# Anyone Here Religious?



## Se7enMeister (May 16, 2008)

just wondering, if anyone else on the .org was religious, dosent matter what. and PLEASE no negative posts

EDIT: ok i am not a methodist my self but my family is, i belive in living a good life with god as an example and personal experiances as a means to get closer to him


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 17, 2008)

Hell no. I was raised with that shit.

That said, I definitely am a believer in God, and feel I have a lifelong relationship with him. I feel life is about discovering these mysteries, and my relationship and faith in God is, I believe, one of the greatest positives in my life.

I just do not in any way trust religion to... facilitate that relationship. Religion is "God is telling you...", whereas relationship is, "God is telling me." Subtle, but dramatically important difference.


----------



## Zepp88 (May 17, 2008)

I've never been religious myself, although I think that faith in _something_ can be a good thing for some people. I think people should find that something on their own, and I don't really like organised religion. 

Sometimes I can have some "spiritual" leanings, I feel that there is definetly "something else" Heaven? Hell? I don't know, but I feel that it is there. 

I also have little use for the bible, but I think that The Ten Commandments is one of the most important things ever written.


----------



## Gilbucci (May 17, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Hell no. I was raised with that shit.
> 
> That said, I definitely am a believer in God, and feel I have a lifelong relationship with him. I feel life is about discovering these mysteries, and my relationship and faith in God is, I believe, one of the greatest positives in my life.
> 
> I just do not in any way trust religion to... facilitate that relationship. Religion is "God is telling you...", whereas relationship is, "God is telling me." Subtle, but dramatically important difference.


This is exactly how I'd describe my relationship with God. I don't really believe that you have to be in a 'fixed' religious 'group' to have a relationship with him. I have my own unique relationship with him, and I think that's what people should ultimately look for.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 17, 2008)

I too, like boober, was raised on it. And that was more than enough for me. Difference between me and him is that i'm a spiteful motherfucker.  

Though, i'm a strong follower of the crowlean thelema philosophy. Once again, its a personal thing and not a 'fixed religious group' thing.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 17, 2008)

^ To Gilbucci.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that any serious pursuit of developing that relationship USING religious channels can in fact be detrimental to it.

Religion, in spite of some of its benefits, is almost always exclusionary and limiting. How can anyone, let alone human beings, apply that kind of dogmatic thinking to something and someone as... transcendent as God?

It so often ends up being divisive and the root of all kinds of conflict.


----------



## Zepp88 (May 17, 2008)

Exactly Boober 

Nobody really know's the truth, or has all the answers, so indoctrinating it and controlling people by it is just silly and dangerous.


----------



## Gilbucci (May 17, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> ^ To Gilbucci.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that any serious pursuit of developing that relationship USING religious channels can in fact be detrimental to it.
> 
> Religion, in spite of some of its benefits, is almost always exclusionary and limiting. How can anyone, let alone human beings, apply that kind of dogmatic thinking to something and someone as... transcendent as God?
> 
> It so often ends up being divisive and the root of all kinds of conflict.


Nailed it, man, once again. 

I know quite a few people that firmly stand by whatever the bible says, and while they think it's completely normal, from my point of view it seems pretty much insane. It is extremely limiting, like you said, and really gives you no room to do much of anything. While I believe in trying to be the best overall person you can be, I do NOT believe in trying to be the 'perfect' human being, because that doesn't exist.


----------



## Naren (May 17, 2008)

I was raised in a Christian household and went to a non-denomination Christian elementary and a private Baptist high school, but I don't believe in any religion. I personally don't believe in the existance in God (I've always been a very analytical scientific minded person -- or, as the Christians would say, a "doubting Thomas" ).

However, I am not an atheist. I would say that I'm more like an agnostic. I cannot completely outrule the existence of God, but I have personally never experienced anything that would convince me he's there, he's never spoken to me, and - for many reasons - the existence of God does not seem logical. However, human's have been wrong so many times in history that I would never say anything absolute in regards to it.


----------



## Zepp88 (May 17, 2008)

Naren said:


> I was raised in a Christian household and went to a non-denomination Christian elementary and a private Baptist high school, but I don't believe in any religion. I personally don't believe in the existance in God (I've always been a very analytical scientific minded person -- or, as the Christians would say, a "doubting Thomas" ).
> 
> However, I am not an atheist. I would say that I'm more like an agnostic. I cannot completely outrule the existence of God, but I have personally never experienced anything that would convince me he's there, he's never spoken to me, and - for many reasons - the existence of God does not seem logical. However, human's have been wrong so many times in history that I would never say anything absolute in regards to it.



That's also a good summary of how I feel on the subject


----------



## Ken (May 17, 2008)

I'm not religious, as organized religions go, but I do believe in God (who, to me, is really a personification of the universe). I know it's real from personal experience, but I don't need fellowship with other people to cultivate it. Having said that, I have friends who have found salvation in religion and it makes me happy that they found it somewhere.


----------



## Se7enMeister (May 17, 2008)

Ken said:


> I'm not religious, as organized religions go, but I do believe in God (who, to me, is really a personification of the universe). I know it's real from personal experience, but I don't need fellowship with other people to cultivate it. Having said that, I have friends who have found salvation in religion and it makes me happy that they found it somewhere.



well my family is methodist, but i try to distance myself from it, i belive in forming a relationship with god and leading a good life. i do not think the bible was writen by god but it is a manual to lead a good life


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 17, 2008)

If I believed in God, I'd probably be a devil worshiper. I like the LaVey Satanism philosophies, but to me any rituals are just silly and exist only to serve our own need for something else. I don't mean this as a swipe at anyone, just my personal feelings on The Church of Satan/any religion. I forget who said it once here, but I feel that I'm more of a "skeptical agnostic" (with somewhat LaVeyist principles). I won't deny the extreme possibility that there's a supreme being, but it just seems far fetched to me.


----------



## Shotglass (May 17, 2008)

My mother tried many different religions, with me tagging along of course, trying to find something that was right for her, and she couldn't find anything that suited how she felt about God. She was baptized baptist, she tried a Pentecostal church for a while, among others, and she wound up deciding that she was just spiritual, not religious.

Living with my dad and stepmother was interesting. Those were three years where I was a part of the Mormon church. I was baptized Mormon and went to church every week. I can say right now that of all of the religions that I have explored, Mormonism is the scariest. They aren't scientology, but they have some practices that I haven't seen in any other religion or church.

What I'm trying to say from all of this is that I believe in God in one form or another. I have too many beliefs of my own about things that would get in the way of me really getting into any religion.

But then, that's just me..

I should add that by believing in God, I believe that there must have been some form of higher power back when the universe and everything was created, because so far there hasn't been any real evidence to back up anything else. Until science can show me why and how EVERYTHING works, a small part of me has to think that there was something else that kickstarted things. And maybe governs us in some small way today. Who knows.

It's moreso that I just don't know all the answers yet I guess.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (May 17, 2008)

i dont believe in god and actually religion really enrages me, i feel they all try to take advantage, and the bible sounds like a fairy tail.

i also dont really believe in a "higher power", i feel that the forces of nature created us, just like stars and galaxys and microbs, the big bang, what motavates those things is what motaviated us into existance, and its not an all knowing man, or a god, its just a natural way of things, just like gravity and other universal constants.

i also believe that when you die, its just like before you were born, you dont think, or feel, or exist. That sounds somewhat depressing, but its natural and the most likely possibility.


----------



## stuh84 (May 17, 2008)

You know how people have epiphanies which make them believe? 

I had sort of like a ray of light hit me, and I KNEW in myself that there could be no higher power. Fair play to all believers out there, but just like you know there is a God, I know there isn't.

I also don't follow the idea that because science cannot explain it (whether it will be able to or not), that the only other option is belief. There are many things that aren't explained by either side, I just spend my time not caring about either side, got much better things to do than devote precious time to a belief in something which has no tangible explanation.


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2008)

I was raised Catholic and relatively pious, but I don't attend mass all too often.



Ken said:


> I'm not religious, as organized religions go, but I do believe in God (who, to me, is really a personification of the universe). I know it's real from personal experience, but I don't need fellowship with other people to cultivate it. Having said that, I have friends who have found salvation in religion and it makes me happy that they found it somewhere.



Same here.


----------



## Nerina (May 17, 2008)

I just wrote a long reply about my religious views, should I post it?  I normally don't post such long replies


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 17, 2008)

Nerina said:


> I just wrote a long reply about my religious views, should I post it?  I normally don't post such long replies



Go nuts dahling!


----------



## Nerina (May 17, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Go nuts dahling!



ok 



Zepp88 said:


> and I don't really like organised religion.
> 
> I also have little use for the bible, but I think that The Ten Commandments is one of the most important things ever written.



 Exactly.
I wonder if we did away with all religion altogether, and lived simply by the ten 
commandements, if we would have as many problems.....

I normally never post such personal beliefs/experiences so freely but for some reason I 
feel safe here, so here goes, maybe someone else feels the same way or had a similar experience. 

My mom was a Jehovah's Witness, my dad claims he's a Roman Catholic, simply because he's Italian, but neither of them go to church anymore. In fact, I never remember my dad going to church, but anyway. 
I was dragged to church by my mother three times a week, from the time I was really little until the time I was a teenager and decided to get rebellious and stop going.

While growing up, in church, I was taught the regular 'christian' views about 
smoking,drinking,fornicating, etc. That was all well and fine, because to me it was the norm everywhere, I went to a Born Again Christian primary school and then a Methodist highschool, so everywhere you went there were the same basic teachings. (The Bahamas call themselves a christian nation, with about 99% being christian of some sort, save a population of Indians that are Hindu.) 
So while I was really young, I never really questioned anything, I thought I was supposed to be a Jehovah's witness,because my mom was one, and didn't question it. That's how kids are.

But,as I got older,I found it harder and harder, and then finally impossible to follow half of the 'rules' you're supposed to live by. I had friends that weren't witnesses, I made sure of it,  and I had seen a lot of hypocrisy in situations between the elders and my friends that were witnesses. 
I do not think that witnesses are bad people, I really think that 99.9% try really hard to live by a high standard, but really the rules and regulations and stuff I just couldnt deal with. I didn't like going 'door to door', imagine, living on an island where at any second you're gonna knock on someone's door that you go to school with, a nightmare for any child at 10 years old....

Then when I was older,like 13, 14, I HATED, the elders telling me that I wasn't supposed to listen to Motley Crue, and Metallica and AC/DC, ie ANY heavy metal, or rock, at all, because for some reason they think heavy metal will make you go postal and kill your mother,but I did anyway, what else was I supposed to listen to? And then by the time I was 17 I was having issues with them again because I had friends that weren't witnesses. I just got sick of the way they made me feel guilty about so many things, and it wasnt just me,I have a few friends that all had similar experiences with the same church, it was like having this huge cloud of gloom follow you when you've done something that you just know if one of them saw you doing, they're preach at you over it. And in the end, I stopped hiding everything. 

When I was out with my 'worldy' friends I would see witnesses, that JUST SAW ME IN CHURCH, and talked to me, but because I was with non witnesses, they wouldn't say hi, so I would intentionally walk up to them and say hi, and if I was smoking at the time, I didn't hide it, I just kept on. If I was drinking, I didn't hide the drink, I took a swig,and acted normal, why be a hypocrite?They're in the same nightclub as me, so how am I the bad one? I never went out of my way to be 'different' I just stopped hiding who I was, I've never been a two faced person, and going to that church, with the way they make you feel, makes you become two people. 

One of the last straws for me,was when one of my friends, that I had been friends with for like 20 years, (she lived really closed to me, we played every day, and went to the same church, we were close for YEARS), when she got married, she was a witness, her husband was, and I was not, I had stopped going to church. I was never invited to her wedding, because I didnt go to church anymore.And apparently it would have been 'wrong' to invite me, because I don't go to church,after I supported them and was so happy for her because she was marrying the love of her life. Yeah, thanks.

So I have many reasons why I agree with Zepp about not liking organized religions, or any religion that has rules that are insanely strict. What is the point? Why can't we just be good people, and let that be it? Why should we have to go and be seen in a church in order to be percieved as good people?

And the other thing with me and religion,specifically Christianity is this. If you look anywhere, the US, Europe, wherever, don't you ever wonder why people are so mean and disgusting, and why God permits so much suffering to happen? Ok, so, along those lines, has anyone ever wondered what the world would be like if we actually had Jesus right now?
I watched that movie, The Passion of the Christ, and I figured, you know what, If I had been alive back then, and SEEN him, and seen PROOF of his existance and proof that God hasn't totally abandoned us, then I probably would have been the most devout Christian ever. But today, what do we see? Ok, not everything is screwed up and bad, but how much differently do you think you would act if you KNEW an angel was watching you, or you had actually conversations with one? Wouldnt that be kinda cool? Like how it happened in the bible, way back in the day? I think that's the problem many people have in believing in God in the first place, cause we see so much suffering,and not much in the way of devine intervention.


----------



## MorbidTravis (May 17, 2008)

i am a strong believer, but i hate that ppl think im not because i like death metal.


----------



## ohio_eric (May 17, 2008)

I'm a practicing Catholic and will keep practicing until I get it right. 

I love that joke. 


Anyway I was raised Catholic and went to twelve years of Catholic school. Even though my mom is a devout Catholic my dad never went to church and wasn't Catholic. He hated going to church. So I got both sides. My late teens and twenties were spent being like my dad and never going to church. Then in my thirties I realized that for whatever it was worth I am a Catholic and started going back to Mass and being more active in my church. 

In so far as getting religion and just living by the ten commandments I would say no thanks. The most important and uplifitng thing in the Bible is Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Now that's the good stuff. Mercy for the poor and to be peace makers and seek justice imagine if all Christians live like that. The world would be a much better place.


----------



## deguello666 (May 17, 2008)

I was brought up with no religion in the household per se...I think my parents classed themselves as " church of england ", but not practising..
I was always given the option to choose what religion I wanted to be, and never saw fit to follow anything up on that score, although I do feel that buddhism etc hold more of a charm over the likes of christianity etc....

I don't see anything wrong in anyone choosing whatever religion they do so...but my trouble is I just don't BELIEVE....in my heart of hearts, I would be doing myself an injustice living as a hypocrite....sure I could embrace ANY religion I wanted to, but it would certainly be a false embrace, so I choose not to...and I certainly don't feel I have a gap that needs filling in that area...


----------



## Metal Ken (May 17, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I also have little use for the bible, but I think that The Ten Commandments is one of the most important things ever written.



I'd say the last 5 are the important ones, and even then, they're common sense. Dont Murder, lie, cheat, steal & covet.


----------



## Naren (May 17, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> I'd say the last 5 are the important ones, and even then, they're common sense. Dont Murder, lie, cheat, steal & covet.



Yeah, if there's no God, then "don't take the Lord's name in vain" and "keep the Sabbath holy" are pretty useless commandments.

Sure, we don't know if the universe started from the big bang or from whatever, but I think that saying it "must be God" is not a good excuse to fall back on. It seems like the cop-out excuse to use because you don't know the answer. "Why is it this way?" "Uh... because God made it that way." People a long time ago had no idea why we were here, so they thought up the idea of God.

Like I already said, I won't rule out the possibility of there being a God, but like JJ said, it seems pretty unlikely to me.

And just because I don't have an answer for everything doesn't default the correct answer to being "God."


----------



## Quicksilver689 (May 17, 2008)

I'll give a brief version of my testimony...I first got saved when I was 17, and then lost my way for 14 years before coming back to the Lord in April 2007. I admit openly that I'm a Christian and that Jesus is my Lord and Savior. I was not raised that way, ironically - I'm the only Christian in my family from back home in Canada, although a few of them believe that there's a God, most either don't or don't care though. I admit also that for most of my life, I was very skeptical of anything about God, and had tried a few churches in my teens that were all about you fitting into their mold, which is the wrong way to share the love of Christ with people (it actually accomplishes the opposite - DUH, there's a shocker!  ).

One thing that really helped me out when I was seeking answers last year was a book by Lee Strobel called The Case For Easter.  I've since been reading a few of his other books on and off when time allows as well. What makes his books interesting is his point of view - he spent most of his life as an atheist and spiritual skeptic, and has backgrounds in both law and journalism (he was legal editor of the Chicago Tribune for years also), so he's very much a thinker type of person (for anyone who's ever done a Myers/Briggs kind of personality test, it means that he's a "T" type as opposed to "J", which means that his mind takes precedence over his feelings). I've spent the majority of my life that way as well, and I'm a Cisco networking engineer by day with a background in electronics, so I'm also very much a thinker type, though I've changed somewhat as time goes on. Another good source of answers for me has been GotQuestions.org.

I strive very much to be a happy and grateful Christian instead of a religious one, and yes there's a difference. I am also the lead guitarist in my church's worship band at a non-denominational church. I have found that a non-denominational church works better for me, because I also believe that unfortunately, denominational differences can often (but not always) lead to disunity among Christians. Not only that, but the churches I had attended on my teens were denominational, and I had zero luck finding one that would "set the truth forth plainly" (2 Cor 4:2) without judging me. The bottom line is that it's about Jesus and what the Bible says, and in terms of the big picture, church doctrine outside of what's written in the Bible has nothing to do with anything.

I lead worship because I feel called to do it, but not everyone is called to do it. There are tons of Christian musicians out there that play in secular bands because leading worship is not their calling (John Myung from Dream Theater is one of many examples) - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

From my own experience, there's also a right way and a wrong way to share the Gospel and love of Christ with people...and ramming it down people's throats is definitely the wrong way. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that in the world...

Just thought I'd contribute...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 17, 2008)

Quicksilver689 said:


> From my own experience, there's also a right way and a wrong way to share the Gospel and love of Christ with people...and ramming it down people's throats is definitely the wrong way. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that in the world...



That I can respect. It's when guys come knocking on my door or stopping me on the street that I want to punch them. 

If people want to worship something, and it makes them happy, all the power to them, just don't shit on me for the way I live my life, or harass me when I have better things to do. I don't care if you're trying to "save me" or whatever, it's not like people don't know religion is out there, if I really wanted to join the church I'm sure I could find my way there.


----------



## Nerina (May 17, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> That I can respect. It's when guys come knocking on my door or stopping me on the street that I want to punch them.
> 
> If people want to worship something, and it makes them happy, all the power to them, just don't shit on me for the way I live my life, or harass me when I have better things to do. I don't care if you're trying to "save me" or whatever, it's not like people don't know religion is out there, if I really wanted to join the church I'm sure I could find my way there.



Exactly.


----------



## abyss258 (May 17, 2008)

stuh84 said:


> You know how people have epiphanies which make them believe?
> 
> I had sort of like a ray of light hit me, and I KNEW in myself that there could be no higher power. Fair play to all believers out there, but just like you know there is a God, I know there isn't.
> 
> I also don't follow the idea that because science cannot explain it (whether it will be able to or not), that the only other option is belief. There are many things that aren't explained by either side, I just spend my time not caring about either side, got much better things to do than devote precious time to a belief in something which has no tangible explanation.



Somehow, this exact thing hit me around a year ago. 

I was raised as a Christian in a not so religious family (parents work a lot) and I just started to question everything. This lead to me searching around for different religions and ideas. After failing to find somethnig that I liked, I just started to make my own ideas on everything.

Now I'm 99.9% Atheist and .1% Agnostic. You just can't completely rule out things that are unknown, so I'll keep an open mind.


----------



## Groff (May 17, 2008)

I don't follow any religion or faith, but I do enjoy learning about them and taking bits and pieces from here and there. But I still don't believe in a higher power, I only believe in what I can achieve with my own spirit and mind.

Rather than take up a belief system, or pray to whichever god, I'll just read what was taught, and maybe take a thing or two from it. I enjoyed learning about Wicca, I've read two books on the subject and it's the closest to actually liking a religion i've ever come to. I wear a pentagram(pointing *up*) around my neck, but I also have a Saint Christopher charm around my neck. I wear the upwards pointing pentagram because it represents the four elements, and the spirit (the spirit being the uppermost point), which I personally associate with my Transcendentalism ideas. And I wear the St. Christopher charm because it's my name, and he was a guardian (and apparently good with kids) just like me.

But I really don't tie them to religion, and I don't see the need to. I like taking moral lessons from here and there and applying them to my own life.

Now, when I mentioned Transcendentalism earlier, that also has no ties to religion. I personally have a strong belief in the human spirit, and the connections they can bring between two people (I've had strange things happen to me in the past that made me believe in that kind of thing). It's tough to explain my thoughts on it, as it's something I feel more than something I can talk about. But put it this way... Let's say like is like living in a canyon, you can choose to walk the canyon floor, and follow the path it has set for you, or you can look up, find a ledge or a walkway and think "How can I get up to that ledge?" So basically, instead of staying in the canyon, I feel inclined to work my way up to the ledge and be able to look around at a broader picture with greater understanding.

...Not really sure how to collect my thoughts on the matter, I seem to have better luck talking to people about it in person.


----------



## Anthony (May 17, 2008)

I was raised Greek Orthodox, but honestly, I feel nothing from that faith.

I don't follow an organized religion. I definitely believe in souls/spirits, and I still question my belief in a God. I'm still searching, I'm still young.


I believe humans will never be able to understand a concept of god, or creation.
Just like an ant cannot comprehend advanced mathematics. humans cannot comprehend "divinity". I believe the concept is just too complex for us to understand. Similar to that scene in the movie Dogma. When the humans must cover their ears before god speaks, because it is too "divine". Something along that line.


----------



## Nerina (May 17, 2008)

I really understand why some people are atheists, but I dont think I could not believe in God, I mean why else would we have wee baby kittens to play with? 

I'm not trying to be funny, really, like I look at so many things, and I cant help believing there is someone up there that at least has compassion for my sorry ass sometimes. 

The bottom line I guess is this:

No human can scientifically prove absolutely either way, if God exists or not.
In the end its a matter of personal belief and faith. 
And I think that the main point of a religion is to give people happiness and inner peace, NOT to have wars over, or insult other religions, but to teach people to love eachother (or at least put up with eachother) and get along, and appreciate our differences. 

Religion is an institution in its own right, the same as government, the powers that be dictate right and wrong, both religious leaders and government authorities, and really, without either of those two institutions, we would be up shit creek.
I am SO happy, that there are so many people that believe they will go straight to hell if they robbed me or murdered me, because without some level of fear, people would really do what they wanted, complete chaos. 

Voltaire, who was known to criticize organised religion said "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."


----------



## darren (May 17, 2008)

I was raised in a completely non-religious household, and really have no time or patience for organized religion of any kind. Any time i've been to church services  weddings, funerals, baptisms, occasional mass when my dad's parents were in town, etc.  i wonder what it is that people get out of it. I just don't get it.

I marvel at the mysteries of the universe, and have pretty strong beliefs that there are other levels of existence that we're incapable of perceiving in our limited physical form, and that we are never likely to completely understand the universe and our place in it. But i'm not about to attempt to explain it with superstitions, fairy tales and stories of omnipotent beings.

I'm quite content with living a good life, trying to be a good person, and having a sense of morality and ethics.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> I was raised Catholic and relatively pious, but I don't attend mass all too often.


Ha! You're religious as shit, just like me. We celebrate the Irish mass, me boyo.

Here's our sacrament.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 17, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Ha! You're religious as shit, just like me. We celebrate the Irish mass, me boyo.



Hawaya.


----------



## MrJack (May 17, 2008)

I don't despise the religions themselves as they usually try to give a good set of rules to live by and they can be a source of comfort for people. But what I do have a problem with is all the nutjobs who are using religion in order to justify their behaviour, which is usually looked down upon in the "holy scriptures" that they claim to encourage their actions.

And as has been said already in this thread, people who push their beliefs on other people are the worst.


----------



## Carrion (May 17, 2008)

I am an atheist. Oddly enough, I was raised that way. Lately I have been leaning between atheism and deism.


----------



## wes225 (May 17, 2008)

im to the pioint were i find religon stupid its like putting rules on life. you know? i believe that could be a god. but ive never came across anything that can fully prove it was gods "sign" or whatever. so im open i geuss


----------



## dream-thief (May 17, 2008)

I was raised atheistic, and both my parents were strictly against any major oganised religion (I guess most of my family are pagan, but my parents weren't, although they were uninterested supporters of it)

At the age of 12 or 13, after my parents split up, My mum turned heavily catholic (like mass every day, rosary 3 times a day, kind of "heavily catholic"), and she was going through a lot of shit at that time for various reasons, and I can hardly hold her to blame, but that gave me some really bad experiences with Christianity, and I've had a sort of subconscious phobia of it since.

Religiously my beliefs are what I'd say are my own. I can't find any way of describing them in one word in a way that "christian" or "pagan" does.

Morals always seem so tied up in religion, I suppose the ground reasons for each are tied to the other, But morally most religions are the same at base levels, With only other factions of extremists or choosers straying too far from the layed-down code. That's the only kind of religion I have a real problem with.


----------



## TemjinStrife (May 17, 2008)

I HATE EVANGELISM (forcing religion down others' throats.) I respect your right to your beliefs, but stay the fuck away from me with them.

That off of my chest, I am born and raised Reform Jewish (the least orthodox sect), which is as much an ethnicity as a religion these days. I was bar mitzvahed and all that... but I don't practice beyond Passover, Hanukah (which is NOT a major holiday, contrary to popular belief; it's importance is based on the fact that it's basically a "fairness counter" to Christmas...) and the occasional High Holiday service.

I believe in a God, and I do believe that in some way prayer (in my case, an informal mental asking for help or thanks) can help one deal with and/or affect events. This faith does help me with somewhat difficult times (such as now) and I seem to have come by it slowly over the course of my teenage life, as I was rather anti-religion/faith when I was 12 or 13ish.


