NationStates Jolt Archive

You Christians - what exactly are we being saved from? The Devil - he didn't exist until the New Testament. In the Old Testament there was an advocate but no Devil. His job was to keep God honest (he doesn't seem to have done a very good job of it). Seems to me the Devil or Satan or whatever you want to call it is a Christian invention which they use to justify themselves. Or is it original sin - another Christian invention which wasn't mentioned in the O.T.

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?

Hell, or death.

From sin. Sin equals eternal separation from God. Jesus came so we can be back in fellowship with God.

You Christians - what exactly are we being saved from? The Devil - he didn't exist until the New Testament. In the Old Testament there was an advocate but no Devil. His job was to keep God honest (he doesn't seem to have done a very good job of it). Seems to me the Devil or Satan or whatever you want to call it is a Christian invention which they use to justify themselves. Or is it original sin - another Christian invention which wasn't mentioned in the O.T.

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?

Satan is mentioned in the OT.

so was the Original Sin which was detailed in Genesis.

However the Original Sin was washed away by the sacrifice of the Christ.

From extortionate long distance charges.

You can save a bunch of money on your car insurance by switching to Jesus.

From extortionate long distance charges.

Bad beer?


http://www.ruthenia.ru/vmyth/advertisment/ADV/jesus_beer.JPG

Honestly, are telling me people still believe in that old Bronze-age Judean myth? Wow....

You can save a bunch of money on your car insurance by switching to Jesus.

Switch to Jesus now and we'll send you this beautiful faux-pearl necklace, of $100 value as our gift to you.

However the Original Sin was washed away by the sacrifice of the Christ.


You are saying that people born after christ don't have original sin? Or do I miss your point?

Saved from:

Free, independent thought;
Personal responsibility;
and the need to see reality (all of reality, the good and the bad) as it really is.

Saved from:

Free, independent thought;
Personal responsibility;
and the need to see reality (all of reality, the good and the bad) as it really is.


That is such a overwhelming lie!

You are saying that people born after christ don't have original sin? Or do I miss your point?

yep. however, being free of the original sin does not mean one is free from sin. ;)

That is such a overwhelming lie!

*munches popcorn*
Took long enough for this to get interesting.

Christ can save you...



...hundreds on your car insurance by switching to GEICO!!

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/disturbed.gif

*munches popcorn*
Took long enough for this to get interesting.

Well its the truth. I have always been told to be constantly questioning what I am taught in the churches. We are taught to seek after truth, and one cannot find truth with out asking questions and seeking answers.

Now, that is not to say there aren't idiots that claim we should follow blindly, because I know that happens. I am just saying that they are idiots and should be ignored.

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?

He saves you from MEEEEE!!!!

He saves you from MEEEEE!!!!

Reject Christ
Receive Kryo

Reject Christ
Receive Kryo

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Mandatory weasel lessons!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Mandatory weasel lessons!

Ooooh, Dark Orchid. Very evil. I also submit:
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Butan1.jpg

Being uncool. Only the cool kids get to be in God's fan club >.>

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?

the opportunity to get up to mischief. except he failed cuz i'm quite good at it. salvation from feuding middle easten rabbles. oh, no, he fucked that one up as well, good and proper. eternal damnation, perhaps. well i saw south park and it turns out the guy's a pussy, saddam could kick his arse and damn him an' all. seriously though, every pic you see of j-boy he looks like a fucking weed, the moment lucifer tried anything physical, instead of some mystical hocus pocus, jebus would be mincemeat. fuck jesus, lucifer's well more fun anyway.

That is such a overwhelming lie!

true as the bible goes though.

Ooooh, Dark Orchid. Very evil. I also submit:
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Butan1.jpg

I worship the pig. It's bacon, sausage and ham all in one! ;) It's an environmentally friendly animal. Very compact.

I worship the pig. It's bacon, sausage and ham all in one! ;) It's an environmentally friendly animal. Very compact.

Truly it is the greatest animal of them all, king of the farm.

You Christians - what exactly are we being saved from? The Devil - he didn't exist until the New Testament. In the Old Testament there was an advocate but no Devil. His job was to keep God honest (he doesn't seem to have done a very good job of it). Seems to me the Devil or Satan or whatever you want to call it is a Christian invention which they use to justify themselves. Or is it original sin - another Christian invention which wasn't mentioned in the O.T.

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?

From hell, and from sin.
Saved from:

Free, independent thought;
Personal responsibility;
and the need to see reality (all of reality, the good and the bad) as it really is.

Wrong on all three counts.

Salvation, in the Christian sense, does not hinder free, independent thought, or make it impossible, and the fact that you think it does indicates you have never experienced it yourself.

Nor does it absolve the believer from personal responsibility. When a person gets saved, s/he becomes a child of God, and as his/her heavenly Father, God expects Christians to follow Him, and if they don't, then like any good parent will do in such a case, He disciplines them. Paul the Apostle wrote, speaking of Christians, that we will appear before the judgment seat of Christ and receive for the things we do in our body, whether good or bad. If we are pleasing to Him, He rewards us. If we have been disobedient, He disciplines us. But we are still saved.

Furthermore, salvation does not hinder seeing reality as it really is. In fact, that you think it does indicates that you have been blinded by the devil.

Instead of making biblically illiterate blanket statements about salvation and Christianity, STUDY the Bible for a change.

Well its the truth. I have always been told to be constantly questioning what I am taught in the churches. We are taught to seek after truth, and one cannot find truth with out asking questions and seeking answers.

Now, that is not to say there aren't idiots that claim we should follow blindly, because I know that happens. I am just saying that they are idiots and should be ignored.

You bring up a good point. A person's final authority should be the Bible, not any "teachings" of ANY "church" or any "pastor" or "deacon" or any (insert any religious title here not aforementioned). Always judge such teachings by the Bible, and if the Bible says one thing and the "church" or the "clergy" say another, stick with the Bible.

Free, independent thought;
Personal responsibility;
and the need to see reality (all of reality, the good and the bad) as it really is.

I dunno - I'd be pretty freaked out about some of the things I've done in my time if I thought with certainty that I'd be shortly answering to God. :p I sleep better than most of my religious co-workers/aquaintances, judging by some of the conversations I've had.

Yes. Go to the Bible to learn what is right and what is wrong. Thus eliminating the need to think for yourself, or see reality. And if you mess up sometimes, no worries, God made you imperfect and he'll forgive you, thus eliminating the need for personal responsibility.



;)

Now, that is not to say there aren't idiots that claim we should follow blindly, because I know that happens. I am just saying that they are idiots and should be ignored.

Easy to do if you stay clear of the South, for the most part. :p The phrase itself "got saved" is seldom heard north of the Mason-Dixon line, I do believe. Although it is kinda touching to hear the stories of those who 'got saved,' if they had been really, really, evil beforehand.

You bring up a good point. A person's final authority should be the Bible, not any "teachings" of ANY "church" or any "pastor" or "deacon" or any (insert any religious title here not aforementioned). Always judge such teachings by the Bible, and if the Bible says one thing and the "church" or the "clergy" say another, stick with the Bible.
Actually morality and social ethics are based upon the fact that it's utilitarianly the best way to have a coherent society with a common morality, belief etc, so people can recognize each other and have things in common, that's not divine salvation that's sociology.

That is such a overwhelming lie!

Then why do so many so-called xtians use regular sunday salvations to excuse being assholes the rest of the week?

*munches popcorn*
Took long enough for this to get interesting.

You're welcome.

From hell, and from sin.


Wrong on all three counts.

Salvation, in the Christian sense, does not hinder free, independent thought, or make it impossible, and the fact that you think it does indicates you have never experienced it yourself.

Nor does it absolve the believer from personal responsibility. When a person gets saved, s/he becomes a child of God, and as his/her heavenly Father, God expects Christians to follow Him, and if they don't, then like any good parent will do in such a case, He disciplines them. Paul the Apostle wrote, speaking of Christians, that we will appear before the judgment seat of Christ and receive for the things we do in our body, whether good or bad. If we are pleasing to Him, He rewards us. If we have been disobedient, He disciplines us. But we are still saved.

Furthermore, salvation does not hinder seeing reality as it really is. In fact, that you think it does indicates that you have been blinded by the devil.

Instead of making biblically illiterate blanket statements about salvation and Christianity, STUDY the Bible for a change.

I have read the bible, something very few xtians can honestly say, and being blinded by the devil? Hardly as he doesn't exist.

You bring up a good point. A person's final authority should be the Bible, not any "teachings" of ANY "church" or any "pastor" or "deacon" or any (insert any religious title here not aforementioned). Always judge such teachings by the Bible, and if the Bible says one thing and the "church" or the "clergy" say another, stick with the Bible.

It seems to me that any "authority" found in the Bible is as outdated as the bible itself.

Yes. Go to the Bible to learn what is right and what is wrong. Thus eliminating the need to think for yourself, or see reality. And if you mess up sometimes, no worries, God made you imperfect and he'll forgive you, thus eliminating the need for personal responsibility.



;)

Thank you for making my points for me. I owe you one.

Now, If xtian salvations makes a person feel better, then thats great. Just don't pretend that everyone needs or wants approval from some imaginary "God" or his followers to justify their existence.

Yes. Go to the Bible to learn what is right and what is wrong. Thus eliminating the need to think for yourself, or see reality. And if you mess up sometimes, no worries, God made you imperfect and he'll forgive you, thus eliminating the need for personal responsibility.



;)


Ha!

If I read the law books, and I choose to follow the laws of the land, am I giving up the ability to think for myself? No I am not, because I am choosing to obey laws. my ability to think and rationalize the situation leads me to decide to obey the rules. I still can choose to break them anytime I want to. But read it again, I CHOOSE to follow the laws. No one forces me to do it, thus my ability to free thought allows me to choose the path I have.

Furthermore, I do take responsible for everything I do. And I, along with everyone else, will have to give an account of our life one day, meaning we will be held responsible too.

Then why do so many so-called xtians use regular sunday salvations to excuse being assholes the rest of the week?




Because they are not truly christian? I thought a smart man like you would be able to figure something like that.

You Christians - what exactly are we being saved from? The Devil - he didn't exist until the New Testament. In the Old Testament there was an advocate but no Devil. His job was to keep God honest (he doesn't seem to have done a very good job of it). Seems to me the Devil or Satan or whatever you want to call it is a Christian invention which they use to justify themselves. Or is it original sin - another Christian invention which wasn't mentioned in the O.T.

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?

