point I'll respond just so I don't run into a clusterfuck of things I have to reply to all at once. :3

So you had a moment of awakening, or a realization, that didn't quite answer your questions but still put your worries to rest. I'll go with that - not like I haven't had a few myself - but here's where I'm confused.

Many christians say the same thing and say it was a gift or action of god, as I believe you do as well, but then many of them, afterward, turn to the bible, whereas you have not.

What do you think is the most prominent reason for such a difference between those christians, and you, that would cause such a differing reaction?

I think that's all part of the same story.

At that point in the story. I'm 32.

<3

I assume the story is quite long, then! :3 Continue.

I think that's all part of the same story.

o_o Part of it which will be written up later, then?

I fail to see why it would matter to you what I believe specifically, nor do I see why it would matter to you that I believe something generally.
Because he wants to understand what you understand.

And BTW, you can't assume hallucinations unless you're a philosopher, and then whatever you say has no bearing on this argument anyway.
Hahaha! :D God forbid we be able to think for ourselves.

Hahaha! :D God forbid we be able to think for ourselves.

Technically we're all philosophers. Everyone on this thread, anyway - can't speak for anyone else.

Quick point; neither cursing, nor making politically uncorrect jokes, qualifies as wrong in any moral code worth adhering to.

Quick point; neither cursing, nor making politically uncorrect jokes, qualifies as wrong in any moral code worth adhering to.

Fuck you, you drunk Irishman. ;)

Fuck you, you drunk Irishman. ;-)

:D

oh, that. I can't say because I will sound insane. ;)
Plato's cave, again. The people in the cave all think the ones who say "there's more to the world than the cave" are crazy.

Well, from previous experience with you I know you in fact can't. You live in your own private bubble of self-styled convenient faith and are proud of it. You will never be able to really inform anyone else about your "creator".
You're more right than you know. There is literally no way to inform anyone who sits in the cave about what's outside the cave.

Plato's cave, again. The people in the cave all think the ones who say "there's more to the world than the cave" are crazy.


You're more right than you know. There is literally no way to inform anyone who sits in the cave about what's outside the cave.

Caves of Socrates, but close.

Right, but that's your interpretation. Get it? If you can interpret it at all, it can be wrong, and is therefore not infallable.

Um, the literal is an interpretation, too.

Caves of Socrates, but close.

Is there much of a difference?

Um, the literal is an interpretation, too.

Not if the book said things like "DON'T KILL ANYONE. EVER. STOP IT. NOT EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE. BREAK THE GUY'S ARMS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. ASSHOLE."

That's pretty direct, and without interpretation, dontchathink? And I'm not even god, so imagine how well he could do.

Is there much of a difference?

Well, two completely different people, and the fact that Plato never actually thought of a caves metaphor.

But other than that, no, no difference. :P

Well, two completely different people, and the fact that Plato never actually thought of a caves metaphor.

The metaphor occurs in one of Plato's dialogues.

The degree to which the character of Socrates in his dialogues actually reflected the opinions of the real Socrates is debateable.

Going with what the church says he looks like, considering it's their savior and their book, (we've all seen the photos of him looking like he just came off the set of The OC, apparently that's how the church has imagined him to look) he had long hair.

Not according to CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/). :D

Not if the book said things like "DON'T KILL ANYONE. EVER. STOP IT. NOT EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE. BREAK THE GUY'S ARMS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. ASSHOLE."

That's pretty direct, and without interpretation, dontchathink? And I'm not even god, so imagine how well he could do.

You think? How direct will it be in 2000 years when we think "asshole" means, "just kidding"? How direct would that be if the context suggests that the writer was being sarcastic or that the writer was telling a story including that information. We struggle to interpret a document written 200 years ago with tons of exploratory articles explaining the thinking behind the document of which I speak. What would make you think that over time anything could be found that was easy to interpret?

Well, two completely different people, and the fact that Plato never actually thought of a caves metaphor.

But other than that, no, no difference. :P

You sure? Who wrote nearly everything we know about Socrates? The caves metaphor could very well be Plato's and he simply gave Socrates credit for any of a million reasons, like Socrates at the time Plato wrote was already a respected philosopher and thus might carry more weight. Whether it is credited to Plato or Socrates, the caves metaphor was imparted to us by Plato.

Caves of Socrates, but close.

The allegory I was refencing was this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_allegory_of_the_cave

Not if the book said things like "DON'T KILL ANYONE. EVER. STOP IT. NOT EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE. BREAK THE GUY'S ARMS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. ASSHOLE."

That's pretty direct, and without interpretation, dontchathink? And I'm not even god, so imagine how well he could do.

Regardless, it can be interpreted literally or non-literally. If we interpret it non-literally, we might, for instance, gather that you are being sarcastic.