----------



## JBroll (May 17, 2008)

The first people I distrust are the ones who think they know how I should run my life.

After that come people who think that asking questions can be dangerous.

Next are those who seek easy 'answers' that say nothing but allow one to pretend that a major question has been solved, rather than constantly trying to improve every word of every explanation that could be given.

That pretty much rules out every religion that's been brought to me.

Jeff


----------



## daybean (May 17, 2008)

JBroll said:


> That pretty much rules out every religion that's been brought to me.
> 
> Jeff



except scientology, right?


----------



## JBroll (May 17, 2008)

daybean said:


> except scientology, right?



Actually, Scientology is more of a philosophy backed by scie-

[THWONK!]

Jeff


----------



## daybean (May 17, 2008)

yeah i guess thats why they call it "The Church of Scientology "

dayve


----------



## JBroll (May 17, 2008)

It just has a nicer ring to it than "The All-Powerful Philosophy of Sci-

[THWACK!]

Jeff


----------



## DevourTheDamned (May 17, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> I too, like boober, was raised on it. And that was more than enough for me. Difference between me and him is that i'm a spiteful motherfucker.
> 
> Though, i'm a strong follower of the crowlean thelema philosophy. Once again, its a personal thing and not a 'fixed religious group' thing.


 
i applaud your intelligence.

myself, i was raised catholic with my grandmother shoving religion down my throat and guilt-tripping me into getting baptised among other religious things. eventually i began to see church and religion as a waste of time and slowly strayed from it. i think it was last year when i first picked up a satanic bible and swore by it for months, then i realized that i couldnt follow all of its suggestions, being such a passive person and all. i also read the book of thelema and a few other things on spirituality and witchcraft, you know, the sort of thing an 8th grade goth boy in tripp pants [all of which i do NOT condone the use of] would pride himself in reading. all of this slowly showed me what its like to have knowledge beyond what others have and being able to live on an entirely different and MUCH less hindering plane of existance than 90% of the population of the earth. now, after alot of thinking ive just dubbed myself a Nihilist. everything seems so useless, any forms of organized religion or worship because in the end all you have is yourself, so live for who matters, ultimately, myself.


----------



## Samer (May 18, 2008)

Both of my parents are agnostics, so i was never raised religious. I figured it out around the same the time i figured out that Santa wasn't real. 

As far as god / religion go, sure their might be god, however i don't believe if their is one he has direct interference with our lives.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 18, 2008)

Naren said:


> And just because I don't have an answer for everything doesn't default the correct answer to being "God."



Way i look at it is this:

A magician does a trick to fool you. It works. You don't know how he did it. There's a perfectly non-magical explanation for it. But to say just cause you don't understand makes it magic is the same thing to me as just going "Oh well, we don't know how this (Big bang, creation of life, etc)happened. God did it" Just cause we don't know now, doesnt mean its supernatural, nor does it mean we won't know.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 18, 2008)

DevourTheDamned said:


> i applaud your intelligence.
> 
> myself, i was raised catholic with my grandmother shoving religion down my throat and guilt-tripping me into getting baptised among other religious things. eventually i began to see church and religion as a waste of time and slowly strayed from it. i think it was last year when i first picked up a satanic bible and swore by it for months, then i realized that i couldnt follow all of its suggestions, being such a passive person and all. i also read the book of thelema and a few other things on spirituality and witchcraft, you know, the sort of thing an 8th grade goth boy in tripp pants [all of which i do NOT condone the use of] would pride himself in reading. all of this slowly showed me what its like to have knowledge beyond what others have and being able to live on an entirely different and MUCH less hindering plane of existance than 90% of the population of the earth. now, after alot of thinking ive just dubbed myself a Nihilist. everything seems so useless, any forms of organized religion or worship because in the end all you have is yourself, so live for who matters, ultimately, myself.



Satanic Bible is actually a VERY interesting read. Its not too satanic, despite the name either, so i dont think it gets the merit it deserves. In the end, it comes down to you and yourself though. ANd i happen to agree with Crowley and they whole "Will" thing. Do What thou wilt...


----------



## JBroll (May 18, 2008)

Hippocrates said:


> ". . . but if [men] called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end to divine things."



Dead Greek guys win.

Jeff


----------



## Naren (May 18, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Dead Greek guys win.
> 
> Jeff



 That's an awesome quote. I had never heard that before.


----------



## JBroll (May 18, 2008)

You've heard 



Epicurus said:


> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing?
> Then he is malevolent.
> ...



though, right?

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (May 18, 2008)

That rules.


----------



## budda (May 18, 2008)

i dunno if i fall into the "religious" category or not.

i used to hate sunday school. i used to look forward to youth group even though it meant getting up early.

i think i've been to church twice in the last year. I believe in God, i believe that there is higher powers and all the other wierd stuff - a handful of odd experiences and whatnot (and last night's conversations about hauntings didnt help at allll).

but i havent been to church recently. i dont really like organized religion. yes i have a bit of a relationship with God, yes i would like to improve it. unfortunately i dont strive to be a better human being, but i do strive to help others. i like to help people help themselves, yet i avoid helping myself.

to quote something i read: "I like God, it's his crazy followers i can't stand". I dunno if organized religion is the way for me, but i do believe in a higher power.

on a side note, i hate humanity. hate it. wierd how that works, and yet im taking social work to learn how to deal with people and help them with their problems.. but i dont plan on being a social worker. i just want to help people.. partially because i dont like facing myself.

as I said, i dont know if i fall under the "religious" category or not.


----------



## Zepp88 (May 18, 2008)

"I have no problem with God, just his fanclub."

And, hauntings are fascinating.


----------



## Jachop (May 18, 2008)

I was raised an atheist but I believe in something I can't really pin-point. A force that manifests in nature - and in goodness (which I myself have a hard time defining - it's more a feeling than something I can express) of others if you will.


----------



## DevourTheDamned (May 18, 2008)

just a random though, all of you should at LEAST give the Satanic Bible a read, its really not as bad as people make it out be be. really, its just ignorant people that make it out to be bad. but just a hint, so you might be intrigued, Satanists, dont even believe in a Satan or any other 'higher power'. just pick it up for bout $9 its good stuff.
and ill also recommend a wonderful site called jesusneverexisted.com
it has actual, factual information and real historical facts about the idea of jesus' existance


----------



## Naren (May 18, 2008)

DevourTheDamned said:


> just a random though, all of you should at LEAST give the Satanic Bible a read, its really not as bad as people make it out be be. really, its just ignorant people that make it out to be bad. but just a hint, so you might be intrigued, Satanists, dont even believe in a Satan or any other 'higher power'. just pick it up for bout $9 its good stuff.
> and ill also recommend a wonderful site called jesusneverexisted.com
> it has actual, factual information and real historical facts about the idea of jesus' existance



Point 1: Actually that depends on the kind of Satanists you're talking about. There are different kinds. The traditional Satanists do believe in Satan. The more recent modern version of Satanism does not.

Point 2: Actually there is "proof" of Jesus having lived (Roman records. I believe the Jewish records were destroyed when Jerusalem was burned around 100AD or so. Been a while since I studied about it). However, a man named Jesus having lived around 10 BC-40 AD does not mean he was God's son. Besides, why would it matter to YOU whether he lived or not? If you could be convinced he lived, does that make you believe he was God and convert you to Christianity?


----------



## Metal Ken (May 18, 2008)

Naren said:


> Point 2: Actually there is "proof" of Jesus having lived (Roman records. I believe the Jewish records were destroyed when Jerusalem was burned around 100AD or so. Been a while since I studied about it). However, a man named Jesus having lived around 10 BC-40 AD does not mean he was God's son. Besides, why would it matter to YOU whether he lived or not? If you could be convinced he lived, does that make you believe he was God and convert you to Christianity?



Yeah, but from what i recall reading, there's no tax, census, etc. records of it. There's also no records of pontius pilot setting free criminals and no records of herod having soldiers go around and smash babies. There's historians alive at the time and soon after, and none of them make any mention of a jesus, and the one who does, josephus, has a weak account at best. But then again, he was born roughly 4 years after jesus' assumed death date. I always thought it odd that we have accurate records of generally historically insignificant people like the historian josephus and this big huge world turning event of jesus, the only evidence we have is that maybe some dude may have had the name.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (May 18, 2008)

As much as I would love to feel connected to a higher power, I just don't see it happening with Catholicism like it has for my parents. How dare any religious entity demand complete obedience without offering some sort of tangible proof of its case, especially in a world so full of deception?

I normally dislike conspiracy theories, but this is pretty interesting.

YouTube - Not Just Jesus


----------



## biggness (May 18, 2008)

I am a Christian. 

_"Religion tries to change you from the outside in while Christianity changes you from the inside out."_ - Jerry Chaddick


----------



## biggness (May 18, 2008)

Epicurus said:


> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing?
> Then he is malevolent.
> ...



I read somewhere, sometime about this. The person writing brought it into perspective for me. 

Take riding a bicycle for example. Your parents give you a bicycle for your birthday for your enjoyment. As you learn to ride this bike you will experience your bumps and bruises, but would it be right for me to never let you experience it just because of that?


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 18, 2008)

*Mod Edit:*
This is a more serious forum. Be more respectful of people's views, and if you're going to debate, do it intelligently.


----------



## philkilla (May 18, 2008)

I was raised in Private Christian schools from kindergarten up until around eighth-grade.

Somewhere around there I lost faith and interest in believing in something I can't see or prove that exists...aside from a blind faith.

Now I would consider myself spiritual, but not religious. I believe there may be a higher power, but I wouldn't refer to it as the Christian "God". I prefer to just believe in myself when it comes to strength.


----------



## CaptainD00M (May 18, 2008)

I think what a lot of people are describing here is the difference between religion and Spirituality.

In Religion you have a rather defined space, spirituality is more of a free flow thing where the individual can believe in god/s/esses while not subscribing to a dominant school of thought or ethical system, as well as it also being open to people who believe there is something out there, but do not attach guiding philosophies too other than say Universal understanding, love, etc...

Myself i would describe as spiritual.

I do not have a 'religion' per-sei but am influenced by eastern Philosophy, as well as the New Age movement though my Auntie. I guess in a lot of ways i'm the proverbial spiritual smoothie, and in a 'tr00' definition sense am a Pagan (not the 'Wicca' associated definition, the 'non-Christian' outside of abrahamic religions meaning of the term.) and like a lot of people here try to live a 'good' life. Whatever that means...

cool idea for a thread too...
There was a time when it wasnt 'cool' to talk about this stuff.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 18, 2008)

biggness said:


> I read somewhere, sometime about this. The person writing brought it into perspective for me.
> 
> Take riding a bicycle for example. Your parents give you a bicycle for your birthday for your enjoyment. As you learn to ride this bike you will experience your bumps and bruises, but would it be right for me to never let you experience it just because of that?



If you're equating the parents to god -- If they give us a bike, we don't have to ride it. We're stuck here in this world, regardless of what we want. We cant just put it on a kickstand and walk away. (well, we can, but if we do, we can't come back).


----------



## philkilla (May 18, 2008)

CaptainD00M said:


> I think what a lot of people are describing here is the difference between religion and Spirituality.
> 
> In Religion you have a rather defined space, spirituality is more of a free flow thing where the individual can believe in god/s/esses while not subscribing to a dominant school of thought or ethical system, as well as it also being open to people who believe there is something out there, but do not attach guiding philosophies too other than say Universal understanding, love, etc...
> 
> ...



That's where I'm coming from. I have respect for peoples opinions and beliefs when it comes to religion, as long as they don't try and preach to me and don't try and start any debate about it....especially christianity and, "THE BEGINNING"


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 18, 2008)

Epicurus's perspective is very anthrocentric.

_anthrocentric (human-centered) fallacy - Described by John Stuart Mill in System of Logic. Consider the example of a preacher who one day takes someone supposedly possessed of a demon, throws his hand on her forehead, and shouts, "Get out! Leave this body!" Even supposing that demons exist, one might find it curious that they understand English, obey peremptory commands, and are easily influenced by incantations and rituals. The a.f. here occurs at the presupposition level: *human language, reason, instincts, and desires are assumed to be the orbit around which everything else in the universe (including the aforementioned demons) revolve*.
_
Or God?


Einstein believed in a God, of sorts, but didn't believe he was directly involved in the day to day affairs of mankind.


----------



## guitarplayerone (May 18, 2008)

lately I have found myself to be more and more spiritual, but I still see religion as 'one of those things man does'. You know, like post on SS.org, or drink at a bar. IDK if anyone understands what i mean by this


----------



## Metal Ken (May 18, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Epicurus's perspective is very anthrocentric.
> 
> _anthrocentric (human-centered) fallacy - Described by John Stuart Mill in System of Logic. Consider the example of a preacher who one day takes someone supposedly possessed of a demon, throws his hand on her forehead, and shouts, "Get out! Leave this body!" Even supposing that demons exist, one might find it curious that they understand English, obey peremptory commands, and are easily influenced by incantations and rituals. The a.f. here occurs at the presupposition level: *human language, reason, instincts, and desires are assumed to be the orbit around which everything else in the universe (including the aforementioned demons) revolve*.
> _
> Or God?



I dunno. If god were the one to create us, then i'm sure he'd be able to understand us.


----------



## Naren (May 18, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> I dunno. If god were the one to create us, then i'm sure he'd be able to understand us.



Well, that's obvious.

But his post was more specifically about "demons," which wouldn't have the powers of God. But, since God created them as eternal beings, it'd be useful to be able to understand languages, since they change so frequently. 

I've always thought the demons speaking in latin thing was just hilarious. So... this demon's been around for what? A million years and, although Latin didn't really come around until around 800 BC, this demon has somehow taken it upon himself to speak in - not the language of the people he's talking to and not the languages of the Bible (Hebrew and Greek) - but in Latin, despite Latin now being a dead language. Do these demons find latin charming and cool? It can't be because it's scary. A "demon language" should be a lot scarier.

Theoretically, with the idea of demons, it'd have to be an all-or-nothing thing. Able to speak all existing languages or unable to speak any at all.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 18, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> I dunno. If god were the one to create us, then i'm sure he'd be able to understand us.



The bit about language is just an example of a human-centered perspective, Ken. it wasn't an attempt to say God couldn't understand say... English. 

The idea that God, whatever/whomever it/he/she it is, has identical values as we (currently) do, or is even comprehensible in normal human thinking. That sorta shit.


----------



## JBroll (May 18, 2008)

Naren said:


> Point 2: Actually there is "proof" of Jesus having lived (Roman records. I believe the Jewish records were destroyed when Jerusalem was burned around 100AD or so. Been a while since I studied about it). However, a man named Jesus having lived around 10 BC-40 AD does not mean he was God's son. Besides, why would it matter to YOU whether he lived or not? If you could be convinced he lived, does that make you believe he was God and convert you to Christianity?



I hope you're not referring to Josephus' texts...

Jeff


----------



## Metal Ken (May 18, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> The bit about language is just an example of a human-centered perspective, Ken. it wasn't an attempt to say God couldn't understand say... English.
> 
> The idea that God, whatever/whomever it/he/she it is, has identical values as we (currently) do, or is even comprehensible in normal human thinking. That sorta shit.



Yeah, i know. I'm really good at taking things at face value  

I just think it'd be a bit lopsided, if god had entirely different values than us and tried to hold us to them if we were created entirely different. 
Then again, i also think Epicurus' point could be explained away with polytheism.



Naren said:


> I've always thought the demons speaking in latin thing was just hilarious. So... this demon's been around for what? A million years and, although Latin didn't really come around until around 800 BC, this demon has somehow taken it upon himself to speak in - not the language of the people he's talking to and not the languages of the Bible (Hebrew and Greek) - but in Latin, despite Latin now being a dead language. Do these demons find latin charming and cool? It can't be because it's scary. A "demon language" should be a lot scarier.



I think its pretty charming and cool, myself. Plus, all those iced earth songs where they have jon schaffer's lines of latin speak all reversed sounds evil as hell


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 18, 2008)

Maybe he's like Einstein's God, though. Doesn't get involved.

Anaology - (sorta funny). Consider the Prime Directive. I think that's actually a good thing, since it puts the moral imperative squarely on our shoulders.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 18, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Maybe he's like Einstein's God, though. Doesn't get involved



Well, then if thats the case, whats the point of trying getting invovled with god? 

(i'm totally NOT trying to be an ass by the way )


----------



## Naren (May 18, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, then if thats the case, whats the point of trying getting invovled with god?
> 
> (i'm totally NOT trying to be an ass by the way )



Exactly. If he doesn't want to get involved in me, why get involved in him?



Metal Ken said:


> I think its pretty charming and cool, myself. Plus, all those iced earth songs where they have jon schaffer's lines of latin speak all reversed sounds evil as hell



Sure, it's cool in movies and novels, but for something to actually seriously believe, it's pretty ridiculous. Not logical in any sense of the word.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 18, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, then if thats the case, whats the point of trying getting invovled with god?
> 
> (i'm totally NOT trying to be an ass by the way )



I actually don't think exactly like Einstein, personally, but I'm just throwing it out there as food for thought.

But to further that thought, Einstein believed discovering the laws that govern nature was akin to religion, or "discovering" God. So, perhaps just living is "getting involved" with God, and one's belief or lack thereof actually has minimal bearing on the whole shebang. What matters then is living a caring and fulfilling life.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 18, 2008)

Naren said:


> Sure, it's cool in movies and novels, but for something to actually seriously believe, it's pretty ridiculous. Not logical in any sense of the word.



IF i were a demon, i would totally speak in backwards latin. 



The Dark Wolf said:


> What matters then is living a caring and fulfilling life.



I think this is the key thing here.


----------



## Naren (May 19, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> IF i were a demon, i would totally speak in backwards latin.



If I were a demon, I would want to do something original. The backwards latin thing's been done to death. Not too hard that people can't figure it out but not so easy that people get it immediately.

Ancient Sumerian? Too hard? Okay...


----------



## Xaios (May 19, 2008)

I thought everyone knew that demons spoke Sanskrit.


----------



## Naren (May 19, 2008)

Xaios said:


> I thought everyone knew that demons spoke Sanskrit.



Hindu and Buddhist demons, yeah.

The Indians had the same silly idea that a lot of the Catholics/Christians have that the old language was pure and superior to the current one (such as them talking in "thee"s and "thou"s even though it's 2008). But that's the interesting thing about linguistics. Linguistic elites always think the old version from 300-600 years ago was pure and then you go back to that period and the people in that period thought the language from 300-600 years before them was pure and it keeps going on. You see that a lot in Indian history. They think the sanskrit now is corrupted and the old sanskrit was pure and then 400 years later, they think that the sanskrit of 400 years earlier was pure and that the current sanskrit is corrupted, and it kept going on.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 19, 2008)

I think you just indirectly encapsulated the whole conservative mindset, E.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 19, 2008)

No, not religious at all. I have no problems with people that are, but find it hard to consolidate religion with science, and to that effect the only religion i really have is science and math. Geeky i know.


----------



## noodles (May 19, 2008)

7 Dying Trees said:


> No, not religious at all. I have no problems with people that are, but find it hard to consolidate religion with science, and to that effect the only religion i really have is science and math. Geeky i know.





Growing up, I always had problems reconciling the teachings of the Catholic church with the observations made by scientific research. I could never comprehend why the two never lined up, and the answers various religious teaching tried to put forth simply made me doubt these teachings even more. The arguments ranged from the willful ignorance (If science disagrees with the bible, then science is wrong) to willful deception (Satan put those bones there to trick scientists, since evolution is the lies of the devil). I never had the whole struggle with god letting bad things happen to good people, since the concept of free will made perfect sense to me.

What eventually pushed me over the edge was the concept of faith. Scientists take nothing on faith, and endeavor mightily to prove themselves wrong. In my time in school, I watched dinosaurs transform from slow, dumb, cold-blooded reptiles, plodding through ancient swamps, to fast, clever, warm-blooded, bird-like creatures, darting around a far more diverse and complex series of ecosystems.

During this time, the teachings of the Catholic church stayed the same. This was the planting of my seed of doubt. Why was the Bible over fifteen hundred years old? Didn't we learn anything new about god in that time? Why didn't religion question itself? When the church finally admitted that the earth was round, why didn't it revise the bible? How can I be expected to take the bible as the infallible word of god when even the church has admitted it's wrong? Like science, I felt that one error was all it took to prove infallibility. In this case, if god is never wrong, and the bible has errors, then the bible cannot be the word of god. It has to be the word of man, and man is fallible.

In the end, it all came down to faith. I cannot take anything on faith, and I really cannot fathom how anyone can. I question everything, because that is how I learn. If there is a god who gave us a brain, why would he expect anything less of us? If I am to believe in god, I am going to have to see concrete proof that god exists, in the form of extensive experiments with repeatable results. I'm not really holding my breath, but I will be the first to say that my atheism is wrong when I see the proof.


----------



## Trespass (May 19, 2008)

I've been raised Protestant, but converted to Catholicism despite my families wishes, about 2 years ago. Ironically, the problems my parents had with the Catholic church, the problems that drove them away, were my main draws to go to it. They converted before I was born.

I'm a creationist whose fascinated and seeks out new developments in science and biology, though I'm studying personally, to go to school to become a counsellor psychiatrist/psychologist/psycometrist. 

I've spent numerous hours debating religion amongst friends; I'm the only religious guy in a group of straight A/highly intelligent guys and mostly girls. Its harsh. 

*Something I'd like to say:* I've been in some arguments where I've had 3-4 self-centered condescending people waving scientific spreadsheets, facts, articles, you-name-it (particularily teachers) as if it were *doctrine*, _proving_ my faith is incorrect.

My point? There are church fanatics, and their are science fanatics. 

---

To Noodles above: The whole world runs on faith and trust. Your putting your faith and trust in people around you as you drive to work, or in anytime your life could possibly be in someone elses hands (which is a surprising amount, if you think about it).

Faith is often thought of in extremes. Is your faith blind in these people? Or are you extremely paranoid of this fact? Two extremes, but the reality is your cautious, a compromise between the two.

I'm 16. I don't know the world; I don't claim to. But I'm trying to figure it out just as much as the rest of you.


----------



## JBroll (May 19, 2008)

But how do you 'figure things out' faith? That's the question we're on. People like him and myself try to minimize faith, as it seems contrary to the actual pursuit of knowledge. Yes, we do take things on faith, but with limits - licensed driving, medical practice requirements, architectural training and standards, et cetera - and some of us simply don't trust a lot of things like driving. Further, more investigation can be done with things like driving - car reliability, safety tests, road and traffic engineering, the previously mentioned car driving - than one can do with the Catholic faith, can it not?

Jeff


----------



## Trespass (May 19, 2008)

JBroll said:


> But how do you 'figure things out' faith? That's the question we're on. People like him and myself try to minimize faith, as it seems contrary to the actual pursuit of knowledge. Yes, we do take things on faith, but with limits - licensed driving, medical practice requirements, architectural training and standards, et cetera - and some of us simply don't trust a lot of things like driving. Further, more investigation can be done with things like driving - car reliability, safety tests, road and traffic engineering, the previously mentioned car driving - than one can do with the Catholic faith, can it not?
> 
> Jeff



Yup, taking things in faith with limits, I just summed it up with caution in the first post. How do I figure out things like faith? Well, I've spent a long time reading history of the church. How things have changed, events and how the church has responded. I read some of the doctrine. I go to mass every Sunday, so I hear a lot of other's interpretations of doctrine.

So all of the experience I have within the church, I'm pretty much trusting and putting faith that I am/will be directed to what doctrine is meant to affect me. 

I regularily volunteer quite a bit within the church, and have theological discussions with friends. A friend of mine said she finds the offering of peace "Peace be with you" to be moving, as she feels despite all differences between some of the people there, we can put it aside for peace.

I find the compassion God has for us as his people, to be overwhelming. "I'm not worthy to recieve you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." Say what you will about the psychology/sociology/anthropology of why religion was invented, as some will say, but I feel so... content, with knowing that if my life is suddenly taken away as I trust the world around me, that I may find myself in a better place.

So, to summarize the answer to your question: I believe that I will be shown the right path, whether that follows the church or not. It is why I switched to Catholicism; I had questions, they had definititive answers, and from there I feel I am lead to which answers are correct and true, and which... well aren't.


----------



## JBroll (May 19, 2008)

I was in the same boat at fourteen... if not farther, actually headed to being a priest. Then I read the Bible, and shortly afterwards I wasn't a Catholic, for what that's worth.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (May 19, 2008)

JBroll said:


> But how do you 'figure things out' faith? That's the question we're on. People like him and myself try to minimize faith, as it seems contrary to the actual pursuit of knowledge. Yes, we do take things on faith, but with limits - licensed driving, medical practice requirements, architectural training and standards, et cetera - and some of us simply don't trust a lot of things like driving. Further, more investigation can be done with things like driving - car reliability, safety tests, road and traffic engineering, the previously mentioned car driving - than one can do with the Catholic faith, can it not?





Faith in my fellow man always takes the this kind of very limited, restricted form. Basically, you have to "prove" something to me first. In the case of a lawyer, this is his law degree on the wall, his license to practice law by the bar, and his track record as a practicing lawyer. There are plenty of lawyers to choose from, and I make my decision based upon the age old qualifications versus budget argument.

In contrast, no supernatural being has ever done anything to prove themselves to me, and there is no criteria to which I can hold said being accountable. So, I have to fall back on the same qualifications I look for in a lawyer, which in the case of the Catholic church I was raised in, are not too good.