*yawns* how come no one gets bored of these "RAWR, I HATE TEH CRISTANS" threads? :confused:

Because they are not truly christian? I thought a smart man like you would be able to figure something like that.

No offense, but really passé explanation.

I see this kind of thing all the time. Muslim talking about Usama bin Laden: "He's not a real Muslim!" Christian talking about Fred Phelps: "He's not a real Christian!" Communist talking about the USSR: "It wasn't really communist!" And so on and so forth. I'm still awaiting the day when some Neo-Nazi shows up, is told of Hitler's atrocities and returns with, "Well, he wasn't a real Nazi!" :D

No offense, but really passé explanation.

I see this kind of thing all the time. Muslim talking about Usama bin Laden: "He's not a real Muslim!" Christian talking about Fred Phelps: "He's not a real Christian!" Communist talking about the USSR: "It wasn't really communist!" And so on and so forth. I'm still awaiting the day when some Neo-Nazi shows up, is told of Hitler's atrocities and returns with, "Well, he wasn't a real Nazi!" :D

Lol - or when faced with the half-assed laws, if not entire premise, of the Bible - well, he wasn't a real God.

Indeed.

No offense, but really passé explanation.

I see this kind of thing all the time. Muslim talking about Usama bin Laden: "He's not a real Muslim!" Christian talking about Fred Phelps: "He's not a real Christian!" Communist talking about the USSR: "It wasn't really communist!" And so on and so forth. I'm still awaiting the day when some Neo-Nazi shows up, is told of Hitler's atrocities and returns with, "Well, he wasn't a real Nazi!" :D

For God sake! There are bad people who for some demented reason have an urge to do wrong, and knowing the public will want their heads they use religion, politics and various ideologies as an excuse to do bad things. Most people know that the true beleivers do not engage in such immoral actions as Fred Phelps and Osama Bind Laden. Are you seriously saying that just because one member of a religion/ideology is batshit insane or immoral that it makes every single member that way? And did you just compare EVERY ideology on the face of planet earth to nazism?

Are you seriously saying that just because one member of a religion/ideology is batshit insane or immoral that it makes every single member that way? And did you just compare EVERY ideology on the face of planet earth to nazism?

Massive Godwin.

You Christians - what exactly are we being saved from? The Devil - he didn't exist until the New Testament. In the Old Testament there was an advocate but no Devil. His job was to keep God honest (he doesn't seem to have done a very good job of it). Seems to me the Devil or Satan or whatever you want to call it is a Christian invention which they use to justify themselves. Or is it original sin - another Christian invention which wasn't mentioned in the O.T.

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?

I think we're being saved from the absence of Jesus.

Please.

You get saved from power outages and lost game data.

Why else would you save?

You win this thread. :p

Not saving often when playing games or doing important assignments via WORD is sarcreligious I tell you! REPENT!

Please.

You get saved from power outages and lost game data.

Why else would you save?

You Christians - what exactly are we being saved from? The Devil - he didn't exist until the New Testament. In the Old Testament there was an advocate but no Devil. His job was to keep God honest (he doesn't seem to have done a very good job of it). Seems to me the Devil or Satan or whatever you want to call it is a Christian invention which they use to justify themselves. Or is it original sin - another Christian invention which wasn't mentioned in the O.T.

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?

In most pre-Christian religions the origin of human consciousness is seen as a mixed blessing, but ultimately a good thing. Sure there's pain and the fear of death, but there's everything that intelligence has to offer.

Early Christianity was run by anti-intellectuals, and then taken over by political authoritarians who revised and reinterpreted it to control their flocks. So the story of Jehovah giving humans the opportunity to gain consciousness, and even warning them of the downside of it, is a story of creatures who were once like any other animal suddenly finding themselves conscious. Dreading the end of their own existence, but having the opportunity to make that existence mean so much more.

All those people who think that it was a story of Sin causing humans to "fall," and we must beg forgiveness to be allowed back into heaven are as dumb as the early Taoists who thought you could make your body immortal by drinking mercury.

If I read the law books, and I choose to follow the laws of the land, am I giving up the ability to think for myself? No I am not, because I am choosing to obey laws. my ability to think and rationalize the situation leads me to decide to obey the rules. I still can choose to break them anytime I want to. But read it again, I CHOOSE to follow the laws. No one forces me to do it, thus my ability to free thought allows me to choose the path I have.


and not at all similar. Whether I agree or disagree iwth the laws of the state, they are what they are. I have no doubt the legislature exists, I can go up to beacon hill and observe it in action.

The "laws of god" are different. I can disagree with drug laws, but I can't change that they exist. Religious "laws" on the other hand, can be accepted, or rejected, at will, and to accept their existance to to implicitly agree with them.

Some can argue "well, I may disagree with the laws of god, but they're the laws, I am obligated by god to follow them, even though I don't like them"

Those people are lying.

Please.

You get saved from power outages and lost game data.

Why else would you save?

Munchkinism.

1. Save often
2. Load as many times as it takes to recieve the best result.

:)


ps. If g/God(s) can save, can the same deity load a save?

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?
Culpability.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Mandatory weasel lessons!

Seconded!!!!!!
http://www.risawn.com/blog/ferrets4.jpg
Shown here, working on lessons.

Instead of making biblically illiterate blanket statements about salvation and Christianity, STUDY the Bible for a change.

Instead of making biblically illiterate blanket statements about your own religion, STUDY the Bible AND the threads pertinent to it, amply provided here on NSG, for a change.

All those people who think that it was a story of Sin causing humans to "fall," and we must beg forgiveness to be allowed back into heaven are as dumb as the early Taoists who thought you could make your body immortal by drinking mercury.
:D

From sin. Sin equals eternal separation from God. Jesus came so we can be back in fellowship with God.

So we are separated form God then?

Satan is mentioned in the OT.

The prosecutor or adversary directly served God. He was not Gods enemy, nor evil. Is that the same character as the devil ?

I think the reason I annoy most evangelical types is because THEY are quite sure that they have something I need, while I don't think so.

They are quite sure there's something I need to be "saved" from, and they are quite sure that they can save me. I don't feel I need saving.

They are quite sure my life is incomplete without whatever it is they're peddling. I simply don't want it.

They're sure I need their God. I don't.

What they call "sin," I call "humanity." I don't want to be saved from my humanity. I don't want to be saved from being mortal and fallible and finite. Those qualities are part of what it means to be human. I'm not ashamed of them. I don't fear them. And I most certainly don't need or want any God to absolve me of them or magic them away.

What's wrong about sin, anyway? I quite enjoy it...

I believe the problem is that according to the Bible God doesn't. And that God believes that choices should have consequences.

Seconded!!!!!!
http://www.risawn.com/blog/ferrets4.jpg
Shown here, working on lessons.

And a good one at that. *nods*

yep. however, being free of the original sin does not mean one is free from sin. ;)

What's wrong about sin, anyway? I quite enjoy it...

What's wrong about sin, anyway? I quite enjoy it...

I prefer cos myself.

Tan FTW :p

The problem with tan is tangent lines.

I prefer cos myself.

Tan FTW :p

Ah....these topics amuse me because the Christians appear to know less about their own religious dogmas than we free-thinkers do.

To those who say sin separates us from God, I ask: How is that even possible? Your own theology teaches that God is omnipresent...He is EVERYWHERE. How can a being who is everywhere be SEPARATED from anything?

I believe the problem is that according to the Bible God doesn't. And that God believes that choices should have consequences.

Awww... God just needs to get a girlfriend.... loosen up, have a few beers, put on some rock'n'roll, you know. ;)

In all seriousness, however, some of the sins were actually real threats at the time. Sex before marriage, for instance, was verboten because it could lead to unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, both of which could easily cause death -- all surely the curses of God upon those who failed to follow His word, but now avoidable thanks to advances in contraceptives and medical technology. Gluttony was a deadly sin because in that time they had no antacids, or antidiuretics, or laxatives to deal with the aftereffects -- again, stomachaches and diarrhea, God's judgment. Eating pork or shellfish could be dangerous because it was not known how to prepare it properly, so it became sinful. Alcoholism and drug abuse caused all the problems they still cause today; destruction of brain cells, liver trouble, addiction; so they were banned. And so on, and so forth.

The Apostle Paul writes that, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." The only problem is that Paul could hardly pen a single sentence without contradicting some past event, teaching, or theology that had already been laid down.

If one would care to go back and re-read the "fall" of man story at the beginning of Genesis, one would discover a multitude of plot holes. First is the fact that Adam and Eve's alleged "sin" was eating from the Tree of the Knowledge Between Good and Evil, thereby learning the difference between right and wrong. We're not sure why "God" regarded this action as sinful since before they did so they apparently did not know the difference between right and wrong. How does God reasonably expect beings to know that what they're doing is sinful or wrong BEFORE they know the difference between right and wrong???

Secondly, why, according to Paul, is the gift of God eternal life? A careful reading of Genesis will quickly demonstrate that Adam and Eve were not banished from the Garden of Eden for "sinning," they were banished because God was afraid they might eat from the Tree of Life...granting themselves eternal life. God had not created immortals. God created beings who would eventually come to an end (though after a substantially longer time than us modern folk). Christianity asserts that Jesus' death made it possible for us to reconvene with God, just like it had been before "original sin" entered the picture. But eternal life wasn't IN the original picture!!! Why would God wait around 4,000 more years before impregnating His own mother in order to give birth to Himself to be horribly tortured and eventually killed to appease Himself for a plight He Himself imposed on humanity to begin with, and finally offering anyone who believed this crazy scheme a gift He had not the desire nor foresight to bestow on them in the first place?

This entire theology is ludicrous!

The problem with tan is tangent lines.

Only if you dress up your tan...

Honestly, are telling me people still believe in that old Bronze-age Judean myth? Wow....

Honestly, are you telling me people still believe in that old Victorian-age German myth? Wow...

At least it's been proven that Marxism can't stand up to capitalism, there's no particular evidence either way with Christianity.

You bring up a good point. A person's final authority should be the Bible, not any "teachings" of ANY "church" or any "pastor" or "deacon" or any (insert any religious title here not aforementioned). Always judge such teachings by the Bible, and if the Bible says one thing and the "church" or the "clergy" say another, stick with the Bible.

Yes. Go to the Bible to learn what is right and what is wrong. Thus eliminating the need to think for yourself, or see reality. And if you mess up sometimes, no worries, God made you imperfect and he'll forgive you, thus eliminating the need for personal responsibility.

;)
Yep, yep, there's your problem, right there. Yep.

