NationStates Jolt Archive

DISCLAIMER: Title is meant to grab attention and is not my opinion. I am not religious and presenting an argument based on the Bible from my own point of view.

One thing I have noticed is that many Christians go on about "being saved". And while I, in my early part of life, considered myself a Christian, understood the concept of Jesus dying for our sins, and believed that faith had significance, I never understood how one could just come out one day and "be saved". So I studied the Bible and learned the concept common mostly in Protestantism (but also in Catholicism), that Jesus is the "only way". But when I read the verse, and studied it, I found the common interpretation to be very hollow. There wasn't a complex manual to salvation, just a simple verse, that has been highly interpreted and the interpretations commonly accepted without question.

The common Christian thesis is that: One can only be saved by accepting Jesus as their savior.

This is not what the Bible says, it says (roughly) "I am the way, truth, and life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

So (for the sake of argument, assume it is true), I present these different interpretations to that Bible verse.

1. Everyone is saved, because Jesus died for everyone, and thus all have come through him to heaven.

2. People can be saved by living the same lifestyle as Jesus and following his examples of goodness.

Also, it says Jesus destroyed the power of the devil. Couldn't that essentially mean that the devil can no longer claim souls?

IN SUMMARY AND FOR RESPONSE:

If (hypothetically) the Bible is true, isn't the concept of salvation through accepting Jesus a mere interpretation?

IN SUMMARY AND FOR RESPONSE:

If (hypothetically) the Bible is true, isn't the concept of salvation through accepting Jesus a mere interpretation?

Everything's an interpretation, I should think. I'm sorry to hear you've been subjected to the ridiculous "I done got saved" type of Christian, but most that I've known wouldn't presume to speculate on God's appraisal of the state of their soul.

I always learned that, following the Greek translation, the life of Jesus resulted in a new covenant with God (the New Testament is translated as New Covenant), meaning Jesus reformed the contract, if you will, between Man and God. So, no, Satan is not around every corner, nor are evil demons, witches, or any other kind of evil hocus pocus. Whether we're all saved, I have no clue, and was only told to mind my own business and be kind to others. I haven't followed any religion in a decade or so, but I still respect this tradition.

DISCLAIMER: Title is meant to grab attention and is not my opinion. I am not religious and presenting an argument based on the Bible from my own point of view.

One thing I have noticed is that many Christians go on about "being saved". And while I, in my early part of life, considered myself a Christian, understood the concept of Jesus dying for our sins, and believed that faith had significance, I never understood how one could just come out one day and "be saved". So I studied the Bible and learned the concept common mostly in Protestantism (but also in Catholicism), that Jesus is the "only way". But when I read the verse, and studied it, I found the common interpretation to be very hollow. There wasn't a complex manual to salvation, just a simple verse, that has been highly interpreted and the interpretations commonly accepted without question.

The common Christian thesis is that: One can only be saved by accepting Jesus as their savior.

This is not what the Bible says, it says (roughly) "I am the way, truth, and life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

So (for the sake of argument, assume it is true), I present these different interpretations to that Bible verse.

1. Everyone is saved, because Jesus died for everyone, and thus all have come through him to heaven.

2. People can be saved by living the same lifestyle as Jesus and following his examples of goodness.

Also, it says Jesus destroyed the power of the devil. Couldn't that essentially mean that the devil can no longer claim souls?

IN SUMMARY AND FOR RESPONSE:

If (hypothetically) the Bible is true, isn't the concept of salvation through accepting Jesus a mere interpretation?
That there last part, ayup. Those last two words. *nods*

Actually this was inspired by an old high school friend who tried to "save me" and me remembering those conversations.

Even though I do not follow a religion now, I was raised Catholic, and people sure have formed some weird misconceptions of the Catholic Church. Which often results in me becoming a Catholic Apologist against my better judgment, only because ignorance pisses me off.

For the record, Catholics do not worship the Virgin Mary, do not believe Saints can answer prayers, and do not believe in salvation through good works, they only believe that anyone truly faithful will do good works.

Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 5:8
"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Romans 10:9
"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."


Notice the central role of Jesus in those verses. Taking these into account, it'd be hard to dismiss the role of Christ and our response in salvation.

Jesus is central to Christianity. I'm questioning whether there is an actual process to "being saved", and if so, who created it?

Romans 10:9 requires belief, not faith. (there's a difference) Also, some say repentance is required, but others do not.

Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 5:8
"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Romans 10:9
"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."


Notice the central role of Jesus in those verses. Taking these into account, it'd be hard to dismiss the role of Christ and our response in salvation.

Good thing you have such a stable character as "Paul" to give you these. :)

Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 5:8
"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Romans 10:9
"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."


Notice the central role of Jesus in those verses. Taking these into account, it'd be hard to dismiss the role of Christ and our response in salvation.

Remember to save your game, 'cause the last boss is a bitch.:p

Remember to save your game, 'cause the last boss is a bitch.:p
:D

The actual process of salvation is rather complicated...

Oh, is it, "actually"?
You really, really should rescind that particular idea.

If we are still tempted, and still sin, and can still go to hell, what does the Bible then mean when it says Jesus conquered the Devil? Surely it can't just be a matter of the option for us. Weren't Moses and Noah and the like all saved by God before Jesus?

The actual process of salvation is rather complicated... Is that really what you wish to know, or do you want your main two points to be addressed?


"1. Everyone is saved, because Jesus died for everyone, and thus all have come through him to heaven.

2. People can be saved by living the same lifestyle as Jesus and following his examples of goodness."


1 would make sense, but the above verses show a choice that must be made by an individual. There are other verses too, if you want them.

2 doesn't make sense at all according to the teachings of Christ.

Romans 3:23a
For all have sinned.

James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

What I want to know is why create only one way to get to Heaven? Doesn't that seem to automatically damn everyone who isn't a Christian?

Doesn't sound like a caring a just God that we hear so much about.

What I want to know is why create only one way to get to Heaven? Doesn't that seem to automatically damn everyone who isn't a Christian? That's the idea, yes.

Doesn't sound like a caring a just God that we hear so much about.You only hear the good economy aspects until everywhere there's a recession, and find you've been being either intentionally lied to or patronised most of the time.

If we are still tempted, and still sin, and can still go to hell, what does the Bible then mean when it says Jesus conquered the Devil?It would imply that "the Devil" had control over who could be saved, since that's the whole fucking point of Jesus doing that, isn't it? Of course, it also means that "God" was letting "the Devil" do all those things in the first place.
Or was losing to "the Devil" until the flesh. :p

What I want to know is why create only one way to get to Heaven? Doesn't that seem to automatically damn everyone who isn't a Christian?

Doesn't sound like a caring a just God that we hear so much about.

To answer the OP: of course the Bible is open to interpretations, even the Catholic Church recognises that to a point.

To answer your point, wouldn't it be lessing caring to not even let us no about Christ in the first place? I mean you used to be Catholic so obviously you know of Christ. Now lets say God is actually up there and you have turned your back willing on Christ. Are you going to be suprised if St. Peter ain't waiting for you at pearly gates?

I guess my point is that God has let us know about the path to salvation(lets say) If we deny that, its kind of our own fault.

To answer the OP: of course the Bible is open to interpretations, even the Catholic Church recognises that to a point.

To answer your point, wouldn't it be lessing caring to not even let us no about Christ in the first place? I mean you used to be Catholic so obviously you know of Christ. Now lets say God is actually up there and you have turned your back willing on Christ. Are you going to be suprised if St. Peter ain't waiting for you at pearly gates?

I guess my point is that God has let us know about the path to salvation(lets say) If we deny that, its kind of our own fault.

Yea, but what about those who don't know about Christ or never knew him? What about people like Buddha, Gandhi, and other good people who deserve a better afterlife because of what they did here on Earth? According to the Bible, because they weren't Christian, they went to Hell.

Fan-tastic....

Homage:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510544&postcount=200

Yea, but what about those who don't know about Christ or never knew him? What about people like Buddha, Gandhi, and other good people who deserve a better afterlife because of what they did here on Earth? According to the Bible, because they weren't Christian, they went to Hell.

Fan-tastic....

According to the Church this may not be the case. God is the ultimate decider of salvation, so for all we know Gandhi is heaven right now partying it up.

Do note that territory you're going into is disputed among Christians, however.Then there really is hope.

According to the Church this may not be the case. God is the ultimate decider of salvation, so for all we know Gandhi is heaven right now partying it up.

I don't put much stock in the work of man, especially when it comes to the afterlife, this includes the Bible. Whether or not Christians want to admit it or not, The Bible is the work of man, so it's suspect.

If we are still tempted, and still sin, and can still go to hell, what does the Bible then mean when it says Jesus conquered the Devil? Surely it can't just be a matter of the option for us. Weren't Moses and Noah and the like all saved by God before Jesus?

Good question. Do note that territory you're going into is disputed among Christians, however.

Extremely simplified, when you accept Christ, your soul is rejuvenated and becomes perfect and purified by accepting the event that happened on the cross. You have the ability to be perfect, but because we live in something the Bible calls "the flesh," Christians mess up and end up sinning.

Before the coming of Christ, the process of salvation was different because that regeneration could not occur. Instead of looking back at the Messiah like Christians do now, Moses and Noah looked forward. They were saved by faith that a Messiah would come and take care of the problem of sin.

Satisfactory answer?


For the rest of you, do note that God is under no obligation for anyone to be saved. He didn't even have to give one way to be saved. It's rather interesting, but he actually gets just as much out of any one of us going to hell as he does some of us going to heaven. But for some odd reason, he wants us to go to heaven... It's beyond me why.

I don't put much stock in the work of man, especially when it comes to the afterlife, this includes the Bible. Whether or not Christians want to admit it or not, The Bible is the work of man, so it's suspect.

FTW.

DISCLAIMER: Title is meant to grab attention and is not my opinion. I am not religious and presenting an argument based on the Bible from my own point of view.