Initially, I am presented with a book of laws and history which is a thousand years out of date. Having read this book, it is readily apparent that there are two halves, dealing with two parts of the same being. 

The first part, or "father", jealously guards knowledge, and punishes man quite harshly for daring to use this wondrous brain he was gifted with. Cast from paradise, left to his own devices, man propagates, fumbling through life, with no guidance. Since he obviously made all the wrong decisions, he is then washed away in a giant flood. Later, when man seeks to face his maker, ostensibly to gain a little bit of enlightenment and spiritual guidance, he ios cast to the wind with a thousand different languages, ensuring that the peaceful act of working together toward a common goal will be discouraged. It seems that the "father" is nothing but a selfish, egotistical, megalomaniac, spiteful, petty, jealous, spoiled little child, who is takes part in the cosmic equivalent of pulling the legs off of crickets.

The second part, or "son", seems to pop up out of nowhere, lives the life of a peasant, and then walks around like a hippie, teaching people to be peaceful and love one another. I have absolutely no problem with this guy, and think it would be fun to knock back a few with him, where it not for his followers becoming such a group of pompous, self-serving assholes after he is gone. Not only do the four primary storytellers (Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John) tell four different accounts of this man/god's life, but two of him felt his birth was so colossally unimportant as to omit it entirely. After this, we come to a bunch of I'm right/you're wrong letters, and a big "you'll be sorry" telling of the end of the world that only promises salvation to a lucky few. The rest get tossed into hell with the guy who dared to question the plans of the cricket leg puller boy.

So, moving right along to the track record. This consists of conquering armies that bring faith by the sword, the sacking, re-sacking, and re-re-sacking of the "holy lands", turning back centuries of progress and plunging Europe into the dark ages, torture and death in the interest of attracting more wealth to the church, the revising and re-revising of the bible for political means, the denial of literacy to anyone not of the clergy or the nobility, the burning and drowning of those arbitrarily labeled as witches, the subjugation of millions of innocent indigenous peoples, the retardation of scientific progress, and the constant attack against basic civil rights. Not so good.

So, what is the payoff? Possible eternal dwelling in a mythical place with the cricket leg puller boy, with absolutely no proof that such a place or such a being exists. I am supposed to take this on "faith".

Would you hire a lawyer with these credentials? Would you give someone like this your credit card info over the phone? Would you buy a car from someone like this? One cannot equate faith in your fellow man to faith in the "spiritual" sense--a spiritual world that I do not believe exists, mind you--because they are two completely different things. The first faith is that based upon that of careful research, educated judgment, and calculated risk. The second type of faith is that of a throwing all your chips on OO on the roulette wheel, except in roulette, you get at least a 2.63% chance of winning, provable by the mathematics of probability. The Catholic church offers no such guarantee. Even if it did, I see no reason that I would want to pledge my loyalty and subservience to such a cruel being.

I have nothing wrong with people who have faith, since I know plenty of people who refuse to believe that god is anything like the being portrayed by Christians, Jews, or Muslims. There are plenty of faith who hate religion, just like Bob. I see nothing but exploitation in religion, which is really nothing new. The powerful have been using religion as a tool of control since before monotheism.


----------



## JBroll (May 19, 2008)

When you take a deity sacrificing himself to himself to change his rules for his own creation because he could only change his mind by letting his own blood and think "You know, that makes sense..." - leaving ethics and everything else with it - you can't claim to be applying the level of logic and rigor necessary for science.

You could no sooner make sense of saying "Well, I believe that the planet is round, but I still wish to see the four corners of the earth."

Jeff


----------



## TheHandOfStone (May 19, 2008)

And speaking of logic...

It's fairly logical to assume that faith evolved to meet a need that humans traditionally didn't have the capacity to fulfill themselves: the need to understand the world around them. I have a much easier time with this explanation of religion than I do the normal one (i.e., that it's actually true).

In an age where humans are beginning to answer some of these seemingly impossible questions, it's frustrating to see so many people retreating into the comforts of faith and attempting to hinder this progress.

Every week, my family sits in Church. And while everyone else wonders at the beauty of God's message, I'm stuck contemplating all the "fallacies" of secular thought that the priest calls to light. It's truly amazing (and somewhat disturbing) to hear that word used in a completely different context than many of you use it now.


----------



## noodles (May 19, 2008)

TheHandOfStone said:


> It's fairly logical to assume that faith evolved to meet a need that humans traditionally didn't have the capacity to fulfill themselves: the need to understand the world around them. I have a much easier time with this explanation of religion than I do the normal one (i.e., that it's actually true).



This is actually exactly what happened. There is an excellent History Channel special on it, called "The History of God", that details the evolution of religion. In a nutshell, as mankind become more advanced, religion had to keep up. So, early gods were very limited and specific in scope, tailored to the needs of the worshiper, i.e. the farmer worshiped the god of the harvest to grow his crops. As mankind evolved, the gods became fewer and more powerful, until the belief that one being of unlimited power and scope. After all, the sky god becomes a bit underwhelming when you figure out how fertilization and irrigation works.



> In an age where humans are beginning to answer some of these seemingly impossible questions, it's frustrating to see so many people retreating into the comforts of faith and attempting to hinder this progress.



This is the primary reason as to why I am so critical of religion. Those of faith who keep to themselves are fine by me. Those who try to change the law to force their ridiculously shortsighted dogmatic views upon the rest of the country seriously get on my nerves. I think the woman should get to chose to do with her own body, I'd love to see stem cell research give hope to the child dying of cancer, and leave the homosexuals alone, dammit, because they are not effecting you. Oh, and the world is NOT going to end tomorrow, so maybe we should take care of the place, hmm?



> Every week, my family sits in Church. And while everyone else wonders at the beauty of God's message, I'm stuck contemplating all the "fallacies" of secular thought that the priest calls to light. It's truly amazing (and somewhat disturbing) to hear that word used in a completely different context than many of you use it now.



I feel for you, since I was there. I never saw the "beauty" in the message of ignorance and subjugation. "Suffer the little children to come to me," seemed to be more about indoctrinating the young before they were old enough to develop their own views and opinions, which is the preferred method of many a repressive regime to ensure its future (Hitler Youth, anyone?). Just ignore all that spoon fed garbage and think for yourself. Soon you will be old enough that they can not force you to go anymore. I have been "unsaved" for years, and it provided me with all of the relief and inner contentment that I was told faith in god would give me.


----------



## XEN (May 19, 2008)

I was raised as a preacher/missionary's kid. Everywhere we went we brought religious doctrine, guilt, and tithe envelopes with us, teaching people that our way was right and that any other way would lead to perdition. We knew we were right because we believed it more strongly than all of the others trying to convert the backsliders in our district.

*Matthew 23:15.
* "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

I never found God in religion, but when I found him there was no religion in him to be found.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (May 19, 2008)

noodles said:


> This is actually exactly what happened. There is an excellent History Channel special on it, called "The History of God", that details the evolution of religion. In a nutshell, as mankind become more advanced, religion had to keep up. So, early gods were very limited and specific in scope, tailored to the needs of the worshiper, i.e. the farmer worshiped the god of the harvest to grow his crops. As mankind evolved, the gods became fewer and more powerful, until the belief that one being of unlimited power and scope. After all, the sky god becomes a bit underwhelming when you figure out how fertilization and irrigation works.



Wow...I definitely need to check out that special. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Kakaka (May 19, 2008)

Yes, I am.
My religion is to take care of the poor and keep myself unspotted from this world.

Jesus Christ is my lord. I believe He really came to this earth being born as a man. I believe He is God.

And adding to the discussion, if I may, I'll say that each one believes what one wants. 

It surprises me to see people doubting God's existence by relying on sciences like math, biology and geophysics. Some say they can't simply blindly trust a book or a preacher. They would have to be able to experience by themselves, to see with their own eyes. Most people don't know what an alpha radiation particle is made of, yet many claim to believe only what can be scientifically proven. 

They chose to trust science blindly. And no matter how much knowledge one has, there will always be gaps to be filled to reach complete knowledge.

How are these gaps filled? Trust, faith if you may.
Where were we when the earth was formed?
Where were we when the first form of life ever came to exist?

No one here has seen it personally. You'll have to trust some source for that information.

You'll choose to trust what you want to trust.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 19, 2008)

Kakaka said:


> It surprises me to see people doubting God's existence by relying on sciences like math, biology and geophysics. Some say they can't simply blindly trust a book or a preacher. They would have to be able to experience by themselves, to see with their own eyes. Most people don't know what an alpha radiation particle is made of, yet many claim to believe only what can be scientifically proven.


Well, science is designed to try to disprove itself. Thats the whole idea of the scientific method. Once you get something that seems to work and is repeatable, then you know your hypothesis works.


The only test we really have for god clearly doesnt get the same results. If it did, why do we have so many religions? If a person wanted to try and learn math, biology and geophysics, there's nothing stopping them.


----------



## Carrion (May 19, 2008)

These scientific claims can be tested, God can't. I could repeat the experiments and models proposed by scientists given the correct tools and knowledge of those tools.


----------



## Trespass (May 19, 2008)

Carrion said:


> These scientific claims can be tested, God can't. I could repeat the experiments and models proposed by scientists given the correct tools and knowledge of those tools.



Thats the whole point. If there was definitive proof that God exists, then we lose freedom of choice. If there is no chance God exists, than we lose hope. 

But I'm sure you'll claim this is a illogical and doesn't prove anything. It doesn't. It doesn't have too. Thats the point.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 19, 2008)

Trespass said:


> Thats the whole point. If there was definitive proof that God exists, then we lose freedom of choice. If there is no chance God exists, than we lose hope.



How so? If you prove the existence of a god, you still have to establish which and how many gods. Proving a god doesnt instantly prove the bible right and the romans wrong. Even then, if you dont like its choice, you can always give god the finger. Course, you'd probably have a lot more coming 

Also, if I _knew_ the god that was the real god was the god of the bible, i'd be more depressed.


----------



## Carrion (May 19, 2008)

Trespass said:


> Thats the whole point. *If there was definitive proof that God exists, then we lose freedom of choice. If there is no chance God exists, than we lose hope*.
> 
> But I'm sure you'll claim this is a illogical and doesn't prove anything. It doesn't. It doesn't have too. Thats the point.



Given all the proof in the world, you stil have the choice to not believe in something. Also, who is we? I certainly don't hope there is a God, much like I don't hope there is aliens. Why should hope get in the way of truth?


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 19, 2008)

urklvt said:


> I never found God in religion, but when I found him there was no religion in him to be found.



That's awesome, Urkleveditation. Sums up how I feel perfectly.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 19, 2008)

If the god of the Christians exists, he's one cruel motherfucker. Think about this, he creates man, so he must be a master of psychology. Even if everything isn't pre-ordained, which having an all knowing god would suggest, he should be able to guess pretty accurately what kind of person we're going to be. So he lets us NOT follow him, only to condemn us to eternal torment when we die? Sounds pretty illogical to me.


----------



## progmetaldan (May 19, 2008)

I'm a born-again Christian and try to live out my faith daily.




Metal Ken said:


> Yeah, but from what i recall reading, there's no tax, census, etc. records of it. There's also no records of pontius pilot setting free criminals and no records of herod having soldiers go around and smash babies. There's historians alive at the time and soon after, and none of them make any mention of a jesus, and the one who does, josephus, has a weak account at best. But then again, he was born roughly 4 years after jesus' assumed death date. I always thought it odd that we have accurate records of generally historically insignificant people like the historian josephus and this big huge world turning event of jesus, the only evidence we have is that maybe some dude may have had the name.



Obviously you don't rate the Bible as a historical account either, even though the New Testament accounts of Jesus life and teachings were written by eyewitnesses... 



biggness said:


> I am a Christian.
> 
> _"Religion tries to change you from the outside in while Christianity changes you from the inside out."_ - Jerry Chaddick





What I find cool though, is that despite such large differences in everybodies beliefs, we can still go into a Music Discussion and have so much in common...  Music is such a universal language...


----------



## Metal Ken (May 19, 2008)

progmetaldan said:


> Obviously you don't rate the Bible as a historical account either, even though the New Testament accounts of Jesus life and teachings were written by eyewitnesses...


First point: Most biblical scholars agree the gospels were written well after the death of jesus, sometime in the late first century. And like i said before, there's no other historical record of the things that coincide with the birth of jesus. No Herod smashing babies, no pontius pilot setting free prisoners every year. Also, what did jesus do between the ages of 12 and 29? And even if it _were_ written eyewitnesses, where are their credentials? Who's to say that they weren't fooled with magic tricks? We live in a day and age where magicians walk through glass and get run over by steamrollers and survive. 

Second, Old Testament is somehow more historically accurate? There's no way guy could build a boat that would hold two of every known animal ever. Thats impossible even today, even considering the biggest ships available. How would store food for all of them for a month? How would you make a boat out of wood that would hold both that food and those animals without collapsing in on itself? There isnt enough water to cover the whole earth up to the highest mountain. If there were, the air would become too dense to breathe. If the only family left was Noah's, we're all inbred. Good evening Cousin dan. 

Now, if you say that story is figurative, Then that must mean the bible is figurative. If it isnt, where do we draw the line? One man's figurative is another man's literal? If we acknowledge the old testament as 'figurative', then there's no original sin, and in that case, no need for jesus. Lastly, we could take the old testament as erroneous. which would mean the bible is not infallible, and the work of man.

If you're religious and whatnot, thats all cool. But, i just cant take the bible at face value.


----------



## JBroll (May 19, 2008)

progmetaldan said:


> Obviously you don't rate the Bible as a historical account either, even though the New Testament accounts of Jesus life and teachings were written by eyewitnesses...



People claim that, but the absence of second sources to many things and some narrations that are simply nonsense leaves anyone who studies it and has not assumed it to be true to the conclusion that it's nonsense.

'Oh, but they're so close to each other!' Yeah? Two rip another off, and the fourth just makes everything more flowery and throws in some more that can't be verified elsewhere. For starter's, Luke's text is dated wrong, Herod's infanticide (depicted in Matthew 2) is not believed to have actually happened, the genealogies are completely off (no, they're not tracking mothers, as I've often heard argued - and even if they did, one is several generations shorter than the other, which completely deflates any real chance of them lining up), no other record of Jesus, who'd have been a pretty important guy, exists... basically, there's just no way to reconcile this one piece of mythology with countless other works. 

You've got cross-checked historical records from narratives to tax records, and you have this mess that was written decades after the fact (more like eyewitness accounts of eyewitness accounts, in all fairness), with more than a little plagiarism to share, extreme separation from every source that can already be claimed authentic, and the rigorous standards brought about by compiling the book via committee. 

Gonna have to drop the Bible if we want to hold our sources to any standards at all.

Also, the fact that the portion of the Josephus text on Jesus, the only thing coming close to being evidence of Jesus' existence, is by any level of critical thinking a clear fraud (different tone and style than the rest of the work, surprisingly not appearing until the time of a certain father of the Christian church who claimed that it was all right to lie for his god...) weakens the assumptions further. The best we can do with someone who is claimed to be one of the most important people that ever lived is to sloppily forge something and shove it in a respectable historian's work and pretend that nobody will ever notice the difference larger than ebonics and the Queen's English in writing style, date it to a more recent period, and be left with no choice but to throw it out entirely?

You believe it's historical because you believe that it is true. You believe it's true because you believe it's true. Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because... ? 

Look, it has no sources, no backup, no support from legitimate texts that weren't written by the same group that wrote the current text, glaring contradictions with itself and every *credible* source we have... only Christians who already assume its accuracy use it as a source of any kind, and they tend to get laughed at.

Jeff


----------



## Shawn (May 20, 2008)

I was raised Catholic. I haven't been to church in years though.


----------



## progmetaldan (May 20, 2008)

Ultimately any view on this topic is going to be biased by your belief or lack of belief in God, your view on how the universe was created, and whether or not you believe the bible to have been directly inspired by God and therefore to be entirely accurate in its account, from the creation of life in Genesis, through the history of Israel as a nation throughout the Old Testament, through to the life of Jesus and his message in the New Testament, through to the prophesies of the End Times in Revelation. I will try to explain the Christian perspective on some of these issues you raise, but without faith in God obviously its gonna seem silly... 

@Ken:



> First point: Most biblical scholars agree the gospels were written well after the death of jesus, sometime in the late first century. And like i said before, there's no other historical record of the things that coincide with the birth of jesus. No Herod smashing babies, no pontius pilot setting free prisoners every year. Also, what did jesus do between the ages of 12 and 29? And even if it _were_ written eyewitnesses, where are their credentials? Who's to say that they weren't fooled with magic tricks? We live in a day and age where magicians walk through glass and get run over by steamrollers and survive.



Luke was a Doctor and this is evident in the way that his account is very straight-foward and to the point, John was the cousin of Jesus, and grew up with him, and was later one of the 12 who spent their whole adult lives with him, as was Mark, and Matthew was a Tax-collector... And magicians can't be pronounced clinically dead for 3 days and then come back to life, or control the weather to calm a raging storm... But obviously if you don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, then these could only be discounted as tricks...



> Second, Old Testament is somehow more historically accurate? There's no way guy could build a boat that would hold two of every known animal ever. Thats impossible even today, even considering the biggest ships available. How would store food for all of them for a month? How would you make a boat out of wood that would hold both that food and those animals without collapsing in on itself? There isnt enough water to cover the whole earth up to the highest mountain. If there were, the air would become too dense to breathe. If the only family left was Noah's, we're all inbred. Good evening Cousin dan.



Obviously this comes back to how you believe the earth was created, but providing you believe in the bibles account of creation in Genesis, the Ark would definately have been quite adequate... I would ask that you read this article, as it explains the point I'm trying to make much better than I could... 

How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

The size and dimensions of the ark have also been recently discovered by ship-builders to be infact the perfect dimensions for a superiorly stable floating ship, and how they could have known that on such a large scale without some kind of divine inspiration is unlikely...



> Now, if you say that story is figurative, Then that must mean the bible is figurative. If it isnt, where do we draw the line? One man's figurative is another man's literal? If we acknowledge the old testament as 'figurative', then there's no original sin, and in that case, no need for jesus. Lastly, we could take the old testament as erroneous. which would mean the bible is not infallible, and the work of man.



I definately do not believe it to be figurative, as you're absolutely correct there, that would undermine the entire scriptures, people who suggest it is are just looking for a cheap cop-out imo... I absolutely believe it was a literal event, and again, the fact that most cultures from all around the world seem to have a similar account of some sort of variation on 'Noah's Flood', suggests that we did all descend from the same family who was saved... G'day cousin Ken...  And if you're concerned about that being inbreeding, that wasn't a problem until the laws established in Moses time (quite a while afterwards), and anyway, obviously the same thing had to have happened with Adam & Eve's children to populate the earth before the flood... Because the Human genome was much more pure due to less opportunity to mutate, it wouldn't have been an issue with deformities etc either until much later, when it was made illegal... 



> If you're religious and whatnot, thats all cool. But, i just cant take the bible at face value.



And that's your decision, I'm by no means trying to shove it down your throat, but I do believe in at least presenting why _I_ do believe in it... 


@Jeff:



> You believe it's historical because you believe that it is true. You believe it's true because you believe it's true. Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because... ?
> 
> Look, it has no sources, no backup, no support from legitimate texts that weren't written by the same group that wrote the current text, glaring contradictions with itself and every *credible* source we have... only Christians who already assume its accuracy use it as a source of any kind, and they tend to get laughed at.



I'd be interested to know where you're getting your facts about it having wrong dates, contradictions etc. from, its cool if you believe that, but in a way its no different you're having 'faith' in those saying it didn't happen (seeing as that you weren't there yourself), and it goes the other way also, a lot of people _don't_ believe its historical, because they _don't_ (or don't want to) believe that its true etc.

Sorry for the long post...


----------



## zimbloth (May 20, 2008)

Who would win in a fight: Lemmy or God? 

[action=zimbloth]awaits the answer[/action]


----------



## progmetaldan (May 20, 2008)

Probably depends on who you ask...


----------



## zimbloth (May 20, 2008)

progmetaldan said:


> Probably depends on who you ask...



Incorrect answer. Anyone else care to try?


----------



## Metal Ken (May 20, 2008)

progmetaldan said:


> Luke was a Doctor and this is evident in the way that his account is very straight-foward and to the point, John was the cousin of Jesus, and grew up with him, and was later one of the 12 who spent their whole adult lives with him, as was Mark, and Matthew was a Tax-collector... And magicians can't be pronounced clinically dead for 3 days and then come back to life, or control the weather to calm a raging storm... But obviously if you don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, then these could only be discounted as tricks...



Well, That doesnt explain away that those 4 may not have written the books to begin with, or that they even existed to begin with. As far as reurrection, there's been cases as late as the 1850s where people have been accidentally buried alive. 



progmetaldan said:


> Obviously this comes back to how you believe the earth was created, but providing you believe in the bibles account of creation in Genesis, the Ark would definately have been quite adequate... I would ask that you read this article, as it explains the point I'm trying to make much better than I could...
> 
> How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
> 
> The size and dimensions of the ark have also been recently discovered by ship-builders to be infact the perfect dimensions for a superiorly stable floating ship, and how they could have known that on such a large scale without some kind of divine inspiration is unlikely...


This article lost its credibility when it started taking dinosaurs into account on the ark. There's still more and more species of animal being discovered today. Another problem with the whole ark thing is that what about the animals that live nowhere near noah's place of origin? How was he supposed to track down, for example... Polar Bears? 



progmetaldan said:


> I definately do not believe it to be figurative, as you're absolutely correct there, that would undermine the entire scriptures, people who suggest it is are just looking for a cheap cop-out imo... I absolutely believe it was a literal event, and again, the fact that most cultures from all around the world seem to have a similar account of some sort of variation on 'Noah's Flood', suggests that we did all descend from the same family who was saved... G'day cousin Ken...  And if you're concerned about that being inbreeding, that wasn't a problem until the laws established in Moses time (quite a while afterwards), and anyway, obviously the same thing had to have happened with Adam & Eve's children to populate the earth before the flood... Because the Human genome was much more pure due to less opportunity to mutate, it wouldn't have been an issue with deformities etc either until much later, when it was made illegal...


well, there are a lot of cultures who have the same stories. There's actually a lot of cultures with crucified saviors. Krishna, Horus, Quexalcotl, Prometheus, Quetzalcoatl & Mithras for example. All of them have been crucified, risen and have disciples. And they're the focus of religions that were around before jesus, or were geographically isolated from christianity, in the case of Quetzalcoatl, until the spanish expiditions to the americas. 

And for what its worth, my issue with inbreeding isn't a legal one. Its a genetic one. Inbreeding in close circles, such as seen in the royal family (and would be even closer if it were just one family) would cause all kinds of mutations, birth defects and hereditary diseases. I doubt the human genome was 'more pure', or anything such as that. they're just as susceptible, if not more than we are now due to small population.



zimbloth said:


> Incorrect answer. Anyone else care to try?


There's no way Lemmy could beat Rob Halford.


----------



## zimbloth (May 20, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> There's no way Lemmy could beat Rob Halford.



I guess none of you have seen "Airheads" starring Steve Buschemi and Brendon Frasier. The correct answer was: "trick question asshole, Lemmy IS God!" 

[action=zimbloth]is not actually a Motorhead fan but that's a classic line...[/action]


----------



## Metal Ken (May 20, 2008)

zimbloth said:


> I guess none of you have seen "Airheads" starring Steve Buschemi and Brendon Frasier. The correct answer was: "trick question asshole, Lemmy IS God!"
> 
> [action=zimbloth]is not actually a Motorhead fan but that's a classic line...[/action]



I'm aware of the joke. I was just avoiding the obvious answer ;p


----------



## Naren (May 20, 2008)

Progmetaldan, your logic is very funny. Like JBroll said, complete "circular logic."

Using what you're saying, Buddhist writings, Hindu writings, Islamic writings, Egyptian writings, Greek writings, Norse writings, and so on must all be true because they were written by "eye witnesses." (How do we know the Bible was written by eye witnesses? Because they said so? In that case, I saw an elephant speaking in Italian after killing the mafia with an alien lazer gun. What? You don't believe me? But I saw it! I'm an "eye witness!")

You can't just say "It's true because it's in the Bible." That's like saying, "I found this entire section of the 1932 Encyclopedia Britannica that is incorrect." "That's impossible. It has to be true." "Why?" "Because it's in the encyclopedia."

I very very very heavily studied Buddhism in college (most heavily in Japan) and one of the things I noticed about it was that they changed the core beliefs to fit each region and, as it moved on from time period to time period, you would say beliefs flipping to the exact opposite of what they had been, scriptures written up to explain things that hadn't made much sense before, and beliefs regarding certain subjects changing and changing until soon they didn't even resemble the original.

And, you see the same thing with Christianity. If you look through the history from around 0 AD to the present, you will see over 20 different main interpretations for a single scripture and you will see people in different periods interpreting them differently to serve their purpose. Some of these interpretations will be the opposite of what they were. The current interpretations of the Bible go more along with the modernist approach with - of course - an ignoring of anything that contradicts this interpretation. During the crusades, however, the interpretations of the Bible were used to justify murder, rape, slavery, anti-semitism, and oppression of women.

You can say "Oh, you don't believe in the Bible because you don't believe in God." But that's not true. I don't believe in the Bible because I've found so many errors in it and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I used to believe in God, Christianity, and all that, but I started to doubt when I was in junior high. I went to a private Christian school and that in itself was part of the reason I stopped believing. When you look at things up close, you can see that they really don't make any sense or are not possible.