The Christian church I chose not to join was the United Congregationalist Church (by which I mean it was the one I had the most personal exposure to; it was the neighborhood church where everyone hung out for social purposes; my family were not real members). The particular Congregationalist congregation that I dealt with took the exact opposite approach. They hardly ever referred to the Bible. The minister would mention a verse or two at the start of a sermon, but then go on in his own words and not refer back to the book again. Children in that church were not made to read the Bible, nor was there a Bible study class or group, to my knowledge. And if you asked the minister what you should do about something, he would just tell you to sit quietly alone in the church and think about it on your own. He might offer personal advice as a friend, if he knew you, but that was it. This was because their belief was that each person has to have their own personal and direct relationship with God and that no one and no outside authority could ever be a better guide than that small still voice within. As far as I understand it, this is pretty central to Congregationalist belief. It made them one of the most radical and rejectionist of the break-away puritan churches of the 17th century, back in the day.

Now, granted, I listened to the small, still voice within, and it led me away from Christianity altogether, but in my opinion, that particular congregation was quite enlightened. At least it goes to show that being a Christian, in and of itself, does not mean that one is indoctrinated to submit one's thinking and judgment to someone else's authority.

Blindly following the Bible in all things, on the other hand....well, blindly following anything or anyone is generally a bad idea, in my opinion.

he would save us from 'witnessers' and prosylitizers. Having to listen to someone's bible crap at work, at my front door, on the street -- now that is Hell.

I think the reason I annoy most evangelical types is because THEY are quite sure that they have something I need, while I don't think so.

They are quite sure there's something I need to be "saved" from, and they are quite sure that they can save me. I don't feel I need saving.

They are quite sure my life is incomplete without whatever it is they're peddling. I simply don't want it.

They're sure I need their God. I don't.

What they call "sin," I call "humanity." I don't want to be saved from my humanity. I don't want to be saved from being mortal and fallible and finite. Those qualities are part of what it means to be human. I'm not ashamed of them. I don't fear them. And I most certainly don't need or want any God to absolve me of them or magic them away.
Ditto. :)

I would add also that these people often seem to suffer from a certain kind of anxiety about the future, and they seem unable to believe that I do not also suffer the same anxiety. In addition to the aggressive salesmanship, it also annoys me to be constantly told how afraid I am, how anxious I am, how unhappy I am, when in fact I feel none of those things. If I did, I would be seeking them out on my own, not waiting for them to ring my doorbell or yell for my attention on the street.

You Christians - what exactly are we being saved from? The Devil - he didn't exist until the New Testament. In the Old Testament there was an advocate but no Devil. His job was to keep God honest (he doesn't seem to have done a very good job of it). Seems to me the Devil or Satan or whatever you want to call it is a Christian invention which they use to justify themselves. Or is it original sin - another Christian invention which wasn't mentioned in the O.T.

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?

I know a lot of Evangelicals and possibly Catholics would disagree with this, but I'll say it anyway so keep that in perspective.

When most people say the word 'saved' in a Christian context it's thought of as a binary status: Either you're saved or you aren't.

In my church (Mormon), we don't use the term 'saved' the way many others do. The reason is that it's not an on-off switch. When one is baptized, they're considered washed clean from sin and are now a member of the Church. Whan that happens, a Covenant is made. The Atonement Christ made now includes them, and in return they agree to abide by His word. That Covenant is renewed each Sunday by partaking of the bread/water in Sacrament.

So it is possible for one to 'fall away' by degrees, and basically throw away the benefits of having been Baptized. Also, there could be cases where someone is a member in good standing and all, but never really live it to the fullest and so tend to find fewer blessings in life from their conversion.

In worst case, one can be Excommunicated. (Which can be undone, if the person repents and comes back)

So there's really no way to use the term 'saved' in a meaningful way under these circumstances. Free Will does not end at Baptism.

But if I WERE to apply the term to those who are doing the right thing, I'd say what they were being saved from is the corruption and evil that goes with living sinfully as opposed to the purity that is the Light of God. They're on a path to save themselves from having to be separated forever from God, and having to know, each day through all eternity* that they could have had so much more, and blew the chance.

*In Mormon theology, there's no Hell as described by Evangelicals/Catholics. It's not a place of eternal torture with fire, brimstone, and Satan having an affair with Saddam Hussein. Instead we refer to it as just a place with the absence of God, and whatever follows from that.

By the way, I would also like to add that all of the criticisms of Christian and/or Bible theology that claim it makes no sense or is hypocritical have certain flaws themselves, as well.

Yes, it is true that the Bible contains major contradictions, and this is obviously because it is a compilation of several books written by different authors at different times. In some cases, the original books were themselves amalgamations of several popular versions of the same story that had been in circulation for a long time. And let's not forget the many generations of translations they have been through, before and after being compiled into the Bible.

So to criticize the Bible as being a confusing text and a contradictory text may be valid, especially in regards using it as a handbook for how to live, but to harp on those contradictions as a reason to invalidate the theology is not valid, in my opinion. Rather, it misses the theology altogether, using the contradictions as a reason not to look any deeper at all.

Also, to latch onto specific events in specific stories and specific phrases like "the wages of sin is death" etc, and parse those out in order to show that the theology is nonsensical, is also to miss the point entirely. It is to take myth and treat it as if it is an instruction manual or an old newspaper -- as if these stories are recitations of fact, not symbolic and metaphorical dramas meant to elicit certain emotional and psychological states.

I put it to all here that -- and this is my firm opinion -- there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that needs to be or is meant to be taken at face value, as meaning only what the words on the pages say. I further put it that this is as true for those who criticize the Bible as it is for those who follow it. Whether you are for it or against it, to read anything in it as literal -- including the purported historical accounts -- is to miss the point.

This is the number one reason I am not a Christian -- because I cannot shake the feeling that the people trying to get me to join their church really don't seem to have a grasp of what their religion is about.

It's also why none of the answers to the OP question seem to have any ring of...truth? Well, of anything, really.

Now, granted, I listened to the small, still voice within, and it led me away from Christianity altogether, but in my opinion, that particular congregation was quite enlightened. At least it goes to show that being a Christian, in and of itself, does not mean that one is indoctrinated to submit one's thinking and judgment to someone else's authority.
Don't talk about that small voice inside. If that small voice is God, no worries. If it isn't, you are insane. The little voice in Joan Of Arc's head told her to kill, but because it was god telling her to kill the English, she wasn't a psychopath, she was a saint.

But if I WERE to apply the term to those who are doing the right thing, I'd say what they were being saved from is the corruption and evil that goes with living sinfully as opposed to the purity that is the Light of God. They're on a path to save themselves from having to be separated forever from God, and having to know, each day through all eternity* that they could have had so much more, and blew the chance.

*In Mormon theology, there's no Hell as described by Evangelicals/Catholics. It's not a place of eternal torture with fire, brimstone, and Satan having an affair with Saddam Hussein. Instead we refer to it as just a place with the absence of God, and whatever follows from that.
See, now this is a theological perspective I don't mind so much.

If I live a "sinful" life, I'm condemned to continue existing without God. Which, thus far, has worked out just fine for me, and hence I don't feel it's punishment at all.

This sounds like a reasonable deal. I'm not interested in spending time with the Mormon God, so the Mormon God leaves me alone for all eternity. I'm chill with that.

See, now this is a theological perspective I don't mind so much.

If I live a "sinful" life, I'm condemned to continue existing without God. Which, thus far, has worked out just fine for me, and hence I don't feel it's punishment at all.

This sounds like a reasonable deal. I'm not interested in spending time with the Mormon God, so the Mormon God leaves me alone for all eternity. I'm chill with that.

The JW God is a whole other story. He'll leave you alone, but he'll send all his friends to hassle you into calling him. Like some kind of ex......

Similarly, how do Christians maintain that sin "separates us from God?" How is it possible for a being who is EVERYWHERE - by definition - to be SEPARATED from anything???

That is actually quite well explained in the last book from the chronicles of Narnia. It is also a major copout.

To paraphrase: if you do not believe, you will not notice. Even if his fire burns right next to you, you will be cold.

Or in one word: magic ;)

How can God be "absent from a place?" Regardless of your denomination, sect, cult, or whatever, a central tenant to Christian theology is God's omnipresence...He is EVERYWHERE. It is one of the defining characteristics of what makes God God.

Similarly, how do Christians maintain that sin "separates us from God?" How is it possible for a being who is EVERYWHERE - by definition - to be SEPARATED from anything???

And finally, even IF all the contradictory teachings of Christianity were somehow true, why is it necessary to "accept Jesus into your heart," "get saved," or whichever euphemism you prefer? IF Jesus is God, and IF God is everywhere, then it follows that everyone already has Jesus within them, making the entire "conversion" process a bit redundant and pointless.

Chalk up one more plot hole to religion.

That is actually quite well explained in the last book from the chronicles of Narnia. It is also a major copout.

To paraphrase: if you do not believe, you will not notice. Even if his fire burns right next to you, you will be cold.

Or in one word: magic ;)

I propose that the chronicles of Narnia be considered part of the Bible. At least there won't be any doubts that it isn't to be taken literally.

To paraphrase: if you do not believe, you will not notice. Even if his fire burns right next to you, you will be cold.

Which is funny, since history seems to record many cases of religious believers warming themselves by burning other people's gods...

;)

The JW God is a whole other story. He'll leave you alone, but he'll send all his friends to hassle you into calling him. Like some kind of ex......
Heh. "Sorry, Yahweh, but I'm not into you that way. Let's just be friends."

Seriously, though, I always figured that the Abrahamic creation mythology sounded a lot more like a scientist performing an experiment than anything else.

As a researcher, I have performed my own little genesis myth, by planting a bacterial culture on a disk of gel. Where there was once lifelessness, I brought life. I often tested my "creations" by exposing them to various agents that might slow or speed their progress. I directed their growth by using selective media, upon which only certain strains can survive.

This is one of the reasons I think the Biblical God acts like a jackass in several places. See, if my bacteria didn't grow the way I had wanted them to, I didn't get pissed off at the bacteria. I didn't accuse the bacteria of hating me. (Okay, well, I did once or twice, but I was kidding. Mostly.) I knew that the bacteria were behaving as their nature directed. I also knew that I had put them there, and if they were responding in a way that I didn't like then it was probably due to the conditions that I had set up for them.

If God really is omnipotent and omniscient by human standards, then that easily makes Him as far beyond humans as I am beyond my pet bacteria. His supposed reactions toward humans as described in the Bible are pretty foolish when you view them in this light.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Mandatory weasel lessons!