Man, I tried to read this thread, but besides the rather reasonable people I know already, and who are really saying things we've all said before, there was just too much tripe from both extremes to sift through. Has anyone read this thread all the way through?

Getting there. :D

Edit: Done!

The allegory I was refencing was this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_allegory_of_the_cave

Which Socrates actually tells Plato. That's his point. I think it was too fine a point for something that we can't really be sure of, but that's me.

You think? How direct will it be in 2000 years when we think "asshole" means, "just kidding"? How direct would that be if the context suggests that the writer was being sarcastic or that the writer was telling a story including that information. We struggle to interpret a document written 200 years ago with tons of exploratory articles explaining the thinking behind the document of which I speak. What would make you think that over time anything could be found that was easy to interpret?

Because if god really cared, he'd find a way to make it readable. That's one of my arguments against the current bible.

You sure? Who wrote nearly everything we know about Socrates? The caves metaphor could very well be Plato's and he simply gave Socrates credit for any of a million reasons, like Socrates at the time Plato wrote was already a respected philosopher and thus might carry more weight. Whether it is credited to Plato or Socrates, the caves metaphor was imparted to us by Plato.

*shrugs* Okay, it -might- have been Plato's idea, but Socrates was given credit for it, so I credit him for it..

Plato's (or Socrates', if you prefer) Cave is an allegory intended to teach his world-view (picture of reality) to others. It also serves as an allegory for the "Kingdom" of God or Heaven on Earth of Jesus Christ (which, rather surprisingly, doesn't have a Wikipedia entry).

The cave is the world of dualism, that is of known and unknown, good and bad, right and wrong, real and unreal, etc. Exiting the cave, people enter an understanding of unity with the 'unknowable'.

(Thomas 22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."

What is outside the cave is not just unknown but unknowable to those in the cave; but once you're outside there, it's hard (nay, impossible) to imagine going back into the cave. Everything in there would seem false and illusion. But while you're still stuck in the cave - while what is outside is unknowable to you - it seems like the illusion.

(Thomas 5) Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."

(Thomas 133) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
<Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

Hrmmm... a million things I'd like to reply to and nowhere near the means to do so...

Ah well, I'll just have to pick a bit...

Well then, going back to the OP:-


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?


Yes I definately agree. To put it another way, christianity is the faith, the belief in God's works and divinity that sparks you in your walk with Him, rather than the religion which is the way in which humanity gravitates towards this purpose, with ceremonies, rituals and assorted dogmas. To show love to one another, especially to those undeserving or unloved, is a fundamental part of christianity (and most other walks of life I know, before anyone decides that i dont and replies as such), far more important than, say, a Catholic going on pilgrimage to the Vatican, or saying the Grace at the end of a Sunday morning service.

The whole point of these rules and observences is that, if we were to follow them completely and without fail, we could be perfect and sinless. But the actuality is that we all sin, and fail to meet these rules. And that means eternal death. BUT Jesus went and died on Calvary to act as the sacrifice on our part for these sins, which is why I, a sinner as with any other, can be accepted by God.

Sorry 'bout that preachy thing, you've probly all heard it a million times before, and far more eloquently put at that. Still, I do my best.

Not according to CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/). :D

Their methodology for determining the hair part sucks.

1. Paul said having long hair was bad.
2. Jesus was not bad according to Paul
3. Jesus did not have long hair

Nevermind that Jesus was an adult Jewish male and Paul never met Jesus. That's some circular logic if I've ever heard it.

[Pulls out the walker - and looks really confused because most of you should remember this unless all you old timers have gone senile]

A long time ago sonny there was a spate of "Ask a . . ." threads, it soon reached a point where they were being mocked with threads such as "Ask a dog" or "Ask a toaster" and through all of nation states general the only threads that could be found started with Ask A . . . it was at this point that the mods said fuck no you guys aren't doing that shit anymore and banned "Ask a . . ." threads.

Before my time, but thanks for the history lesson, gramps :p

Regardless, it can be interpreted literally or non-literally. If we interpret it non-literally, we might, for instance, gather that you are being sarcastic.That would, however, not at all alter the content of the expressed request.

.

Um, how do you know that God doesn't make it readable? Keep in mind that it doesn't matter how explicitly a religious book says something there will ALWAYS be someone arguing it means something else. Don't believe me? Next time you see a Christian calling someone a whore or saying God hates fags, tell them that Jesus said that we may not judge unless we are free of sin and that we should concentrate on our own plank. They'll likely either tell you he meant something despite two clear stories supporting on another on the concept OR they will tell you that another man, Paul, overrode the word of God in the flesh.

Try it. Start a thread. I promise you'll find people saying it. Because people argue for an idea while invoking God doesn't mean that their argument is supported by God's Will.