One thing I have noticed is that many Christians go on about "being saved". And while I, in my early part of life, considered myself a Christian, understood the concept of Jesus dying for our sins, and believed that faith had significance, I never understood how one could just come out one day and "be saved". So I studied the Bible and learned the concept common mostly in Protestantism (but also in Catholicism), that Jesus is the "only way". But when I read the verse, and studied it, I found the common interpretation to be very hollow. There wasn't a complex manual to salvation, just a simple verse, that has been highly interpreted and the interpretations commonly accepted without question.

The common Christian thesis is that: One can only be saved by accepting Jesus as their savior.

This is not what the Bible says, it says (roughly) "I am the way, truth, and life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

So (for the sake of argument, assume it is true), I present these different interpretations to that Bible verse.

1. Everyone is saved, because Jesus died for everyone, and thus all have come through him to heaven.

2. People can be saved by living the same lifestyle as Jesus and following his examples of goodness.

Also, it says Jesus destroyed the power of the devil. Couldn't that essentially mean that the devil can no longer claim souls?

IN SUMMARY AND FOR RESPONSE:

If (hypothetically) the Bible is true, isn't the concept of salvation through accepting Jesus a mere interpretation?

Applying logic to mythology? Tsk-tsk. I hereby subtract one gold star.

Applying logic to mythology? Tsk-tsk. I hereby subtract one gold star.
I give him one back in replacement. Academic dissection of interpreted mythology is the in thing at the minute, and is a great way to sell books.

I give him one back in replacement. Academic dissection of interpreted mythology is the in thing at the minute, and is a great way to sell books.

Make that two gold stars.

I personally believe that Jesus is not the ONLY way to reach salvation/enlightenment. He just happens to be the way that I chose.

Make that two gold stars.
If you insist. :p

Jesus isn't the only way, all paths lead to the top of the mountain.

Jesus isn't the only way, all paths lead to the top of the mountain.

QFT

Jesus isn't the only way, all paths lead to the top of the mountain.I would have said they all lead to various muddy ditches in the middle of nowhere. Or the grave.

All other paths lead to the same place atheism already realized: nowhere.

Seriously, now. Who would take a bunch of rag-tag stories influenced by ancient Egyptian, Greek, and roman mythology with any amount of credibility? At least polytheists acknowledge their beliefs are silly and therefore don't take them that seriously or literally.

All other paths lead to the same place atheism already realized: nowhere.

Seriously, now. Who would take a bunch of rag-tag stories influenced by ancient Egyptian, Greek, and roman mythology with any amount of credibility? At least polytheists acknowledge their beliefs are silly and therefore don't take them that seriously or literally.

They do take them seriously, they just don't take them literally.

Jesus isn't the only way, all paths lead to the top of the mountain.

I have a similar saying that I live by. It's, "my way leads to the top of the mountain, but your way doesn't, and so you're going to hell."

I'll admit, it doesn't have the same brevity or thoughtfulness as the orginial.

Jesus isn't the only way, all paths lead to the top of the mountain.

Bravo. I agree. Although I'd still like for someone to tell me just which denomination of Christianity is the supposedly "correct" one.

Bravo. I agree. Although I'd still like for someone to tell me just which denomination of Christianity is the supposedly "correct" one.

"Correct"?
You might consider a philosophy that isn't predicated upon so many errors, if "correct" is your aim.
:(

Bravo. I agree. Although I'd still like for someone to tell me just which denomination of Christianity is the supposedly "correct" one.

Trust me, all you'll get is an answer that has the word "faith" in it.

"Correct"?
You might consider a philosophy that isn't predicated upon so many errors, if "correct" is your aim.
:(

I didn't say I believed that, I'd just like somone who does believe that to answer that question.

Trust me, all you'll get is an answer that has the word "faith" in it.

Ouchouchowieouch

Well... as a first post of my return to NS, can I add my 2 cents to this subject?

A modern-day apostle put it pretty simple... The true Church of Jesus Christ doesn't have people go to the end of a football field and throw up their arms and yell "I'm saved!!" Salvation isn't that easy... it wasn't that easy for the Savior.

Salvation... Exaltation... whatever it is you desire from and through God, you can receive... but you have to do it his way.

The phrase "jesus is the only way" is oversimplifying things, but is true. Yes, Jesus Christ's atonement is the only way sins can be forgiven... but if we might make a clarification... Obedience to the way Jesus lived.. being a disciple of him, who is the perfect pattern of the Father... obedience to the Father's laws, taught to us by Christ, and the prophets, the Holy Ghost, and angels, and whomever else brings us truth, will bring us salvation and exaltation.

Well, ok, that's my 2 cents at least :P

How's it goin! I'm back y'all!

I was raised Catholic, and people sure have formed some weird misconceptions of the Catholic Church. Which often results in me becoming a Catholic Apologist against my better judgment, only because ignorance pisses me off.

For the record, Catholics do not worship the Virgin Mary, do not believe Saints can answer prayers, and do not believe in salvation through good works, they only believe that anyone truly faithful will do good works.


hehe, know how that feels.

But back on topic. One thing that frequently annoys me about bible interpretation is that people seem to twist it for their own means. I was recently watching a documentary on the West Burough Baptists and they were very good at this.

If someone ever tries to save you, ask them if once a month their mother is seperated from society while she menstruates. If not they are in direct violation with what the Bible teaches us to be a compulsory way of life.

People cannot pick and choose what they take from the Bible, it simply doesn't work that way. You either take everything (in which case you are up for a odd and often contradicting life), or you are forced to acknowledge that maybe the bible is open for interpretation, and should not be taken out of context, and preched from litterally in a metaphorical society.

The Bible has some of the greastest poetry ever written, but the words were written a long time ago.

In context of the Bible, homosexuality is not wrong. That passage (Paul's letters I believe) when put in context is merely there to try and protect young boys who were being used as sex slaves. In order to rule out this practice, that by state law (back then) was legle the early church set down rules that were impossible to argue with. They wanted to get rid of a practice that today is considered on par with murder.

People often think that all you need to understand the Bible is the Bible, but like any subject, for a truer INTERPRETATION you need a wider understanding of when it was written, who by, and for what purpose.

I think the safest path is just to be like me: Be Jewish, and automatically be "saved" (whatever that is supposed to be based on). That way, you can do whatever you want with no regard for your actions, because you just know that you'll be saved! Lie? Cheat? Steal? Adulterate? Run over a puppy? Ha! It doesn't matter, because I'm Catholi...er Jewish and I have no responsibility for my actions!:p

:EDIT:
That last post was sarcastic. We Jews do have to take some responsibility. And yes, everything in the Bible is interpretation.

<snippy>

Saved from what?
I could never even get an answer to that question, let alone get an explanation of the details of said salvation...

Saved from what?
I could never even get an answer to that question, let alone get an explanation of the details of said salvation...

Why from the tormet of HELL! Where you'll be burned alive and sodomized by Satan's unholy 16 inch penis that has barb wires! :p

My two cents:

According to evangelical Christians, salvation isn't done by works but by faith and trust in God. Basically, one needs to acknowledge that he or she is a sinner, ask God for forgiveness, thank Jesus for saving him/her and ask for assistance in going forth and sinning no more and of course, reading up on Jesus' parables, speeches and miracles, among other bibilical works. In no particular order, of course.

It's indeed as simple as that, but evangelicals say that Satan starts making you a target as soon as you do that and you'll be tested for sincerity. So it may be simple, but it certainly isn't easy to live the life of the saved. Jesus never had it easy either, neither did any of the other great prophets and heroes.

It's a struggle, but in the end, it may well be worth it. Just trust God.

Why from the tormet of HELL! Where you'll be burned alive and sodomized by Satan's unholy 16 inch penis that has barb wires! :p

It's sort of circular, isn't it?
You have to believe in being saved from something you have to believe in...

My two cents:

According to evangelical Christians, salvation isn't done by works but by faith and trust in God. Basically, one needs to acknowledge that he or she is a sinner, ask God for forgiveness, thank Jesus for saving him/her and ask for assistance in going forth and sinning no more and of course, reading up on Jesus' parables, speeches and miracles, among other bibilical works. In no particular order, of course.

It's indeed as simple as that, but evangelicals say that Satan starts making you a target as soon as you do that and you'll be tested for sincerity. So it may be simple, but it certainly isn't easy to live the life of the saved. Jesus never had it easy either, neither did any of the other great prophets and heroes.

It's a struggle, but in the end, it may well be worth it. Just trust God.

Again, I notice the tragic lack of a vomiting smilie in the NSG smilie selection...

It's sort of circular, isn't it?
You have to believe in being saved from something you have to believe in...

Yep pretty much. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Christianity didn't have the boogyman (Devil) or his lair (Hell) in the Bible...

Again, I notice the tragic lack of a vomiting smilie in the NSG smilie selection...

yur there never the one you want when you need it :(

I am replying to the original post. There is another verse that tells the plan of salvation or how to go about being saved.

Acts 2:38
"And Peter answered and said unto them, Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of jesus christ for the remission of is and ye shall recive the gift of the holy ghost."

I think that if you belive the bible to be true and are a christian as I am that that pretty much says it all. After all peter was given the keys to heaven's gate.
And it isn't just accepting jesus. you actually ahve to recieve the holy ghost. Earlier in chapter 2 it is shown that one of the signs of the holy ghost is speaking in toungues hwoever that in and of itself is not the holyghost. In galations i believe it is where is says that once a person ahs recieved the holy ghost and turned themselves over to god that they manifest the fruits of the spirit. stuff like love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, kindness, faith...etc.

I would have said they all lead to various muddy ditches in the middle of nowhere. Or the grave.

All other paths lead to the same place atheism already realized: nowhere.
There are lots of things at the top of the mountain. Even a Starbucks. Well, seven of them.

Seriously, now. Who would take a bunch of rag-tag stories influenced by ancient Egyptian, Greek, and roman mythology with any amount of credibility? At least polytheists acknowledge their beliefs are silly and therefore don't take them that seriously or literally.
Hindus don't take their religion seriously? You should probably tell them that, I don't think they know.
Bravo. I agree. Although I'd still like for someone to tell me just which denomination of Christianity is the supposedly "correct" one.
Catholicism, according to the bible.

Yep pretty much. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Christianity didn't have the boogyman (Devil) or his lair (Hell) in the Bible...
Probably something similar to Buddhism. They do share somewhat similar views on the Golden Rule.