I cannot see that color without thinking "OMG sleaze damage!".

I propose that the chronicles of Narnia be considered part of the Bible. At least there won't be any doubts that it isn't to be taken literally.

Considering the book basicly is a kiddie Bible- why not :)

How can God be "absent from a place?" Regardless of your denomination, sect, cult, or whatever, a central tenant to Christian theology is God's omnipresence...He is EVERYWHERE. It is one of the defining characteristics of what makes God God.

Similarly, how do Christians maintain that sin "separates us from God?" How is it possible for a being who is EVERYWHERE - by definition - to be SEPARATED from anything???

And finally, even IF all the contradictory teachings of Christianity were somehow true, why is it necessary to "accept Jesus into your heart," "get saved," or whichever euphemism you prefer? IF Jesus is God, and IF God is everywhere, then it follows that everyone already has Jesus within them, making the entire "conversion" process a bit redundant and pointless.

Chalk up one more plot hole to religion.

I can't speak for other denominations, but the Mormon answer is that God isn't personally everywhere. He has the ability to extend His influence everywhere, but that isn't the same. (Obviously, the same applies to Jesus.)

<snip>
If God really is omnipotent and omniscient by human standards, then that easily makes Him as far beyond humans as I am beyond my pet bacteria. His supposed reactions toward humans as described in the Bible are pretty foolish when you view them in this light.

I can't speak for other denominations (Yeah, I know I keep saying that but if I do'nt sooner or later some Evangelical will quote me and go into how wrong I am about THEIR denomination, so please bear with me.) but my understanding is that we're not as far below God as that. I mean, you don't LOVE the bacteria you work with, and they have no possibility of ever loving you back, nor can they ever develop and grow to become like you. (I'm talking about individuals, not the species vis a vis evolution.)

And as most of us have learned in life... The people we care about the most are the ones with the greatest ability to piss us off...

Don't talk about that small voice inside. If that small voice is God, no worries. If it isn't, you are insane. The little voice in Joan Of Arc's head told her to kill, but because it was god telling her to kill the English, she wasn't a psychopath, she was a saint.

And this is an example of the literalist thinking (or lack of thought) that derails so much of religious critique.

The phrase "small still voice" is a reference from the Bible. It refers to human thought and reason and human conscience. The Bible verse suggests that the source of thought, reason and conscience is God, and therefore one can trust those things.

However, even if you do not believe in the Christian idea of God, it would not follow that you should also not believe in the existence of human thought, reason and conscience. That would be just silly, don't you agree?

So, obviously, since the orginal reference was to thought, reason and conscience, when I say I listened to the "small still voice" I meant that I listened to my own thoughts, reason and conscience.

To assume that I meant I heard a voice inside my head telling me to do things is just such a shallow response to the words that I wonder you bothered to respond at all. To assume that anyone who says they are listening to the voice of the god they believe in, means it literally and is hearing voices is either (a) an equally shallow response, or (b) a dishonest response that is designed to paint all people who have religious belief as crazy, i.e. to paint religion itself as a symptom of insanity. And since there is ample evidence that that is false, then such an approach can be nothing but prejudice and insult.

Of course, if you do not believe and do not notice, then you probably do not care, either, and do not feel the lack of the fire, so... problem eliminated.

Well.. in the book people* do whine about the cold** ;)

* and **: not actually people. Not actually cold either. But I am not going to spoil the book ;)

That is actually quite well explained in the last book from the chronicles of Narnia. It is also a major copout.

To paraphrase: if you do not believe, you will not notice. Even if his fire burns right next to you, you will be cold.

Or in one word: magic ;)
Of course, if you do not believe and do not notice, then you probably do not care, either, and do not feel the lack of the fire, so... problem eliminated.

Heh. "Sorry, Yahweh, but I'm not into you that way. Let's just be friends."

Seriously, though, I always figured that the Abrahamic creation mythology sounded a lot more like a scientist performing an experiment than anything else.

As a researcher, I have performed my own little genesis myth, by planting a bacterial culture on a disk of gel. Where there was once lifelessness, I brought life. I often tested my "creations" by exposing them to various agents that might slow or speed their progress. I directed their growth by using selective media, upon which only certain strains can survive.

This is one of the reasons I think the Biblical God acts like a jackass in several places. See, if my bacteria didn't grow the way I had wanted them to, I didn't get pissed off at the bacteria. I didn't accuse the bacteria of hating me. (Okay, well, I did once or twice, but I was kidding. Mostly.) I knew that the bacteria were behaving as their nature directed. I also knew that I had put them there, and if they were responding in a way that I didn't like then it was probably due to the conditions that I had set up for them.

If God really is omnipotent and omniscient by human standards, then that easily makes Him as far beyond humans as I am beyond my pet bacteria. His supposed reactions toward humans as described in the Bible are pretty foolish when you view them in this light.
Pfft, I won't be impressed until they start retelling the story of how your son was killed for them every Sunday. 'Take this all of you and absorb it. This is my cytoplasm, which has been given up for you'
Considering the book basicly is a kiddie Bible- why not :)
Excellent, motion carries.

I can't speak for other denominations (Yeah, I know I keep saying that but if I do'nt sooner or later some Evangelical will quote me and go into how wrong I am about THEIR denomination, so please bear with me.) but my understanding is that we're not as far below God as that.

Do you believe God is all-knowing and/or all-powerful?


I mean, you don't LOVE the bacteria you work with, and they have no possibility of ever loving you back, nor can they ever develop and grow to become like you. (I'm talking about individuals, not the species vis a vis evolution.)

On the contrary, if the Bible is taken as an authority on the subject of God's love, then I would say my actions toward my bacteria are more "loving" than God's actions toward humanity

I cannot see that color without thinking "OMG sleaze damage!".

Eh? Sleaze damage?

Do you believe God is all-knowing and/or all-powerful?


I think the best answer would have to come with a qualifier, that He is, for all intents and purposes.

Mormon theology teaches us that God Himself is also continually growing, just as He wants us to (in the afterlife), so to think of Him as being all-knowing and all-powerful in an infinite way would leave little room for that.


On the contrary, if the Bible is taken as an authority on the subject of God's love, then I would say my actions toward my bacteria are more "loving" than God's actions toward humanity

I dunno about that... Consider that to God, death is just a transition from this life to the next, and as such, if He destroys a city all He's really doing is bringing that population 'home' for whatever reason. (Presumably for something analogous to a stern lecture and a timeout) On the other hand, if you drop a petri dish with a colony of bacteria into an incinerator, it hardly brings them personally into your presence ;)

Eh? Sleaze damage?

Kingdom of (http://www.kingdomofloathing.com) Loathing (http://kol.coldfront.net/) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Elements2.gif

*In Mormon theology, there's no Hell as described by Evangelicals/Catholics. It's not a place of eternal torture with fire, brimstone, and Satan having an affair with Saddam Hussein. Instead we refer to it as just a place with the absence of God, and whatever follows from that.

Really?


O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.
For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel
You don't know you own religion do you?

Really?




You don't know you own religion do you?

Hey wow I'm sure glad I have you to teach me. :rolleyes:

Check your sources. Those BoM verses are reprints from the Old Testament, and are symbolic.

But WTF do I know I've only been a Mormon for 10 years. How long have you been?

Huh. Interesting. I like that a lot more than an omnipotent and omniscient deity.


I find it to be a good bit more consistent.


*GASP* Incinerate my little goo-minions?! Not until they start taking my name in vain.

LOL Kinda like playing 'Populous' or 'Black & White,' ain't it?

I think the best answer would have to come with a qualifier, that He is, for all intents and purposes.

Mormon theology teaches us that God Himself is also continually growing, just as He wants us to (in the afterlife), so to think of Him as being all-knowing and all-powerful in an infinite way would leave little room for that.

Huh. Interesting. I like that a lot more than an omnipotent and omniscient deity.


I dunno about that... Consider that to God, death is just a transition from this life to the next, and as such, if He destroys a city all He's really doing is bringing that population 'home' for whatever reason. (Presumably for something analogous to a stern lecture and a timeout) On the other hand, if you drop a petri dish with a colony of bacteria into an incinerator, it hardly brings them personally into your presence ;)
*GASP* Incinerate my little goo-minions?! Not until they start taking my name in vain.

Look, just because I stand over the petri dish wringing my hands and calling them my pretties doesn't mean I've got power issues.

*shifty eyes*

Well of course not! (As long as the nameplate on your office/cube isn't followed with the suffix "Destroyer of Worlds")

These timewarps are getting annoying...

LOL Kinda like playing 'Populous' or 'Black & White,' ain't it?
Look, just because I stand over the petri dish wringing my hands and calling them my pretties doesn't mean I've got power issues.

*shifty eyes*

These timewarps are getting annoying...

Annnnnnd now I have "Let's Do The Timewarp Again" stuck in my head.

Dammit.

Yep, yep, there's your problem, right there. Yep.

The Christian church I chose not to join was the United Congregationalist Church (by which I mean it was the one I had the most personal exposure to; it was the neighborhood church where everyone hung out for social purposes; my family were not real members). The particular Congregationalist congregation that I dealt with took the exact opposite approach. They hardly ever referred to the Bible. The minister would mention a verse or two at the start of a sermon, but then go on in his own words and not refer back to the book again. Children in that church were not made to read the Bible, nor was there a Bible study class or group, to my knowledge. And if you asked the minister what you should do about something, he would just tell you to sit quietly alone in the church and think about it on your own. He might offer personal advice as a friend, if he knew you, but that was it. This was because their belief was that each person has to have their own personal and direct relationship with God and that no one and no outside authority could ever be a better guide than that small still voice within. As far as I understand it, this is pretty central to Congregationalist belief. It made them one of the most radical and rejectionist of the break-away puritan churches of the 17th century, back in the day.

Now, granted, I listened to the small, still voice within, and it led me away from Christianity altogether, but in my opinion, that particular congregation was quite enlightened. At least it goes to show that being a Christian, in and of itself, does not mean that one is indoctrinated to submit one's thinking and judgment to someone else's authority.

Blindly following the Bible in all things, on the other hand....well, blindly following anything or anyone is generally a bad idea, in my opinion.

Which is more akin to my experience throughout my formative years attending a Methodist church not far from where I lived, and quite possibly why I don't vehemently loathe religion in the way that many people around here seem to.

Hey wow I'm sure glad I have you to teach me. :rolleyes:

Check your sources. Those BoM verses are reprints from the Old Testament, and are symbolic.