When you say "No, this is possible because of divine intervention" or "God made it that way," you are just applying Deus Ex Machina to reality.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 20, 2008)

Trespass said:


> Thats the whole point. If there was definitive proof that God exists, then we lose freedom of choice. If there is no chance God exists, than we lose hope.


I was trying to stay out of this. But please, go study some logic instead of applying flowery rhetoric to an argument.

Freedom of choice has nothing to do with this, it really doesn't, something either exists or it doesn't. I can choose to believe in the great spaghetti monster, i can choose a lot of things, i could still very well choose them regardless of whether some deity exists or not. Basically what you are claiming is a fear that if the existance of said deity was proven that we'd be enslaved and have no free will. Which, in turn really does convince me of my erronous ways or atheism...




Trespass said:


> *Something I'd like to say:* I've been in some arguments where I've had 3-4 self-centered condescending people waving scientific spreadsheets, facts, articles, you-name-it (particularily teachers) as if it were *doctrine*, _proving_ my faith is incorrect.
> 
> My point? There are church fanatics, and their are science fanatics.
> 
> ---


wow. science fanatics? Maybe they can't seem to understand that despite being presented with evidence, contrary to what you believe that you are still not willing to go and study said evidence closely, and then with an UNBIASED mind draw your own conclusions. At the end of the day, if you want people to listen to what you have to say, then you have to be able to counter argue by completely understanding what they are on about. If you can't counterargue, then they may well have a point.

I think you'll find the science fanatics, the ones that live and breathe it, provide you with the opportunity to live a longer life through medical research, drive cars, fly across the world and type to people via the internet. That's not fanaticism to me, it's more like progress.

Fanatics, I assume, would include copurnicus who dared, against church teaching, claim the earth was a sphere, and, those that dared suggest the earth revolved around the sun, not to mention the people that were executed for performing anatomical experiments on humans (ie, actually finding out how our bodies looked inside). 

To be honest, one of my university tutors, a doctorate, very smart man, told me that he could see god in mathematics and the interrelation between transforms from different domains to each other, and how there is order withing the seeming chaos. That is an opinion I respect, as it is thought out, considered and comes from someone who has made up his own mind as someone who is religious.

I can see the beauty in all of that, and the more you immerse yourself the more you see.

But please, take your claims of scientific fanatacism and examine information CRITICALLY and with just weighting to it, rather than dismissing it from the start because it does not fit a doctorine that you use as a comfort blanket. This is scientific thinking, you examine the phenominon, and to prove you must disprove as anyone can claim something, but you have to be able to prove that it is so, and disprove that it is not something else.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (May 20, 2008)

i beleive only this:
when i die i will rot in the ground. dead.
i find it sad (insearch of a better word) to be judged like your whole existence is simply a test.
but im aware everyone might not agree, and am fine with that.
that is my input into this disscusion


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2008)

Thrashmanzac said:


> but im aware everyone might not agree, and am fine with that.



At the end of the day, that's all that really matters.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 20, 2008)

Hey 7DT... might want to tone down the rhetoric a bit. You seem to be the first person to take this thread in a harsher direction.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 20, 2008)

Ninja edit. Still. THere are things that get me slightly incensed, so I'll just go away and try and keep myself out of it.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (May 20, 2008)

I was born into a Catholic family that left the church when I was about five. This was the point at which my parents divorced. My dad and mom both quit going to church for quite a while. My mom remarried and then divoreced and remarried again. This time to a hard nosed Southern Baptist who thought everything I ever did was wrong and that his beliefs where the only way.

So against thier wishes I converted back to my roots in Catholicism. I might not be the best Catholic in the world but I do try. It is where I find comfort from some of the really bad things that have happened in my life. I respect others religious opinions or lack there of and see no need to force feed others my opinion. However, I will believe the way that I believe because that is what I am compelled to do. No amount of scientific facts, figures, or historical manuscripts will change my mind. It is called faith for a reason and I am ok to not have chart or manuscript to back up every account written in the Bible.


----------



## Xaios (May 20, 2008)

A good few of you know, I'm religious. I don't care if there's a stigma associated with the term, it's what I am. Specifically, I'm a Christian. I fall somewhere in the Protestant way of thinking, but I can't pin down one particular denomination. Some of my core values include...

- Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
- It is by faith that I am saved.
- Outward works are a reflection of inner faith.
- It is my faith that compels me to be truthful and charitable at all times.
- I'm not a huge fan of hyper-evangelism. I believe in stating my beliefs plainly, and if someone has questions or takes an interest, I direct them as best I can.
- I believe in carrying my cross. This world is becoming more an more hostile to Christians for various reasons, some well deserved. That's how it has to be, and all I can do is do my best to show people love and compassion. If they make a set against me, so be it.
- I believe in being a disciple of Christ. Giving my time and resources in life is a small price to pay, considering the gift I've already received.
- It's not up to me to punish the actions of a person in how they relate to the laws of God, only in how the actions relate to the laws of the world, and only when appropriate.


----------



## auxioluck (May 20, 2008)

I find myself being much more private about religion. I think that faith should be a very personal thing, and I am really not comfortable sharing it with other people. I don't think the way to show faith or belief in a God is to stand in a room full of people mimicking each other. I live the religious aspect of my life by quality, not quantity. I would rather have a few very personal moments of meditation and prayer rather than the same prayer experience every week with people who most likey cannot even comprehend the magnitude of what they are doing. 

I never talk about religion much, even in my personal life, (which my girlfriend hates, as she was raised Christian) because I don't really feel like our personal beliefs are always each other's business. It's when we make our beliefs other people's business that things go bad. (The Crusades, WWII, Jihad, etc...) 

I think that if you live a good life, and treat others how you want to be treated, you will go to Heaven. And if not, then at least you know you did your best. And to quote Thom Yorke, "The best you can is good enough." Bottom line, I claim no faith as my own, as I don't really think something as powerful as God can be comprehended accurately through structure. I take a more agnostic approach to religion, but I accept all beliefs and try to learn from every one. A truly fascinating thing to have so many "different faiths" all end up saying practically the same thing.


----------



## JBroll (May 20, 2008)

Xaios said:


> A good few of you know, I'm religious. I don't care if there's a stigma associated with the term, it's what I am. Specifically, I'm a Christian. I fall somewhere in the Protestant way of thinking, but I can't pin down one particular denomination. Some of my core values include...
> 
> - Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
> - It is by faith that I am saved.
> ...



You have every right to be religious, but as someone who can't be elected office in several parts of the country for LEGAL reasons (including his current state of residence) and who wouldn't have a baby's chance in a microwave of making it through any national election for his religious beliefs, who has been threatened seriously for acting on behalf of his beliefs, who is part of the most mistrusted minority in America, and who is basically assumed to be a horrible creature by what seems to be a majority of those around him for not sharing the same views I don't think you're in any place to claim that you're facing hostility. Maybe in the Middle East you'd catch shit for being Christian, but until you've had someone threaten to kill you for being against his beliefs I'd be careful about 'the world being hostile'...

Jeff


----------



## Xaios (May 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> You have every right to be religious, but as someone who can't be elected office in several parts of the country for LEGAL reasons (including his current state of residence) and who wouldn't have a baby's chance in a microwave of making it through any national election for his religious beliefs, who has been threatened seriously for acting on behalf of his beliefs, who is part of the most mistrusted minority in America, and who is basically assumed to be a horrible creature by what seems to be a majority of those around him for not sharing the same views I don't think you're in any place to claim that you're facing hostility. Maybe in the Middle East you'd catch shit for being Christian, but until you've had someone threaten to kill you for being against his beliefs I'd be careful about 'the world being hostile'...
> 
> Jeff



Could you perhaps elaborate on this? I don't know what your particular beliefs are, only what they're not. I am interested in understanding why this is (keep in mind, Canada and the southern US are very different places, and I don't know how it works there), and what experiences you've had.

As for my experiences, I'll offer up a couple of my own. I've been friends with a British fellow now for around 5 years named Ben. I've never met the guy, we met through an MMORPG community (the game was Neocron), and we struck up a friendship after I asked for advice on a personal matter. Turned out we were polar opposites. I was a fairly conservative protestant christian. He was a bisexual satanist. He was also far more intellectual than me in almost every way, and I'm a reasonably intelligent fellow (I think, anyway). When I told him I was a christian, he was a bit resentful, and rightly so. He told me about the abuse he had suffered at the hands of so-called christians, both mental and physical. He also taught me a lot about the psychological struggles he had gone through in life, some truly amazing things. I told him what I believed, why I believed it, explained to how the evils he had suffered was not the Christian faith in its true form, but rather a twisted destructive take on it. I like to think that we've both benefited from our relationship. We've talked (and argued) about just about everything under the sun, after all, I'm relatively conservative and he's very liberal. But at the end of the day, the guy is one of my best friends. I still come to him with life problems that I won't talk to any other person about, I trust the guy that much. I like to think he's benefited too, that he's gained a new perspective on what Christianity is supposed to be, and that it can be the backbone of fundamentally good works as well. I think we've both learned a lot from each other.

As for trials and opposition, I've had a few in the last few years, particularely since I moved to the town I live in now. Most people in this town do not like Christians. Some of it is justified, some of it is isn't. A little moment in my life I'll never forget for you is this. My church runs a little program, basically we take over the duties of the local Salvation Army soup kitchen on stat holidays so their workers can get a break. On one of these days, about 3 years ago, I was helping out with handing out food (being as I'm no cook). One guy was going through the line for food, and when he arrived at a station being run by a friend of mine, he asked her "Are you one of those christians too?" to which she said yes. He was loud, so a few of us started to look. He said "Fuck you, you shithead," and pulled out a knife. A big knife. The look of unmitigated fear that you see in someone when they think someone is going to try and kill them is not easily forgotten. Thankfully, a few people including myself and other church members, as well as some of the people who came in for food, were on the guy pretty fast, and we managed to get him down and disarmed without anyone getting hurt. There are other people who are more vocal in their hatred of us. CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) actually ran a story on the radio about our soup kitchen once. A couple weeks after that, one of the local papers published an article about how we were trying to "subvert people to christianity" by running a soup kitchen, making all sorts of strange accusations, literally all of them untrue. How do you defend against that kind of hatred, that people are willing to say the most vile things about you simply because of the God you believe in? Well, you don't. As a christian, I believe I'm called to love my enemies. This doesn't mean I will allow someone to knife my friends down if I can help it, but it means I will try not to hold a grudge, and it means I will pray for their deliverance.


----------



## JBroll (May 20, 2008)

I'm an atheist and I personally believe that faith is a useless way of holding information, which means that in my insanely religious state (where now-president Bush pulled off Jesus Day as governor) I'm not the most popular fucker around.

I also have associated with the Atheist Agenda, a student organization at UTSA that has made national headlines after exchanging religious texts for pornography in an attempt to show how awful said texts can be.

I'd have to drive about nine hours to get anywhere where I'd be away from that climate. Even Austin, the stereotypical hippie college town, has brought some problems. 

Locally, you're in the same place as me. But your country is about 75-80% Christian, if I'm not mistaken. That doesn't work as well in my favor as yours.

Jeff


----------



## Xaios (May 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Locally, you're in the same place as me. But your country is about 75-80% Christian, if I'm not mistaken.



That's what some of the polls say, but I don't believe it. I grew up in one of the most christian cities in the west, and I can confidently say that the numbers aren't nearly that high. In conversations with my peers growing up, a lot of them said they were Roman Catholic simply because they were baptised as children, despite the fact that they didn't observe religious precepts, didn't attend church, and in many cases, didn't even believe in God. As a whole I would guess that Protestantism is very slightly on the rise, not enough to make an impact, but Catholicism is declining quite quickly, especially in places like Quebec, which were once major catholic centres, and have plenty of empty churches to prove it.


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I'm an atheist and I personally believe that faith is a useless way of holding information, which means that in my insanely religious state (where now-president Bush pulled off Jesus Day as governor) I'm not the most popular fucker around.



It sounds to me like you flaunt it. I doubt anyone even knew that I was a practicing Catholic before this thread. Most of my friends don't either. Faith is a personal thing.



> I also have associated with the Atheist Agenda, a student organization at UTSA that has made national headlines after exchanging religious texts for pornography in an attempt to show how awful said texts can be.



I don't even have to point out how absolutley ridiculous that is, do I? You can't possibly support that idea.



> I'd have to drive about nine hours to get anywhere where I'd be away from that climate. Even Austin, the stereotypical hippie college town, has brought some problems.



Brought on by yourself?



> Locally, you're in the same place as me. But your country is about 75-80% Christian, if I'm not mistaken. That doesn't work as well in my favor as yours.



You're absolutely entitled to believe whatever you want, or don't believe in whatever you want. It sounds as though you're trying to push your beliefs (or lack thereof) on other people who ARE religious, and if that's the case, it's pretty hypocritical of you. I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but if you're an Atheist and you've "been threatened seriously for acting on behalf of his beliefs", I ask you - how exactly ARE you acting on them? If what you're doing is telling pious people that they're a bunch of fools for believing in god, then you're getting exactly what you deserve. Let sleeping dogs lie dude, someone else's faith doesn't impose upon you, just as your lack of it doesn't effect them. There's a part of the picture here that you aren't telling us.


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> You have every right to be religious, but as someone who can't be elected office in several parts of the country for LEGAL reasons (including his current state of residence) and who wouldn't have a baby's chance in a microwave of making it through any national election for his religious beliefs, who has been threatened seriously for acting on behalf of his beliefs, who is part of the most mistrusted minority in America, and who is basically assumed to be a horrible creature by what seems to be a majority of those around him for not sharing the same views I don't think you're in any place to claim that you're facing hostility. Maybe in the Middle East you'd catch shit for being Christian, but until you've had someone threaten to kill you for being against his beliefs I'd be careful about 'the world being hostile'...
> 
> Jeff



Hogwash. You live in Texas man. I've been to several countries where people's lives actually are constantly in danger solely because of their religion. You don't live in one of them. 

Try saying the above to a Muslim sometime, and see how much pity you get from them. I'm friends with a guy at work who wears a turban, which is something along the lines of humbling himself in the face of his god (someone will correct me here, or clarify). That's wearing your faith on your sleeve, so to speak. You being an atheist, you're only in danger when you open your mouth and start offending people. Muslims offend people on sight, and are immediately labeled "terrorist". THAT is fucked up. A long haired kid from Texas listening to Prog doesn't exactly have much in common, and certainly doesn't face hostility like that.

Edit: Again, not trying to start an argument. But the question is, how do they know that you're an Atheist in the first place? And if it breeds so much hostility where you feel threatened, why do you keep on doing whatever it is that you do that tells people you're an atheist?


----------



## Naren (May 20, 2008)

Chris said:


> I don't even have to point out how absolutley ridiculous that is, do I? You can't possibly support that idea.



 I almost thought he was joking...


----------



## JBroll (May 20, 2008)

Chris said:


> It sounds to me like you flaunt it. I doubt anyone even knew that I was a practicing Catholic before this thread. Most of my friends don't either. Faith is a personal thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's largely because of the Atheist Agenda thing. I can explain the pornography and holy text thing some other time, but basically all we really wound up doing was making it known that we didn't care for religion - not once did I say that someone didn't have the right to believe in something, and while most people at least accept it the presence of some really wacko churches (the biggest being Cornerstone, home of one of the biggest Zionist wackos out there and all sorts of complete loons that you'd expect to have died out long ago) and a generally much more religiously conservative atmosphere means that people vandalizing that club's (and in a number of cases, my) property was pretty much expected. Because I basically put myself in a position where people knew that if they had some question or argument they could see what I had to say, and didn't lie about not liking religion, I've been catching a lot of hell even after ending my involvement with the group. I didn't track people down and call them morons and child molesters, and I was on good terms with a lot of the religious organization leaders. But when someone has Jesusfreakitis around here, they have it BAD.

I don't proselytize or tell people they shouldn't believe something. I can say that something seems irrational, and explain with no lack of detail why I'm not a Christian or Muslim, but I don't tell people what to believe. But when your face is pasted next to a group as well-known as that one, and people talk as much as they do around here, it's no secret at all.

And yes, I've actually talked with a few Muslims about how this stuff goes. San Antonio, at least, is tolerant of Muslims because they seem more common and because their religion is much closer to Christianity - the churches around here teach that every religion has some element of truth to it, so that puts everyone but people without religion closer together because everyone but that evil atheist in the corner believes very similar things.

I don't know how things are in your neck of the woods, but religion is just one of the things people have to know along with name and face. Compared to the guy with five Jesus fish on his car and a cross tie pin, I'm not flaunting things at all, but if it comes up in a conversation I don't hide it and word spreads really quickly because I pretty much talk to people at school, at work, and at the cigar store I hang around at when I don't want to be at school or work.

Note that I didn't say "The Jews are out to kill me HALP!" - and I noted that I did recognize parts of the world where people are killed for their religious beliefs. But a Christian playing the persecution card is making more of a stretch than I would be if I did.

Jeff


----------



## jim777 (May 21, 2008)

I was born and raised Cathiolic, studied for the priesthood and even went to a prep seminary for high school, but now I'm an atheist. I have been dead for 90+ seconds as well, having bled to death in a robbery, and there's nothing on the other side of life from my personal experience. I am not a fervent athiest, pushing Atheism as a religion itself as some are, I just don't believe in divine anything.

I will admit that I used to believe in the divinity of Kathy Ireland, but I'm mostly over that now. Mostly


----------



## Naren (May 21, 2008)

jim777 said:


> I will admit that I used to believe in the divinity of Kathy Ireland, but I'm mostly over that now. Mostly



Saw "Alien From LA," huh?


----------



## Nick (May 21, 2008)

jim777 said:


> I was born and raised Cathiolic, studied for the priesthood and even went to a prep seminary for high school, but now I'm an atheist. I have been dead for 90+ seconds as well, having bled to death in a robbery, and there's nothing on the other side of life from my personal experience. I am not a fervent athiest, pushing Atheism as a religion itself as some are, I just don't believe in divine anything.




 holy shit 

Im an atheist as well i really find religion in general to be pretty absurd. I can understand why people are into it but i dont need it and i dont believe in any 'god'.

When i lived in america people just assumed that i did believe in god and when they found out i didnt some reactions were pretty funny. I didnt have any bad experiences though and none of my friends thought any less of me for it. It just became a bit of a running joke between me and my friends which was cool.

I was 18 at the time and it was generally older people who would change their opinion of me when they heard i wasnt religious.

That said the only person i ever got in a debate with about it turned out to be a youth pastor guy who was the brother of the family i was staying with. Didnt know his position till i was halway through the debate, oops!!


----------



## El Caco (May 21, 2008)

I was born a catholic.

At 17 I was a member of the church of christ.

I studied the bible full time for years in preparation to become a full time preacher. It was this study that led to me leaving the church.

I don't believe in organised religion, I don't believe the Bible is the word of God or even given by God.

I believe in something but I don't know what that is, I don't think I'm supposed to know. I try to live the best life I can, I try to listen to and live by the message that is given to me.

I believe in freedom of choice, therefore I believe in every bodies right to their belief and right to practice their religion as long as it allows others to do the same.

I do not mind people preaching to me but I do mind ignorance especially ignorance about what their religion believes and their own religious texts. Blatant hypocrisy also gets on my nerves, remove that log from your eye before you try to remove the speck from mine.

Live and let live.


----------



## Kakaka (May 21, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, science is designed to try to disprove itself. Thats the whole idea of the scientific method. Once you get something that seems to work and is repeatable, then you know your hypothesis works.
> 
> 
> The only test we really have for god clearly doesnt get the same results. If it did, why do we have so many religions? If a person wanted to try and learn math, biology and geophysics, there's nothing stopping them.



If a person wants to learn about God, there's nothing stopping it.



Carrion said:


> These scientific claims can be tested, God can't. I could repeat the experiments and models proposed by scientists given the correct tools and knowledge of those tools.



How many of these experiments have you performed?

Are they absolut? Or are they your absolut? The things you chose to trust and value?

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that it hasn't been possible for you to prove God's existence true? Maybe its not much sophisticated or revolutionary, yet it's the only truth we could mutually agree with.


----------



## Nick (May 21, 2008)

Kakaka said:


> Wouldn't it be more fair to say that it hasn't been possible for you to prove God's existence true? Maybe its not much sophisticated or revolutionary, yet it's the only truth we could mutually agree with.



thats just the type of rationalization that people who arent religious find insane.

I could say that on the 25th december last year that a big fat guy in a red suit flew into my garden and dropped off a shitload of gifts for me and my family.

noone here can say i didnt see it because they werent there. but its the same type of logic.

Anyway im sure there are bans handed out for this type of discussion so il stop


----------



## Naren (May 21, 2008)

Nick said:


> thats just the type of rationalization that people who arent religious find insane.
> 
> I could say that on the 25th december last year that a big fat guy in a red suit flew into my garden and dropped off a shitload of gifts for me and my family.
> 
> ...



I doubt it. I was talking about the same thing on page 12. As long as you aren't incredibly condescending and abusive to the person you're talking to, you should be fine.



Naren said:


> How do we know the Bible was written by eye witnesses? Because they said so? In that case, I saw an elephant speaking in Italian after killing the mafia with an alien lazer gun. What? You don't believe me? But I saw it! I'm an "eye witness!"



Just because you weren't there and I said it happened doesn't make it true.

I will not rule out the possibility of the existence of God. I had a near-death experience about a year ago and - in a way - I want to believe that God saved me because of how close I was to death, but the truth is, I feel more that it has to do with the human body's incredible desire to survive. It's possible that God had something to do with it, but I don't believe in God because I have never seen or experienced anything to lean me in that way.

Partially because of my agnostic beliefs (which lean further towards atheism than theism) in regard to this, I can understand how some people can believe in God. However, I cannot understand their reasoning for this much of the time.


----------



## Nick (May 21, 2008)

I also think that if there was a god he/she would not pretty much take the piss out of us by expecting us to belive unquestionably in his/her existance but at the same time give us a huge drive to question our surroundings and absolutley no tangable evidence of his/her existence. (i guess this mostly applys to mainstream christianit)

thats pretty much like taking your dog out to play fetch and pretending to launch the ball as hard as you can to see your dog sprint a football fields distance down the grass and then turn round with a WTF?!?!?! expression on its face when it realises the ball is still in your hand.


----------



## noodles (May 21, 2008)

I think if a god exists, that being will be so unfathomable to us that it is almost pointless to speculate on physical make-up, motives, etc. Honestly, how much chance does an ant have of comprehending what is attached to the foot that comes crashing down on top of its anthill? What does our technology represent to it? Nothing more than confusing, unexplainable things that exist outside of the safe world it knows.

So, for anyone religious to speak on the history, thoughts, feelings, and motives of god is at best arrogant, and at worst patently wrong. How do you even know that we're not just some failed experiment, and that the crumpling of the paper before it is tossed into the trashcan is something we will experience billions of our years down the road, as the universe comes to an end? How do you know that god doesn't give a fuck about us? How do you know that what we perceive as the universe is nothing more than a psychological experiment in a classroom full of sub-supreme beings?

This is why I hate religion so much. I hate the willfully imposed ignorance and monstrous arrogance of allowing unprovable beliefs to influence the laws and government that effects us all. Morality has no place in law. The law should be solely designed to prevent one person from infringing upon the rights of another. Two men getting married does not effect you. A woman aborting her fetus does not effect you. Using the otherwise discarded remains of an artificially inseminated ovum for research does not effect you. The world is not going to end tomorrow just because you believe it will, so maybe we should take care of the only home currently available to us. One's personal beliefs should not impose upon someone else, or you are depriving them of their rights, and therefore, committing a crime.

We all have a personal responsibility to vote for people and policies that keep the rights of ALL men and women in mind. I would defend to the death the right for someone to say that the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is sham, and I expect that same person to defend my right to say the universe is billions of years old and we evolved from single celled organisms. Our system of government has been under constant attack by those who would see freedom replaced with theocracy, science replaced with fairy tales, and free thought replaced with the mindless regurgitating of millennia-old dogma.

Jeff may go about it in a very stubborn and crude way, but he brings up some valid points. If the bible was just any other book, the atrocities advocated in its pages would be a horror that we would protect our children from. I would never allow my kids to read something filled with such barbarism and bloodshed. I fail to understand how the old testament is even regarded as valid, considering that the gospels told the story of a man who turned aside every horrible practice of old.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 21, 2008)

It's funny how you have a way of putting shit into perspective


----------



## noodles (May 21, 2008)

I am very much a Jeffersonian Democrat. Everyone should stay out of everyone else's business, religion and government should remain strictly and completely separated, and morality has no place in legislation. Thomas Jefferson once said that he was not in favor of shackling the generations of the future to the laws of the generations of the past, and that we should endeavor to rid ourselves of those laws which are no longer relevant to the modern age. He was a fascinating and extremely intelligent man, and every high school student should be required to read even but a fraction of his works.


----------



## Nick (May 21, 2008)

noodles said:


> This is why I hate religion so much. I hate the willfully imposed ignorance and monstrous arrogance of allowing unprovable beliefs to influence the laws and government that effects us all. Morality has no place in law. The law should be solely designed to prevent one person from infringing upon the rights of another. Two men getting married does not effect you. A woman aborting her fetus does not effect you. Using the otherwise discarded remains of an artificially inseminated ovum for research does not effect you. The world is not going to end tomorrow just because you believe it will, so maybe we should take care of the only home currently available to us. One's personal beliefs should not impose upon someone else, or you are depriving them of their rights, and therefore, committing a crime.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 21, 2008)

Kakaka said:


> If a person wants to learn about God, there's nothing stopping it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My point is, i can go pick up books and repeat experiements proving things. Its what people a lot smarter than myself at my college spend a lot of their time doing. Manipulating DNA and life itself for cancer research and shit like that. That can all be learned and taught from books. You can't go to a book to learn about 'god'. You can, but its no more accurate than any other book that talks about god from a different religion. You're arguing that your god exists. What prevents my ex-girlfriend's pantheon of Nordic gods existing? She's got books and religious texts telling her she's right. The only work i have to go by on the 'factual basis' of the christian god is a flawed book compiled by fallible people around 2-3rd century AD from a bunch of flawed books written by fallible people from religions that came before them.