Catholicism, according to the bible.

Only because Catholicism was the "original". The other denominations formed when people felt that the Church lost its way.

Only because Catholicism was the "original". The other denominations formed when people felt that the Church lost its way.
Yeah, plus the fact that "buying" your way into heaven flew into the face of Jesus' sacrifice.

Yep pretty much. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Christianity didn't have the boogyman (Devil) or his lair (Hell) in the Bible...
I've heard tell that it doesn't, and that most references to Hell are parts of parables. But I haven't read the bible, so I wouldn't know.
Only because Catholicism was the "original".
IMS, Jesus left it to St. Peter to create a religion, and he created Catholicism. Well, unless I'm wrong.
The other denominations formed when people felt that the Church lost its way.
Yup.
Yeah, plus the fact that "buying" your way into heaven flew into the face of Jesus' sacrifice.

When the coin in the coffer sings, then the soul to heaven springs :)

It's sort of circular, isn't it?
You have to believe in being saved from something you have to believe in...
True. Still, you really can't tell me that there's not a need to believe in the supernatural. Though rationality and logic is a good thing, too much of it seems empty IMO.

MS, Jesus left it to St. Peter to create a religion, and he created Catholicism. Well, unless I'm wrong.

IMS?

He wanted Peter to found the Church, not to create a Religion. I think the point was that Peter was entrusted to be the one to kick things off and be an example for all Christians, not that whatever he established would be the one true church. It was for a time, because there was only one. But then Christianity became one of the most powerful religions in Rome and then 1054 came and I think we know the story from there.

IMS?
If Memory Serves

He wanted Peter to found the Church, not to create a Religion. I think the point was that Peter was entrusted to be the one to kick things off and be an example for all Christians, not that whatever he established would be the one true church. It was for a time, because there was only one. But then Christianity became one of the most powerful religions in Rome and then 1054 came and I think we know the story from there.

Like I said, I never actually read the bible.

Hmm... Personally, I've been tossing and turning on the whole issue of salvation. Mainly because I was recently reintroduced to Chick Tracts. *shivers* Terrible reads, those... Haunting with fear and placing everybody who doesn't believe in world being created 6,000 years ago in some kind of an anti-Christian worldwide conspiracy.

Personally, I was christened as a Lutheran, and currently I consider myself an agnostic. I don't know if there is a higher power, but I try to be a good person in life.

I've just got back from Church.

After that service I'm questioning God's plans.

Bloomin' preacher.

Ill bet Jesus didnt think Good Friday was so good. Hes hanging there on a cross dying in terrible agony and hes thinking whats so good about this? Ok guys im coming back to life in three days and there had better be chocolate bunnies!-Richard Vos

I love evangelical doctrine sometimes... that the end purpose of life is to burn in hell unless you can accept Jesus, which acceptance takes nothing more than to simply acknowledge that he exists, and then you spend the rest of your life with God.. strumming a harp or something.

it makes no sense! What's the point of that doctrine? Why do people believe this over-simplified mockery of a PLAN created by our Eternal God? It's rediculous.

Again, I notice the tragic lack of a vomiting smilie in the NSG smilie selection...

I think that's a little unfair. Compared to most of the stuff you hear from evangelicals, this seems pretty chill.

Saved from what?
I could never even get an answer to that question, let alone get an explanation of the details of said salvation...

If you accept Christ as your savior, you get amazing discounts all over the place.

Why do people believe this over-simplified mockery of a PLAN created by our Eternal God? It's rediculous.
Some people, in dealing with the subject matter, simply crack.
Wherever there's cracks, there's capacity to be filled (take that however you want)
Maybe it's an emo thing, like better to feel ridiculous than to feel nothing.

Again, I notice the tragic lack of a vomiting smilie in the NSG smilie selection...
Maybe this one is appropriate:
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/660.gif

There are lots of things at the top of the mountain. Even a Starbucks. Well, seven of them.

Whereas, coincidentally, one across the cul-du-sac from another is the End of the Universe.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/1370.gif

Like I said, I never actually read the bible.
Splitter!
Seriously, it's fucked up. On par with Saw.

When the coin in the coffer sings, then the soul to heaven springs :)
Who'd ya lift that from? I like it. Buts i only gots 8 lines for siggin'.

Yep pretty much. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Christianity didn't have the boogyman (Devil) or his lair (Hell) in the Bible...

They'd find something else they need to be saved from. I do think this whole "saviour" thing is somewhat pathological.

True. Still, you really can't tell me that there's not a need to believe in the supernatural. Though rationality and logic is a good thing, too much of it seems empty IMO.

I can't deny that some people need - desperately need, even - to believe in something supernatural.
Personally, I don't... even while I of thought myself as Christian, it was more to do with fitting in with everyone around me being Christian. I can't see the use of believing in something simply because it would make me feel better if it was true. I think part of being a responsible and reasonable adult is accepting that wishful thinking doesn't have any effect on reality.

I think that's a little unfair. Compared to most of the stuff you hear from evangelicals, this seems pretty chill.

With the amount of evangelising around, I'm becoming oversensitive. So every little attempt - especially one as cheesy and uncalled for as this one, is likely to get me going.

If you accept Christ as your savior, you get amazing discounts all over the place.

Oh, it's like one of those dodgy store credit card deals, is it?

I don't put much stock in the work of man, especially when it comes to the afterlife, this includes the Bible. Whether or not Christians want to admit it or not, The Bible is the work of man, so it's suspect.

Well, if you really want you could argue that even if the Bible was the work of God it was translated and edited by men.
Ever heard about apocriphes? They are quite a fun reading if you are into it.
The problem is that AFAIK they are very hard to come by, at least in Italy.
I tried to get a copy and guess what? The only publisher of the complete apocriphes, including the so called blasphemous ones, is Edizioni Paoline, the Vatican's own publisher.
The scene was hilarious, actually. I went to the Paoline shop in Milan.
Older nun: "How can i help you, dear?"
Younger me: "I'd like to buy a copy of the new testament..."
Older nun smiling: "Sure dear, here you are."
Younger me smiling: "... apochripha." *
Older nun: "VADE RETRO SATANA!!!!"
I then had to be served by a priest that inquired inquisition style why I was interested in that stuff and how I did know that it even exists.

Oh and according to the Ortodox Church they are the right ones because... well... they are ortodox**!

* NDT: In italian you say "vangeli apocrifi"
** Disclaimer: according to themselves

As over-zealous as this sounds being 'saved' means accepting Jesus died for you becuase you are a sinner, then trying to live a life with the values he had. When is says he defeated the devil it meant that a) he had conquerored death and 'risen' again and b) people had a choice to repent their sinful life and join him (Jesus) in heaven.
Also God doesn't send people to hell, I think it was part of the whole 'free-will' thing, hell is said to be the absence of God and if you really don't want to be with him forever he won't make you and you end up in a place without him: hell.
About people of other religions I think that's up to God's judgement; I think CS Lewis had a pretty good idea: that if you live righteously and serve your god, whoever they may be you are living for God. People who don't know about God are protected by their ignorance. You can't choose (or not choose) something you haven't heard of.
Anway, that's just my opinion and it may be completely wrong. Hope I don't offend anyone or piss them off...

I can't deny that some people need - desperately need, even - to believe in something supernatural.
Personally, I don't... even while I of thought myself as Christian, it was more to do with fitting in with everyone around me being Christian. I can't see the use of believing in something simply because it would make me feel better if it was true. I think part of being a responsible and reasonable adult is accepting that wishful thinking doesn't have any effect on reality.
I believe Jesus said once that the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven is a little child. That says something about the kind of Heaven we have.

(Thank you, Lord, for the passage!) Matthew 18 is what I'm talking about.

Matthew 18
The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

What I'm trying to get at here is that it's all well and good to be a reasonable adult, but in the end, a childlike faith is the most important to Heaven.

www.biblegateway.com is your friend for all biblical sources.

Oh, it's like one of those dodgy store credit card deals, is it?
Only if you think John 3:16 is dodgy. :p

Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 5:8
"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Romans 10:9
"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."


Notice the central role of Jesus in those verses. Taking these into account, it'd be hard to dismiss the role of Christ and our response in salvation.

And in case anyone still sees it as metaphorical:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


What I want to know is why create only one way to get to Heaven? Doesn't that seem to automatically damn everyone who isn't a Christian?

Doesn't sound like a caring a just God that we hear so much about.

Actually it doesn't. There's a mechanism in place for handling that.

Well... as a first post of my return to NS, can I add my 2 cents to this subject?

A modern-day apostle put it pretty simple... The true Church of Jesus Christ doesn't have people go to the end of a football field and throw up their arms and yell "I'm saved!!" Salvation isn't that easy... it wasn't that easy for the Savior.

Salvation... Exaltation... whatever it is you desire from and through God, you can receive... but you have to do it his way.

The phrase "jesus is the only way" is oversimplifying things, but is true. Yes, Jesus Christ's atonement is the only way sins can be forgiven... but if we might make a clarification... Obedience to the way Jesus lived.. being a disciple of him, who is the perfect pattern of the Father... obedience to the Father's laws, taught to us by Christ, and the prophets, the Holy Ghost, and angels, and whomever else brings us truth, will bring us salvation and exaltation.

Well, ok, that's my 2 cents at least :P

How's it goin! I'm back y'all!

Are you a Mormon?

What I want to know is why create only one way to get to Heaven? Doesn't that seem to automatically damn everyone who isn't a Christian?

Doesn't sound like a caring a just God that we hear so much about.

I'm not going to engage in-depth with this thread (I have to log-off in 10 mins anyway), but thought I would attempt to address the above from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. This is also fortunately relevant to the thread as a whole.

Bishop Kallistos [Timothy] Ware's English-language book 'The Orthodox Church' notes (to use the most readily available source) that while Orthodoxy holds that members of the Church are the most likely to be 'saved' (to use a Western term I'm not entirely comfortable with), it is not for us to say who God may choose to save. It's entirely possible that God's mercy might extend to a good person who isn't Orthodox, or even a good person who isn't Christian.