But WTF do I know I've only been a Mormon for 10 years. How long have you been?

If they're just symbolic, and from your statement totally false, why are they in your holy book?

Annnnnnd now I have "Let's Do The Timewarp Again" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdu7xoHU9DA) stuck in my head.

Dammit.

fixed :p

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/f7/RaptorJesus2.jpg
Raptor Jesus went extinct for your sins!

If they're just symbolic, and from your statement totally false, why are they in your holy book?

The answer is quite beyond the scope of this thread, but if you're honestly interested then TG me and I'll explain it in detail.

If, on the other hand, you're just trying to be clever, then suffice it to say it's deeper than you realize and let's leave it that.

The answer is quite beyond the scope of this thread, but if you're honestly interested then TG me and I'll explain it in detail.

If, on the other hand, you're just trying to be clever, then suffice it to say it's deeper than you realize and let's leave it that.

TG? sorry not familiar with that acronym. And a little of both although more the former.

TG? sorry not familiar with that acronym. And a little of both although more the former.

Telegram. As in in-game instead of on-forum ;)

Telegram. As in in-game instead of on-forum ;)

Thanks

My god another religion thread.
I think i'm going to have critiques of God and science for the rest of my life zipping through my head, give it a break. I mean sure some Christians are annoying, as are some athiests but it doesn't mean everyone suddenly has to jump about, besides i think Christianity and athiesm is more a theory than a belief, it just has more people believing and hating it than others. If there are any religions it's the pseudo religions of say, football matches or olympic games (notice huge buildings, bizzare chants, huge media coverage, large salaries for professionals in these sports, the special clothes) Yet i don't hear many people criticising them or supporting them.

The prosecutor or adversary directly served God. He was not Gods enemy, nor evil. Is that the same character as the devil ?yes. Satan is a Fallen Angel.

What's wrong about sin, anyway? I quite enjoy it...
What's wrong with breaking the law? Some people enjoy killing others, most rape because they quite enjoy it.

My god another religion thread.

I just find it helarious that these religious threads are started by people who don't like it when 'religion is forced into their lives' so they fight it by constantly bringing it up. :p

yes. Satan is a Fallen Angel.

Says who ? The Bible certainly doesn't. Hell (forgive the pun) - he is practically Gods conscience !

What's wrong with breaking the law? Some people enjoy killing others, most rape because they quite enjoy it.

I noticed you didn't respond the first time I addressed this crap fest of an argument, so lemme try again.

I do not require an act of faith to believe in the law. I can pick up a law book and read it. I can watch a courtroom and see it applied. I can go sit in on the legislature up on Beacon Hill and watch them in action.

Moreover, if I have a modicrum of intellect, I can understand that most laws exist because breaking them violates others life, liberty and/or property. Rape is bad because it hurts somebody else. Theft is bad because it takes others property. Murder is bad because it takes another life.

I obey the law because failure to do so harms others, and I know, for a fact, an institution exists to punish me if I do wrong. I am of course free to think a law is wrong, but still obey it because if I don't I'll be punished for that.

Religious "law" on the other hand usually involves prohibitions on activities that don't actually harm anyone, under the guise that "god said it" and if we don't we'll be punished somehow. In order to consider religious law as binding one can not simply go to a legislature and prove to himself, for a fact, that it exists. One actually has to have a level of faith in the being that laid down that law.

You actually have to believe that there is a god and god said all these things. I know very few people who can simultaniously hold a belief in god, and in god's laws, absent any proof, but still think those laws are just wrong. It's very hard to maintain faith in a being you actually disagree with.

I can think a law is wrong, and not have my "faith" in the legislature called into question, I know the legislature exists. To think god exists, as a pure matter of faith, and is wrong...I know few people whose faith can withstand such a beating.

I can understand that not wearing a seat belt is against the law, but also believe that there's nothing wrong with not wearing a seatbelt, I disagree with the law.

On the other hand, most who believe, in faith, of "god's law" think those ideas of "sin" are just fine, and actually believe those sinful acts are wrong. They actually believe that premarital sex is WRONG, that using birth control is WRONG, that eating shellfish is WRONG. Not something that's god's law, but a law we disagree with because we fear punishment, but things that are morally wrong, and god is right for outlawing them.

Which is why your analogy falls flat on its face. It does not create a crisis in faith to believe the legislature created a wrong law. It often does so if one believes that god created a wrong law. A crisis in faith that tends to lead one either away from the idea that it's really a sin, or back to the idea that god is right for doing so. EDIT: or, of course, come up with the third option, which is what so many religious folks like to do when their faith is actually called into question...avoid it, pretend he didn't actually say that part, or that we mistranslated it.

Says who ? The Bible certainly doesn't. Hell (forgive the pun) - he is practically Gods conscience !

it actually depends on if one counts Lucifer and Satan to be one and the same or seperate entities.

Isaiah 14

I obey the law because failure to do so harms others, and I know, for a fact, an institution exists to punish me if I do wrong. I am of course free to think a law is wrong, but still obey it because if I don't I'll be punished for that.

Religious "law" on the other hand usually involves prohibitions on activities that don't actually harm anyone, under the guise that "god said it" and if we don't we'll be punished somehow. In order to consider religious law as binding one can not simply go to a legislature and prove to himself, for a fact, that it exists. One actually has to have a level of faith in the being that laid down that law.



Christian religions as a whole follow the 10 Commandments. Have you ever read them?

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

While not all of them have something to do with harming another person, the last five do. The others have to do with respect, something parents generally expect from their children, as God expects his children to give him.

As for religions that have other laws to follow, like Mormonism, consuming things like alcohol, tea, coffee, and smoking cigarettes are harmful to yourself. The effects of alcohol and cigarettes are of course widely known but have you been to a new doctor lately when they ask to to fill out a little survey on what your daily habits are? The one that asks you all the questions about substance use (alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs are on this) and things like that? Have you ever noticed that it has questions on there about if and how much coffee and tea you consume? Seems that medical professionals know something that we may not. Just food for thought.

I noticed you didn't respond the first time I addressed this crap fest of an argument, so lemme try again.
Sorry, I didn't come back to this thread for a long time. so I only concentrated on those replies to me.
I do not require an act of faith to believe in the law. Good, no one said you needed faith to believe in the law.
I can pick up a law book and read it. and you can pick up the bible and read it.
I can watch a courtroom and see it applied. I can go sit in on the legislature up on Beacon Hill and watch them in action. and you can go to church and listen, you can also go to many religious (not just christian) services. your point?

Moreover, if I have a modicrum of intellect, I can understand that most laws exist because breaking them violates others life, liberty and/or property. yet you cannot tell a faceious answer when given?
Rape is bad because it hurts somebody else. Theft is bad because it takes others property. Murder is bad because it takes another life. yet you follow them when they are laws and not commandments?

I obey the law because failure to do so harms others, and I know, for a fact, an institution exists to punish me if I do wrong. I am of course free to think a law is wrong, but still obey it because if I don't I'll be punished for that. yep. however, another point is you obey the laws of man (verses religous ones) because you see the punishment metted out in timely manner. Steal, get caught, get punished. all nice and timely.

God and other Religious laws don't punish till the day of judgement. because God would rather you rethink and change your life before he renders judgement. thus he won't punish you for things you correct yourself and things you ask forgiveness for.

Religious "law" on the other hand usually involves prohibitions on activities that don't actually harm anyone, under the guise that "god said it" and if we don't we'll be punished somehow. like... thou shalt not commit murder? Thou shalt not steal? Thou shalt not commit adultry? thou shalt not bear false witness?
In order to consider religious law as binding one can not simply go to a legislature and prove to himself, for a fact, that it exists. One actually has to have a level of faith in the being that laid down that law.except religous laws are between the follower of the religion and the religion they follow. I will not expect a Buddist to follow the Mulsim way of life or a Muslim to follow the Christian way of life.

You actually have to believe that there is a god and god said all these things. I know very few people who can simultaniously hold a belief in god, and in god's laws, absent any proof, but still think those laws are just wrong. It's very hard to maintain faith in a being you actually disagree with.

I can think a law is wrong, and not have my "faith" in the legislature called into question, I know the legislature exists. To think god exists, as a pure matter of faith, and is wrong...I know few people whose faith can withstand such a beating. yet tho you can disagree with the Legislated laws, you still follow them. why? because you believe those laws right even tho you think they're wrong, or because you fear the punishment of being caught breaking those laws? or are you just blindly following those laws even tho you don't think they're right because they're there.

the Laws made by man can be changed because man made those laws to be changed.


I can understand that not wearing a seat belt is against the law, but also believe that there's nothing wrong with not wearing a seatbelt, I disagree with the law. but do you still follow that law? do you accept the punishment should you be caught breaking that law? do you go through the established procedure of judgement and punishment for breaking that law you disagree with?

On the other hand, most who believe, in faith, of "god's law" think those ideas of "sin" are just fine, and actually believe those sinful acts are wrong. They actually believe that premarital sex is WRONG, that using birth control is WRONG, that eating shellfish is WRONG. Not something that's god's law, but a law we disagree with because we fear punishment, but things that are morally wrong, and god is right for outlawing them. following the rules of the religion is part of the worship. to believe otherwise is showing a lack of intelligence. DO you expect people in Japan to follow America's laws? no. so why should atheists or even Muslims or followers of other religions follow Christian ones. That is why so many people fight to make religious baised laws... and it's also why I am against legislating religous rules.

and again, why do you follow laws you think is wrong? is it because you too fear the punishment?

Which is why your analogy falls flat on its face. It does not create a crisis in faith to believe the legislature created a wrong law. It often does so if one believes that god created a wrong law. A crisis in faith that tends to lead one either away from the idea that it's really a sin, or back to the idea that god is right for doing so.what analogy?

Cabra said "what's wrong with sin, I enjoy it" and my reply is people enjoy rapeing others and some enjoy killing others.

and as for 'Crisis of faith" go and read through this forum. many laws were passed during the Bush Administration and what is the usual reply? "say goodbye to USA/Democracy/Freedom/etc..." all that is a crisis in the faith of the system. so yes, my facecious argument still holds true.

why do you obey the laws (even those you think are wrong)? because deep down you believe them right? or do you fear the punishment?

why do you obey the laws (even those you think are wrong)? because deep down you believe them right? or do you fear the punishment?

I'm going to ignore the bulk of the thread as basic pure nonsense, because, frankly, if you haven't figured out the difference between using a book of law to prove the law exists, and using the bible ot prove god exists...well, I doubt any explanation i can give you is going to make it through to you.