----------



## noodles (May 21, 2008)

I am also extremely tired of this science versus religion thing. They are mutually exclusive. There is absolutely no corollary between them. Science has nothing to do with the spirtual world. Science only seeks to explain the world around it by utilizing all the powers of observation to isolate variables, perform experiments, and create repeatable conditions. Religion is the belief in the unobservable and unexplainable, and holding onto antiquated beliefs that have since been explained by science is patently ridiculous. For example, we no longer believe the earth is flat, since science proved that wrong.

When someone says they have a problem with science, then what they really have a problem with is the _application_ of science. Facts aren't belief. Facts don't have an agenda. Radio carbon dating says the earth is a hell of a lot older than 6000 years, so I don't understand how you can argue with an observable, repeatable condition. It is the same as saying the earth is spherical in shape. We can prove this. This isn't a war on the faithful, an effort by the godless to pervert creation, or a bold faced lie by liberal scientists with a political agenda. It's just facts, no different than saying the grass is green and the sky is blue. Believe me, science hates saying anything is a fact, since it requires about a bazillion more experiments, and science will tell you when it is wrong. Just look at how many arguments black holes provoke in the physics community.

Don't say science is wrong because it goes against what you believe. Look at the bigger picture, and feel that it is OK not to be right about everything, as long as belief in your god makes you feel happy and content. Belief in no god makes me feel happy and content, so happy and content are two things we share in common.


----------



## XEN (May 21, 2008)

If I have to choose between God and logic, one of them isn't real.


----------



## Chris (May 21, 2008)

noodles said:


> So, for anyone religious to speak on the history, thoughts, feelings, and motives of god is at best arrogant, and at worst patently wrong.



I'm religious, and I don't do this.



> How do you even know that we're not just some failed experiment, and that the crumpling of the paper before it is tossed into the trashcan is something we will experience billions of our years down the road, as the universe comes to an end? How do you know that god doesn't give a fuck about us? How do you know that what we perceive as the universe is nothing more than a psychological experiment in a classroom full of sub-supreme beings?



How do you know that the reverse isn't true? It's all speculative until you die. 



> This is why I hate religion so much. I hate the willfully imposed ignorance and monstrous arrogance of allowing unprovable beliefs to influence the laws and government that effects us all. Morality has no place in law. The law should be solely designed to prevent one person from infringing upon the rights of another. Two men getting married does not effect you. A woman aborting her fetus does not effect you. Using the otherwise discarded remains of an artificially inseminated ovum for research does not effect you. The world is not going to end tomorrow just because you believe it will, so maybe we should take care of the only home currently available to us. One's personal beliefs should not impose upon someone else, or you are depriving them of their rights, and therefore, committing a crime.



I'm religious, and I don't do any of that, either. 



> We all have a personal responsibility to vote for people and policies that keep the rights of ALL men and women in mind.



You are very political minded, but this is a discussion on religion. Whether or someone believes in god has absolutely zero to do with politics. 



> I would defend to the death the right for someone to say that the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is sham, and I expect that same person to defend my right to say the universe is billions of years old and we evolved from single celled organisms.



Again, while noble, you're blurring the lines between religion and politics.



> Our system of government has been under constant attack by those who would see freedom replaced with theocracy, science replaced with fairy tales, and free thought replaced with the mindless regurgitating of millennia-old dogma.



Politics again man.  Religious politicians (ab)using faith to skew voters one way or another do not represent religion, in my opinion they represent typical dirty scumbag politicians. They're just dickbags.


----------



## Chris (May 21, 2008)

noodles said:


> I
> Don't say science is wrong because it goes against what you believe. Look at the bigger picture, and feel that it is OK not to be right about everything, as long as belief in your god makes you feel happy and content. Belief in no god makes me feel happy and content, so happy and content are two things we share in common.



I'm religious, and I don't think that the world is 6000 years old and started in a poof of light. You're focusing in one one faith and using all of science as leverage to dismiss all religion based on just that one faith. I was raised Catholic, and while I consider myself (sort-of) Catholic, mostly I just believe in god. There are many different religions with their own view of how old the world is, etc, etc, and the common denominator is that these people believe in something "higher" (for lack of a better word) than just plain science. It doesn't mean that they/we/I dismiss science at all.



> Look at the bigger picture, and feel that it is OK not to be right about everything



You need to do the same thing bro.


----------



## zimbloth (May 21, 2008)

Chris said:


> I'm religious, and I don't think that the world is 6000 years old and started in a poof of light. You're focusing in one one faith and using all of science as leverage to dismiss all religion based on just that one faith. I was raised Catholic, and while I consider myself (sort-of) Catholic, mostly I just believe in god. There are many different religions with their own view of how old the world is, etc, etc, and the common denominator is that these people believe in something "higher" (for lack of a better word) than just plain science. It doesn't mean that they/we/I dismiss science at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to do the same thing bro.




I kind of fall with Chris on this one. Although I'm not religious and I detest the hypocrisy and corruption that many organized religions have been purveyors of, I still feel like none of us really know for sure what's real or not. 

Whenever I think to myself "there's probably not a God", then I think about how the Universe was created and it's like "this is just too perfect, how could this have been an accident, and where did this matter even come from?". That said I don't think God is a human-like figure such as depicted in the Bible (that seems like ego to me, or simply someone trying to make the concept easy to digest) but I do believe in some kind of ultimate higher power, but I admit I just have no clue, it's just a feeling.

I think everyone in the world would be better off, religious or not, to just admit they really know nothing and to keep an open mind - and if they want to have faith in something that's cool too.


----------



## Chris (May 21, 2008)

zimbloth said:


> I think everyone in the world would be better off, religious or not, to just admit they really know nothing and to keep an open mind - and if they want to have faith in something that's cool too.


----------



## Codyyy (May 21, 2008)

I don't really have any faith in anything, and sometimes I definitely wish that I was able to. But there are just so many questions, and it's all unknown. So I can't lean enough either way - to deny a god or believe in one. Sure would be nice not to have all of these questions. But then again, being religious sure wouldn't solve that. I would have to be some sort of ignorant sheep. I feel like many in this thread make no distinction between the two.


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> I'm religious, and I don't do this.
> 
> How do you know that the reverse isn't true? It's all speculative until you die.
> 
> ...



Come on, Chris, I'm not attacking everyone who believes in something just because I don't. The guys I'm targeting are the assholes who think everyone should believe what they believe, and think it ought to carry the force of law. The people who want to use politics to further their religious goals. Including the dirty scumbag politicians who use religion simply as a tool to gain power. The only reason I make religion political is because religion keeps poking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

I agree that someone believing in god has nothing to do with politics. However, someone believing that god told them stem cell research murders potential babies, and then they go vote for someone that specifically says they will put a halt to that. That individual voter may not be overtly political, but if he and a whole lot of other people just like him were more like you--believe what you want to believe, don't try to convince others otherwise--then politicians wouldn't care about those issues. Religion makes itself political.

That's why I always say I find nothing wrong with faith and belief, but I hate religion. Lot's of horrible things happen at the hands of organized religion.


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

noodles said:


> The only reason I make religion political is because religion keeps poking its nose in where it doesn't belong.



I'm pretty sure it's a mutual exchange.



> I agree that someone believing in god has nothing to do with politics. However, someone believing that god told them stem cell research murders potential babies, and then they go vote for someone that specifically says they will put a halt to that. That individual voter may not be overtly political, but if he and a whole lot of other people just like him were more like you--believe what you want to believe, don't try to convince others otherwise--then politicians wouldn't care about those issues. Religion makes itself political.



Religious zealots make themselves political. Nutjobs make it political. Believing in god in general, however, has nothing to do with politics. It's the dickbags (tm) that try to use one to force the hand of the other that leave such a bad taste in everyone's mouth.



> That's why I always say I find nothing wrong with faith and belief, but I hate religion. Lot's of horrible things happen at the hands of organized religion.



Agreed, but lots of horrible things happen regardless as well.


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> Religious zealots make themselves political. Nutjobs make it political. Believing in god in general, however, has nothing to do with politics. It's the dickbags (tm) that try to use one to force the hand of the other that leave such a bad taste in everyone's mouth.



The differentiation I make is simply different than yours. I think of belief in god as faith, not religion. I would agree that belief in god has only an indirect role in politics, insomuch that it influences how one thinks, and therefore vote. In this case, lack of belief in god has the same indirect influence. Ergo, I don't think you being "religious" effects politics, since the issues that most effect your vote are not grounded in religion or morality, unless you started protesting outside of abortion clinics 

Like you said, it's just the dickbags that stand in front of their congregations and influence the political views of them that really piss me off. I know my fiance's mother voted for Bush in the last election, because her pastor told them all that he was a godly man of character and strength, and Kerry supported baby killers and vile homosexuals.

Atheism is pretty much in the minority, and unfortunately, all you hear about are the assholes who go all high and mighty on everyone. I may be vocal here, but that is about the extent of it, and I find it equally repugnant when some some jerkoff feels the need to shove everyone's face in it for no good reason.


----------



## Drew (May 22, 2008)

noodles said:


> I am also extremely tired of this science versus religion thing. They are mutually exclusive.



You ALMOST lost me here. 

I'd argue that they are NOT mutually exclusive, that there's no reason that you can't believe in God but at the same time also believe in Darwinism and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Einstein's famous crack about God not dicing with the universe aside). 

But we're taking two different ways of saying the same thing - I think (and I suspect you agree) that what's at issue here is the fact that science and religion serve two different purposes. Science attempts to explain the world as it is - how it functions, the mechanics of where it came from, what happens if you mix 50ml of sodium perchloride with equal parts potassium oxide, etc. Religion, meanwhile, is an attempt to explain the why - how we are supposed to interact with other people, why we are who we are, and possibly most importantly, it's an attempt to give a purpose to our existance. Science explains how we exists, and religion sort of asks the correllary question famously posed by Emerson - "How, then, shall I live?" 

You get into problems when you try to exchange the two - using religion to explain the mechanics of the world (creationism, intelligent design), or using science to make moral decisions (see, oh, the entire third reich's justification of the Holocaust, based on "scientific" analysis of things like Jewish cranial capacity). 

I just feel that, without taking a stance on the relative merits of either, and given a proper understanding of their purpose, science and religion are complimentary.


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

I agree the science should never be used to make moral decisions. I simply think of it as value neutral, based upon observations of physical world. It comes back to the just because you can, doesn't mean you should argument.

The reason I say they are mutually exclusive is for all the reasons you stated. They are two different things, and they really accomplish different goals. I also point to history, and simply state that every single time that religion has squared off with science, religion in the end has been wrong. The earth is not flat, it is not the center of the universe, the celestial bodies are not fixed, no god in a chariot is hauling the sun across the sky, and you cannot sail off the edge of the world. Everything that religion squares off with science about now will one day be proven wrong in much the same fashion. Creationism is slowly slipping away, as fewer and fewer of the next generation hold to the teachings of the previous.

Take anything taught in the book of genesis, and none of it takes a stand against evolution. The bible may tell you that god created everything, but it doesn't explain the mechanics of it. When Adam and Eve are cast out of Eden, they come to the land of Nod, and people are there. Even the bible refutes the whole two people propagated the whole species argument. So, yes, they are complimentary, as long as you're not talking about the fundamentalists who don't bother to read the book they espouse so much. 

If anything, I think this is less of a reflection of religion, and more a reflection of the human condition. People just have a hard time letting go of the old ways of doing things. This can be seen in science, where advancing a new theory can be tantamount to career suicide. If you want, I could explain to you the history of Clovis point technology, and how daring to refute that the first Americans came across the land bridge from Asia has spelled the end of credibility for many an archeologist.


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

The conflict I see between religion and science is in the approach.

Science aims to be as hostile to everything as possible out of hopes for weeding out everything but the best. Religion is believed because... it just is, at least in Abrahamic religions. No, science does not aim to be moral, just as religion doesn't try to tell people how to brush their teeth, but the way one holds a scientific belief and the way one holds a religious belief seem to be pretty strongly opposing.

As for Clovis point technology... I'm interested. Working with math, physics, chemistry, and computer science people I've never run into the 'career suicide' aspect of bringing something up - usually, just the opposite.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> As for Clovis point technology... I'm interested. Working with math, physics, chemistry, and computer science people I've never run into the 'career suicide' aspect of bringing something up - usually, just the opposite.



Let me dig you something up. The argument was it (a flint spear point) was the first piece of American-specific technology, until a few archeologists discovered a link between it and a french spear point. For the longest time, it was all but verboten to dig below the 10,000 BC layer, since no human evidence was supposed to exist. Now it is being found much further back, but suffice to say those first scientists were getting shellacked for their views. Denied funding, which gets you kicked out of universities, and professional ostracization.

Clovis point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm trying to hunt down the title of the two hour PBS special I saw on it. It was extremely enlightening, although a bit dry.


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

That's really unusual compared to what I see around my school's research. Sucks to see that happening, but that does seem to be much more of an exception than a rule as far as the scientific community being openminded.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> That's really unusual compared to what I see around my school's research. Sucks to see that happening, but that does seem to be much more of an exception than a rule as far as the scientific community being openminded.



Oh, you don't know the half of it then. Read up on the warm-blooded dinosaurs debate some time. Or, if you can understand it, the arguments about dark matter, quantum mechanics, and black hole theory. There are plenty of stuck in the mud establishment types who discourage the disproving of old, accepted theories. It is really quite sad.

Anthropologists tend to be the worst, but then again, they're not real scientists.


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

Actually, I spend quite a bit of time on quantum stuff because quantum cryptography and quantum computing are very important subjects in the work I'll be doing, and while there's a TON of disagreement it's not anything along the lines of "You don't think the Higgs boson proves the existence of Vishnu, no funding for you!", and even when Einstein was opposed to developments of quantum mechanics he still got refuted strongly and the physics world moved on all the same.

Jeff


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

noodles said:


> Take anything taught in the book of genesis, and none of it takes a stand against evolution. The bible may tell you that god created everything, but it doesn't explain the mechanics of it. When Adam and Eve are cast out of Eden, they come to the land of Nod, and people are there. Even the bible refutes the whole two people propagated the whole species argument. So, yes, they are complimentary, as long as you're not talking about the fundamentalists who don't bother to read the book they espouse so much.



Again you're taking one version of it, by one culture, and using it as a baseline to represent the tens of thousands of religions in the world. I'm not disagreeing with you, but science vs. religion has typically been science vs. Christianity, not religion as a whole.


----------



## CaptainD00M (May 22, 2008)

+1 Chris, you got that in as i was writing this.
Typicaly that is the story with the Science/"Rational" Vs Religion, its Christianity, and only some parts vs Science.
---
Science is just as much a form of faith as a religion or spiritual path. Methods differ, guiding idea is the same they both want to understand how things 'are'.

Its probably the fact that science has a culture of needing to debunk older forms of 'wisdom' (i use this as about as subjectively as i can) that this Science Vs Faith/Religion debate keeps coming up. Science still feel's like it has something to prove so insists on trying to differ itself... all of which is arguably ego driven.

They aren&#8217;t mutually exclusive as many people want them to be (that&#8217;s on both sides) because that would case to many strongly held attitudes to be revaluated and ego's really don&#8217;t like that.

Also many people seem to equate certain parts of Christianity&#8217;s and Islam&#8217;s disposition toward rejection as a case for many other religions, or faith&#8217;s doing the same thing&#8230; its not that black and white&#8230; as a really bad example look at scientology, its arguably melded some of the elements into a faith/religion (just an example&#8230 and other faiths have no opinion, Tibetan Buddhism holds no such aversions to science.

Many paths, one goal... and that&#8217;s about all I&#8217;m going to put of my belief&#8217;s into this. Once again interesting thread...


----------



## Drew (May 22, 2008)

CaptainD00M said:


> Many paths, one goal... and that&#8217;s about all I&#8217;m going to put of my belief&#8217;s into this. Once again interesting thread...



 Someone else has read his share of philosophical Taoism, I'll wager...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 22, 2008)

Yup im sikh


----------



## CaptainD00M (May 22, 2008)

Drew:  Someone else has read his share of philosophical Taoism, I'll wager... 
----

Your not wrong...

I was hoping to get away with it being chocked up to tonken New Ageness  
Chur


----------



## Naren (May 22, 2008)

CaptainD00M said:


> Science is just as much a form of faith as a religion or spiritual path. Methods differ, guiding idea is the same they both want to understand how things 'are'.



Bullshit. I have always heard that argument that "science is just as much a form of faith as a religion or spiritual path," but that's nonsense. I heard that all the time at my Christian high school and church and I always thought, "Uh, no, it isn't."

Definitions of faith from various dictionaries (found on dictionary.com):
Faith: Belief that is not based on proof (from Dictionary.com Unabridged)
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (from American Heritage Dictionary)
Faith: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny (from WordNet)

That is just the thing. Science IS based on logical proof and material evidence. Religion is not based on anything observable. 

People who make the argument you're making are only bitter that your ideals do not stand up to observation. Many Christians (and members of other religions) deny Science when it contradicts what they believe. "Science has to be wrong." But you cannot change reality to match your beliefs.

Faith does not come from anything real. Science does.



CaptainD00M said:


> Its probably the fact that science has a culture of needing to debunk older forms of 'wisdom' (i use this as about as subjectively as i can) that this Science Vs Faith/Religion debate keeps coming up. Science still feel's like it has something to prove so insists on trying to differ itself... all of which is arguably ego driven.



Of course, science has something to prove.

And it has stuff to disprove too.

Science will always have stuff to prove because it is impossible to know everything. 

"Ego driven"? I find religion much more ego driven than science. Science is driven by a desire to learn. Religion is driven by a desire to feel comfortable in what one believes.

Believe what you will, but your attacking of science is really quite strange...


----------



## Se7enMeister (May 22, 2008)

jim777 said:


> I was born and raised Cathiolic, studied for the priesthood and even went to a prep seminary for high school, but now I'm an atheist. I have been dead for 90+ seconds as well, having bled to death in a robbery, and there's nothing on the other side of life from my personal experience. I am not a fervent athiest, pushing Atheism as a religion itself as some are, I just don't believe in divine anything.
> 
> I will admit that I used to believe in the divinity of Kathy Ireland, but I'm mostly over that now. Mostly



But you didn't really die, you are alive now. you bled to a near death state, but you came back. You weren't supposed to die in that robbery and you didn't. Did the doctors call it a miracle? because that is what it was 

Just a question, what did you experiance when you were "dead"


----------



## Naren (May 22, 2008)

Se7enMeister said:


> But you didn't really die, you are alive now. you bled to a near death state, but you came back. You weren't supposed to die in that robbery and you didn't. Did the doctors call it a miracle? because that is what it was
> 
> Just a question, what did you experiance when you were "dead"



And was it a miracle when Hitler survived when he "should have" died as a soldier in World War I but was only hospitalized instead?

If God was responsible for saving everyone in near death states, he'd be responsible for saving a lot of mass murderers and vile people as well.

To be honest, after I survived my near-death experience, I had a feeling that God might have saved me, but logically speaking, I think it was instinct and the human body's desire to survive.

I want to believe in God and heaven because the image of death I got there was just pure emptiness. However, I don't believe in things just because I want to.


----------



## El Caco (May 23, 2008)

Naren said:


> Bullshit.



I'd agree that science by definition is not religious however some scientists act religiously and what they do is incorrectly referred to as science. Good science is not religious, "bad science" or the type of science that some scientists perform where they control experiments to achieve the results they want either deliberately or unconsciously because of a preconceived belief or ulterior motive is not science IMO.


----------



## Naren (May 23, 2008)

s7eve said:


> I'd agree that science by definition is not religious however some scientists act religiously and what they do is incorrectly referred to as science. Good science is not religious, "bad science" or the type of science that some scientists perform where they control experiments to achieve the results they want either deliberately or unconsciously because of a preconceived belief or ulterior motive is not science IMO.



Exactly. Those people are considered bad scientists or "shams" or "fakes" and are considered to be going against the principles of science. Much like a Zen Buddhist who went out massacring tons of people would be going against every single teaching of Zen Buddhism and would not be an example of how Zen Buddhists act.


----------



## CaptainD00M (May 23, 2008)

Naren said:


> Bullshit. I have always heard that argument that "science is just as much a form of faith as a religion or spiritual path," but that's nonsense. I heard that all the time at my Christian high school and church and I always thought, "Uh, no, it isn't."
> 
> Definitions of faith from various dictionaries (found on dictionary.com):
> Faith: Belief that is not based on proof (from Dictionary.com Unabridged)
> ...


 

I'm not attacking science...  i finish my post by saying 'Many Paths, same Goal' something i really believe and happens to include Science.

Second, you prove my point... Science require faith in something, Math, Physics, That Atoms, Logic... If your arguing tangibility then in wouldn&#8217;t talk in terms of Logic, or math... these things are not physical and they were create by a species that is noticeably illogical...They also require to believe in their effectiveness.

Your basing your argument on the idea that science is less subjective than 'feeling' that something larger is there, or that humanity is not just the mind.
Also the ego of which I speak is the one that Easter Philosophy refers to, its far to lengthy a subject, buy I&#8217;m happy to recommend some books if you wish to 'know your enemy' better.

I'm not bitter at all about science, i welcome science's discoveries, without it i would not have tension and compression calculations and would not know more about correct string gauges for my guitar, would not have this computer to debate the pro's and cons of religion with you and others etc...

Futher more, you dont know explicity what I happen to Believe, so how do you know that my belief's dont 'stand up to observation'. Observation is very very subjective, as is reality you only have to look at someone who's color blind for proof that perception is not unanimous.

Also, science hasn&#8217;t YET proved that some higher power exists, or whatever... its only had about 300 years, there&#8217;s still time yet, and with discoveries being made daily who knows?

The irony in this is that your reaction is just as Knee Jerk as some of the Christians you seem to deplore.
Naren, i would hope that someone pro science would relish someone who is openly spiritual endorsing science, it seam&#8217;s it makes a change from most attitudes that are being discussed by 'people like me'.

Peace
CD


----------



## Naren (May 23, 2008)

CaptainD00M said:


> Second, you prove my point... Science require faith in something, Math, Physics, That Atoms, Logic... If your arguing tangibility then in wouldn&#8217;t talk in terms of Logic, or math... these things are not physical and they were create by a species that is noticeably illogical...They also require to believe in their effectiveness.



What point is it of yours that I prove? I think I disproved your points quite thoroughly.

Science does not require "faith." As I just showed you, the term faith refers to a belief that is not based on proof or evidence. The belief in God is based on faith because there is no proof or evidence. Likewise with the spiritual world. I guess, you could say that you have to trust science to do something specific for you, but science does not claim to be perfect. It isn't, but it proves itself on a daily basis. Science is essentially a method for finding out how things work. And, as such, I have zero "faith" in science. 



CaptainD00M said:


> Also the ego of which I speak is the one that Easter Philosophy refers to, its far to lengthy a subject, buy I&#8217;m happy to recommend some books if you wish to 'know your enemy' better.



I'm quite sure that I know a lot more than you about Eastern philosophy since I've studied it for over 13 years. I was a Japanese studies major with a focus on Buddhism in college (studied in Zen temples and Shinto shrines in Japan as well) and studied pretty deeply into Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, and Hinduism as well.

That, however, does not mean that I believe it (they all have highly differing views as well, Taoism being the most ridiculous in my opinion and Buddhism being the most reasonable).

In regards to other religions, I went to a Christian junior high, high school, and went to churchs every week for a long time. I've read through the entire Bible at least three times by now, so I know it backwards and forwards. I've always found religions interesting, which is why I've also studied Islam, Catholicism, ancient religions, and so on in my own free time.

I do not consider "religious people" to be my enemy. If they were, then my entire family would be my enemy. 



CaptainD00M said:


> Also, science hasn&#8217;t YET proved that some higher power exists, or whatever... its only had about 300 years, there&#8217;s still time yet, and with discoveries being made daily who knows?[/FONT][/COLOR]



As I'm sure you know, science cannot prove or disprove anything. Science cannot prove that we are breathing air or that there is blood in our veins.

Religion deals with absolutes. Science does not.

I'm not saying "science is better than religion." In my opinion, they are two completely different things for two completely different purposes. I very much disagree with your idea that they are different paths for the same thing. Science deals with the tangible and with that which can be experienced. Religion deals with the intangible and with that which cannot be experienced (for the most part, at least).



CaptainD00M said:


> The irony in this is that your reaction is just as Knee Jerk as some of the Christians you seem to deplore.



 Ooooookaaay.



CaptainD00M said:


> Naren, i would hope that someone pro science would relish someone who is openly spiritual endorsing science, it seam&#8217;s it makes a change from most attitudes that are being discussed by 'people like me'.
> 
> Peace
> CD



I have never considered myself "pro-science." What is oftentimes referred to as science is just a desire to want to know more about the world you live in and wanting to improve ones life. It, however, comes through test and failure. I think that it's such an over-encompassing title that the term "pro-science" would cover everything advancing the physical. Without science, I would not be typing on this internet from across the world on the 8th floor of a skyscraper in a room lit by lights with a television, gaming console, and electric dictionary beside me.