Without going even further into the sharp differences between Orthodoxy and the sort of evangelical Protestantism that seems to have so upset the OP, note the following crucial differences in perspective:

1) Evangelicals tend to be certain that their perspective is right, that they know precisely what God wants, and that theirs is the only true path.

2) Orthodox believe that ours is the one true church, but the Orthodox mystical tradition tends to lead the Orthodox into stating that while a path is most likely to be the right, it is not for us to say what God's will ultimately might be.

And to explain further I'd probably need to go into far more detail into the Palamite distinction between God's energies (which can be experienced) and essence (which remains unknowable) than anyone else on NSG would care to read about.

oh please stop

I can't deny that some people need - desperately need, even - to believe in something supernatural.
Personally, I don't... even while I of thought myself as Christian, it was more to do with fitting in with everyone around me being Christian. I can't see the use of believing in something simply because it would make me feel better if it was true. I think part of being a responsible and reasonable adult is accepting that wishful thinking doesn't have any effect on reality.

I think it's unfair to characterize religion as a crutch. Saying that implies you believe religious people to be universally weak minded.

People believe what they do for a variety of reasons. Some are basically what you describe, sure, but I think you'd be surprised at how often that is not the case.

Only if you think John 3:16 is dodgy. :p
If "dodgy" = "fallacious bullshit", then yes. :p

oh please stop

Why ... is this "torture"?
They told you right, it would appear. Everybody talks :p

And in case anyone still sees it as metaphorical:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.Well, a metaphor in vast cesspool of veiled-and-overt-threats-as-metaphors really doesn't do much to move anyone who's already come to understand the intent.
There's a mechanism in place for handling that.What an interesting choice of words. I've noted a vociferous, arrogant ignorance on the part of a significant portion of religious people, specifically oriented with the OT/NT "faith", who do their absolute "BEST" to DENY any keen, significant, and accurate MECHANICAL understanding of the way things actually are, for sake of their "faith".
That's quite an unfortunate POV/approach, wouldn't you think?
It's sorta like saying your car runs on aromatherapy.

As over-zealous as this sounds being 'saved' means accepting Jesus died for you becuase you are a sinner, then trying to live a life with the values he had. When is says he defeated the devil it meant that a) he had conquerored death
God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
Thanks, God. Jesus vs. God, thus a sin! :p

Anway, that's just my opinion and it may be completely wrong. Hope I don't offend anyone or piss them off...
So long as you don't offer the idea of eternal punishment for a slight of some bloodthirsty madmens' imagination, you're trying your best. However, being religion, there's not so good a track record.

Oh, it's like one of those dodgy store credit card deals, is it?Pyramid scheme. *nods*

I'm not going to engage in-depth with this thread (I have to log-off in 10 mins anyway), but thought I would attempt to address the above from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. This is also fortunately relevant to the thread as a whole.

Bishop Kallistos [Timothy] Ware's English-language book 'The Orthodox Church' notes (to use the most readily available source) that while Orthodoxy holds that members of the Church are the most likely to be 'saved' (to use a Western term I'm not entirely comfortable with), it is not for us to say who God may choose to save. It's entirely possible that God's mercy might extend to a good person who isn't Orthodox, or even a good person who isn't Christian.

Without going even further into the sharp differences between Orthodoxy and the sort of evangelical Protestantism that seems to have so upset the OP, note the following crucial differences in perspective:

1) Evangelicals tend to be certain that their perspective is right, that they know precisely what God wants, and that theirs is the only true path.

2) Orthodox believe that ours is the one true church, but the Orthodox mystical tradition tends to lead the Orthodox into stating that while a path is most likely to be the right, it is not for us to say what God's will ultimately might be.

And to explain further I'd probably need to go into far more detail into the Palamite distinction between God's energies (which can be experienced) and essence (which remains unknowable) than anyone else on NSG would care to read about.

I like the Orthodox Church in this regard. :)

DISCLAIMER: Title is meant to grab attention and is not my opinion. I am not religious and presenting an argument based on the Bible from my own point of view.

One thing I have noticed is that many Christians go on about "being saved". And while I, in my early part of life, considered myself a Christian, understood the concept of Jesus dying for our sins, and believed that faith had significance, I never understood how one could just come out one day and "be saved". So I studied the Bible and learned the concept common mostly in Protestantism (but also in Catholicism), that Jesus is the "only way". But when I read the verse, and studied it, I found the common interpretation to be very hollow. There wasn't a complex manual to salvation, just a simple verse, that has been highly interpreted and the interpretations commonly accepted without question.

The common Christian thesis is that: One can only be saved by accepting Jesus as their savior.

This is not what the Bible says, it says (roughly) "I am the way, truth, and life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

So (for the sake of argument, assume it is true), I present these different interpretations to that Bible verse.

1. Everyone is saved, because Jesus died for everyone, and thus all have come through him to heaven.

2. People can be saved by living the same lifestyle as Jesus and following his examples of goodness.

Also, it says Jesus destroyed the power of the devil. Couldn't that essentially mean that the devil can no longer claim souls?

IN SUMMARY AND FOR RESPONSE:

If (hypothetically) the Bible is true, isn't the concept of salvation through accepting Jesus a mere interpretation?

You're view comes from cherry picking a few verses. Accept jesus to be "saved". Follow Him everyday, to be set free. Far too many people want to be saved, but no one wants to be a disciple of christ.

Far too many people want to be saved, but no one wants to be a disciple of christ.I'll repost this for thought.

I'll repost this for thought.

Well, its the truth. I mean, if we were to stop being sanctimonius arse holes in the church, this world would be a better place. I have always thought that the best way to show that God exists, and that Christ is the redeemer, is to simply live the life that Christ exemplified. Could you imagine instead of the crusades for the holy land, Christians gathered in great numbers to bring food and relief to sick, elderly and dying? The goal of a Christian is to not get into heaven. Its to have God here and now. We are to be the ambassadors of God. How can we be ambassadors, when we don't even know Him, nor follow him? Once again, we are to be disciples. Not jerks that only care about getting into heaven. Scripture makes that clear.

Oh, it's like one of those dodgy store credit card deals, is it?

:p an you only get 0.5% off

I believe Jesus said once that the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven is a little child. That says something about the kind of Heaven we have.

(Thank you, Lord, for the passage!) Matthew 18 is what I'm talking about.

Matthew 18
The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

What I'm trying to get at here is that it's all well and good to be a reasonable adult, but in the end, a childlike faith is the most important to Heaven.

www.biblegateway.com is your friend for all biblical sources.


Only if you think John 3:16 is dodgy. :p

I have to admit I'm not entirely sure what this copy and paste job has to do with the point that wishful thinking won't change reality? :confused:

I think it's unfair to characterize religion as a crutch. Saying that implies you believe religious people to be universally weak minded.

People believe what they do for a variety of reasons. Some are basically what you describe, sure, but I think you'd be surprised at how often that is not the case.

Just giving my opinion after living in a world brimful of religious people for a good 3 decades now.
But I'm curious : What other reason do people have to believe they need salvation from something they believe in?

Well, a metaphor in vast cesspool of veiled-and-overt-threats-as-metaphors really doesn't do much to move anyone who's already come to understand the intent.
What an interesting choice of words. I've noted a vociferous, arrogant ignorance on the part of a significant portion of religious people, specifically oriented with the OT/NT "faith", who do their absolute "BEST" to DENY any keen, significant, and accurate MECHANICAL understanding of the way things actually are, for sake of their "faith".
That's quite an unfortunate POV/approach, wouldn't you think?
It's sorta like saying your car runs on aromatherapy.

I have no idea what you're getting at here. Can you rephrase this in a way that is a bit more clear?


Just giving my opinion after living in a world brimful of religious people for a good 3 decades now.
But I'm curious : What other reason do people have to believe they need salvation from something they believe in?

If I read your question right, you're asking me why a person would need religion if not as a crutch?

Far too many people want to be saved, but no one wants to be a disciple of christ.

Personally, I'm quite happy with neither.

Well, if you really want you could argue that even if the Bible was the work of God it was translated and edited by men.
Ever heard about apocriphes? They are quite a fun reading if you are into it.
The problem is that AFAIK they are very hard to come by, at least in Italy.
I tried to get a copy and guess what? The only publisher of the complete apocriphes, including the so called blasphemous ones, is Edizioni Paoline, the Vatican's own publisher.
The scene was hilarious, actually. I went to the Paoline shop in Milan.
Older nun: "How can i help you, dear?"
Younger me: "I'd like to buy a copy of the new testament..."
Older nun smiling: "Sure dear, here you are."
Younger me smiling: "... apochripha." *
Older nun: "VADE RETRO SATANA!!!!"
I then had to be served by a priest that inquired inquisition style why I was interested in that stuff and how I did know that it even exists.

Oh and according to the Ortodox Church they are the right ones because... well... they are ortodox**!

* NDT: In italian you say "vangeli apocrifi"
** Disclaimer: according to themselves

Do you mean Apocrypha? If so, you can find the texts for most of them via www.earlychristianwritings.com. It's odd, but in the UK it's not too difficult to find copies of the Bible which include the Apocrypha.

I think it's unfair to characterize religion as a crutch. Saying that implies you believe religious people to be universally weak minded.

People believe what they do for a variety of reasons. Some are basically what you describe, sure, but I think you'd be surprised at how often that is not the case.

In my opinion, I really believe religion is a crutch for those who are weak minded, I think it is for those who can't, or don't want to comprehend a universe where their lives end with death.

I've thought about the possibility of other reasons why people would follow a religion, and can find no reason, without the promise of an eternity, why would people choose to believe in a magic, omnipresent deity who can telepathically receive your prayers?

In a cynical mindset, it's only because they're promised eternal happiness and salvation that people follow a given religion.

In my opinion, I really believe religion is a crutch for those who are weak minded, I think it is for those who can't, or don't want to comprehend a universe where their lives end with death.

I've thought about the possibility of other reasons why people would follow a religion, and can find no reason, without the promise of an eternity, why people would choose to believe in a magic, omnipresent deity who can telepathically receive your prayers.

In a cynical mindset, it's only because they're promised eternal happiness and salvation that people follow a given religion.