Their methodology for determining the hair part sucks.

1. Paul said having long hair was bad.
2. Jesus was not bad according to Paul
3. Jesus did not have long hair

Nevermind that Jesus was an adult Jewish male and Paul never met Jesus. That's some circular logic if I've ever heard it.

This isn't circular reasoning. If the first premise is true then according to Paul Jesus would not have long hair. If the first premise is not true then the logic fails. Circular reasoning is having the first premise prove itself.

The Bible is perfect.

The bible says that it is the truth.

The true bible is perfect.

This isn't circular reasoning. If the first premise is true then according to Paul Jesus would not have long hair. If the first premise is not true then the logic fails. Circular reasoning is having the first premise prove itself.

The Bible is perfect.

The bible says that it is the truth.

The true bible is perfect.Circular reason never works, as there is always information available from without the circle, which is of course always rejected by folks who depend on the circle or want the circle to work. What I cannot understand is why still people do exist who cannot break through this circle (i.e. who are stuck on faith).

1. Paul said having long hair was bad.
2. Jesus was not bad according to Paul
3. Jesus did not have long hair
1a. subsequently Paul said having long hair was bad.
2a. Jesus was not bad according to Paul
3a. Jesus did not have long hair
...

This isn't circular reasoning. If the first premise is true then according to Paul Jesus would not have long hair. If the first premise is not true then the logic fails. Circular reasoning is having the first premise prove itself.

The Bible is perfect.

The bible says that it is the truth.

The true bible is perfect.

Um, no. If the first premise is true then Jesus may very well have long hair.

The three statements are a circle. They are all Paul stating something about which he has no personal knowledge according to any historical or archeological evidence. Paul may have encountered the Spiritual Jesus, but that has no place in a scientific examination of what Jesus looked like. It proves Jesus had short hair by listening to someone's circular argument for why he would have short hair. Paul says Jesus is good. Paul says Paul says Jesus has short hair. Pauls says it is bad to have long hair. How do we know that the second and third statements are true, because the other two are. They all support each other. All part of the circle.

And I didn't leave that room feeling like I KNEW the answers to questions I had, but I felt like they were out there and that if I learned them, I would like those answers. I felt like I could listen to my heart and that God had put that wrong and right feeling there for me as a guide. And I could think back to all the wrong things I'd done in my life and how my heart had been telling me then and all the right things where it was the same.

So here I just have a simple faith in God. No more. No less. At this point, at 13, I'm not Christian. But I have a faith, a clean, clear faith in a higher power. (more later)

So I continued reading the Bible and talking to people, but from then I kept an eye toward my heart, how these lessons made me feel and what I was hearing in the quiet times, when I meditated.

Eventually, and slowly, I came to love the teachings of Jesus and felt my spritual walk with him begin. I can't assign it to a certain time.

I tried to explain to a minister once who got pissed that I would suggest that such a path is the one God wanted for me.

"Specifically when were you saved?" he said.
"When Jesus died on the cross, boss." I replied.

I continued to read about the Bible, seeking out other information about the time period for context. By the time I hit the military, I had worked out a lot of things. The military gave me the final discipline I needed to kick my violent tendencies and to stop doing some of the other problematic nonsense and to really be the kind of person I wanted to be.

These days I don't really accept that the Bible as compiled is more reliable that some other gospels. I don't view Paul as an equal to Jesus and as such I value the words of Jesus above all else. I believe Paul was a man who had a good understanding of his faith and sought to share it. He stated this a couple of times. I view him as a leader in the faith, but not as THE leader in the faith, like Paulians. I reserve that for Christ.

So that's the first question. Let me go back and look at the others.

Woot.

Alrighty, here we go. Buckle up.

Why did you become a christian?

Why did you remain a christian?

I think I answered these.


I'm assuming you'll refuse to convert to another religion, say, Hinduism - please explain why.

You assume wrong. I refuse to leave behind things I believe because I have faith they are true. However, I think it's likely that every faith gets some things right. I think examining all faiths helps us understand our own better. Some faiths are completely compatible with Christianity. Others aren't. However, no faith has it all wrong (in my opinion). Heck, many, many Christian faiths I believe are farther from the Truth and some Buddhist faiths.

If you want me to respond in regards to specific faiths, I will, but that's gonna take a while.


Are you a fundamentalist (going by the criteria listed by Smunk in this thread)?

If so, why? If not, why?

I didn't see the criteria, but I doubt it. I think if you read my whole other post that's answered, but if you still have the question let me know.



What is god's ultimate plan?

Puh. Are you kidding? How could I possibly know that? Ask God. Maybe She'll feel like telling you. She hasn't answered that question for me, yet, and I'm not waiting on that reply.