In that sense, you'd have to be crazy not to be "pro-science."

I respect religious scientists who don't try to alter the facts to fit their religion. That, I think, is a reasonable way to go about it.

I can identify in people who believe in God or a higher being/higher beings, but, like noodles, I cannot understand the close-minded individuals who deny recent discoveries and try to force their morality on every one else.



CaptainD00M said:


> Futher more, you dont know explicity what I happen to Believe, so how do you know that my belief's dont 'stand up to observation'. Observation is very very subjective, as is reality you only have to look at someone who's color blind for proof that perception is not unanimous.



Our eyes are not our only means of observation.

You are correct in that I don't know what you believe, but it seems that you are into metaphysics. If that is what you believe, then there really is no reason to try to talk with you about it.


----------



## Nick (May 23, 2008)

science does not require faith it requires a desire for knowledge



CaptainD00M said:


> [Your basing your argument on the idea that science is less subjective than 'feeling' that something larger is there, or that humanity is not just the mind




It is, sceince is about proving whether or not that thing is there. Religion is about embracing it and not caring whether you can prove it or not.


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2008)

Please keep things civil guys.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 23, 2008)

Naren said:


> Taoism being the most ridiculous in my opinion



Whoa, there, chief. What's ridiculous about eating bricks of cinnabar to gain immortality?


----------



## Nick (May 23, 2008)

clearly that immortality can only be gained from drinking from the cup of christ

have you not seen the indiana jones movies?


----------



## DevourTheDamned (May 23, 2008)

Nick said:


> clearly that immortality can only be gained from drinking from the cup of christ
> 
> have you not seen the indiana jones movies?



holy shit, i just got back from ISS because i read this and got my laptop taken away and sent to the ISS room for laughing hysterically in the middle of our final HAAHAHHAHAHAA!!!


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 23, 2008)

ISS?


----------



## Naren (May 23, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Whoa, there, chief. What's ridiculous about eating bricks of cinnabar to gain immortality?



No, sir. Do not confuse what I said. I am by no means talking about the immortals that live on the moon.


----------



## XEN (May 23, 2008)

If the pastafarians are right my celiac disease makes me the antichrist.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 23, 2008)

Okay, Okay, sorry for derailing shit. Back on topic.  


Having read a decent ammount about Taoism and some other Eastern religions, Taoism has some pretty far out there shit.


----------



## Drew (May 23, 2008)

CaptainD00M said:


> I was hoping to get away with it being chocked up to tonken New Ageness
> Chur



There's a WORLD of difference between philosophical Taoism and religious Taoism. The latter is new age crap (IMO), the former is actually pretty interesting stuff.



Naren said:


> That, however, does not mean that I believe it (they all have highly differing views as well, Taoism being the most ridiculous in my opinion and Buddhism being the most reasonable).



See above comment on how Taoist philosophy and the "religion" it spawned are VERY different things. Try to hunt down a good copy of the Chuang-tzu or (and this may be trickier, as so many of them are pretty new-age-y) the Tao te Ching. If it helps, I don't remember the translator of the one I had, but it was based upon a newly discovered, significantly older scroll than many of the existing translations, and the translator made the argument that it was perhaps best described as a political text.


----------



## Naren (May 23, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Having read a decent ammount about Taoism and some other Eastern religions, Taoism has some pretty far out there shit.



 I can completely agree with that.



Drew said:


> See above comment on how Taoist philosophy and the "religion" it spawned are VERY different things. Try to hunt down a good copy of the Chuang-tzu or (and this may be trickier, as so many of them are pretty new-age-y) the Tao te Ching. If it helps, I don't remember the translator of the one I had, but it was based upon a newly discovered, significantly older scroll than many of the existing translations, and the translator made the argument that it was perhaps best described as a political text.



Well, not 100% of Taoism is nonsense, but I'm talking about Taoism on the whole. There were a few Taoist whose beliefs weren't really that crazy, but most of them were off-the-wall bonkers.

I'm not even gonna get into the more recent new age nonsense.

Confucianism, however, was less of a religion and more of a life philosophy that had a lot of interesting political ideas.


----------



## Se7enMeister (May 23, 2008)

Naren said:


> And was it a miracle when Hitler survived when he "should have" died as a soldier in World War I but was only hospitalized instead?
> 
> If God was responsible for saving everyone in near death states, he'd be responsible for saving a lot of mass murderers and vile people as well.
> 
> ...



oh naren


----------



## biggness (May 23, 2008)

I know without a doubt that there is a God. Everything in this world lines up and matches to perfect not to be. From the sun feeding our plants that make oxygen which we breathe, to how we process oxygen. Just think how awesome every function in the human body supports another function and tell me that was all by chance. No way. I like to think of it like this:

"Hunger proves the existence of food."


----------



## TheHandOfStone (May 23, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> ISS?



In-school suspension.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 23, 2008)

Drew said:


> There's a WORLD of difference between philosophical Taoism and religious Taoism. The latter is new age crap (IMO), the former is actually pretty interesting stuff.



Actually, the religious Taoism has been around since aronud the Han era, i believe (ended around 220CE, China), so i dunno how "new" agey it is, since its old as the supposed jesus..  That's with this "celestial masters" stuff with all the New Agey shit in there. They believed in things like searching for immortality through alchemical means, which included things like making the most poisonous things they could think of and drinking them. Often included stuff such as Mercury, cinnabar, and all kinds of other stuff that rots your brain. 

I do like the Wu-wei path of least resistence stuff, for what its worth, though.


----------



## XEN (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> "Hunger proves the existence of food."


Not quite. Hunger emerges in the absence of food. It is never sated by a second hand account of another person's culinary experience.


----------



## JBroll (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> I know without a doubt that there is a God. Everything in this world lines up and matches to perfect not to be. From the sun feeding our plants that make oxygen which we breathe, to how we process oxygen. Just think how awesome every function in the human body supports another function and tell me that was all by chance.



Tell me why God designed us to be horribly inefficient. Tell me why so many people are nearsighted, why so much of our genetic material is junk, why children are born with diseases that'll kill them before they know what it means to exist. No, our body is the biological equivalent of a hack job that barely got a passing grade, as is all life on the planet. It doesn't take design to have simple things that adapt and improve.

And how did this God come about? Did it need to be created? If it did, as one would expect of such a powerful and intelligent creator, you have an infinite regression of even more powerful deities and you've answered nothing. If it did not, then you have an even more complex being than our life systems and you've complicated matters greatly without answering anything.

Creation is a nonanswer. Hunger doesn't prove the existence of food any more than desire for a square circle proves the existence of such an impossibility.

Jeff


----------



## Drew (May 23, 2008)

Naren said:


> I can completely agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



...and philosophical Taoism has a lot more to do with Confucianism than you'd think, lol. 

Honestly, it kind of bugs me how both the plisosophical school of Taoism and the religion of Taoism fall under the same name, because they're about as totally removed from each other as one could ask for. All that crap about eatign something for immortality Ken was joking about earlier is religious Taoism at work. The philosophical side, however, had a strong and undeniable impact on the development of Zen Buddhism, which you seem more open to.


----------



## GuitarG2 (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> I know without a doubt that there is a God. Everything in this world lines up and matches to perfect not to be. From the sun feeding our plants that make oxygen which we breathe, to how we process oxygen. Just think how awesome every function in the human body supports another function and tell me that was all by chance. No way. I like to think of it like this:
> 
> "Hunger proves the existence of food."


 
Sort of committing the lottery fallacy dude. Someone might win the lottery and think it was unlikely and God must have been on his side, when in fact someone had to win it and the winner had no more chance than the next guy did. Our bodies could've turned out to be in any sort of configuration, each one as likely as the other, meaning that the fact that they turned out this particular way isn't that amazing, as unlikely as it may seem.


----------



## biggness (May 23, 2008)

Not once does the bible state that everything in life is hunky dory. In fact, quite the opposite, hence trials and tribulations. You are telling me that you are not amazed at how your body sustains and repairs itself? 

God was there from the beginning. That is why He is called God, not "dude who created stuff" Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it does not exist. You have to have a "child like" faith and the man that think he the wise is the fool. 

I will continue to live my life worshipping God, if I was wrong and there is no God, heaven or hell, worst thing that happens is, well, nothing. You on the other hand if you are wrong have quite a bit to be worried about. Eternity is a looong time. Think how long you have been alive. Seems like forever huh? Not even close to touching eternity. 

*I am on my blackberry(an exercise in cramped thumbs) so I didn't get to type everything I wanted to say*


----------



## XEN (May 23, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Tell me why God designed us to be horribly inefficient. Tell me why so many people are nearsighted, why so much of our genetic material is junk, why children are born with diseases that'll kill them before they know what it means to exist. No, our body is the biological equivalent of a hack job that barely got a passing grade, as is all life on the planet. It doesn't take design to have simple things that adapt and improve.
> 
> And how did this God come about? Did it need to be created? If it did, as one would expect of such a powerful and intelligent creator, you have an infinite regression of even more powerful deities and you've answered nothing. If it did not, then you have an even more complex being than our life systems and you've complicated matters greatly without answering anything.
> 
> Creation is a nonanswer. Hunger doesn't prove the existence of food any more than desire for a square circle proves the existence of such an impossibility.


Hold on man, his analogy might have been weak, but your arguments against him are tired and cliché. Come up with something new instead of this "If there's a God, then why is shit so fucked up" bullshit. You assault his faith as if he has to defend it to YOU for it to be real to him. Some people find comfort in their faith and I can't fault them for it, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that you find your comfort in assaulting theirs.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it does not exist.



Somewhere in the middle of the thread, we meandered through this point, though. Just cause you dont understand something doesn't make it supernatural either. 

And the problem with Pascal's Wager at the end of your posts are as such:
You assume you're worshipping the right god. 
I like the alternate version better:
"You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him."


----------



## Drew (May 23, 2008)

For Naren - this isn't the greatest translation, but you'll get the point: 



> Zi Si (Great Sacrificial Attendant), Zi Yu (Great Charioteer), Zi Li (Great Plowman) and Zi Lai (Great Messenger) all came together to have a chat saying:
> "Who can consider what doesn't exist as his head, life as his spine and death as his buttocks? Whoever knows that life and death, surviving and perishing, are part of the same whole, I'd like to take them as a friend."
> The four of them all looked at each other and laughed. They felt a profound intimacy with each other in their hearts, and they they knew they'd formed a deep friendship with each other.
> Some time later, Zi Yu got sick. Zi Si went to see how he was doing.
> ...


----------



## Drew (May 23, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> I like the alternate version better:
> "You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him."



That's actually my beliefs spelled out to a T. I figure if there is a god, then he probably won't be too concerned if I got the name wrong while on Earth, if I have lived in a holistic manner.


----------



## XEN (May 23, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> "You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him."


Very well said.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 23, 2008)

I only wish i thought of it


----------



## XEN (May 23, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> I only wish i thought of it


 From now on I'm telling people Metal Ken said so.


----------



## noodles (May 23, 2008)

urklvt said:


> From now on I'm telling people Metal Ken said so.



If there is a god, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to meet up with Metal Ken and myself at some bar down in Hell.

It's not as bad as Florida.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 23, 2008)

Drew said:


> That's actually my beliefs spelled out to a T. I figure if there is a god, then he probably won't be too concerned if I got the name wrong while on Earth, if I have lived in a holistic manner.



I agree with Metal Ken's post too but then we have to decide whether or not we are dealing with a vengeful Abrahamic god who DOES care about those niggly little points like names.


----------



## biggness (May 23, 2008)

Though this sounds good and all,(and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs , a la' "free will") I don't really agree with it all. My faith is rooted in salvation. You can be as good as you as you possibly be but if you don't have Jesus as your saviour, it really doesn't matter. You hear people say all the time "Oh he was a good ol boy, he would give you the shirt off his back" If the good ol boy wasn't saved, all that tells me is he went to hell without a shirt. In my faith you are not saved by works, but by grace. I would recommend a book called "How good is good enough" for some helpful insight into this. Again, everyone can have their own beliefs and that is mine. Not everyone will be saved but I can at least help and point them in the right direction. It is totally up to them what they decide to do.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> Though this sounds good and all,(and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs , a la' "free will") I don't really agree with it all. My faith is rooted in salvation. You can be as good as you as you possibly be but if you don't have Jesus as your saviour, it really doesn't matter. You hear people say all the time "Oh he was a good ol boy, he would give you the shirt off his back" If the good ol boy wasn't saved, all that tells me is he went to hell without a shirt. In my faith you are not saved by works, but by grace. I would recommend a book called "How good is good enough" for some helpful insight into this. Again, everyone can have their own beliefs and that is mine. Not everyone will be saved but I can at least help and point them in the right direction. It is totally up to them what they decide to do.



Does that mean that someone can be as evil as he likes and then get into heaven because he has Jesus as his personal saviour? A la the Crusaders.

I really don't like that Abrahamic concept as it doesn't fill me with hope for the world.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> Though this sounds good and all,(and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs , a la' "free will") I don't really agree with it all. My faith is rooted in salvation. You can be as good as you as you possibly be but if you don't have Jesus as your saviour, it really doesn't matter. You hear people say all the time "Oh he was a good ol boy, he would give you the shirt off his back" If the good ol boy wasn't saved, all that tells me is he went to hell without a shirt. In my faith you are not saved by works, but by grace. I would recommend a book called "How good is good enough" for some helpful insight into this. Again, everyone can have their own beliefs and that is mine. Not everyone will be saved but I can at least help and point them in the right direction. It is totally up to them what they decide to do.



Thats the thing. Where did you get that idea? The bible. Or the Koran. Both are the only ones that condemn people to the worst fate imaginable for all time just for ignorance. You have to assume the bible is infallible for that to be the case, and that's an assumption I can't, in good conscience make.


----------



## noodles (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> Though this sounds good and all,(and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs , a la' "free will") I don't really agree with it all. My faith is rooted in salvation. You can be as good as you as you possibly be but if you don't have Jesus as your saviour, it really doesn't matter. You hear people say all the time "Oh he was a good ol boy, he would give you the shirt off his back" If the good ol boy wasn't saved, all that tells me is he went to hell without a shirt. In my faith you are not saved by works, but by grace. I would recommend a book called "How good is good enough" for some helpful insight into this. Again, everyone can have their own beliefs and that is mine. Not everyone will be saved but I can at least help and point them in the right direction. It is totally up to them what they decide to do.



So, some innocent kid is born in the middle of nowhere Africa, never is exposed to the Christian faith, and dies of famine five years later. You're saying he goes to hell?

These sorts of views make Christianity a religion of elitism, and I hope that either you are wrong, or I never have to meet your god.


----------



## biggness (May 23, 2008)

No it doesn't mean that. To have Jesus as your saviour you have to repent for your sins and ask for forgiveness and then live your life accordingly. If you say that Jesus is your saviour and there is no distinction between the "before and after" then you were never saved to begin with. You just went through the motions. If I stole from you and asked for forgiveness but kept on stealing after you forgave me then I was never truly sorry. Take the theif on the cross behind Jesus. Lived a horrible life up until he asked for forgiveness. Though he died a short time later, his life after forgiveness and up until his death was for worshipping Christ. No one knows how long there life is.


----------



## biggness (May 23, 2008)

To noodles, the bible says it only applies to those that have heard the word of God. If he hasn't heard it, he hasn't heard it. He is in the same as children and the mentally handicapped.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> No it doesn't mean that. To have Jesus as your saviour you have to repent for your sins and ask for forgiveness and then live your life accordingly. If you say that Jesus is your saviour and there is no distinction between the "before and after" then you were never saved to begin with. You just went through the motions. If I stole from you and asked for forgiveness but kept on stealing after you forgave me then I was never truly sorry. Take the theif on the cross behind Jesus. Lived a horrible life up until he asked for forgiveness. Though he died a short time later, his life after forgiveness and up until his death was for worshipping Christ. No one knows how long there life is.



Does that mean that we have to disregard the teachings of the Old Testament as they do say "murder homosexuals" and "convert or die" and all that?


----------



## noodles (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> To noodles, the bible says it only applies to those that have heard the word of God. If he hasn't heard it, he hasn't heard it. He is in the same as children and the mentally handicapped.



Well, I haven't heard the word of god yet. I've heard a whole lot of men trying to tell me what they believe the word of god is, but god hasn't talked to me yet. So, I guess I'm safe.

Paul (as Saul) persecuted Christians until god stepped in and put him on a different path. Why should anyone else suffer eternal damnation if they are not afforded the same opportunity?

[action=Noodles]is also mentally handicapped.[/action]


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 23, 2008)

noodles said:


> Well, I haven't heard the word of god yet. I've heard a whole lot of men trying to tell me what they believe the word of god is, but god hasn't talked to me yet. So, I guess I'm safe.
> 
> Paul (as Saul) persecuted Christians until god stepped in and put him on a different path. Why should anyone else suffer eternal damnation if they are not afforded the same opportunity?
> 
> [action=Noodles]is also mentally handicapped.[/action]



Also considering the word of god is so heavily censored I doubt all of the supposed god's word has truly got through.


----------



## biggness (May 23, 2008)

To ZeroSignal:

In short order, yes. 
None of the Old Testament law applies to us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> To ZeroSignal:
> 
> In short order, yes.
> None of the Old Testament law applies to us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)



Well then why is it being taught and why is it included in the bible in that case?


----------



## noodles (May 23, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Well then why is it being taught and why is it included in the bible in that case?



King James and I need to have a serious talk.


----------



## biggness (May 23, 2008)

Why is history taught in school? So you can learn from others.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> Why is history taught in school? So you can learn from others.



So to learn from the hatred and xenophobia of others or to learn to avoid that ignorance by learning about it like the way you do with history? If so, that seems to be self-defeating.


----------



## biggness (May 23, 2008)

You act as if the world in which you live has been nothing but turmoil. I celebrate the joys of life.

As Abe Lincoln once said: "I can complain that roses have thorns or rejoice that thorns have roses."


----------



## Drew (May 23, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> I agree with Metal Ken's post too but then we have to decide whether or not we are dealing with a vengeful Abrahamic god who DOES care about those niggly little points like names.



Honestly, I'll go on the record saying that if there is a vengeful Abrahamic God, and he DOES care about niggly little points like names, then I'd have enough administrative bones to pick with him that the name would be the least of my concerns. There are some things I'd rather take damnation than accept. 



biggness said:


> Though this sounds good and all,(and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs , a la' "free will") I don't really agree with it all. My faith is rooted in salvation. You can be as good as you as you possibly be but if you don't have Jesus as your saviour, it really doesn't matter. You hear people say all the time "Oh he was a good ol boy, he would give you the shirt off his back" If the good ol boy wasn't saved, all that tells me is he went to hell without a shirt. In my faith you are not saved by works, but by grace. I would recommend a book called "How good is good enough" for some helpful insight into this. Again, everyone can have their own beliefs and that is mine. Not everyone will be saved but I can at least help and point them in the right direction. It is totally up to them what they decide to do.



Biggness, that's a very fundamentalist Christian interpretation of Salvation, and while I'm a little rusty on this, one I'm pretty sure the bible itself doesn't support. 

At the very least, I'd offer the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which three believers in god walk past a badly wounded victim of a robbery without pausing to help the man, before a Samaritan, a member of a widely despised sect considered by mainstream Judaeism to be heretical, stopped and helped the man, bringing him to an inn and paying for his stay and medical attention. By most contemporary accounts, the Samaritan falls within a group who would NOT have taken Jesus as their personal savior, whereas the other three were groups who potentially would have. Yet, Jesus is clearly arguing that the good actions of the Samaritan count for far more than the professed beliefs of the Jews. 

At some level, actions do speak louder than words. And, for what it's worth, everything I've been taught about Jesus from my infancy through today suggests he was the sort of guy who wouldn't be that vengeful hardliner God who'd damn me for giving the shirt off my back to a stranger, but not doing it explicitly in his name.  To argue otherwise, I would say, is the result of a flawed understanding of the teachings of Christ; a man who above all stressed forgiveness.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> You act as if the world in which you live has been nothing but turmoil. I celebrate the joys of life.
> 
> As Abe Lincoln once said: "I can complain that roses have thorns or rejoice that thorns have roses."



That really doesn't answer anything that anyone said.


----------



## Carrion (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> To ZeroSignal:
> 
> In short order, yes.
> None of the Old Testament law applies to us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)



Matthew 5:17-19 seems to be a contradiction of Galatians 3:23-25 and Romans 6:14.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 23, 2008)

Carrion said:


> Matthew 5:17-19 seems to be a contradiction of Galatians 3:23-25 and Romans 6:14.



Can you give us some quotations please? I don't have a bible in my house, you see.


----------



## Carrion (May 23, 2008)

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## biggness (May 23, 2008)

To Drew:

I think you have the meaning behind that parable a little outta whack. The lessons of the parable of the Good Samaritan are three-fold: (1) On the one hand we are to set aside our prejudice and show love and compassion for others. (2) Our neighbor is anyone we encounter, we are all creatures of the creator and we are to love all of mankind as Jesus has taught. (3) Keeping the law in its entirety with the intent to save ourselves is an impossible task; we need a savior and this is Jesus.


----------



## GuitarG2 (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> To Drew:
> 
> I think you have the meaning behind that parable a little outta whack. The lessons of the parable of the Good Samaritan are three-fold: (1) On the one hand we are to set aside our prejudice and show love and compassion for others. (2) Our neighbor is anyone we encounter, we are all creatures of the creator and we are to love all of mankind as Jesus has taught. (3) Keeping the law in its entirety with the intent to save ourselves is an impossible task; we need a savior and this is Jesus.


 
And this means it couldn't also mean what Drew said?


----------



## TheHandOfStone (May 23, 2008)

biggness said:


> Though this sounds good and all,(and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs , a la' "free will") I don't really agree with it all. My faith is rooted in salvation. You can be as good as you as you possibly be but if you don't have Jesus as your saviour, it really doesn't matter. You hear people say all the time "Oh he was a good ol boy, he would give you the shirt off his back" If the good ol boy wasn't saved, all that tells me is he went to hell without a shirt. In my faith you are not saved by works, but by grace. I would recommend a book called "How good is good enough" for some helpful insight into this. Again, everyone can have their own beliefs and that is mine. Not everyone will be saved but I can at least help and point them in the right direction. It is totally up to them what they decide to do.



What confuses me is how any kind, loving god would do this when he knew full well that many would live in places that were never exposed to his word. Completely unfair; if it's hell minus shirt for me for thinking this way then so be it.


----------



## shupe13 (May 23, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *JBroll*
> 
> 
> _Tell me why God designed us to be horribly inefficient. Tell me why so many people are nearsighted, why so much of our genetic material is junk, why children are born with diseases that'll kill them before they know what it means to exist. No, our body is the biological equivalent of a hack job that barely got a passing grade, as is all life on the planet. It doesn't take design to have simple things that adapt and improve._
> ...


 
As far as "And how did this God come about? Did it need to be created?" 
First you have to have and understand _Faith_. Faith is simply not having to see to believe. This takes an open mind. I personally have not seen God in the sense a non-believer might demand. I have seen what I believe to be Him in what most would call normal everyday life. Examples: The day you step out of the house and everything feels perfect. The birth of your own child. The accident you avoided but can't explain how. Answered prayers... I don't have to get shot to know it could kill me or hurt really really bad! Because I have faith, I don't question the creation of the Creator.
As far as genetic faults go, man is the main cause. Greed. Think of all the chemicals we consume knowingly (alcohol/drugs) and unknowingly (steriods in foods/pesticides). I'm talking in excess. Alcohol and drugs on our part and the manufacturers of what we eat and breath. Greed is the cause of excess, excess is our undoing. The more we drink the better we feel. The more manufacturers produce (food/whatever) the more money they make. Most faults are of our own doing, we just refuse to accept responsibility. 
I know it is hard to believe God would allow a child to be born horribly deformed or ill. Or that the stray bullet had to kill an innocent bystander. I don't believe He wants that. Sure God could prevent all illness and make us all equals (in _our _eyes), but because of free will, some asshole is still going to be greedy and fuck it up for all of us as men have in the past. I don't know how a hack could create a being that can heal its self and others. Or create a being that could give its life in defense of another. Or create a being that create a 7 string and master it. I don't know. I guess what I don't have faith in is the thought that this all happened by chance or because a big rock hit another. I may be wrong, maybe there isn't a God, but I feel better knowing there is.
Just think, we as parents try to give our children everything they need to live a wonderful and happy life, but in the end it is up to them to use what we taught them. The same applies for us as children of our bith parents and our Creator.
Hope this make some sense. I'm super tired and unfortunately I can't quote scripture do to my own lazyness.

I believe in the event you could go through life never knowing of the Lord, never hearing his name from the mouth of another, He would protect you and guide you and keep you.


----------



## biggness (May 23, 2008)

shupe13 said:


> I believe in the event you could go through life never knowing of the Lord, never hearing his name from the mouth of another, He would protect you and guide you and keep you.



Correct sir. People may go through life never hearing the word. The bible says you will be judged on your knowledge and what you did with it. This isn't referring to scholastic knowledge either. It is if you heard about Jesus and acting upon the word or decided to blow it off as absurd. If you never had a chance to hear anything about Jesus, then God will take this into account, like a loving, caring Father. By you reading this you have been presented with the word...