So I'll just answer the question simply. I obey laws I think are wrong because I don't want to be punished for it, obviously. I'm unsure what other answer you are expecting.

And therein lies the difference. I do not in any way recognize a bad law as anything other than a bad law. I am fully capable of recognizing that the state legislature can make bad laws. I recognize that the state legislature can have bad judgment. I recognize that when the government passes something I consider a bad law, then I disagree with the government. I'll state right now, I think many things that the legislature made illegal should not be illegal. I think the legislature is wrong. I follow "wrong" laws only because I don't want to be punished for breaking them

Now instead of going on and on and on trying to explain it to you, AGAIN, I am just going to ask a few things.

Do you think god is capable of creating a bad rule? Do you think god is capable of bad judgement?

Do you disagree with god?

Do you believe some things that god declared a sin should not be a sin?

In short, in one very simple question, do you think god is wrong?

like... thou shalt not commit murder? Thou shalt not steal? Thou shalt not commit adultry? thou shalt not bear false witness?


Those are examples of rules that do not require religion to make sense.

Can you name a few rules that are not easily seen to be advantageous to follow, some actions that are not easily seen to be wrong - but require the wisdom of God to be recognised as good or sinful ?

I'm going to ignore the bulk of the thread as basic pure nonsense, because, frankly, if you haven't figured out the difference between using a book of law to prove the law exists, and using the bible ot prove god exists...well, I doubt any explanation i can give you is going to make it through to you. you are arguing Legislative law vs Religous law yet discount the Religious text of that Religion and you call my points nonsense? Neo, I expected better from you. :rolleyes:

Also, we are not arguing proof of God's exsistance, but the difference between legal laws and religous laws/ways of life.

EDIT: Btw, I read that edit Neo... so who again is favoring Ignoring an argument now?

So I'll just answer the question simply. I obey laws I think are wrong because I don't want to be punished for it, obviously. I'm unsure what other answer you are expecting.
In other words. the same reasoning you pointed out for people obeying Religious laws.
Religious "law" on the other hand usually involves prohibitions on activities that don't actually harm anyone, under the guise that "god said it" and if we don't we'll be punished somehow.

And therein lies the difference. I do not in any way recognize a bad law as anything other than a bad law. I am fully capable of recognizing that the state legislature can make bad laws. I recognize that the state legislature can have bad judgment. I recognize that when the government passes something I consider a bad law, then I disagree with the government. Actually it's not that different Neo. you just said you will obey those laws that are wrong because you fear punishment. sure you 'recognize' a bad law but you still will follow that law because it's still the law. as for people disagreeing on what the bible calls a sin is being debated within churches every day. is Homosexuality a sin? is eating shellfish a sin? the fact that you don't see this happening only means you have your eyes closed.

Do you think god is capable of creating a bad rule? Do you think god is capable of bad judgement? define "a bad rule or bad judgement."

to declare a "bad Rule or Judgement" from God is to say I am either equal or above God.

Can YOU even as a lawyer, say to the judge in their courtroom, "YOU, your honor, are wrong in your judgement"? or do you have to go and appeal to another Judge or higher entity to get the first Judge's ruling overturned? In other words, Are you, a lawyer, equal to a courtroom Judge?

Do you believe some things that god declared a sin should not be a sin? I question why they are sins. but I don't say they 'shouldn't' be sins.

In short, in one very simple question, do you disagree with god? alot of times. I have many disagreements with God. It doesn't affect my faith and yes, God and I are still working out our differences.

Those are examples of rules that do not require religion to make sense.

Can you name a few rules that are not easily seen to be advantageous to follow, some actions that are not easily seen to be wrong - but require the wisdom of God to be recognised as good or sinful ?
Adultery. it's not against the law to sleep around, especially when one is married (and as Cabra said, quite fun at times. :p ) yet STD's and many diseases are spread through unprotected and Promiscous sex.

Telling Falsehood. it's not against the law. yet the more lies one tells, the lower that person's integrity becomes in the eyes of his neighbors and it can cause alot of disharmony among friends.

Thou shalt not covet: at first glance, you have what is thought policing. Coveting is not the same as taking/stealing. yet it is because of this type of Jelousy and envy that can lead a person to steal, kidnap and perform other forms of criminal activities.

A healthy Diet: Not really a commandment but one shown through many of the biblical stories. Obesity wasn't rampant then, but alot of dietary examples given in the bible are being pushed by neutritionists now (example, more firm seafood, more veggies, less meat.)

is that what you're looking for?

is that what you're looking for?

Not entirely. While not laws, it is still obvious they are decent moral rules to follow. You yourself explained why.
Can you find anything in the Bible for which this does not hold true ? As in "THe Bible says this is good/bad, but I cannot adequately explain why" ?

With laws after all one can determine why they exist. The underlying reasoning and whole process leading up to them is available. Admittedly the system is now so complex it requires a lot of study, but it is possible.
What do Gods laws add ?

Not entirely. While not laws, it is still obvious they are decent moral rules to follow. You yourself explained why.
Can you find anything in the Bible for which this does not hold true ? As in "THe Bible says this is good/bad, but I cannot adequately explain why" ? what Religious Laws are you talking about then. you obviously have some obscure and murky law (and not moral rule as you keep using the two exclusively) in mind.

With laws after all one can determine why they exist. The underlying reasoning and whole process leading up to them is available. Admittedly the system is now so complex it requires a lot of study, but it is possible. you say the system (assuming the legislative one) is complex and needs study yet are you applying the same reasoning to the rules/laws hidden in the bible (and any other religous text)?

What do Gods laws add ? a better quality of life within that way of life.

Note, this is the Religion's way of life. as said to Neo Art, while one does not expect the Japanese to follow Turkey's laws, you can't expect a Buddist to follow the Christian's way of life.

Honestly, are telling me people still believe in that old Bronze-age Judean myth? Wow....People never seem to realize that it is as hard for a theist to believe that atheists do not believe in a higher power then it is the other way around.

what Religious Laws are you talking about then. you obviously have some obscure and murky law (and not moral rule as you keep using the two exclusively) in mind.

Actually I do not. I just wonder if the Bible truly teaches something one cannot think of oneself.

If so, do believers ever ponder that ? How do they determine that following Gods law is still wise, even if no human understands why it is wise ?

If the Bible does not teach anything special.. why is it needed ?
Although I have so often seen people ask the question "if there is no God, what would stop me from murdering you" that it probably at the very least is something to keep such dangerous people under control.

You Christians - what exactly are we being saved from? The Devil - he didn't exist until the New Testament.

He actually does exist. He's very clearly mentioned in both Job and Genesis.

In the Old Testament there was an advocate but no Devil. His job was to keep God honest (he doesn't seem to have done a very good job of it). Seems to me the Devil or Satan or whatever you want to call it is a Christian invention which they use to justify themselves.

I don't remember an advocate.

Or is it original sin - another Christian invention which wasn't mentioned in the O.T.

It's very much implied by Genesis, as if you notice sons do suffer for their father's transgressions, going all the way back to the Garden of Eden, and especially in the case of Esau, the unfaithful idiot whose descendents became the nation of Edam, which is now known as the Negev Desert.

Just exactly what is it Christ is supposed to be saving us from?

Any number of things. Death and hell are the most obvious and, well, most superficial, but basically the more selfish side of our natures in general, not just as God would judge them, but because of their very real consequences in the real world. As the old joke goes, the punishment for bigamy is multiple wives.

My god another religion thread.

Goodness.

Goodness.

Bless your heart deary! ;)

Actually I do not. I just wonder if the Bible truly teaches something one cannot think of oneself.

If so, do believers ever ponder that ? How do they determine that following Gods law is still wise, even if no human understands why it is wise ?

If the Bible does not teach anything special.. why is it needed ?
Although I have so often seen people ask the question "if there is no God, what would stop me from murdering you" that it probably at the very least is something to keep such dangerous people under control.

Ah, that's different than Religous Laws/rules.

What Religion teaches a person is dependant on each individual person.

For me, What I get out of Christanity are...

Wonder: Many people will only believe things they can do themselves or can be 'recreated in a lab'. a kick test if you will. That's not Wonder.

Patience: In this time of Instant Gratification, Patience is a rare thing these days. Everything has to be Faster or RIGHT NOW. The Bible has taught me the best things are ones that don't come right away. it also taught me the value of standing back and examining the choices one has to make.

Understanding: The Bible played a big part in my ability to look at both sides to everything. Why did it happen? For what purpose? It also allowed me to be understanding of other people's Beliefs and Faiths. something that is really lacking nowdays (evident by most posts here on these forums.)

Hope: Miracles do happen. and Miracles are not just things that CAN'T be explained, but also things just falling into place. Like how I got my first Apartment.

Forgiveness: God forgave me for all my shortcomings, so why can't I forgive that person who shoved me away to get on the Bus first? Why shouldn't I forgive the man who ramed his car into mine? or the person who broke into my apartment and took most of my stuff? or the person who ridicules my set of Beliefs and Faith? God gave me a Second and even a Third chance, why shouldn't I do the same to others?

There are much more things that the Bible and Christianity gave me. Granted none of these are "EXCLUSIVELY" Christian and can only be learned by a Christian or Religious lifestyle, but to me, Christianity made those lessons stick.

I don't remember an advocate.
Read MORE of the source material?

Bless your heart deary! ;)

Of course! :p

What's wrong with breaking the law? Some people enjoy killing others, most rape because they quite enjoy it.

And rape is a sin according to the bible? If I recall correctly, Lot offered his daughters to be raped...
It's against the law to speed on the road, it's illegal to have sex before a certain age, and it's illegal to export endangered animals from tropical countries. None of those are sins.

See, I love adultery, I enjoy blaspheming, and I hate and despise my father with a passion. None of which are illegal.
Where my behaviour is concerned, I rather keep to what's legal and illegal than to what's sinful and what's not.

That is such a overwhelming lie!

Yes, and we're all born sinners.

That is such a overwhelming lie!

Zilam, I thought you were a Muslim! Or maybe that was Zayun...

And rape is a sin according to the bible? If I recall correctly, Lot offered his daughters to be raped...
It's against the law to speed on the road, it's illegal to have sex before a certain age, and it's illegal to export endangered animals from tropical countries. None of those are sins.

See, I love adultery, I enjoy blaspheming, and I hate and despise my father with a passion. None of which are illegal.
Where my behaviour is concerned, I rather keep to what's legal and illegal than to what's sinful and what's not.