No offense intended, but if you're so quick to ridicule belief systems that some people hold to be even more dear to them than their own lives, then it's unlikely at best that you're open-minded enough to see any other reason. Your opinion, thus, carries very little validity.

If I read your question right, you're asking me why a person would need religion if not as a crutch?

To be more precisely, why a person would need religion if not out of fear of the unknown, or because of a irrational need for the supernatural.

No offense intended, but if you're so quick to ridicule belief systems that some people hold to be even more dear to them than their own lives, then it's unlikely at best that you're open-minded enough to see any other reason. Your opinion, thus, carries very little validity.

Well, then give another reason?
I personally wouldn't have called religious people "weak", I don't think they necessarily are. But they do seem to have a need for a supernatural, additional universe, that me and many people I know don't share. In my experience, when asking religious people why they believe in what they believe, they will tell you because otherwise life would have no meaning to them and/or be empty. The idea that life simply ends seems too much to bear for them, which is why they embrace religion which tells them that something they can neither see nor feel nor measure in any way will live on in some form or other.
The idea that there will be heaven and hell also caters to people's sense of justice and fairness, which cannot always be satisfied in real life.

So yes, overall the concept does seem like a bit of a crutch to me.

I believe Jesus said once that the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven is a little child. That says something about the kind of Heaven we have.

Explains a lot about the kind of priests you have.

Who'd ya lift that from? I like it. Buts i only gots 8 lines for siggin'.

Tis a saying from pre-reformation-ish Europe, criticising the Church practice of selling indulgences, if my memory of 3rd year history doesn't fail me.

No offense intended, but if you're so quick to ridicule belief systems that some people hold to be even more dear to them than their own lives, then it's unlikely at best that you're open-minded enough to see any other reason. Your opinion, thus, carries very little validity.

This was not a quick decision, I think a lot about religion and its meanings and other things of that nature. I was raised Christian, and in Middle school, I actually began thinking outside of the box, and started to reject the religious answers to life that surrounded me.

As Cabra said, give me another reason then please, instead of what I have said, I would like to see it.

P.S. You are a very hypocritical person based off that last post, calling me quick to judge, then jumping to how I'm close minded and that I have very little validity from one post seems very 'quick to judge' and, 'close-minded'. Hypocrites, in my book, hold no validity whatsoever. :p

Well, then give another reason?

For me personally, it's because I believe that it's true.

I have no idea what you're getting at here. Can you rephrase this in a way that is a bit more clear?Upon reflection, the first sentence of the same post serves well in said regard.

Explains a lot about the kind of priests you have.

http://www.thediabetesblog.com/images/2005/12/baby%20crying.jpg

For me personally, it's because I believe that it's true.

So, the reason you feel a need to believe is cause you believe?
Forgive me for assuming you misunderstood the question there...

Get stuffed, God.

I believe in God just enough to hate his guts. I have a standing offer of a fight, fists or bolts of lightning ... however he wants it. The fat lazy coward won't show, he never does. I reckon he's chicken.

In my opinion, I really believe religion is a crutch for those who are weak minded, I think it is for those who can't, or don't want to comprehend a universe where their lives end with death.

I've thought about the possibility of other reasons why people would follow a religion, and can find no reason, without the promise of an eternity, why would people choose to believe in a magic, omnipresent deity who can telepathically receive your prayers?

In a cynical mindset, it's only because they're promised eternal happiness and salvation that people follow a given religion.

To be more precisely, why a person would need religion if not out of fear of the unknown, or because of a irrational need for the supernatural.

Well, then give another reason?
I personally wouldn't have called religious people "weak", I don't think they necessarily are. But they do seem to have a need for a supernatural, additional universe, that me and many people I know don't share. In my experience, when asking religious people why they believe in what they believe, they will tell you because otherwise life would have no meaning to them and/or be empty. The idea that life simply ends seems too much to bear for them, which is why they embrace religion which tells them that something they can neither see nor feel nor measure in any way will live on in some form or other.
The idea that there will be heaven and hell also caters to people's sense of justice and fairness, which cannot always be satisfied in real life.

So yes, overall the concept does seem like a bit of a crutch to me.

I can speak for myself, and a few people I've talked to about this.

I believe what I believe, not because I'm afraid of an alternative, or because I can't handle the world without a security blanket.

A lot of people look around them at the world and they believe in only what they see. They have an idea, that I find strange, that somehow the 5 human senses along with the 70 or so year average human lifespan are enough to truly give an understanding of what the universe is and what it contains. They limit their thinking to just what they see in this world and conclude that there is no more. They're perfectly happy to study some aspect of the world around them but they never really consider the possibility that there is more out there than what they can personally experience.

My spirit is more free than that. I know the limitations of my senses and lifespan and that they cannot possibly define all that is knowable orunderstandable in the universe. We learn new things all the time that were unimaginable in the not so distant past, and it shows us just how limited we are... but we're getting better.

My logical mind tells me that there MUST be more out there, and my religion is a way of discovering it. It simply doesn't strike me as logical that what we can experience in a lifetime is all there is that CAN be experienced.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not expressing a lack of satisfaction or feelings of being caged, and that somehow I need a religion to help me cope with it. There's more to experience here on this planet than I can possibly hope to experience in my lifetime. There's plenty to see, do and learn about right here, and yet if there IS more than even that, I want to know about it. I refuse to put a cap on what I can learn just because of those natural limits.

Is there a God? Your mind refuses to allow for the possibility. My mind tells me that in a universe as vast and as old as this it would be silly to assume there isn't. Is there life after death? You might conclude that since your 5 senses cannot say, then there isn't one, or, at best, one can't truly know. My mind tells me that in a reality as complex and mysterious as the one we share, there surely must be a way to know, and it's silly not to even try to find it.

Some of you folks talk to us religious people as if we're limited by brainwashing and dogma. I say you put your own minds in a cage and throw out the key by refusing to allow yourselves to let your brain be anything but a computer. Computers can only process what data they can receive from whatever senses are attached to them. The human mind is capable of so vastly much more and yet you seem to take pride in closing that part off.

I use my religion as a mechanism for letting my mind and my understanding advance far beyond these limits. Even if only 1% of what I believe religiously is ever found to be true, my religion would still have served me far more than closed-mindedness serves any of you guys.

(If the way I phrased some of that comes across as arrogant or preachy, I apologize. My intent is to express my wonder and excitement, not any ill meaning toward you.)

This was not a quick decision, I think a lot about religion and its meanings and other things of that nature. I was raised Christian, and in Middle school, I actually began thinking outside of the box, and started to reject the religious answers to life that surrounded me.

As Cabra said, give me another reason then please, instead of what I have said, I would like to see it.

P.S. You are a very hypocritical person based off that last post, calling me quick to judge, then jumping to how I'm close minded and that I have very little validity from one post seems very 'quick to judge' and, 'close-minded'. Hypocrites, in my book, hold no validity whatsoever. :p

Not hypocritical, I think you've misunderstood my meaning. I'm not making a sweeping judgement against you or anyone else. I'm simply stating that it's difficult for me to take seriously an opinion that's presented in statements that appear to exclude any other possibility.

Upon reflection, the first sentence of the same post serves well in said regard.

Hopefully this post helps.

I can speak for myself, and a few people I've talked to about this.

I believe what I believe, not because I'm afraid of an alternative, or because I can't handle the world without a security blanket.

A lot of people look around them at the world and they believe in only what they see. They have an idea, that I find strange, that somehow the 5 human senses along with the 70 or so year average human lifespan are enough to truly give an understanding of what the universe is and what it contains. They limit their thinking to just what they see in this world and conclude that there is no more. They're perfectly happy to study some aspect of the world around them but they never really consider the possibility that there is more out there than what they can personally experience.

My spirit is more free than that. I know the limitations of my senses and lifespan and that they cannot possibly define all that is knowable orunderstandable in the universe. We learn new things all the time that were unimaginable in the not so distant past, and it shows us just how limited we are... but we're getting better.

I think if you assume that it is even possible to experience everything there is to experience using just your 5 senses in your entire lifetime, your world must be an awful lot smaller than mine. Sure, we don't know everything yet, and we most likely never will, but what we as a species do know is way more than a single brain would ever be able to process. So instead of marveling at the world, instead of trying to learn from it and experience it, you wander off to look for experiences that you can't even be sure of exist?
Forgive me for thinking that attitude a tad arrogant.


My logical mind tells me that there MUST be more out there, and my religion is a way of discovering it. It simply doesn't strike me as logical that what we can experience in a lifetime is all there is that CAN be experienced.

Ah. I have to admit I giggled. I never thought I'd ever meet such a wonderful description of what Dawkins describes as "backfiring evolutionary overreaction".
See, humans long ago evolved a mental capacity of reading purpose into natural occuring phenomena. It's a way of helping us predict what's going to happen in the near future around us. If we see a predator, for example, we instictively know that its "purpose" is to harm us. If we see clouds, we know their "purpose" is to provide water, or simply rain on us. We personify inanimate objects, and humanise animals. It's a rather direct and easy way of making sense of the world.
Dawkins now proposes that in some people, this sense of purpose backfires, assuming purpose and intention where there are none. So to some people, there appears to be a greater purpose to the world, cause their instincts tells them so.


Is there a God? Your mind refuses to allow for the possibility. My mind tells me that in a universe as vast and as old as this it would be silly to assume there isn't. Is there life after death? You might conclude that since your 5 senses cannot say, then there isn't one, or, at best, one can't truly know. My mind tells me that in a reality as complex and mysterious as the one we share, there surely must be a way to know, and it's silly not to even try to find it.

Not quite. Remember, I was raised religious, and for a long time have tried to fit in and believe what everybody around me believed. It didn't work. I felt I had to constantly lie to myself, constantly refuse to listen to my brain and constantly close my eyes in order to be able to continue pretending to believe in god.
I finally decided that this would lead nowhere, and to rather listen to my brain, see with my own eyes and stop pretending. Reality is complex, and random, and that makes it utterly and totally fascinating.