Do you have any ideas on why a perfect being would bother creating anything if he was already perfect to begin with?

Yes, lots of them. I'm writing a book about it with GnI (fiction).

However, I'll give a brief answer. I think some concepts are difficult for us because of the necessary limitations of our existence. You can't visualize infinity or forever or omniscience or omnipotence because by being limited, we can only really truly visualize within those limitations. Every explanation that falls outside of what can truly experience as humans always leaves a bit to be desired.

So what's a possible scenario. God creates us as perfect. We're not flawed as we are today. And God loves us and we Her (not in some simple human way like mankind presents today, but in a perfect way). God because She loves us responds to our wishes. We wanted to understand more things than a perfect existence could ever offer. Wisdom. We wanted the wisdom offered by hardship, pain, suffering, joy, happiness, etc. There is no joy without pain kind of a thing. We wanted life. And God could have given us this but then it would knowledge not wisdom. So he granted our wish.

It wasn't the fall of man. It was a leap. And we asked for him to allow us the gift of faith. Not knowledge. Faith. We asked to struggle. And if you look it us and us alone that struggle with things that no other on the planet must face. Mortality, morality, civil duty, etc. A complicated, crazy existence that leaves winded and flushed when we're done. But I wouldn't turn it down. Would you, honestly?

I've never understood how so many could ask why are we here as if there is no satisfactory explanation, as if there is no getting past the suffering, and still try to avoid death. I've never reconciled that. I think our existence is wonderous. So maybe that's why I think this is a possible way it played out.

If God asked me, I would definitely choose to live the life I have.


On the concept of free will, wouldn't it be an insult to god's gift of intelligence to not use it to question him? An insult to god's gift of free will to use it without being restricted by the torment of hell?

Absolutely. I believe God gave us science and reason and intended for us to use them. I don't believe in hell. I do believe having knowledge of God and being seperated from Her would be torment. I don't believe in the childish version of morality that has us behaving to avoid punishment.

Noodle on this. As a Christian, I would happily suffer eternal torment if it saved every other soul, or even one other soul. That's right. If God asked me right now, I would choose to be eternally seperated from Him if I could save others. I think all Christians should willingly do so, though I don't expect we'd be asked to.

How do you know Jesus was the messiah?

Oof. That's the hardest question yet. I don't. I believe He was. But I don't know. I study His message. And I compare it with the writing on my heart. And I find Truth in it. That's about as much as I've got for you there.


Why have faith?

I don't know that I have an answer for this one either. Generally this ends up being some kind of logic test. I have faith because it's what I believe is right. Why should you? I suspect you do. Just not in God. We are faithful creatures.

If you're looking for me to tell you that you should have faith so you aren't punished, you won't hear it. You don't have faith because it will be rewarding or avoid punishment. You should have faith, because it's what feels right to you.


Why trust the bible?

Good question. You'd have to ask someone who does.


Do you feel that you need religion in your life, or is it something you just want, like a taco craving, rather than an epipen when you go into anaphylactic shock?

No. I don't particularly like religion. I like faith. I like living in the spirit. And faith for me was a little of both. But mostly I came to where I am because it seemed right. It felt right. It fit what I knew about life and love and conscience.

Do you believe anyone can know anything about god for sure?

No. I hope they don't. I believe faith IS the point. That we have faith because knowledge of God would deny us a particular kind of wisdom (yes, I know people always mix this up and think I'm suggesting I'm wiser because I have faith). I think that there is a wisdom in finding that we aren't it. That this isn't it. And another wisdom in finding that we don't know what happens next or even IF this isn't it.

For me, faith is a great wisdom. To know things about God for sure would deny that to people. And given that I think wisdom is the whole reason for the ride, it would kind of defeat the purpose.


Why do you feel the bible was written the way it was, with such an ability to be interpreted incorrectly?

Because the people who compiled the Bible weren't thinking about us. They were thinking about the people of that day. Like so many generations I think they either expected that Jesus would return or didn't really believe. In both cases, there was no reason to consider the future. And because the process was guided by men who appeared to desire controll, I think they included much that helped to garner control.

I think the Bible should just be the gospels. All of them. Nothing more. The rest should be supplemental text. If you treat the Gospels (all of them) as having truth above all other parts of the Bible, I think you'll find the Bible much less confusing. There are few things that Jesus taught that are confusing absent the words of Paul.

However, confusion comes because these words were meant to be a supplement to faith, not the other way around. We should look first to our faith and then to the Bible.


What's your opinion on Lucifer/Satan? Subquestion, do you feel the story of the rebellion in heaven was a metaphor or do you take it literally? Either way, please explain why.