Not that I'm an expert on these matters, but I believe Lot existed in an era before god firmly laid the moral rules down. And Jesus was supposedly there to correct moral errors from the past like eye-for-an-eye. I do believe that what Jesus said is supposed to supercede any contradictory precedents in the Bible. So I've been told, anyway.

And rape is a sin according to the bible? If I recall correctly, Lot offered his daughters to be raped...

Actually, the meaning behind that whole part primarily reflects the cultural conditions of the time. It was far better at the time from a moral standpoint for Lot's daughters to be raped than for the safety of his guests, who were under his protection, to be humiliated and assaulted.

On the subject of God's omnipresence, I have never actually met someone who argued for the literal fire and brimstone version. What I have heard, and personally agree with, is that Hell is hell for the exact reason that it is the one place where God's presence is entirely absent which causes unimaginable torture to the soul.

Hell is hell for the exact reason that it is the one place where God's presence is entirely absent which causes unimaginable torture to the soul.As compared to his presence, where precisely the same thing would occur under "God"'s tutelage, or even by his scabby, pus-ridden hand.
Try the OT tutorial for elucidation. Or perhaps, follow this thread further.

Actually, the meaning behind that whole part primarily reflects the cultural conditions of the time. It was far better at the time from a moral standpoint for Lot's daughters to be raped than for the safety of his guests, who were under his protection, to be humiliated and assaulted.

So sin is relative, then? ;)

My god another religion thread.
I think i'm going to have critiques of God and science for the rest of my life zipping through my head, give it a break.

Please allow me to introduce you to one of the internet's most charming functions. It's called "Not Clicking On That Link."

See, if you don't want to read a religion thread, you have the ability to Not Click That Link. Also, if you find yourself in a religion thread and don't want to be there, you can easily escape! Learn to love your browser's BACK button.


I mean sure some Christians are annoying, as are some athiests but it doesn't mean everyone suddenly has to jump about, besides i think Christianity and athiesm is more a theory than a belief, it just has more people believing and hating it than others.

Until you can correctly spell the name of the belief system you are critiquing, nobody is going to take anything you say seriously. I know I don't.

If there are any religions it's the pseudo religions of say, football matches or olympic games (notice huge buildings, bizzare chants, huge media coverage, large salaries for professionals in these sports, the special clothes) Yet i don't hear many people criticising them or supporting them.
If you'd stop clicking into religion threads that don't interest you and try reading the threads that specifically address the topics that you say you're interested in (of which there are many) you'd probably be a lot happier.

Those are examples of rules that do not require religion to make sense.

Once again I must take it a step further.

To the religious believers,

Do you need God to tell you murder is wrong? Really? Are you sure you can't think of a single non-God-related reason why it might be shitty to murder somebody?

Do you need God-belief to believe that adultery is wrong? Really? Are you sure that the concepts of keeping your word and being honorable toward your loved ones don't factor in?

Do you need God-belief to get you to grasp the concept that stealing is bad? My dad and my kindergarten teacher were sufficient to get it through my thick skull that you don't take what isn't yours. Do you really require an omnipotent Creator-being to teach it to you? Are you sure?

Do you need God to tell you that lying is wrong? If so, is there any reason at all why anybody should trust you, ever? I wouldn't trust anybody who was only honest because somebody else told them to be. Is that you?

Do you need God to tell you murder is wrong? Really?


Poor Bottle.

Didnt you get the memo?

There can be no morality without the Abrahamic God, and specifically Jesus Christ.
However, this does not apply to the Muslims, becuase they are all terrorists, and it also excludes the Jews, becuase they, of course, killed our Lord thy GOD.

It especially applies to us Atheists, who might as well marry goats, and rape kids, because we dont know any better.

Poor Bottle.

Didnt you get the memo?

There can be no morality without the Abrahamic God, and specifically Jesus Christ.
However, this does not apply to the Muslims, becuase they are all terrorists, and it also excludes the Jews, becuase they, of course, killed our Lord thy GOD.

It especially applies to us Atheists, who might as well marry goats, and rape kids, because we dont know any better.
I guess so. Silly me and my atheist morality, thinking that human life had value. If only I'd been taught from childhood that the only reason not to kill people is because God will be sad about it. Then maybe I could be a moral person.

I guess so. Silly me and my atheist morality, thinking that human life had value. If only I'd been taught from childhood that the only reason not to kill people is because God will be sad about it. Then maybe I could be a moral person.
I agree -- the single most annoying thing that these uber-religious types do is cop this attitude that, if you're not a member of their church, then you're immoral scum, and don't bother to bring up any of your stupid godless facts about how you've actually lived your life so far. Apparently, according to some people, even the most generous charity, the most unwavering personal integrity, the most selfless compassion for others, etc, are all just foul immorality if they don't come with the official stamp of approval that can be gotten only from them.

Of course, none of that addresses the question of what exactly such people think they are saving us from by "saving" us. Yes, many respondents have said that they are saving us from not being in a relationship with their god -- which to me sounds like they are saving us from not being members of their official, approved club, but ok, whatever -- but they have no come-back when we tell them that we do not want to be in a relationship with their god. They say, "But if you're not, then you'll suffer horribly," and we say, "Well, we're not now, and we're not suffering." That's when all this morality bullshit starts coming in, because obviously, if someone isn't receptive to your message, the best way to persuade them is to insult and belittle and browbeat them. :rolleyes:

Of course, none of that addresses the question of what exactly such people think they are saving us from by "saving" us. Yes, many respondents have said that they are saving us from not being in a relationship with their god -- which to me sounds like they are saving us from not being members of their official, approved club, but ok, whatever -- but they have no come-back when we tell them that we do not want to be in a relationship with their god.

Which reminds me of nothing so much as the guy in the pub who is quite sure that he's God's gift to women.

He's certain that my goal in coming to the pub must be to attract attention from him. If I politely decline his offer of a drink, he is quite certain this is because I'm a bitch, since there's no reason why any decent person would pass up a chance to listen to him talk. He knows that he's the center of the universe and I should be thankful if he allows me to revolve around him.

It's the same with god-belief, according to a lot of the people around here. My life can't possibly be complete without God. If I don't enthusiastically respond to God's advances, it must be because I'm bitter or angry or uptight or a bitch, and cannot be because I'm simply not interested. I must need God in my life (just like I must need a man in my life) because it's impossible for somebody to be content if they are single (or godless). Anybody who thinks they are content being single (or godless) is deluded or lying. Or they are too angry/selfish/stupid to handle the alternative.

Yawn. I've listened to guys at the pub give these arrogant little spiels countless times over, and I've never agreed to spend a single date with one of them. Why would I agree to spend my life worshiping a God who sounds just like them?

Which reminds me of nothing so much as the guy in the pub who is quite sure that he's God's gift to women.

He's certain that my goal in coming to the pub must be to attract attention from him. If I politely decline his offer of a drink, he is quite certain this is because I'm a bitch, since there's no reason why any decent person would pass up a chance to listen to him talk. He knows that he's the center of the universe and I should be thankful if he allows me to revolve around him.

It's the same with god-belief, according to a lot of the people around here. My life can't possibly be complete without God. If I don't enthusiastically respond to God's advances, it must be because I'm bitter or angry or uptight or a bitch, and cannot be because I'm simply not interested. I must need God in my life (just like I must need a man in my life) because it's impossible for somebody to be content if they are single (or godless). Anybody who thinks they are content being single (or godless) is deluded or lying. Or they are too angry/selfish/stupid to handle the alternative.

Yawn. I've listened to guys at the pub give these arrogant little spiels countless times over, and I've never agreed to spend a single date with one of them. Why would I agree to spend my life worshiping a God who sounds just like them?

ah, i know this is off topic but that first guy offering drinks suffers from the fallacy of a false dilemma either you're nice and listen or you're evil and refuse. i like the part about "...a god who sounds just like them?" seems true enough.
And that part about either you believe in God and you're a nice person or you don't believe in God and you're thus evil, there's no middle ground so to speak. I mean it's not as if you live your life doing things permanently good or evil, e.g. you don't like what one of your friends says you don't always go for saying YES i agree! or NO you're wrong, sometimes you might just go uhuh and so what? or go away you nut job.
So you are approached by priests quite alot then? or am i reading this wrong?:)

ah, i know this is off topic but that first guy offering drinks suffers from the fallacy of a false dilemma either you're nice and listen or you're evil and refuse. i like the part about "...a god who sounds just like them?" seems true enough.

I guess it's really the BELIEVERS who are like that guy in the bar. See, they're sure that I must want their version of God, just like the guy in the bar is certain I must want him. If I turn down that guy, he will call me a bitch or a dyke, because obviously if I don't want him then I must reject everybody or all men. It can't be that Creepy Bar Dude is the problem, no sir...

With believers, I often find myself explaining that while I don't categorically reject the possibility of God existing, I absolutely reject the image of God that the believer in question is presenting.

I think the general image of the Abrahamic God is silly and logically impossible, as well as being internally inconsistent many times over. I reject that particular God-image. People who believe in that image will then start hollering at me about how I can't possibly know that there is no God...obviously assuming that their God-image is the only one.


And that part about either you believe in God and you're a nice person or you don't believe in God and you're thus evil, there's no middle ground so to speak. I mean it's not as if you live your life doing things permanently good or evil, e.g. you don't like what one of your friends says you don't always go for saying YES i agree! or NO you're wrong, sometimes you might just go uhuh and so what? or go away you nut job.

Yeah, I don't think god-belief automatically makes somebody good or evil, just like atheism doesn't automatically make somebody good or evil. Most people, in my experience, are fallible but generally well-meaning sorts, whether or not they believe in God.


So you are approached by priests quite alot then? or am i reading this wrong?:)
Actually, priests tend to be less likely to pull that kind of crap with me. Usually people who are professionally religious (i.e. priests, rabbis, imams, etc.) are also people who've thought a lot about belief, and they're also people who have had to deal with conflicts of belief before. Most of them have dealt with non-believers or converts or individuals of different faiths coming to visit their services before. They often have received specific training in how to interact with people who don't belong to their religion.

Granted, there are some religious leaders who are wacko nutjobs, but I generally tend to have more problems with the followers.

With believers, I often find myself explaining that while I don't categorically reject the possibility of God existing, I absolutely reject the image of God that the believer in question is presenting.


It's interesting to note also, that what you're saying applies as much to people of different faiths as it does to an atheist, in the sense that so often people push their own ideas of God onto each other. You've seen me on here before talking about my biblethumping sister or people I used to debate religion with back in the days when I didn't feel nauseated at the thought of using a chatroom.