Some of you folks talk to us religious people as if we're limited by brainwashing and dogma. I say you put your own minds in a cage and throw out the key by refusing to allow yourselves to let your brain be anything but a computer. Computers can only process what data they can receive from whatever senses are attached to them. The human mind is capable of so vastly much more and yet you seem to take pride in closing that part off.

Minds are computers. A brain is an incredibly complex computer, complete with installation processes for new programs and input-recognition software.


I use my religion as a mechanism for letting my mind and my understanding advance far beyond these limits. Even if only 1% of what I believe religiously is ever found to be true, my religion would still have served me far more than closed-mindedness serves any of you guys.

(If the way I phrased some of that comes across as arrogant or preachy, I apologize. My intent is to express my wonder and excitement, not any ill meaning toward you.)

And how would it have served you? What advantage do you think you'd have over us if some of it turned out to be true? Do you honestly think we're inflexible to new thoughts and ideas? Cause to me it appears to be the other way around.

I think if you assume that it is even possible to experience everything there is to experience using just your 5 senses in your entire lifetime, your world must be an awful lot smaller than mine. Sure, we don't know everything yet, and we most likely never will, but what we as a species do know is way more than a single brain would ever be able to process. So instead of marveling at the world, instead of trying to learn from it and experience it, you wander off to look for experiences that you can't even be sure of exist?
Forgive me for thinking that attitude a tad arrogant.


Then I hope you read the last line of that post and took it to heart.


Ah. I have to admit I giggled. I never thought I'd ever meet such a wonderful description of what Dawkins describes as "backfiring evolutionary overreaction".
See, humans long ago evolved a mental capacity of reading purpose into natural occuring phenomena. It's a way of helping us predict what's going to happen in the near future around us. If we see a predator, for example, we instictively know that its "purpose" is to harm us. If we see clouds, we know their "purpose" is to provide water, or simply rain on us. We personify inanimate objects, and humanise animals. It's a rather direct and easy way of making sense of the world.
Dawkins now proposes that in some people, this sense of purpose backfires, assuming purpose and intention where there are none. So to some people, there appears to be a greater purpose to the world, cause their instincts tells them so.


I never said a word about purpose. I spoke of experiencing what's out there.


Not quite. Remember, I was raised religious, and for a long time have tried to fit in and believe what everybody around me believed. It didn't work. I felt I had to constantly lie to myself, constantly refuse to listen to my brain and constantly close my eyes in order to be able to continue pretending to believe in god.
I finally decided that this would lead nowhere, and to rather listen to my brain, see with my own eyes and stop pretending. Reality is complex, and random, and that makes it utterly and totally fascinating.


That last sentence you wrote is my point exactly. We're just drawing different conclusions.


Minds are computers. A brain is an incredibly complex computer, complete with installation processes for new programs and input-recognition software.


Minds are a great deal more than computers. Infinitely more. They share some of the attributes of a computer but are vastly more than that.


And how would it have served you? What advantage do you think you'd have over us if some of it turned out to be true? Do you honestly think we're inflexible to new thoughts and ideas? Cause to me it appears to be the other way around.

It would have served me by giving me insights into things beyond the scope of what a less open minded person is willing to accept. Isn't knowledge for its own sake a noble goal? You almost seem to want me to justify wanting to know for it's own sake, as if we need a reason to explore and ponder and consider and wonder about the greater universe beyond our range of experiences here.

IN SUMMARY AND FOR RESPONSE:

If (hypothetically) the Bible is true, isn't the concept of salvation through accepting Jesus a mere interpretation?

No. You are wrong because you are looking at one (of thousands) verse in the entire NT, and that does not even count the (in this case, slightly irrelevant) OT.

You would need to cite, in my opinion, at least two or three dozen verses to support the claim that the NT does not suggest that Christ is the only way to even. Jesus also said "if you are not with me, you are against me." and other such clearly exclusive verses.

Next time, please don't sum up the entirety of all theological belief from one verse, when many are present.

I can speak for myself, and a few people I've talked to about this.

I believe what I believe, not because I'm afraid of an alternative, or because I can't handle the world without a security blanket.

A lot of people look around them at the world and they believe in only what they see. They have an idea, that I find strange, that somehow the 5 human senses along with the 70 or so year average human lifespan are enough to truly give an understanding of what the universe is and what it contains. They limit their thinking to just what they see in this world and conclude that there is no more. They're perfectly happy to study some aspect of the world around them but they never really consider the possibility that there is more out there than what they can personally experience.

Um, uhhh, most of the world is religious, so, we're the minority, you're the majority. Not what you say.

My spirit is more free than that. I know the limitations of my senses and lifespan and that they cannot possibly define all that is knowable or understandable in the universe. We learn new things all the time that were unimaginable in the not so distant past, and it shows us just how limited we are... but we're getting better.

Religion has been around since man started to explain the world around it. And still, since then, nothing we've learned has shown religion to be true or right about anything. If anything, our recent discoveries has made religion look more ridiculous than it did before. For me, I think as we keep learning new things, it will only back religion into a corner further until it has nothing to hang onto. Before we learned about the weather and how it worked, people blamed the gods for storms and other bad weather, but now, we realize it's a natural thing. Just one example.

My logical mind tells me that there MUST be more out there, and my religion is a way of discovering it. It simply doesn't strike me as logical that what we can experience in a lifetime is all there is that CAN be experienced.

I giggled here too, Cabra already covered this part well.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not expressing a lack of satisfaction or feelings of being caged, and that somehow I need a religion to help me cope with it. There's more to experience here on this planet than I can possibly hope to experience in my lifetime. There's plenty to see, do and learn about right here, and yet if there IS more than even that, I want to know about it. I refuse to put a cap on what I can learn just because of those natural limits.

Look at reality and life for what it is, finite, and complex. You are capping your learning just by thinking there is more to experience after death.

Is there a God? Your mind refuses to allow for the possibility. My mind tells me that in a universe as vast and as old as this it would be silly to assume there isn't. Is there life after death? You might conclude that since your 5 senses cannot say, then there isn't one, or, at best, one can't truly know. My mind tells me that in a reality as complex and mysterious as the one we share, there surely must be a way to know, and it's silly not to even try to find it.

How is it silly to assume there is no deity? As people as a whole have moved on, we have been getting rid of dated systems. Examples include; Tribalism, hunting and gathering, mummification, old medical practices, the idea that the mentally ill are insane, and many others. It is far past time to dump religion as well. Reality is complex, it's religion that tries to divide it into its smallest portions. Religion says God created everything, everyone, and knows everything, there is no mystery there at all.

Some of you folks talk to us religious people as if we're limited by brainwashing and dogma. I say you put your own minds in a cage and throw out the key by refusing to allow yourselves to let your brain be anything but a computer. Computers can only process what data they can receive from whatever senses are attached to them. The human mind is capable of so vastly much more and yet you seem to take pride in closing that part off.

Religion is the cage I think. I apologize if I don't like mixing my science with imagination and idealism.

I use my religion as a mechanism for letting my mind and my understanding advance far beyond these limits. Even if only 1% of what I believe religiously is ever found to be true, my religion would still have served me far more than closed-mindedness serves any of you guys.

I myself think religion deters knowledge and the increase of output in all works. The religious have stopped (This is just the one that comes to mind.) life altering work in stem cell research. Stopping our ability to counteract horrible diseases and illness and other achievements in science.

(If the way I phrased some of that comes across as arrogant or preachy, I apologize. My intent is to express my wonder and excitement, not any ill meaning toward you.)

TLDR;
There is no point to life, your life is finite, reality is complex, believing in gods is silly. /end thread.

Christianity is the ultimate escapist ideology for guilty people, it basically says that through the punishment and death of another individual your transgressions can be 'forgiven', as if you never did them. In the Catholic idea it's basically cannibalism because your eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus to live forever, which comes from the primitive paganism Christianity was founded upon. I believe the Arabs have a saying for that, it's called 'scapegoating', the village piles all it's sins onto a goat and sends it off into the desert to die, so that the goat takes the penalty for the transgressions of others. Is that a solid and moral ground to build a religion upon?... I don't think so.

Get stuffed, God.

I believe in God just enough to hate his guts. I have a standing offer of a fight, fists or bolts of lightning ... however he wants it. The fat lazy coward won't show, he never does. I reckon he's chicken.
Guy liiiiiiiike!
:D

Then I hope you read the last line of that post and took it to heart.
Curious, isn't it?

The common Christian thesis is that: One can only be saved by accepting Jesus as their savior.
This is not what the Bible says, it says (roughly) "I am the way, truth, and life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
So (for the sake of argument, assume it is true), I present these different interpretations to that Bible verse.
1. Everyone is saved, because Jesus died for everyone, and thus all have come through him to heaven.
2. People can be saved by living the same lifestyle as Jesus and following his examples of goodness.
Also, it says Jesus destroyed the power of the devil. Couldn't that essentially mean that the devil can no longer claim souls?

I'm addressing what Sagittiarya said in the OP.

The reason christians go on about being 'saved' is because we believe that through the sacrifice of Christ we have been saved from our sins. In the Bible, there isn't any ritual on 'how to' be saved, other than to just believe. So maybe that would explain how you could one day just come out and be saved...because one day you don't believe, the next day, you chose to believe. I was raised in a non-christian household, my family doesn't really believe in anything. When I was 15 a friend invited me to her youth group. I went along as a favour to her, cause she kept on about it, but I thought that christians were ignorant and guilable. That night, there was a woman preacher, who basically shared her testimony and her life story was very similar to mine. But I still didn't want to be a christian when she invited people up for prayer. I remember thinking to myself, God if you're real then there needs to be a lot of people going for prayer before I'll go up. The moment I finished the thought in my head, every person in the room went up for prayer...it was an auditorium full of young people. So I went up, this lady started laying hands on people, I started getting freaked and thinking up escape plans...until she got to me. She touched me on the head, and an electricity went through my body, more powerful than anything I'd ever felt. I could barely stand. And I started crying out "LORD, LORD"...One minute, I didn't believe. The next moment, I did. And its changed me forever.
And in regards to the thesis on salvation coming through Christ alone its throughout the New Testament, and not just in that one verse. I very rarely quote from the bible, but i've included bible verses in my answers, in case you're interested :) And in the Old testament, there are prophecies regarding the salvation of mankind, and Christians believe the Messiah to be Jesus.