Um, I think it's ludicrous. Free will is a gift to man, according to most Christian sources. Not to angels. Man. How do you rebel against God without free will? Lucifer is a servant of God, if it exists at all. An angel. If Lucifer ever tempted us, it was God's will (or if you believe the story GnI and I are writing), the request of man, that we be tempted. No more. No less.

I take most of the stories in the OT as either misinterpretations of visions, histories passed down inaccurately or metaphor. For example, if you were in a flood that was 100s of miles wide 6000 years ago, wouldn't it look like it covered the world? If I showed you a vision, evolution, over the course of a day and you had no word for it, mightn't it look like I formed a man out of clay? I don't know, but that's my take on it.

So why do I take things clearly descendent from those ideas? Because some of them are wrong, doesn't mean all of them are. I told you how I found my faith and it wasn't by accepting the Bible.


The bible leaves a slight opening in for a polytheistic argument - do you believe there could be other gods? If so, please explain your thoughts on how they would relate to the abrahamic god.

Is it possible? Sure. Do I think there are? No. I think that the Bible was not even put to paper when many of these stories were first told. I think it's completely possible that they could have become just slightly confused either in the documentation or the translation. It does make some things seem that way, but it's mostly an issue of pronouns. Some of that stuff might just be story-telling techniques.

Let's just start out with these questions first, and we'll work our way up. :3

Fair enough.

Let me offer a summary of my faith. It's simply. Jesus gave us a clear summary of what it means to follow Him. Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself.

All the rest is just noise. I love God. And I'd die for you. I love you exactly as I love myself. (Well, maybe not as much touching).

I hope that helps.

just one problem with that...

I don't believe in hell. I do believe having knowledge of God and being seperated from Her would be torment. I don't believe in the childish version of morality that has us behaving to avoid punishment.

Well then what was the purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection? Why do sins need to be forgiven if we all go to Heaven no matter what?

Or are you saying that without this forgiveness we just suffer an eternity without God with the knowledge He exists? Well then, is that not Hell? The utmost torment possible, indefinately...

just one problem with that...

Well then what was the purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection? Why do sins need to be forgiven if we all go to Heaven no matter what?

Or are you saying that without this forgiveness we just suffer an eternity without God with the knowledge He exists? Well then, is that not Hell? The utmost torment possible, indefinately...

Hmmm... no. I think how Jesus saved us isn't that we all go to Heaven or that we couldn't go to Heaven before Jesus. I think that he came to correct the message that had been lost. And I believe that when he returns it will be for the same reason.

Jesus returned us to our own purpose and as such the purpose that brings us back to God. I don't think that Judaism would have survived without Christianity, actually. I can't prove that, because it's a huge "what if" but I believe that. Christ revived the faith and offered us teachings that brought us away from ridiculous adherence to minutia and back to the message of loving God and each other. Some would argue that message didn't exist, but since we can't actually establish that, it's just speculation.

hmmm...

But that still doesnt explain why He had to die? A fact that He himself was very clear about.

Um, no. If the first premise is true then Jesus may very well have long hair.

The three statements are a circle. They are all Paul stating something about which he has no personal knowledge according to any historical or archeological evidence. Paul may have encountered the Spiritual Jesus, but that has no place in a scientific examination of what Jesus looked like. It proves Jesus had short hair by listening to someone's circular argument for why he would have short hair. Paul says Jesus is good. Paul says Paul says Jesus has short hair. Pauls says it is bad to have long hair. How do we know that the second and third statements are true, because the other two are. They all support each other. All part of the circle.

If you look I added "according to Paul". The first premise is dependent on Paul being correct. If Paul were correct then the reasoning would be correct. If Paul isn't correct, or if Paul didn't really believe the first premise, then although the logic is correct the final conclusion isn't correct. It is possible to use correct logic and come to an incorrect conclusion because it is based on a faulty premise.

Snoopy is a fish
Fish live in water
Therefore Snoopy lives in the water.

The logic is perfect, except Snoopy is a dog. All logic starts with an assumption. If that assumption is wrong then the conclusion is wrong. That doesn't make the logic wrong or circular.

hmmm...

But that still doesnt explain why He had to die? A fact that He himself was very clear about.

I know because I'm goodlooking, you'd think I have ALL the answers, but really I just do the best I can.

Meanwhile, to quote the matrix inexactly the question is "what's really going to bake your noodle is would you have knocked it over if I didn't say anything?" Perhaps, it's that was what was necessary to actually spread the religion among the people.

I've never bought into the "he died for us" philosophy. I prefer to think "he lived for us". What's the big deal about dying for us? He KNEW he was going to heaven. He suffered for a couple of days. A lot. But still, I'm not God and I'd pay that price to save people. Ten times a day and twice on Sunday. He needed to die as part of what was occurring, but I suspect his death is not what saved us.