So in that, we're all in the same boat. Each and every one of us who has thought about this subject at all has to balance our faith in our own judgement against the possibilitiy that we could be wrong. Obviously, we can't just take the word of every person who comes to us to prosletyze, but at the same time we do ourselves no favors by being adamant for it's own sake. When I was Catholic and switched to LDS, I had to struggle with that. Was I making the right choice, or was I stepping away form it? Or perhaps it didn't matter either way. We all have our own reasons and experiences that lead us to believe what we do. I guess identifiying that singular, core item is the way to understand oneself enough to approach these kinds of decisions with eyes wide open.

(Which I know kinda sidetracked what you said, but you know how it is to us ramblers... stream of consciousness and all that.)

Which reminds me of nothing so much as the guy in the pub who is quite sure that he's God's gift to women.

He's certain that my goal in coming to the pub must be to attract attention from him. If I politely decline his offer of a drink, he is quite certain this is because I'm a bitch, since there's no reason why any decent person would pass up a chance to listen to him talk. He knows that he's the center of the universe and I should be thankful if he allows me to revolve around him.

It's the same with god-belief, according to a lot of the people around here. My life can't possibly be complete without God. If I don't enthusiastically respond to God's advances, it must be because I'm bitter or angry or uptight or a bitch, and cannot be because I'm simply not interested. I must need God in my life (just like I must need a man in my life) because it's impossible for somebody to be content if they are single (or godless). Anybody who thinks they are content being single (or godless) is deluded or lying. Or they are too angry/selfish/stupid to handle the alternative.

Yawn. I've listened to guys at the pub give these arrogant little spiels countless times over, and I've never agreed to spend a single date with one of them. Why would I agree to spend my life worshiping a God who sounds just like them?

Exactly when did we meet again?

*sorry Bottle, but as gods gift to reality, including the female half, I couldn't resist*:D

It's interesting to note also, that what you're saying applies as much to people of different faiths as it does to an atheist, in the sense that so often people push their own ideas of God onto each other. You've seen me on here before talking about my biblethumping sister or people I used to debate religion with back in the days when I didn't feel nauseated at the thought of using a chatroom.

So in that, we're all in the same boat.
Absolutely true. Granted, it kind of cracks me up when two different Abrahamic sects argue their nigh-indistinguishable god-images at one another, but I can also appreciate how pointless it is for either side to even bother.

As far as I'm concerned, God is a personal concept. I've never met two people who held identical images of God (and I've talked with a set of identical twins who went on mission trips!). The fact that somebody--or everybody--rejects your personal god-image shouldn't be remotely surprising to anybody.

Exactly when did we meet again?

*sorry Bottle, but as gods gift to reality, including the female half, I couldn't resist*:D
Lol. *slaps BJP on his gifted ass*

Lol. *slaps BJP on his gifted ass*

Either I just got a swat to the rear, or I just got knocked off my feet. Oh well, either way: w00t!

Absolutely true. Granted, it kind of cracks me up when two different Abrahamic sects argue their nigh-indistinguishable god-images at one another, but I can also appreciate how pointless it is for either side to even bother.

As far as I'm concerned, God is a personal concept. I've never met two people who held identical images of God (and I've talked with a set of identical twins who went on mission trips!). The fact that somebody--or everybody--rejects your personal god-image shouldn't be remotely surprising to anybody.

This is why I like the perspective of my current Church. When I spoke with the missionaries I expected them to press me to accept what they were teaching me and push me to believe enough to get baptized. What surprised me was they came right out and said: "Don't take our word for it. We're just people. Pray about it for yourself." I had NEVER heard anybody say that to me before. That wasn't the factor that eventually led me to convert, but the event does stay with me as an example of someone who wasn't out to self-validate by overpowering people into their belief.

I guess so. Silly me and my atheist morality, thinking that human life had value.

What reason could any athiest possibly have for thinking Human life has any value, other than "because I think it should" and other circularities?


Well, ok, there is one, but it's bound up in all kinds of weird quantum physics schrodinger wave evolution of the state of the universe things and most people usually don't head off in that direction. But other than that?

The point is, by assuming Human Life has value, you are assuming the Absolute Existence of a thing that cannot be measured, detected, weighed or otherwise studied by any conceivable instrument of science: your own belief in value. And THAT is a kind of supernatural belief, which kind of muddies the definition of athiest.

What reason could any athiest possibly have for thinking Human life has any value, other than "because I think it should" and other circularities?


Well, ok, there is one, but it's bound up in all kinds of weird quantum physics schrodinger wave evolution of the state of the universe things and most people usually don't head off in that direction. But other than that?

The point is, by assuming Human Life has value, you are assuming the Absolute Existence of a thing that cannot be measured, detected, weighed or otherwise studied by any conceivable instrument of science: your own belief in value. And THAT is a kind of supernatural belief, which kind of muddies the definition of athiest.

Humans are social animals, and in order for a society to thrive it needs morals and rules.
Rules to mark boundaries that cannot be crossed without punishment, and morals to turn it from a bunch of individuals into a group that works together.
There's nothing supernatural about it... it's very much tit for tat, or tat for tit as the case may be. (I think tat for tit might be called altruism...)

Which reminds me of nothing so much as the guy in the pub who is quite sure that he's God's gift to women.

[etc., inclusive]

I guess it's really the BELIEVERS who are like that guy in the bar.

[etc., inclusive]
These two posts pretty much sum up my experience and opinions also.

Then why do so many so-called xtians use regular sunday salvations to excuse being assholes the rest of the week?
If black people aren't inherently criminals then why do so many of them commit crimes? See, we can all make gross generalizations.

Which reminds me of nothing so much as the guy in the pub who is quite sure that he's God's gift to women.

He's certain that my goal in coming to the pub must be to attract attention from him. If I politely decline his offer of a drink, he is quite certain this is because I'm a bitch, since there's no reason why any decent person would pass up a chance to listen to him talk. He knows that he's the center of the universe and I should be thankful if he allows me to revolve around him.

It's the same with god-belief, according to a lot of the people around here. My life can't possibly be complete without God. If I don't enthusiastically respond to God's advances, it must be because I'm bitter or angry or uptight or a bitch, and cannot be because I'm simply not interested. I must need God in my life (just like I must need a man in my life) because it's impossible for somebody to be content if they are single (or godless). Anybody who thinks they are content being single (or godless) is deluded or lying. Or they are too angry/selfish/stupid to handle the alternative.

Yawn. I've listened to guys at the pub give these arrogant little spiels countless times over, and I've never agreed to spend a single date with one of them. Why would I agree to spend my life worshiping a God who sounds just like them?

I offered you one drink. Why do you have to bring it up in every thread?

I offered you one drink. Why do you have to bring it up in every thread?

Because you suck at pick-up lines that much.

Because you suck at pick-up lines that much.

"Do you believe in love at first site or do I have to walk by again?"

(Misspelling intended)

"Do you believe in love at first site or do I have to walk by again?"

(Misspelling intended)

"If I could rearrange the alphabet, I'd put your sister and I together."

"Is your father a thief? Because that's totally my Jetta you parked outsite."

What reason could any athiest possibly have for thinking Human life has any value, other than "because I think it should" and other circularities?
To ask that question, you have to start from the default assumption that human life has no inherent value, that it only has value if value is bestowed upon it by someone/something else, and you must further assume that everyone thinks that way.

What reason could anyone (atheist or otherwise) possibly have for assuming that everyone starts from that same default position?

I'll offer you an alternative default starting assumption, just for the sake of argument. A person assumes, without any reason to do so, that their own life has value. Why? Because it's theirs, and they are them, and they like that. Yes, I am referring to ego. A person then also automatically values the lives of others because...wait for it...they see similarities between themselves and others. In other words, I value you because you are like me, and when I look at you, I see me, and I like that.

The more a person feels that others are a reflection of themselves, the more they are likely to be able to imagine and vicariously experience the happiness or suffering of those others, and thus, to value those others.

Now obviously, not everyone feels the same level of "self-ness" with other people, and so not everyone values others to the same degree, but so what? If you study how human brains develop congnitive functions from infancy, there is a solid argument to be made that human awareness -- and thus, human thought and human value systems -- spiral outward from the ego-bound self.

This also supports arguments that were made in another thread, citing Jean Piaget's work with children forming social groups, that morality and ethics are the results of natural brain functions.

So the question "why would you value human life if nobody told you to?" (which is essentially what your question boils down to) is a kind of silly one to ask. Valuing human life is natural to humans. A more pointed question to ask would be "why do some people not value human life, or why do some people put so many conditions on the value of human life?" (such as humans being better if they profess a religion, for instance).


Well, ok, there is one, but it's bound up in all kinds of weird quantum physics schrodinger wave evolution of the state of the universe things and most people usually don't head off in that direction. But other than that?

The point is, by assuming Human Life has value, you are assuming the Absolute Existence of a thing that cannot be measured, detected, weighed or otherwise studied by any conceivable instrument of science: your own belief in value. And THAT is a kind of supernatural belief, which kind of muddies the definition of athiest.
Nonsense.

A) I dispute your assumption that, in order think A, one must first think B. I do not agree that in order to think that human life has value, one must think that something other than humanity gives it that value or defines that value.

B) Even if an atheist does believe that something other than humanity gives human life value, that would in no way undermine the person's atheism, unless the "something other" was a god. To be an atheist, you just have to believe there is no god. You don't have to believe in nothing.

"If I could rearrange the alphabet, I'd put your sister and I together."

"Is your father a thief? Because that's totally my Jetta you parked outsite."

Are your clothes made out of mirrors, cuz I can totally see myself in your pants. And I've got hickies.

Worshipping a diety is overated, i belong to the official Church of Satan, and not the one that sacrifices children and calls on the devil to destroy crap. We believe that "Satan" is a manifestation of anger, hate, and most of mans base intincts; such as his instinct to maim, kill, love, live, and in general, what makes him what he is.

Christianity is just a way certain people express their desire for community and salvation, and their wanting to be a part of something.

Worshipping a diety is overated, i belong to the official Church of Satan, and not the one that sacrifices children and calls on the devil to destroy crap. We believe that "Satan" is a manifestation of anger, hate, and most of mans base intincts; such as his instinct to maim, kill, love, live, and in general, what makes him what he is.

Christianity is just a way certain people express their desire for community and salvation, and their wanting to be a part of something.

"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" and all that?