1. Everyone has the potential to be saved through Jesus, but not everyone is saved. Salvation only comes through faith. And the blood sacrifice didn't take away free will and the ability to make life choices.
Not everyone will go to heaven. Hell was never created for mankind. Mankind was created to be God's family. God doesn't 'send' people to hell. He tells them where there sin will take them, and offers them a free alternative, its their choice whether to take it or not.

2. Lifestyle isn't what redeems a persons sins...You can be the best person you can be, and you will still fall short of God's glory. There is no cure for sin, other than the blood of Jesus.

Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

Luke 18:9-14 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a
tax collector.11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13 "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up
to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14 "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified
before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who
humbles himself will be exalted."

3. This is a really complicated question. Yes, Jesus destroyed the power of the devil over our lives. But satan will still have free reign until the second coming, and some believe until after that, and then will ulitmately be thrown into hell. But Jesus has given us the same authority He has, and has given us the authority to use His name. So, while satan may still be free on the earth, he will submit to a believer. The only way the devil can claim your soul is if he blinds you from the truth. If he lies to you and says that just by being a good person you'll go to heaven, or that God doesn't exist, so there's no choice to make...or a number of other things to keep you away from God.

Other Bible verses that point to Jesus being the only source of salvation:

John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotton son, so that whosoever should believe in Him would never die but have eternal life.17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of
the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the
kingdom of heaven.

ACT 13:39 Through him [Jesus Christ] everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

ROM 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by
observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all
who believe. There is no difference,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came
by Christ Jesus.
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his
blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance
he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be
just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of
observing the law? No, but on that of faith.

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering...

Galations 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by
faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that
we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law,
because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Galations 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

Philipians 3: 8-9
8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing
greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all
things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes
from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness
that comes from God and is by faith.

TIT 3:4-5 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the
Holy Spirit

Hebrews 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name
Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

Matthew 18:14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

Luke 15:2, 4-10 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."
4 "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he
not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep
until he finds it?
5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders
6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and
says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.'
7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven
over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do
not need to repent.
8 "Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not
light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?
9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and
says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.'
10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the
angels of God over one sinner who repents."

Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

John 1:7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that
through him all men might believe.

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under
heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

I apologise for the length.

TLDR;
There is no point to life, your life is finite, reality is complex, believing in gods is silly. /end thread.

Why was there text in the quote of my post that I didn't write?

I mean, if you want me to respond (or even if you don't) be more careful how you quote.

Curious, isn't it?
:confused:

I never said a word about purpose. I spoke of experiencing what's out there.

Really? Odd... cause "My logic tells me there has to be more" does sound compellingly like "My brain can't accept that maybe there isn't any more, so I believe because I can't accept the alternative".


Minds are a great deal more than computers. Infinitely more. They share some of the attributes of a computer but are vastly more than that.

I'd suggest reading any book by Steven Pinker on the subject of the mind, its evolution and its development, as well as taking a peek at evolutionary psychology.
It's a sophisticated computer, with lots of bugs and without a reboot function, but it's simply a computer.


It would have served me by giving me insights into things beyond the scope of what a less open minded person is willing to accept. Isn't knowledge for its own sake a noble goal? You almost seem to want me to justify wanting to know for it's own sake, as if we need a reason to explore and ponder and consider and wonder about the greater universe beyond our range of experiences here.

No, I'm just wondering how you can claim to be more open-minded by virtue of concentrating your attention and learning capabilities on the religious with all its diffusities (I don't know if that's a word, but I just made it up and I like it), while calling others, who focus on aspects that can be experienced and reproduced and try to understand those for the benefit of themselves and others, closeminded.

Cabra... you know I think well of you but you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions here.

Really? Odd... cause "My logic tells me there has to be more" does sound compellingly like "My brain can't accept that maybe there isn't any more, so I believe because I can't accept the alternative".

That's pure spin. If I conclude, based upon my own reasoning that there is more than this, how do you justify the leap of logic to say that somehow I am unable to think differently?


I'd suggest reading any book by Steven Pinker on the subject of the mind, its evolution and its development, as well as taking a peek at evolutionary psychology.
It's a sophisticated computer, with lots of bugs and without a reboot function, but it's simply a computer.


Or maybe I, as a professional computer scientist, know something about computers.


No, I'm just wondering how you can claim to be more open-minded by virtue of concentrating your attention and learning capabilities on the religious with all its diffusities (I don't know if that's a word, but I just made it up and I like it), while calling others, who focus on aspects that can be experienced and reproduced and try to understand those for the benefit of themselves and others, closeminded.

You're assuming that I'm narrowing my vision on exclusively religious matters. I can sort of understand that, given what you see of me on these threads, but let me assure you that isn't the case. Religion is but one area I've made a point to study and become proficient in over the years. I'm a holder of a degree in Computer Science. I'm a certified Master Auto Technician. I'm an amateur astronmoer, I'm a wargamer and student of tactical and military history and tactics, games and theory. I'm a student of history, specifically classical and Medieval European History. I study spaceflight and technology, computer and information technology, cybernetics and robotics. I've been a University architecture major including focused study on the structure and design of suspension bridges and a University history major with focused study on Europe and can hold my own in any conversation about either subject. I am psychologically incapable of sitting still and doing nothing. I can't watch television without having something else to do simultaneously (which causes problems with my wife, who just wants to be able to sit with me and watch a movie sometimes ;) ) Yeah, religion is in there somewhere ;)

So yeah, my mind isn't focused on religious matters as you suggest, and I am voracious in my apetite for knowledge. Isn't it natural that I should he open to the possibilities of an endless universe?

Cabra... you know I think well of you but you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions here.



That's pure spin. If I conclude, based upon my own reasoning that there is more than this, how do you justify the leap of logic to say that somehow I am unable to think differently?

Well, provide the logical thought then.
The nice thing about logic is, it's logical, so I should be able to follow it, right? ;)


Or maybe I, as a professional computer scientist, know something about computers.

Never disputed that. But how much do you know about brain function and development?


You're assuming that I'm narrowing my vision on exclusively religious matters. I can sort of understand that, given what you see of me on these threads, but let me assure you that isn't the case. Religion is but one area I've made a point to study and become proficient in over the years. I'm a holder of a degree in Computer Science. I'm a certified Master Auto Technician. I'm an amateur astronmoer, I'm a wargamer and student of tactical and military history and tactics, games and theory. I'm a student of history, specifically classical and Medieval European History. I study spaceflight and technology, computer and information technology, cybernetics and robotics. I've been a University architecture major including focused study on the structure and design of suspension bridges and a University history major with focused study on Europe and can hold my own in any conversation about either subject. I am psychologically incapable of sitting still and doing nothing. I can't watch television without having something else to do simultaneously (which causes problems with my wife, who just wants to be able to sit with me and watch a movie sometimes ;) ) Yeah, religion is in there somewhere ;)

Good for you. Then why call my close-minded for focusing on psychology, biology, physics, history, culture, anthropology, phonetics, entymology, arts, cooking and gardening? Just cause I look at theology from a different perspective (as in, it's psychological impact and its history) doesn't mean I'm missing out. By the same merit, I could call you close-minded for not keeping a garden ;)

Well, provide the logical thought then.
The nice thing about logic is, it's logical, so I should be able to follow it, right? ;)


Sure, I could, but we'd probably disagree on the meanings some of the baseline axioms, such as:

-The 5 known human senses cannot detect all phenomena in the universe
-The current level of human technology cannot be applied to gain all possible knowledge
--Or, human technology is still advancing
-The sheer size of the universe makes it vanishingly improbable that Earth is the only life bearing world

Those items alone should be sufficient to at least stimulate curiosity about what's not only out in the universe, but what's here at home that we haven't yet understood. (There's plenty more)



Never disputed that. But how much do you know about brain function and development?

Amateur level, but I don't need to be a nerosurgeon to know that the way neurons store data, for example, is radically different from how it's stored in a microchip (Unless you're going to tell me that the brain stores data in binary format.) or that the brain produces chemicals that affect its state while a computer has no such functionality, resulting in more consistent results from given data inputs and program algortims.

It's a romantic and novel idea that a computer and a brain are somehow equivalent, but like I said they share some functions and responsibilities, but that hardly makes them the same, nor does it justify the assumption that the human brain lacks functionality simply because it isn't found in a computer.


Good for you. Then why call my close-minded for focusing on psychology, biology, physics, history, culture, anthropology, phonetics, entymology, arts, cooking and gardening? Just cause I look at theology from a different perspective (as in, it's psychological impact and its history) doesn't mean I'm missing out. By the same merit, I could call you close-minded for not keeping a garden ;)

The difference is I don't make it a point to criticize gardening, I don't pretend it doesn't exist simply because I don't study it, or because I have difficulty in understanding how to tend plants, and I don't criticize others nor demand an explanation from them if they do.

Sure, I could, but we'd probably disagree on the meanings some of the baseline axioms, such as:

-The 5 known human senses cannot detect all phenomena in the universe
-The current level of human technology cannot be applied to gain all possible knowledge
--Or, human technology is still advancing
-The sheer size of the universe makes it vanishingly improbable that Earth is the only life bearing world

Those items alone should be sufficient to at least stimulate curiosity about what's not only out in the universe, but what's here at home that we haven't yet understood. (There's plenty more)

Well, I'd agree with all of them. Human senses are one of our biggest shortcomings, very low average when compared with what some animals can use to observe their environment. We've developed plently of technology to make up for that, though. And yes, we're constantly discovering and inventing more.
The last one I would agree, but more on instinct than on logical thought. In order to determine how likely or unlikely it is for other worlds to have developed life, we would need to know how likely it is that it developed here.
We can safely assume that there are a number of planets out there with similar conditions as there are on earth. But the question is : How likely is it that life will evolve?
Will it create itself as soon as it's given the slightest chance, as soon as the conditions are there?
Or is it rather improbable that it will emerge, and Earth was simply an unlikely accident?

Hard to tell, really... Although, looking at life here, it would be hard to imagine it wouldn't seize any given opportunity for itself.