To show love to one another, especially to those undeserving or unloved, is a fundamental part of christianity (and most other walks of life I know, before anyone decides that i dont and replies as such), far more important than, say, a Catholic going on pilgrimage to the Vatican, or saying the Grace at the end of a Sunday morning service.
They do pilgrimages to the Vatican?

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

Who said you COULDN'T in the first place? :confused:

Let me offer a summary of my faith. It's simply. Jesus gave us a clear summary of what it means to follow Him. Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself.

All the rest is just noise. I love God. And I'd die for you. I love you exactly as I love myself. (Well, maybe not as much touching).

I hope that helps.

AMEN!

Why is this such a hard concept? It is in every major religion in some way if not in the exact words. It is a universal. It is not dependent on culture. If it were biological we would say it was in the human genes, it is that common in the human animal.

I think the problem is people can't believe it is that simple. They want it to be difficult. They want it to be a list of rules, regulations, traditions, owned and understood only by "my little group". My little pack. My little group of friends. And denied to everyone else. This goes totally against nearly every religion's book. Every basic religious book I've read doesn't exclude, they include everyone on earth. This is the problem. This is why fundamentalist religions turn off more people than they turn on. They don't follow the fundamental two rules.

That would, however, not at all alter the content of the expressed request.

Context always alters content.

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

You do know that lying requires intent, yes? He doesn't agree with the idea of being religous and thus does not subscride to calling himself 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!"

That would be wrong. It wouldn't necessarily be lying. You do realize the difference. Kind of like tripping and falling off a building is not suicide.


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:

Was this supposed to resemble an argument?

Um, how do you know that God doesn't make it readable? Keep in mind that it doesn't matter how explicitly a religious book says something there will ALWAYS be someone arguing it means something else. Don't believe me? Next time you see a Christian calling someone a whore or saying God hates fags, tell them that Jesus said that we may not judge unless we are free of sin and that we should concentrate on our own plank. They'll likely either tell you he meant something despite two clear stories supporting on another on the concept OR they will tell you that another man, Paul, overrode the word of God in the flesh.

Try it. Start a thread. I promise you'll find people saying it. Because people argue for an idea while invoking God doesn't mean that their argument is supported by God's Will.

Right, but the bible should be different from any other random piece of literature that we can interpret anything from. It's GOD'S handiwork we're talking about.

He has the ability to do anything. Anything! True, humans are limited in their ability to make their wishes undeniably known, but if god really wanted to pull that off, I'm sure he'd find a way.

They do pilgrimages to the Vatican?

I believe so?

I'm not Catholic, so I wouldn't know really... Think so though?

That wasnt exactly my point...

Ah well tell me if I'm wrong :)

Right, but the bible should be different from any other random piece of literature that we can interpret anything from. It's GOD'S handiwork we're talking about.

He has the ability to do anything. Anything! True, humans are limited in their ability to make their wishes undeniably known, but if god really wanted to pull that off, I'm sure he'd find a way.

That only holds true if the purpose of the Bible is to tell us the absolute Truth. I don't believe it is. Books provide knowledge. Faith is the purpose, not knowledge. You don't realize it but you're making the assumption that giving us particular knowledge, unquestionable clear knowledge, is the best thing for God to do for us. It's an assumption and absolutely not supported by my faith.

Otherwise, God could just appear. Then we'd know She's here and all that stuff about wisdom and faith, gone. Given I think it's the purpose of life and something desirable, it kind of suggests that my faith is necessarily wrong, and I don't think you can support that suggestion.

They do pilgrimages to the Vatican?cool architecture

Right, but the bible should be different from any other random piece of literature that we can interpret anything from. It's GOD'S handiwork we're talking about.You are joking, right?

Context always alters content.In what context would Szanth's "DON'T KILL ANYONE. EVER." not mean "DON'T KILL ANYONE. EVER." ?

I believe so?

I'm not Catholic, so I wouldn't know really... Think so though?

That wasnt exactly my point...

Ah well tell me if I'm wrong :)

Isn't the Vatican City an island?


Jocabia:

<3 for answering all these questions.

Though I'm not sure I got across the meaning of one of my questions; I'll accept that we possibly asked to be sent out of the garden, but why create us at all?

Isn't the Vatican City an island?


Jocabia:

<3 for answering all these questions.

Though I'm not sure I got across the meaning of one of my questions; I'll accept that we possibly asked to be sent out of the garden, but why create us at all?

Ah. My answer would be why not? I can't really fathom what it would be like to sit in nothingness and wonder at my own perfection, but I'd imagine that it might be nice to some other entities around. However, how could I possibly pretend to know the "feelings" of a being I've never met, can't fully fathom, and don't have the ability to analyze. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why my nephew would rather spend four hours at the table not doing his homework and getting in trouble than one hour doing it. And, him, I can analyze. I think your question isn't going to get an answer that's about as good as just about any other answer anyone else can fathom.