----------



## JBroll (May 24, 2008)

shupe13 said:


> As far as "And how did this God come about? Did it need to be created?"
> First you have to have and understand _Faith_. Faith is simply not having to see to believe. This takes an open mind. I personally have not seen God in the sense a non-believer might demand. I have seen what I believe to be Him in what most would call normal everyday life. Examples: The day you step out of the house and everything feels perfect. The birth of your own child. The accident you avoided but can't explain how. Answered prayers... I don't have to get shot to know it could kill me or hurt really really bad! Because I have faith, I don't question the creation of the Creator.
> As far as genetic faults go, man is the main cause. Greed. Think of all the chemicals we consume knowingly (alcohol/drugs) and unknowingly (steriods in foods/pesticides). I'm talking in excess. Alcohol and drugs on our part and the manufacturers of what we eat and breath. Greed is the cause of excess, excess is our undoing. The more we drink the better we feel. The more manufacturers produce (food/whatever) the more money they make. Most faults are of our own doing, we just refuse to accept responsibility.
> I know it is hard to believe God would allow a child to be born horribly deformed or ill. Or that the stray bullet had to kill an innocent bystander. I don't believe He wants that. Sure God could prevent all illness and make us all equals (in _our _eyes), but because of free will, some asshole is still going to be greedy and fuck it up for all of us as men have in the past. I don't know how a hack could create a being that can heal its self and others. Or create a being that could give its life in defense of another. Or create a being that create a 7 string and master it. I don't know. I guess what I don't have faith in is the thought that this all happened by chance or because a big rock hit another. I may be wrong, maybe there isn't a God, but I feel better knowing there is.
> ...



Your words on faith have really no answer to what I said. What I said was that it was a non-answer, and that by the same logic there must be creators for every creator since complexity requires creation. I used to have and understand faith. This isn't something foreign to me at all. I just now think that it's doing a disservice to reason, which I think would be a much better gift from (and which I used to think would be a better way of giving thanks to) such a creator. Further, why have faith in this and not in anything else? If you'll believe in something through faith, what makes the Bible any more trustworthy than Catch 22?

Also, I'm pretty sure Parkinson's and myopia, as well as most genetic disorders, have been around far longer than we've been processing chemicals. These chemicals make life easier and longer, and nobody before the age of processing chemicals could live to half of what you and I live to. I don't have a negative view of the world because all I see is misery; what I see is a bunch of things that could have been done a lot better. 

Finally... chance is only a small part of how we came to be. There's much more to evolution than chance. I think we came about by a series of organisms doing all they could to survive in a completely hostile and unfriendly world and that we're damn fortunate to be so far into the development of life. I also think this explains better why some organisms survive only by destroying others. This also has much more potential for helping people survive disease and disability than any religion has ever shown itself to have.

Now, if a creator is capable of creating something evil, I'd say that doing so is little short of evil; then, if this deity is evil I think praising it is the wrong thing to do, and if it is not (because nothing it created is evil) I can hardly see why free will, its gift to us, is evil itself.

Jeff


----------



## XEN (May 24, 2008)

biggness said:


> By you reading this you have been presented with the word...


Again, not quite. Unless you're offering living word, you've offered nothing but rhetoric, private interpretation, and scripturally deconstructive doctrine. Dead words that serve only to damn and divide.

What you said can be summed up like this: Until you've heard of Jesus you will stand before God at the end of time and be judged on your conscience, giving you a chance at eternal life by His side, but the moment you hear of Jesus your clean conscience becomes irrelevant and you are damned until you affirm Him as your lord and savior.

No. Stop trying to lay the guilt of Jesus' crucifixion on those he willingly died to save.


----------



## JBroll (May 24, 2008)

Yeah, I think that if it were my call I'd take the choice that encouraged acting morally over the one that made good acts irrelevant, and if this god decides that being part of a fan club is better than being a good person I'll just have to be damned for what I think is the right thing to do.

Jeff


----------



## Samer (May 24, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Your words on faith have really no answer to what I said. What I said was that it was a non-answer, and that by the same logic there must be creators for every creator since complexity requires creation. I used to have and understand faith. This isn't something foreign to me at all. I just now think that it's doing a disservice to reason, which I think would be a much better gift from (and which I used to think would be a better way of giving thanks to) such a creator. Further, why have faith in this and not in anything else? If you'll believe in something through faith, what makes the Bible any more trustworthy than Catch 22?
> 
> Also, I'm pretty sure Parkinson's and myopia, as well as most genetic disorders, have been around far longer than we've been processing chemicals. These chemicals make life easier and longer, and nobody before the age of processing chemicals could live to half of what you and I live to. I don't have a negative view of the world because all I see is misery; what I see is a bunch of things that could have been done a lot better.
> 
> ...



Well put man, you always articulate your points perfectly.


----------



## noodles (May 24, 2008)

biggness said:


> As Abe Lincoln once said: "I can complain that roses have thorns or rejoice that thorns have roses."



I can quote Abe, too.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

As long as we're quoting Lincoln and all...


----------



## El Caco (May 24, 2008)

Se7enMeister said:


> oh naren



You may not like it but what Eric has said is the truth.



Metal Ken said:


> "You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him."



I agree with this however the Biblical point of view should be stated and that is that the world is the enemy and keeps one from God. The only thing that is important is Love, the golden rule. Therefore the best way one who wanted to have a relationship with God could live is as John the Baptist or Jesus did. The majority of Christians think that this view is extreme and unnecessary but it may be that they love the world too much.



biggness said:


> Though this sounds good and all,(and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs , a la' "free will") I don't really agree with it all. My faith is rooted in salvation. You can be as good as you as you possibly be but if you don't have Jesus as your saviour, it really doesn't matter. You hear people say all the time "Oh he was a good ol boy, he would give you the shirt off his back" If the good ol boy wasn't saved, all that tells me is he went to hell without a shirt. In my faith you are not saved by works, but by grace. I would recommend a book called "How good is good enough" for some helpful insight into this. Again, everyone can have their own beliefs and that is mine. Not everyone will be saved but I can at least help and point them in the right direction. It is totally up to them what they decide to do.





biggness said:


> To ZeroSignal:
> 
> In short order, yes.
> None of the Old Testament law applies to us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)





biggness said:


> To Drew:
> 
> I think you have the meaning behind that parable a little outta whack. The lessons of the parable of the Good Samaritan are three-fold: (1) On the one hand we are to set aside our prejudice and show love and compassion for others. (2) Our neighbor is anyone we encounter, we are all creatures of the creator and we are to love all of mankind as Jesus has taught. (3) Keeping the law in its entirety with the intent to save ourselves is an impossible task; we need a savior and this is Jesus.



Actually I think you have it a little out of whack.

The Biblical view is that man can have a relationship with God based on works, the condition is that man never sin. Of course the price of sin is spiritual death and according to Pauline Christianity Jesus bore the penalty of our sins on the cross and one can have their sins washed away simply by accepting that Christ is their saviour. What this means is that once a man has sinned no amount of good works can save him only the blood of Christ by the grace of God. However that does not mean that works no longer play a part for a tree shall be known by it's fruit and a tree can only bear fruit after it's kind. Simply put if ones works are bad then they have not been saved and do not share a relationship with God, the view that Christ's blood keeps on washing away sins no matter what based on faith is not Biblical and false. The promise to those that truly accept Jesus is the gift of the Holy spirit, he will give all knowledge and guide those that are saved, those that have the Holly spirit will be clearly known by their actions and if they betray the Holy spirit their punishment is worse. Clearly today Christians are difficult to find.

A young boy asks his father "what is a Christian?"

The father stops for a second and thinks about the question, then he replies "son a Christian is someone who has accepted Christ as his personal saviour and has had his sins washed away by the act of baptism, a Christian loves God with all his heart, soul and strength has repented of his sins and left his life of sin behind to sin no more and follow the teachings of Christ."

The boy then asks "have I ever seen one?"

[action=s7eve]has bit his tongue long enough, this is going to be long so it will be continued in another post.[/action]


----------



## El Caco (May 24, 2008)

The Bible is not one book, it is a collection of books. The Old Testament is a collection of Jewish books, The new testament is comprised of 4 accounts of the life of Jesus one of which was written by a friend of Paul, a selection from the writings of Paul and his companions, a selection of writings by the Nazarines (Jews that were disciples of Christ) and at least one forgery.

*So how did we get the Bible?*

These books were written by many different men over a period of many hundreds of years. It is important to note that there were many other religious texts of the day and at a time when the Jews were deciding on their approved scriptures, followers of Pauls Christianity also posed the question of what scriptures they should be using, the answer was first given in II Timothy 3:16 but later revised by another.

The original decisions of what were the most important scriptures were made by Christians. In A.D. 303 Diocletian declared that all Christian scriptures were to be turned over and burned, of course Christians would hand over the scriptures that they considered less important in an effort to comply and protect those they considered more important.

The man directly responsible for the collection of Books now known as the Bible and modern day Christianity is Constantine. Constantine's conversion occurred in A.D. 312 on the eve of the battle of Milvain Bridge when he saw in the sky a vision of the Cross and above it the words "In This Sign Conquer." In A.D. 313 Constanine pronounced his Edict of Toleration, this gave Christians and all others the right to follow any religion they choose. Constantine went on to favour Christians filling positions of office with Christians, exempting ministers from tax and military service and made Christianity the religion of his court. In A.D. 325 he exhorted his subjects to embrace Christianity, moved his capital to Byzantium and called it Constantinople, "New Rome", Capital of the New Christian Empire. Theodosius later took this one step further and made Christianity the State religion and made membership compulsory.

Previous to Constantine Christians suffered horrible persecution and scriptures were routinely burned in the city centre. Constantine put an end to this and gave us the Canon of scripture we have today known as the Bible. The man Constantine commissioned to decide the selection of scriptures that would make up the canon was Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, a man Constantine had appointed as his chief religious advisor. These two men (one if you are gullible enough to believe that Constantine did not use Christianity as a method to control and expand his kingdom) decided on the books that Christians would go on to accept were the complete and absolute word of God, and one of these own account of his conversion is in opposition to the teachings of the New Testament.

*Which books to choose, some problems*

History records that Eusebius divided scripture into four groups when deciding which books to include,

1. Universally accepted
2. Disputed
3. Spurious
4. Forgeries of Heretics

Among the disputed books we find II Peter, this is the book most commonly accused of being a forgery in the Bible, some of the main reasons for this include the unique writing style and the fact that the book references material written after Peters death. It needs to be noted that II Peter is among the most if not the most important book in the new Testament as it is the book that validates Paul's Christianity. 

It is impossible to get modern Christianity form the Gospels and without II Peter you simply have two collections of scriptures written by two different groups in opposition to each other, the Nazarines (Jewish disciples of Christ) and Paul's group which were first named Christians in Antioch. It should also be noted the term Christian is only used twice in the Bible and was considered an insult.

It is also important to note that there are books referenced and quoted in the Bible that are not included in the Bible, for example Jude directly references the book of Enoch (a man who was so righteous he never died and simply ascended to Heaven to be at Gods side), no one questions Judes inspiration, a servant of Christ, the brother of James and the brother of Jesus. Jude obviously believed that The book of Enoch was inspired scripture, why didn't Eusebius? Read it and you will work it out. The fact is Eusebius didn't just choose books that were widely used and accepted as inspired scripture, he chose the books that would paint the picture of Christianity that he believed and wanted taught.

*Pauline Christianity, modern Christianity*

The fact is there are two groups of so called followers of Jesus in the Bible, the Nazarines (Jews) and the Christians (Pauls group), the book that unites them is II Peter. If you believe the account of the Bible then you believe that Jesus lived his life as a Jew and all his disciples lived as Jews however after Jesus completed his ministry died and rose to heaven he appeared in a vision to Saul of Tarsus (Paul) and made him the 13th Apostle and charged him to spread a new message (despite the fact that he said he wouldn't do that earlier during his ministry). Of course the other disciples of Christ were sceptical and did not accept Paul initially and even referred to him as the anti-Christ but they eventually came around and accepted Paul when Peter instructed them to do so.

The question then is, did the Nazarines ever really accept Pauls teachings? There is no evidence to support this and the evidence appears to be against it. Historically the Nazarines continued their Jewish customs long after Peters apparent exhortation and after all the writers of the New Testament died. 

According to Christian teaching to be saved from their sins these Jews would have had to accept Pauls teachings and become Christians, we know from the Gospels that Jesus was continually frustrated by his disciples who continually seemed to struggle with his Jewish teachings and stumble in their faith, obviously then if they did not convert to Pauls Christianity it either means that Jews can attain salvation and then there is more than one path or that the disciples that did not accept Pauls Gospel were not saved.

*My views and beliefs*

If one is to accept Pauls teachings then they should accept that Paul wrote in II Timothy 3:16,17 that "All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work", IMO this includes scriptures not included in the Bible and I think a good start would be those that are referred to by the so called inspired writers in the Bible.

I however do not accept Pauls teachings, I think he was most likely a Roman conspirator and his purpose was to end the Jewish Jesus movement, he eventually succeeded long after he was dead.

I believe that if one is to study the books of the Bible openly without preconceived ideas that influence their interpretation one will see two movements in the New Testament that are in opposition to each other. They will see the inconsistencies in Pauls life and see that Paul found it acceptable to use lies and deceit to protect himself and further his message.

I also believe that they will discover as I did the Bible is not infallible and that there are contradictions that can not be reconciled.

I believe that to accept that the Bible is Gods complete, infallible word for mankind one has to accept that God played a part in ensuring it was delivered as it is and therefore had a hand in the history that I discussed earlier. One also has to accept that it was in Gods wisdom that the Church of Rome (now the Catholic Church) be responsible for the selection of the books and that at the very least Eusebius was an inspired disciple of Christ. One also has to accept the possibility that Constantine may have been telling the truth about his vision and that God may have appealed to his desire for power to ensure that his message was delivered. The question then should be asked, since Constantine was raised with Christian teachings by his mother why did not God simply reveal to Constantine what he really wanted? Surely he would have been a much more effective witness for Christ.

One needs to accept that it was in Gods wisdom to choose a Church (Church of Rome) that did not accurately represent the pattern in the Bible to create the Bible when there was a Church that was much closer to that in the Bible (the group that todays Greek orthodox Church would identify with). Then as such it would be fair for some to claim that the Catholic Church was the original church and God approved.

I find it amusing that so many people in the world today see the Catholic Church as evil or wrong and yet accept the collection of scriptures that the Catholic Church originally decided they should have but not the collection that the Catholic Church use. These same people would claim that the Catholic church was never the true Church and yet carry on traditions that originated in the Catholic Church and use their scripture instead of doing as Luther instructed and abandoning anything that is not scriptural.

As I have found the Bible to be fallible I can not believe that the Bible is God given and Gods entire will for man, as I know it to be a collection of writings and accounts written by men on what authority would I decide which scriptures are God inspired? It would be no more than an educated guess and the truth is that I would have as much chance being right as following another religion. In fact I believe that logically I would have a better chance following a religion that is consistent and whos followers bear good fruit as I have not met a Bible believing Christian that does not bear bad fruit to date.

So like I said in my first post, I believe in something but I don't know what that is or if it has a will for me and if it does how can I know unless it delivers it to me. I don't subscribe to the belief that salvation is a lottery where if you pick the right religion you go to Heaven (South park flashback ), surely a God of love who is all knowing and all powerful would be able to put in place safe guards and instructions so that even though the Deceiver may try to stop man from having a relationship with God, man can still have the opportunity to know his will. 

Man does not have freedom of choice between sin and Gods will unless he knows which is which, so I try to do what is right, live and let live, I think that is better then taking a guess and based on that tell others my morality is right and all else is sin.

And I think that if I am punished just because I was unable to make the correct guess (even though I would have done the right thing if I knew what it was) then obviously God doesn't Love me.


----------



## XEN (May 24, 2008)

Jeff, you're still using circular, i.e. NON logic, not to back up any particular point you're making, but to continue to tell people who hold to faith that their answer isn't good enough for YOU. I'm almost surprised you haven't asked the old omnipotence paradox question.
Faith, while entirely misunderstood by those who so desperately try to defend it, may be the answer THEY were looking for and your input was not really required.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 24, 2008)

s7eve said:


> Stuff



Exactly. You examined the bible (A lot more in depth than i did, however  I guess going to seminary does that), and you came to the conclusion i did - it just isn't a divine work, and moreso, not a work to base your life off of.


----------



## JBroll (May 24, 2008)

urklvt said:


> Jeff, you're still using circular, i.e. NON logic, not to back up any particular point you're making, but to continue to tell people who hold to faith that their answer isn't good enough for YOU. I'm almost surprised you haven't asked the old omnipotence paradox question.
> Faith, while entirely misunderstood by those who so desperately try to defend it, may be the answer THEY were looking for and your input was not really required.



Where am I using circular logic? I'm explaining why it is I don't have faith and why I don't think their responses work.

Jeff


----------



## daybean (May 24, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Where am I using circular logic? I'm explaining why it is I don't have faith and why I don't think their responses work.
> 
> Jeff




... to make my piont. No one knows what happens after we die. and thats why we have alot of different religions and faith is a big part of it. everyone is scared to see what happens to them and we dont no shit...i wish it was a great afterlife, but no one knows.


----------



## JBroll (May 24, 2008)

My question is aimed at that. Why is your religion the one you have faith in? Why not another one, or something completely different? You have to choose what you have faith in somehow, and that's what I'm after.

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (May 24, 2008)

Kudos on all that Steve. That's very informational


----------



## Naren (May 24, 2008)

Thanks for the post, Steve.  I knew a lot of that information, but there was a lot of stuff there that I had never read about before. Good stuff.


----------



## Drew (May 24, 2008)

biggness said:


> To Drew:
> 
> I think you have the meaning behind that parable a little outta whack. The lessons of the parable of the Good Samaritan are three-fold: (1) On the one hand we are to set aside our prejudice and show love and compassion for others. (2) Our neighbor is anyone we encounter, we are all creatures of the creator and we are to love all of mankind as Jesus has taught. (3) Keeping the law in its entirety with the intent to save ourselves is an impossible task; we need a savior and this is Jesus.



You know, I'll grant you the first two; that one of the most fundamental teachnings of the Bible is the brotherhood of man and the inherent goodness in doing good deeds for thyne neighbor. However, how does "Jesus needs to be your savior" come into this? I'd love to hear you elaborate that point a bit further based on that text, because frankly I find that stance indefensible. In this particular instance, that man's "savior" was the Samaritan, who as I'd previously stated was about as close to a godless Jew as you could have found in Jesus's contemporary society.


----------



## msherman (May 24, 2008)

I am a religious beer drinker


----------



## shupe13 (May 24, 2008)

Obviously I can't give you the answers you are looking for. Your judged on what you were given and how you used it.

Jeff, as far as once having faith, but no longer. That is somthing you have to deal with. Maybe you should look for different group to worship with and reaffirm yourself. Acting _morally_ and _good acts_ I feel are one in the same and this is what the stories in the Bible show too. Not everyone was intended to pull babies out of burning buildings. Some are intended to bring happiness to others with music. Its all how you use what you have. 

urklvt, I don't feel guilt for Jesus' crucifixion. We're not supposed to. We are supposed to take into account His selfless act. When you think something is unfair think of how Jesus felt. Thats all. That thought was designed to guide us in the right direction. It is also the hardest thing for myself. I want to smash people and shit when I think I am wronged. I cant lie, but I know its not right so I rarely act on it. You work for the govt like me, except I go to other countries and bring our way of thinking in the form of pain. I'm sure some of the G men you work for, you think highly of, and others not so much. I'm sure you may see a COL or two and think "Thank God that crazy bastard doesn't run the show." Fanatics are who your beef is with, not the main stream believers.

I don't see what dancing with snakes has to do with salvation, so I don't go that route.

If you were given a chance to right all wrong and cure all illness by giving your life, would you do it?

Anyway, I don't think any less of someone who doesn't believe. I pray that one day all who don't believe will.

Lastly, I'm not qualified to discuss this matter so I'm bowing out. There are others on this site and in your communities that can give you the up and up. Oh, you guys have some nice guitars. So, if you happen to know your going _down south,_ ain't no sense in letting them burn too, so can I have them. JUST KIDDING.


----------



## biggness (May 24, 2008)

To Drew:

Jesus used that parable to show the lawyer that know matter how perfect you think you are, it is still not "good" enough for God. He making a point that even though the lawyer thought he was perfect, he still had flaws, one being that he could not confess the samaritan's name because he despised them. Which translates to him not loving his nieghbor. So what this is saying is that you can not be saved by works but only by grace.


----------



## biggness (May 24, 2008)

To Drew(again)

More elaboration:

The Parable of the Good Samaritan is precipitated by and in answer to a question posed to Jesus by a lawyer. In this case the lawyer would have been an expert in the Mosaic Law and not a court lawyer of today. The lawyers question was, And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 10:25). This question provided Jesus with an opportunity to define what His disciples relationship should be to their neighbors. The text says that the scribe (lawyer) had put the question to Jesus as a test, but the text does not indicate that there was hostility in the question. He could have simple been seeking information. The way the question was asked does however give us some insight into where the scribes heart was spiritually. He was making the assumption that man must do something to obtain eternal life. Although this could have been an opportunity for Jesus to discuss salvation issues, He chose a different course and focuses on our relationships and what it means to love.Jesus will answer the question using what is called the Socratic method; i.e. answering a question with a question, He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" (Luke 10:26). By referring to the Law, Jesus is directing the man to an authority they both would accept as truth, the Old Testament. In essence He is asking the scribe what does Scripture say about this and how does he interpret it. Jesus thus avoids an argument and puts Himself in the position of evaluating the scribes answer instead of the scribe evaluating His answer. This directs the discussion towards Jesus intended lesson. The scribe answers Jesus question by quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. This is virtually the same answer that Jesus had given to the same question in Matthew 22 and Mark 12.In verse 28, Jesus affirms that the lawyers answer is correct. Jesus reply tells the scribe that he has given an orthodox (proper Scripturally) answer, but then goes on in verse 28 to tell him that this kind of love requires more than an emotional feeling; it would also include orthodox practice as well; he would need to practice what he preached. The scribe was an educated man and realized that he could not possibly keep that law nor would he have necessarily wanted to. There would always be people in his life that he could not love. Thus he tries to limit the laws command by limiting its parameters and asked the question, who is my neighbor? The word neighbor in the Greek means someone who is near, and in the Hebrew it means someone that you have an association with. This interprets the word in a limited sense, referring to a fellow Jew and would have excluded Samaritans, Romans, and other foreigners. Jesus then gives the parable of the Good Samaritan to correct the false understanding that the scribe had of who his neighbor is, and what his duty is to his neighbor.The Parable of the Good Samaritan tells the story of a man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho and while on the way he is robbed of everything he had including his clothing, and is beaten to within an inch of his life. That road was treacherously winding and was a favorite hideout of robbers and thieves. The next character Jesus introduces into His story is a priest. He spends no time describing the priest and only tells of how he showed no love or compassion for the man by failing to help him and passing on the other side of the road so as not to get involved. If there would have been anyone who would have known Gods law of love it would have been the priest. By nature of his position he was to be a person of compassion desiring to help others. Unfortunately love was not a word for him that required action on the behalf of someone else. The next person to pass by in the parable of the Good Samaritan was a Levite, and he does exactly the same thing that the priest did; he passed by without showing any compassion. Again he would have known the law, but he also failed to show the injured man compassion.The next person to come by was the Samaritan, the one least likely to have shown compassion for the man. Samaritans were considered a low class of people by the Jews since they had intermarried with non-Jews and did not keep all the law. Therefore, Jews would have nothing to do with them. We do not know if the injured man was a Jew or Gentile, but it made no difference to the Samaritan, he did not consider the mans race or religion. The Good Samaritan saw only a person in dire need of assistance and assist him he did, above and beyond the minimum required. He would dress the mans wounds with wine (to disinfect) and oil (to sooth the pain). He put the man on his animal and took him to an inn for a time of healing and paid the innkeeper with his own money. He then went beyond common decency and told the innkeeper to take could care of the man and he would pay for any extra expenses on his return trip. The Samaritan saw his neighbor as anyone who was in need.Because the good man was a Samaritan Jesus is drawing a strong contrast between those who knew the law and those who actually followed the law in their lifestyle and conduct. Jesus now asks the lawyer if he can apply the lesson to his own life with the question, So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?" (Luke 10:36). Once again the lawyers answer is telling of his personal hardness of heart. He cannot bring himself to say the word Samaritan, he refers to the good man as he who showed mercy. His hate for the Samaritans (his neighbor) was so strong that he couldnt even address him in a proper way. Jesus then tells the lawyer to go and do likewise, meaning that he should start living what the law tells him to do.By ending the encounter in this manner Jesus is telling us to follow the Samaritans example in our own conduct; i.e. we are to show compassion and love for those we encounter in our everyday activities. We are to love others (vs. 27) regardless of their race or religion; the criteria is need. If they need and we have the supply then we are to give generously and freely, without expectation of return. This is an impossible obligation for the lawyer, and for us. We cannot always keep the law because of our human condition; our heart and desires are mostly of self and selfishness. When left to our own we do the wrong thing, failing to meet the law. We can hope that the lawyer saw this and came to the realization that there was nothing he could do to justify himself, that he needed a personal savior to atone for his lack of ability to save himself from his sins.


----------



## Xaios (May 24, 2008)

I had some people come to my house today. Jehovah's Witnesses it turned out, which is odd because I've never even heard of the JWs around here, and this isn't a big town. It was a couple women (actually, they were pretty cute). As soon as I opened the door though, they just had this aura to them, I had a feeling I knew what I was in for.