Now, how does that lead to a logical conclusion about god?


Amateur level, but I don't need to be a nerosurgeon to know that the way neurons store data, for example, is radically different from how it's stored in a microchip (Unless you're going to tell me that the brain stores data in binary format.) or that the brain produces chemicals that affect its state while a computer has no such functionality, resulting in more consistent results from given data inputs and program algortims.

It's a romantic and novel idea that a computer and a brain are somehow equivalent, but like I said they share some functions and responsibilities, but that hardly makes them the same, nor does it justify the assumption that the human brain lacks functionality simply because it isn't found in a computer.


Actually, the brain does seem to work in some form of binary. I'd have to look up the details, but nerves are rather simple that way : They're either active or passive.
Yes, the brain regulates itself by chemicals. Which are being produced by the body following the program outlined in the DNA. In that it does exactly what a computer would do when given an instruction.

Now, sure, one is silicon-based and the other is carbon-based. One is defined as "life", the other one is inanimate. But the parallels are pretty striking, even in the details.


The difference is I don't make it a point to criticize gardening, I don't pretend it doesn't exist simply because I don't study it, or because I have difficulty in understanding how to tend plants, and I don't criticize others nor demand an explanation from them if they do.

Well, I don't argue that theology exists. I just don't see evidence for its main subject, sorry.
See, you don't see evidence for my garden, do you? You've got no way of making sure that I do in fact have a garden, and you can't know what I'm planting. But does that make any difference to your life?
I could start sending you some peas, and round lettuce, and spring onions, and tomatoes. You still wouldn't know they're from my garden. I could have just picked them up in the supermarket or at a farmer's market. And it still would make no difference to your life.
To me, the idea of god is a lot like that : no evidence, and no difference one way or another.

And I don't criticise people for believing, I'm just trying to figure out why they do. I've been at it for a long time now, and there are recurring patterns.

Well, I'd agree with all of them. Human senses are one of our biggest shortcomings, very low average when compared with what some animals can use to observe their environment. We've developed plently of technology to make up for that, though. And yes, we're constantly discovering and inventing more.
The last one I would agree, but more on instinct than on logical thought. In order to determine how likely or unlikely it is for other worlds to have developed life, we would need to know how likely it is that it developed here.
We can safely assume that there are a number of planets out there with similar conditions as there are on earth. But the question is : How likely is it that life will evolve?
Will it create itself as soon as it's given the slightest chance, as soon as the conditions are there?
Or is it rather improbable that it will emerge, and Earth was simply an unlikely accident?

Hard to tell, really... Although, looking at life here, it would be hard to imagine it wouldn't seize any given opportunity for itself.

Now, how does that lead to a logical conclusion about god?


Before I proceed I should comment that the nature of God as viewed by my religion isn't the same as the nature of God as viewed by evangelical or Catholic Christianity.

Evangelicals or Catholics will say that God is an unknowable Being who has existed infinitely alopng the timeline on both directions, in a static state. Mormon Christianity tells us that nothing is static and that just as God would have ud learn and grow and follow in His footsteps, He, in turn, went through the same process at some point.

That being the case, it's easy to see how that can fit into the model of a universe with a finite age and finite mass. The rest is working out the details.


Actually, the brain does seem to work in some form of binary. I'd have to look up the details, but nerves are rather simple that way : They're either active or passive.
Yes, the brain regulates itself by chemicals. Which are being produced by the body following the program outlined in the DNA. In that it does exactly what a computer would do when given an instruction.

Now, sure, one is silicon-based and the other is carbon-based. One is defined as "life", the other one is inanimate. But the parallels are pretty striking, even in the details.


I would be interested in the details of data storage, so if you can find that I'd love to read up on it. In any case, I'd put that in the similarities column without it being proof that a brain = a computer.

One of the advantages of a computer is that no matter what, a given set of data being operated on by a given algorithm will ALWAYS produce the same results over time. (Even random number generators aren't truly random. It is impossible for a computer to produce a true random number.) The brain, on the other hand, is NOT so consistent for a variety of reasons.

On the other hand, the human brain is superior in its method of pattern recognition, data recall and self-learning. We could go on all day about the similarities and differences but the bottom line is the two are not the same thing just because they share some attributes.


Well, I don't argue that theology exists. I just don't see evidence for its main subject, sorry.
See, you don't see evidence for my garden, do you? You've got no way of making sure that I do in fact have a garden, and you can't know what I'm planting. But does that make any difference to your life?
I could start sending you some peas, and round lettuce, and spring onions, and tomatoes. You still wouldn't know they're from my garden. I could have just picked them up in the supermarket or at a farmer's market. And it still would make no difference to your life.
To me, the idea of god is a lot like that : no evidence, and no difference one way or another.

That's all in the worldview. For example, there are things I'd say are evidence of Divinity, wheras you might look at the same data and call it something else.


And I don't criticise people for believing, I'm just trying to figure out why they do. I've been at it for a long time now, and there are recurring patterns.

Actually, your criticism of religious people as being weak minded or needing a crutch is exactly what triggered this very exchange.

Before I proceed I should comment that the nature of God as viewed by my religion isn't the same as the nature of God as viewed by evangelical or Catholic Christianity.

Evangelicals or Catholics will say that God is an unknowable Being who has existed infinitely alopng the timeline on both directions, in a static state. Mormon Christianity tells us that nothing is static and that just as God would have ud learn and grow and follow in His footsteps, He, in turn, went through the same process at some point.

That being the case, it's easy to see how that can fit into the model of a universe with a finite age and finite mass. The rest is working out the details.


I never claimed there was no room for god in the universe (as in, I consider it proven that he doesn't exist. I don't). I just said I don't see evidence for him....


I would be interested in the details of data storage, so if you can find that I'd love to read up on it. In any case, I'd put that in the similarities column without it being proof that a brain = a computer.

One of the advantages of a computer is that no matter what, a given set of data being operated on by a given algorithm will ALWAYS produce the same results over time. (Even random number generators aren't truly random. It is impossible for a computer to produce a true random number.) The brain, on the other hand, is NOT so consistent for a variety of reasons.

On the other hand, the human brain is superior in its method of pattern recognition, data recall and self-learning. We could go on all day about the similarities and differences but the bottom line is the two are not the same thing just because they share some attributes.

I'll look it up when I get home.
The difference between a brain an a computer as we currently have them is that the brain processes an immensly bigger amount of information. Every additional bit of information (or loss of it, which is something computers rarely do, yes) can change the outcome of the result of that given algorithm. It's chaos theory at work : since we can't possibly know every little detail that influences our brains, we call the effects "random".
No, brains and computers are not identical, but their setup is incredibly similar. Similar enough to allow researchers in brain development to use the way computers work to understand how the brain works.
I'll find some literature for you.



Actually, your criticism of religious people as being weak minded or needing a crutch is exactly what triggered this very exchange.

Er, no. Sorry. I never called religion a crutch, and I never called religious people weak minded. Please read through those posts again.
What I said was that some people seem to need religion while others don't. That does not imply that it's a crutch, nor does it imply that those who need it are weak in any way.

I never claimed there was no room for god in the universe (as in, I consider it proven that he doesn't exist. I don't). I just said I don't see evidence for him....


Alright fair enough.


I'll look it up when I get home.
The difference between a brain an a computer as we currently have them is that the brain processes an immensly bigger amount of information. Every additional bit of information (or loss of it, which is something computers rarely do, yes) can change the outcome of the result of that given algorithm. It's chaos theory at work : since we can't possibly know every little detail that influences our brains, we call the effects "random".
No, brains and computers are not identical, but their setup is incredibly similar. Similar enough to allow researchers in brain development to use the way computers work to understand how the brain works.
I'll find some literature for you.


Just by way of clarification: I'm saying that the brain and a computer are not equivalent, not that they don't have similarities. The purpose being to show that the human brain is capable of comprehending and considering possibilities and concepts a computer simply cannot by its very nature.


Er, no. Sorry. I never called religion a crutch, and I never called religious people weak minded. Please read through those posts again.
What I said was that some people seem to need religion while others don't. That does not imply that it's a crutch, nor does it imply that those who need it are weak in any way.

Well, here's what I said:

I think it's unfair to characterize religion as a crutch. Saying that implies you believe religious people to be universally weak minded.

People believe what they do for a variety of reasons. Some are basically what you describe, sure, but I think you'd be surprised at how often that is not the case.

And your reply:

Just giving my opinion after living in a world brimful of religious people for a good 3 decades now.
But I'm curious : What other reason do people have to believe they need salvation from something they believe in?

So what DID you mean?

Why was there text in the quote of my post that I didn't write?

I mean, if you want me to respond (or even if you don't) be more careful how you quote.

I'm new to the website, thought that was how it worked. Sorry, but you know what you wrote and what I did, a bit obvious.

I'm new to the website, thought that was how it worked. Sorry, but you know what you wrote and what I did, a bit obvious.

Welcome to NSG.

But you'll learn quickly people aren't willing to decipher posts. Besides which you and I both know who said what, but others don't necessarily. That's why it's important.

You can separately quote blocks of text that you want to reply to individually when you quote somebody. All you have to do is copy and paste the quote and /quote tags at the beginning and end of each section of their text.

Enjoy.

:confused:o.9
not Tyler Durden: When people think you're dying, they really, really listen to you, instead of just...
Marla Singer: - instead of just waiting for their turn to speak?

42?

42?
Ah, yes, the true answer to everything!:D

Jesus saves, so he only takes half damage.

:D

Jesus saves, so he only takes half damage.

Actually, Jesus has Evasion. He saves and takes no damage. :)

Sure, I could, but we'd probably disagree on the meanings some of the baseline axioms, such as:

-The 5 known human senses cannot detect all phenomena in the universe
-The current level of human technology cannot be applied to gain all possible knowledge
--Or, human technology is still advancing
-The sheer size of the universe makes it vanishingly improbable that Earth is the only life bearing world

Those items alone should be sufficient to at least stimulate curiosity about what's not only out in the universe, but what's here at home that we haven't yet understood. (There's plenty more)

The above, therefore God? I don't get it.