In what context would Szanth's "DON'T KILL ANYONE. EVER." not mean "DON'T KILL ANYONE. EVER." ?

Hmmmm... well we could discuss what ever means. We could discuss what anyone means. We could discuss what kill means. We could discuss whether this is sarcasm. We could discuss whether this was a direction given to an individual, a group or everyone. We could discuss if this was a limited instruction (like that of a general to his troops regarding a particular conflict). These are all things requiring context.

Ah. My answer would be why not? I can't really fathom what it would be like to sit in nothingness and wonder at my own perfection, but I'd imagine that it might be nice to some other entities around. However, how could I possibly pretend to know the "feelings" of a being I've never met, can't fully fathom, and don't have the ability to analyze. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why my nephew would rather spend four hours at the table not doing his homework and getting in trouble than one hour doing it. And, him, I can analyze. I think your question isn't going to get an answer that's about as good as just about any other answer anyone else can fathom.

My favorite version of the answer to that question comes from Dogma. Linda Fiorentino gets to ask Alanis Morissette, in her role as God, why we were made. God thinks about it for a second, briefly pops Linda on the nose and says "Why." Before turning around and walking away.

Which is why I don't understand why religious people are so against science. If the mechanisms for science were made at the time of creation, wouldn't it be reasonable for a Creator to intend to find them? To understand the mechanisms of creation that we might be wiser for the knowing.

I've only ever looked at religious texts as guidebooks and parables about oft-outdated morality. The concept of a "It HAS to be this way, because this book says so," has never made sense. Guess that's just me.

My favorite version of the answer to that question comes from Dogma. Linda Fiorentino gets to ask Alanis Morissette, in her role as God, why we were made. God thinks about it for a second, briefly pops Linda on the nose and says "Why." Before turning around and walking away.

As I recall what she said after poking her in the nose was "meep". In that movie she could not speak at all lest she kill everyone who heard her.

As I recall what she said after poking her in the nose was "meep". In that movie she could not speak at all lest she kill everyone who heard her.yep. :rolleyes:
maybe dm saw it in a foreign translation :p

yep. :rolleyes:
maybe dm saw it in a foreign translation :p

Heh...:p I never really knew what she said. I always assumed it was "why."

My favorite version of the answer to that question comes from Dogma. Linda Fiorentino gets to ask Alanis Morissette, in her role as God, why we were made. God thinks about it for a second, briefly pops Linda on the nose and says "Why." Before turning around and walking away.



Reminds me of the book of Job. In the end there is no answer except I was there and I did it.

My favorite version of the answer to that question comes from Dogma. Linda Fiorentino gets to ask Alanis Morissette, in her role as God, why we were made. God thinks about it for a second, briefly pops Linda on the nose and says "Why." Before turning around and walking away.

Which is why I don't understand why religious people are so against science. If the mechanisms for science were made at the time of creation, wouldn't it be reasonable for a Creator to intend to find them? To understand the mechanisms of creation that we might be wiser for the knowing.

I've only ever looked at religious texts as guidebooks and parables about oft-outdated morality. The concept of a "It HAS to be this way, because this book says so," has never made sense. Guess that's just me.

Yes. As I said earlier, God gave us science and reason and would not have us forego either, in my opinion.

Awww, so I guess Zilam is finished with trying to convert us with lame uber-morality arguements?

*scoffs*

I believe that if you are going to study the Bible you need to have historical context. People who are ignorant of the who, what, where, why, and when of the Bible tend to misunderstand the message, and often use things out of context to further their own view of what they think is right.That's what I say about most Christians. They just have no clue what the story is that the bible narrates. The message is submission, but most folks just don't see that through all the Christian love cotton candy.

That's what I say about most Christians. They just have no clue what the story is that the bible narrates. The message is submission, but most folks just don't see that through all the Christian love cotton candy.Yes, the Abrahamite religions (and lots of others) are basically about kissing Hank's ass.

A moderately clever dead guy once wrote (while he was alive, I assume): "The idea of god implies the abdication of human reason & justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty & necessarily ends in the enslavement of manking both in theory & practice.
He who desires to worship god must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty & humanity." ~ Mikhail Bakunin

Which I think just about sums it up for the orthodox believers. Because the orthodox ones actually defer to this percieved authority, and a lot of them apparently do it, not because this percieved authority is rational or more capable than themselves, but because it affirms that part of their existing ethics are indeed true and good, and because the setting in which this percieved authority exists is plausible, as it contains familiar elements, like humans acting like humans.

It's mindboggling. I'll never ever understand it. It comes across as if some people simply can't cope with the responsibility for their own morality. As if the mere thought of having to justify themselves to themselves, is the worst possible thing in the world.
Fortunately I don't know any of that kind of people personally. It's as if they don't want to be human, and that kind of attitude just bugs the hell out of me.

This is why fundamentalist religions turn off more people than they turn on. They don't follow the fundamental two rules.
If they don't follow fundamental rules then they surely are not fundamentalist.

That's what I say about most Christians. They just have no clue what the story is that the bible narrates. The message is submission, but most folks just don't see that through all the Christian love cotton candy.
Submission to God's will is a very important part of Christianity. God is love, thus to submit to God's will is be loving.

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 was just browsing this thread to see what presumably upset Smunk. I'm on page 15 and have come back to this post.

I think the question of 'which God' is solved well by the Sikh interpretation that all religions and faiths pertain to the same supernatural being. Hence the Abrahamic God is the same as the Hindu God, which is the same the pagan gods, and so on. Each is just a different version that is meant to help enable people to get closer to God.

... Wow... I can't believe someone compared tolerance of bigotry to tolerance of religion/spirituality. Once is a relationship between two people, and one is the relationship between one person and their God. Two very different things.

If they don't follow fundamental rules then they surely are not fundamentalist.


Ironic ain't it. Just like the fundamentalists Pharisees of Jesus time, those who call themselves fundamentalists today don't have a clue as to the fundamentals of Christianity. And they are the people most see as Christians. So they ruin two words--fundamentalist and Christian. At the foundation they are neither.

Ironic ain't it. Just like the fundamentalists Pharisees of Jesus time, those who call themselves fundamentalists today don't have a clue as to the fundamentals of Christianity. And they are the people most see as Christians. So they ruin two words--fundamentalist and Christian. At the foundation they are neither.

I couldn't agree more (about those who are like the Pharisees).

I would say, however, that there are those who identify themselves as fundamentalists who actually are, and I don't think would be comparable to the Pharisees.

I couldn't agree more (about those who are like the Pharisees).

I would say, however, that there are those who identify themselves as fundamentalists who actually are, and I don't think would be comparable to the Pharisees.

The fundamentals are: Love God--Love Everyone Else

It is not fundamental to demand that everyone else must yield to your wants.

It is not fundamental to have public prayer--especially when it will offend others.

It is not fundamental to demand the government take rights from others in order to enforce your beliefs on them.

It is not fundamental to cut funds to the poor, weak, sick, downtrodden.

It is not fundamental to demand schools teach your beliefs.

It is not fundamental to avoid contact with "others", especially in your church attendance.

It is not fundamental to mix religion and political slogans.

It is not fundamental to worry more about image than substance.

It is not fundamental to worry more about rules than people.

The fundamentals are: Love God--Love Everyone Else

It is not fundamental to demand that everyone else must yield to your wants.

It is not fundamental to have public prayer--especially when it will offend others.

It is not fundamental to demand the government take rights from others in order to enforce your beliefs on them.

It is not fundamental to cut funds to the poor, weak, sick, downtrodden.

It is not fundamental to demand schools teach your beliefs.

It is not fundamental to avoid contact with "others", especially in your church attendance.

It is not fundamental to mix religion and political slogans.

It is not fundamental to worry more about image than substance.

It is not fundamental to worry more about rules than people.

Yes, that was my point. I don't think what people often call fundamentalists represents the fundamentals ofthe faith. That's why I said "fundamentalists who actually are".

Nice to agree, no?

Submission to God's will is a very important part of Christianity. God is love, thus to submit to God's will is be loving.How can a God be love, if he drowns humanity in a Flood?

How can a God be love, if he drowns humanity in a Flood?

You always hurt the one you love.

You always hurt the one you love.Is that the credo of Christianity?
And that love didn't just hurt, it killed. In genocidal dimensions...

Yes, that was my point. I don't think what people often call fundamentalists represents the fundamentals ofthe faith. That's why I said "fundamentalists who actually are".

Nice to agree, no?

Yes!

How can a God be love, if he drowns humanity in a Flood?

Two ways of looking at it.

God is Love, but man can drive out love. Apparently the was no love left in the world. So God had to save what little love was left in Noah.


Or,

Death to God isn't the ultimate evil it is to man. When a person dies it is a sadness for man, but since God is forever and since God can make a person forever, death to God is but a beginning of forever. Therefore, human death to God is the ultimate joy.

T..., human death to God is the ultimate joy.That explains a lot :rolleyes:

Yes!

You're supposed to say yes and then when you notice my typo, call me a moron. Didn't you read my signature?

How can God be love, if he drowns humanity in a Flood?
The flooded humanity was so away from the concept of being human that it was a stretch to call it "humanity"... it's like a divine death penalty for being evil to the core...