They quoted me a verse from Revelations. What was really was that they said it was from Revelations 4. It wasn't, it was Revelations 7:15-17. I pointed this out, it was an awkward moment. They then went on to say how this verse pertained to the 144,000. I disagreed, and cited verse 9.

The part that disturbed me about it is this: we obviously both believe in the same God, and yet their interpretation was so obviously incorrect, but they were still on the path trying to convert people to this.

I strongly believe that if you're going to try and minister to people, you must be well equipped for the task, and your scriptural knowledge must be strong. If not, you will delude people even more. It proves the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If someone asks you questions, and you know your knowledge is not sufficient, then you must point to someone who knows more. Apparently there are those who do not share this notion.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 24, 2008)

shupe13 said:


> Jeff, as far as once having faith, but no longer. That is somthing you have to deal with. Maybe you should look for different group to worship with and reaffirm yourself.



Are you referring to just christian groups or other religions?


----------



## shupe13 (May 24, 2008)

> Are you referring to just christian groups or other religions?


 
Me personally, a different Christian based group. Catholic, Baptist, etc.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 24, 2008)

shupe13 said:


> Me personally, a different Christian based group. Catholic, Baptist, etc.



But how do you know another religion or belief system wouldn't make him happier?


----------



## Metal Ken (May 24, 2008)

shupe13 said:


> Jeff, as far as once having faith, but no longer. That is somthing you have to deal with. Maybe you should look for different group to worship with and reaffirm yourself.



Why should he need to look to religion to reaffirm himself? Why can't he just be happy how he is?


----------



## JBroll (May 24, 2008)

My question exactly.

I looked at several sects of Christianity and a whole lot of non-Christian religions after leaving the Catholic church, and none of them worked.

Jeff


----------



## Drew (May 24, 2008)

biggness said:


> To Drew:
> 
> Jesus used that parable to show the lawyer that know matter how perfect you think you are, it is still not "good" enough for God. He making a point that even though the lawyer thought he was perfect, he still had flaws, one being that he could not confess the samaritan's name because he despised them. Which translates to him not loving his nieghbor. So what this is saying is that you can not be saved by works but only by grace.



That's a VERY tenuous interpretation, dude. A couple points:

-the text you quote below even raises the possibility that the "lawyer" was seeking information, and not challanging Jesus's knowledge. I.e - he didn't think he was "perfect," but rather was actively seeking to expand his knowledge 

Fuck. Girl I'm going out with just called. 30 second version - the "not confessing the Samaritan's name" is suspect in that it depends largely on translation - New International reads "he one who had mercy on him" wjhich strikes me as a very appropriate, not duplicitious answer at all. Additionally, the text you cite below specifically calls attention to the fact the man just may be a Gentile, and not even believe in the same God as Jesus - thus, when Jesus leads the lawyer to the answer that the man who loves his neighbor is the Samaritan and not the religious Jews, he's potentially making the point that a man who doesn't even believe in his divinity is potentially more "saved" than many who do. 

Gotta run.


----------



## JBroll (May 24, 2008)

See that? Skepticism gets you mad bitches.

Christianity?







I rest my case.

Jeff


----------



## CentaurPorn (May 24, 2008)

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion

Except


----------



## XEN (May 24, 2008)

WWCPNJD?


----------



## Zepp88 (May 24, 2008)

CentaurPorn said:


> I have nothing to contribute to this discussion
> 
> Except



I have found my new God.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (May 25, 2008)

CentaurPorn said:


> I have nothing to contribute to this discussion
> 
> Except



The god of all that is awesome...


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 25, 2008)

JBroll said:


> See that? Skepticism gets you mad bitches.
> 
> Christianity?
> 
> ...



May I ask who she is?


----------



## XEN (May 25, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> May I ask who she is?


Tammy Faye Messner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

noodles said:


> So, some innocent kid is born in the middle of nowhere Africa, never is exposed to the Christian faith, and dies of famine five years later. You're saying he goes to hell?
> 
> These sorts of views make Christianity a religion of elitism, and I hope that either you are wrong, or I never have to meet your god.


You should read revelation, it's pretty cool  and I don't really remember the scriptures from it, but it might answer the problem to your point you made here. People think revelation is crazy or not able to understand, but it's the only book in the bible that tells you exactly what it's talking about. It's really not that hard 

But I have to make 1 point, there are 2 hells people refer to, the actual Hell, lake of fire, which in the new testament is called gehenna or basically the place after everything is said and done will be tossed into as a sort of giant incinerator.

The point where people become confused is everyone talks about the 2nd one for some reason unknown to me. Anyway, the actual hell which "everyone and their brother" goes into is just basically a waiting place. It's the place where the demons are who aren't roaming the earth are located. When the final judgement takes place those who do not proclaim God as almighty, etc., etc. are then taken from hell and tossed into the lake of fire.

At least this is from what I remember. Being held for a long time isn't the nicest thing, but considering God can't even look at us because we are covered by sin, it's kind of a nice deal 


ok enough of that. I'm not a christian because people associate that with religiousity and bullshit like catholocism (sorry to offend any catholics, but stuff like baby baptism just makes me laugh so hard). Jesus called his followers disciples so that's what I call myself, also his main point was to love others and that's what I do. Sometimes I come off as some hate-deranged person or whatever, but yeah  that's my fault, lol.  

*OH!!!!!* and whenever somebody tells you something from the word but doesn't back it up with scripture (like I just did) don't take it for anything, go look it up for yourself. A lot of churches have sermons, etc. but don't provide scripture to back up anything.  forget them


----------



## Xaios (May 25, 2008)

And also, don't believe any scripture you see on any one of Fred Phelps' innumerable "God Hates..." websites. Some freaking wonky translations there. I saw this one verse there, berating "fags and jews," however when I looked up the verse in NIV (I think it was from Thessalonions), it was nothing like it. That's when hyper-right so-called christian extremism can no longer be considered Christianity, when they twist scripture like that.


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

Xaios said:


> And also, don't believe any scripture you see on any one of Fred Phelps' innumerable "God Hates..." websites. Some freaking wonky translations there. I saw this one verse there, berating "fags and jews," however when I looked up the verse in NIV (I think it was from Thessalonions), it was nothing like it. That's when hyper-right so-called christian extremism can no longer be considered Christianity, when they twist scripture like that.


those guys are pretty much the worst and do the exact opposite of what Jesus preached


----------



## Xaios (May 25, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> those guys are pretty much the worst and do the exact opposite of what Jesus preached



Agreed 100%.


----------



## shupe13 (May 25, 2008)

> ZeroSignal
> But how do you know another religion or belief system wouldn't make him happier?


 
I don't. Its is just a suggestion.



> MetalKen
> Why should he need to look to religion to reaffirm himself? Why can't he just be happy how he is?


 


> JBroll
> I looked at several sects of Christianity and a whole lot of non-Christian religions after leaving the Catholic church, and none of them worked.


 
Once again, it is just a suggestion. Start your own religion. You might get a good tax break and some face time on 60 Minutes. Then you can do what the fanatics do, adjust everything to suit your wants and needs. Hell if you're lucky you can have a shoot out with the ATF.



> D-EJ915
> ok enough of that. I'm not a christian because people associate that with religiousity and bullshit like catholocism (sorry to offend any catholics, but stuff like baby baptism just makes me laugh so hard). Jesus called his followers disciples so that's what I call myself, also his main point was to love others and that's what I do. Sometimes I come off as some hate-deranged person or whatever, but yeah  that's my fault, lol.


 
I think this 2nd hell you are refering to is called purgatory. At least that is what we Catholics and others call it. Sorry the baptism of babys makes you laugh so hard. You don't call yourself a Christian but you are a diciple. You love others because thats what Jesus taught, but don't respect them obviously, or just their _bullshit_ as you put it. No offense but that is the most fucking retarded thing said this entire thread.


----------



## JBroll (May 25, 2008)

shupe13 said:


> Once again, it is just a suggestion. Start your own religion. You might get a good tax break and some face time on 60 Minutes. Then you can do what the fanatics do, adjust everything to suit your wants and needs. Hell if you're lucky you can have a shoot out with the ATF.



Actually, I started a couple of Discordianist death cults. Fun stuff.

Jeff


----------



## shupe13 (May 25, 2008)

Right on Jeff! LOL!!


----------



## Chris (May 25, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Actually, I started a couple of Discordianist death cults. Fun stuff.
> 
> Jeff



Lounge + Legit discussion = Please don't fuck off in this thread, thanks.


----------



## JBroll (May 25, 2008)

I was responding to his suggestions. They're on my Facebook.

Jeff


----------



## Chris (May 25, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I will just shut up for once.
> Jeff



Thanks.


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

shupe13 said:


> I think this 2nd hell you are refering to is called purgatory. At least that is what we Catholics and others call it. Sorry the baptism of babys makes you laugh so hard. You don't call yourself a Christian but you are a diciple. You love others because thats what Jesus taught, but don't respect them obviously, or just their _bullshit_ as you put it. No offense but that is the most fucking retarded thing said this entire thread.



I'm not really laughing, and that was rude, sorry. My point is, there is no scriptural precedent to support that stuff. Purgatory does not exist and never has. If anything the first hell is the closest thing to it, you can't do anything to get out of it and nobody can help you in it. It's simply a waiting place for final judgement. 

I don't respect false doctrines, which is what those are.  Catholocism has the biggest amount of outright crap in it that it's just unbelievable. People bring up the crusades, those were not christian, they were catholic, and along the same lines of the tickets they sold to get people out of this "purgatory" they invented, just a way to scam people out of money. I'm sorry but I have a really low view of the "catholic church" and consider them the greatest scammers the world has ever seen. I see a lot of the "organized christian" sects this way too, mormons, etc. So I guess you could feel a bit "less" offended, but it does say in the bible that we are going to offend and be hated. 

You can do whatever you want (i.e. infant baptism, praying to mary) but it serves no purpose.


All that being said, arguing about the word is not something for us to do. The word is discerned by the holy spirit, not by our own knowledge.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 25, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> I'm not really laughing  way to take a joke. My point is, there is no scriptural precedent to support that stuff. Purgatory does not exist and never has. If anything the first hell is the closest thing to it, you can't do anything to get out of it and nobody can help you in it. It's simply a waiting place for final judgement.
> 
> I don't respect false doctrines, which is what those are.  Catholocism has the biggest amount of outright crap in it that it's just unbelievable. People bring up the crusades, those were not christian, they were catholic, and along the same lines of the tickets they sold to get people out of this "purgatory" they invented, just a way to scam people out of money. I'm sorry but I have a really low view of the "catholic church" and consider them the greatest scammers the world has ever seen.
> 
> You can do whatever you want (i.e. infant baptism, praying to mary) but it serves no purpose.



Well, how do you know its a false doctrine though? Most arguments for the bible are that its divinely inspired. Any changes catholics written to it are done by men that 'god' picked. Thus making any changes they made also diviine, right?
Read Steve's post a few pages back. The original collection of books in the bible as assembled in the compilation we now know was created by a .... Bishop. So you call Catholicism 'false doctrine', on basis of a book assembled by a catholic bishop?


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, how do you know its a false doctrine though? Most arguments for the bible are that its divinely inspired. Any changes catholics written to it are done by men that 'god' picked. Thus making any changes they made also diviine, right?
> Read Steve's post a few pages back. The original collection of books in the bible as assembled in the compilation we now know was created by a .... Bishop. So you call Catholicism 'false doctrine', on basis of a book assembled by a catholic bishop?


It's not anywhere in there is it? no. If your argument had any merit there would obviously be passages supporting everything they had done. That being said, I'm not going to talk about whomever put the books together because I've never done any research on that.

edit: I just did some quick 1-2 research and apparently the catholic church and the bible as we know it for the most part were put together around the 4th century. This was well before any of the things I'm talking about were incorporated into catholic doctrine.


----------



## Chris (May 25, 2008)

shupe13 said:


> No offense but that is the most fucking retarded thing said this entire thread.



No offense, but find a less offensive way to say that next time.


----------



## biggness (May 25, 2008)

I do not agree with catholics either. Here is a rather lengthy post you shall find interesting...

The issue concerning any church and its practices should be Is this Biblical? If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalidthere are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the lay people, whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: What does Scripture say? (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 25, 2008)

Of course there isn't. How many chapters in how many books do you see about "How i wrote this book", or "The Making Of" Chapter? Its like writing an autobiography and not finishing it cause you die, and then people saying you didn't die cause you didn't write about it ;p 



D-EJ915 said:


> edit: I just did some quick 1-2 research and apparently the catholic church and the bible as we know it for the most part were put together around the 4th century. This was well before any of the things I'm talking about were incorporated into catholic doctrine.



Right. So you're debating the validity of catholic belief on a catholic book. That's all i'm saying.


----------



## ohio_eric (May 25, 2008)

Since first post of this thread nicely asked ask for no negative posts I shall do my best to be civil here. But being a Catholic and having been on the blunt end of this Bible-thumping Catholic bashing before I will merely state that I sincerely belive that there are many roads to Heaven, not infinite but there are many. Just because something a Church teaches doesn't match up nicely with a Bible passage you found isn't that important to me. What rituals we engage in and when we get baptized and so forth are not as important as how we live as Jesus taught the best we know how. 

So please remember Justin and Jeff this is faith we are talking about. It is not science I can not prove nor disprove a thing I believe in. I believe it and take it on faith. But I do not mock those who believe differently nor scramble off to find Bible passages that I can use to be disrespectful to others. We're all in this together like it or not. Our time on this precious blue ball is far too short to be worrying about others when we have our own problems to deal with.


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Of course there isn't. How many chapters in how many books do you see about "How i wrote this book", or "The Making Of" Chapter? Its like writing an autobiography and not finishing it cause you die, and then people saying you didn't die cause you didn't write about it ;p
> 
> 
> 
> Right. So you're debating the validity of catholic belief on a catholic book. That's all i'm saying.


It's not a catholic book, it wasn't written by them and it most certainly wasn't even arranged by the same distorted christianity that catholicism is today, which was the 2nd part of my point. There are a lot of catholics who actually believe, unfortunately I don't think that's the majority (like was shown in that 75-80% of USA is christian thing that was brought up on the first page or wherever). I'm not going to go into the history of how the catholic church came to be (since I do actually know a bit about that) but it was created as a way to solidify the understandings and teachings and that was pretty much it. Very few people could read when it was created and rewriting books was excrutiating so there was no way an ordinary person could have the scriptures. The early catholic church simply took the scriptures and put it together, then disbursed it amongsth the people. What it evolved into was something totally different. I don't consider the early catholic church and what it evolved into as the same entity.



> What rituals we engage in and when we get baptized and so forth are not as important as how we live as Jesus taught the best we know how.


 I just wish people would ignore the rituals. There are only a few things Jesus really did with his disciples.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (May 25, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> Since first post of this thread nicely asked ask for no negative posts I shall do my best to be civil here. But being a Catholic and having been on the blunt end of this Bible-thumping Catholic bashing before I will merely state that I sincerely belive that there are many roads to Heaven, not infinite but there are many. Just because something a Church teaches doesn't match up nicely with a Bible passage you found isn't that important to me. What rituals we engage in and when we get baptized and so forth are not as important as how we live as Jesus taught the best we know how.
> 
> So please remember Justin and Jeff this is faith we are talking about. It is not science I can not prove nor disprove a thing I believe in. I believe it and take it on faith. But I do not mock those who believe differently nor scramble off to find Bible passages that I can use to be disrespectful to others. We're all in this together like it or not. Our time on this precious blue ball is far too short to be worrying about others when we have our own problems to deal with.




 I too am a Catholic and have been through the same condemnation for believing so. I may end up having totally missed the mark on what God is or if he even exists but I am comforted by the beliefs I hold. That is all that matters to me.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 25, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> it wasn't written by them though, and it wasn't even arranged by the same distorted christianity that catholicism is today, which was the 2nd part of my point.



You're right. It was written by a bunch of random people. And That Bishop (eusibus) had to decide which ones were divinely inspired and which ones weren't. So by that chance, there's "Valid" books out there not in the bible, and there's probably some "Invalid" ones in there, cause it was up to one man at the time to compile a coherent cannon of christian doctrine. And if the same church that compile that doctrine felt that it needed to be changed, how does that make it less valid? Does it make the current version of the constitution less valid, because the original didn't allow women to vote? And moreso, How do we know more current books aren't divinely inspired? Did god stop divinely inspiring people after the 3rd century?


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

Ken I ninja edited my post, re-read it. There's definitely stuff today that's "divinely inspired" if you wish to put it that way, but if we were to keep adding to it there would be no end. The bible as it is, is enough for us, is what they concluded, in essence.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 25, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> Ken I ninja edited my post, re-read it. There's definitely stuff today that's "divinely inspired" if you wish to put it that way, but if we were to keep adding to it there would be no end. The bible as it is, is enough for us, is what they concluded, in essence.



Why should there be and end, if its divinely inspired? If it is, it should all be coherent, all agreeing. If it were, it wouldnt matter how long it would be, cause it'd be all 100% correct. 

Look at the hindu scripture, one of the oldest religions. You see how long their scriptures are? Some sections of it, in english are 18 bible-sized books long. And that's only part of it. Hell, one section, the Mahabharata is over 100,000 verses long.


----------



## biggness (May 25, 2008)

Ohio_eric,
I am not bashing your catholic beliefs just pointing out that they are nowhere to be found biblically. Think of it this way:

You are playing "smoke on the water" but are adding some extra notes in there that don't match up with the original. I have enough compassion for you to say "hey man, you got the majority of it right but you are adding in some stuff there that doesn't belong" I would hope that you would take my advice, go back and "listen" to the original to clarify it, instead of blowing me off and saying something along the lines of "this is how I was taught so it has to be right" 

Again, I am not knocking you at all, just trying to show you some compassion and love.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 25, 2008)

biggness said:


> You are playing "smoke on the water" but are adding some extra notes in there that don't match up with the original. I have enough compassion for you to say "hey man, you got the majority of it right but you are adding in some stuff there that doesn't belong" I would hope that you would take my advice, go back and "listen" to the original to clarify it, instead of blowing me off and saying something along the lines of "this is how I was taught so it has to be right"



So you're listening to the Machine Head version of Smoke on the Water, but calling the Made In Japan Live version wrong, even though the same guy wrote it but played it different at a later date?


----------



## ohio_eric (May 25, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> So you're listening to the Machine Head version of Smoke on the Water, but calling the Made In Japan Live version wrong, even though the same guy wrote it but played it different at a later date?




Metal Ken wins the thread. 

You know Ken you have a pretty good understanding of faith for an evil mofo who has no use for it.


----------



## biggness (May 25, 2008)

That's not really what I was trying to say. 

It would be more like someone else trying to pass off the extra note version as the real and only deal.You would think that it is if you never knew/took the time to give the original a listen. That is closer to what I was trying to say. I must say, though, Metal Ken, that was a very good point.


----------



## noodles (May 25, 2008)

Unfortunately, the original is in Aeremaic and Latin. How do you trust the translation?

The bible was written by men, and edited it by men, so therefore it carries the fallacy of men. If one holds it to be infallible, then one must admit that god took action to ensure that only his word made it in. In that case, you have to realize that the concept of free will is invalid, since true freewill means that god would have to tolerate all manner of fallacies about himself to make it into the bible, thereby misleading uncountable numbers of people.


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

Yeah except the new testament was written in Greek and that's what we're discussing, not the Hebrew texts that the new stuff was added onto.


----------



## noodles (May 25, 2008)

I didn't know the apostles could read and write Greek.


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

I dunno if they personally could read and write it, but that's what the original texts were written in along with everything else during that time period.


----------



## noodles (May 25, 2008)

They couldn't. More evidence that the gospels were not written by four of the apostles, which adds more doubt to the authenticity of the events described within.


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

noodles brings into question anything that has been transcribed since the beginning of written word  I'm sorry man, but that point is so inane it's unbelievable.


----------



## Naren (May 25, 2008)

noodles said:


> I didn't know the apostles could read and write Greek.



Then you don't know enough about history. 

Currently English is the "common language" of the world. At the time of the Bible, Greek was the "common language." Before the Roman Empire took over, the Greeks had managed to spread their culture and language all over the "known world." Alexander the Great is known for building schools everywhere he went. When the Romans came, instead of forcing everyone to learn Latin, they used Greek for all of the regions they conquered so that a new commander could be posted to any region without having to learn a new language with each move.

Take a look here:

Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the Information thing to the right:



Language(s) said:


> Latin (imperial), Greek (administrative)





noodles said:


> They couldn't. More evidence that the gospels were not written by four of the apostles, which adds more doubt to the authenticity of the events described within.



Despite whether they existed or not, if they DID exist, they COULD read and write Greek perfectly fluently.

You would be disagreeing with basic history if you thought they couldn't.

Also from the "Roman Empire" wikipedia:



> Although Latin remained the official language through the fall of Rome and for some centuries after in the East, the Greek language was always the primary administrative language in the eastern provinces.[7] In fact, Greek was the most widely spoken language in the Empire, mainly owing to the larger urban centers and Greek legacy in the East. Even in the city of Rome itself Greek became the language of the educated and the elite.[8] Greek became the common language in the Church, the language of scholarship and the arts, and, to a large degree, the lingua franca for trade between provinces and with other nations. Like Latin, the language gained a dual nature with the literary language, an Attic Greek variant, existing alongside spoken language, Koine Greek, which evolved into Medieval or Byzantine Greek.[9]
> 
> By the 4th century AD Greek no longer held such dominance over Latin as it had, resulting to a great extent from the growth of the western provinces (reflected in the publication in the early 5th century AD of the Vulgate Bible, the first officially accepted Latin Bible; before this only Greek translations were accepted). As the Western Empire declined, the number of people who spoke both Greek and Latin declined as well, contributing greatly to the future East&#8211;West / Orthodox&#8211;Catholic cultural divide in Europe. Important as both languages were, today the descendants of Latin are widely spoken in many parts of the world, while the Greek dialects are limited mostly to Greece, Cyprus, and small enclaves in Turkey. To some degree this can be attributed to the fact that the western provinces fell mainly to "Latinized", Christian tribes, whereas the eastern provinces fell to Muslim Arabs and Turks for whom Greek held less cultural significance.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 25, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> noodles brings into question anything that has been transcribed since the beginning of written word  I'm sorry man, but that point is so inane it's unbelievable.



Nah, you're totally missing the point. These books are being purported to be written in a language that a majority of the people in them and who claimed to have written them, did not write. According to most scholars, most of the gospels and works of the new testament were written at minimum 15-20 years after Jesus died. Dave is citing the language thing as something to think about. Would your average carpenter and co. know greek if the lived near jerusalem? Why would they? Even if the books were written by the purported authors, there's a lot to get wrong in that time frame, through memory. Shit, even with cameras and video recording, no one agrees with how the kennedy assassination happened, even with all the eye witness accounts. 

Moreso, why shouldnt you question everything? Are you just going to blindly believe everything you read and decide you agree with and only question shit you don't agree with?


----------



## El Caco (May 25, 2008)

Many of the original authors of the books in the New Testament did not write them, that's not debated as writing was a skill that few people possessed back then, the authors would dictate the book to a writer.

The majority of the New Testament was originally written in Greek but not classic Greek but every day Greek that the people used back then, it was this discovery that led to the more liberal translations we have today.

The manuscripts were then translated into other languages, so some early manuscripts are Coptic, Syriac etc. The oldest most complete copies of the Bible we have are Greek and Latin.


----------



## noodles (May 25, 2008)

I just got a mental image of an illiterate fisherman, from a backwater village in the middle east, dictating to a scribe.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 25, 2008)

s7eve said:


> Many of the original authors of the books in the New Testament did not write them, that's not debated as writing was a skill that few people possessed back then, the authors would dictate the book to a writer.



Right, but by people 15 years or so after the 'death' of jesus? like i said above, i think that might not be the most reliable source of information. Especially when they get into word-for-word recitation of parables.


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Nah, you're totally missing the point. These books are being purported to be written in a language that a majority of the people in them and who claimed to have written them, did not write. According to most scholars, most of the gospels and works of the new testament were written at minimum 15-20 years after Jesus died. Dave is citing the language thing as something to think about. Would your average carpenter and co. know greek if the lived near jerusalem? Why would they?


Nobody argues with this, they were obviously written by other people. Paul didn't even _know_ Jesus.



metal Ken said:


> Even if the books were written by the purported authors, there's a lot to get wrong in that time frame, through memory. Shit, even with cameras and video recording, no one agrees with how the kennedy assassination happened, even with all the eye witness accounts.


Yes, but there are multiple accounts of the same events occuring and even then the stuff that's written about doesn't have such a crucial time frame or really specific details like that.



> Moreso, why shouldnt you question everything? Are you just going to blindly believe everything you read and decide you agree with and only question shit you don't agree with?


I do question a lot of stuff, especially farcifal stuff, but none of the texts were modified from the sources that were found. I really don't read the word as much as I should I guess, I get more from other stuff. (although I wouldn't really know for certain as I don't read it much, lol). Bottom line is, I'm not the best person to talk about the accuracy of the bible with as I've never studied it.


noodles said:


> I just got a mental image of an illiterate fisherman, from a backwater village in the middle east, dictating to a scribe.


I just got the same image, just of an overbearing self-righteous person posting on a forum, oh wait it was you!  I just had to, lol. 


Metal Ken said:


> Right, but by people 15 years or so after the 'death' of jesus? like i said above, i think that might not be the most reliable source of information. Especially when they get into word-for-word recitation of parables.


Yeah pretty much, but if it was divinely inspired then it would be absolutely correct  I guess this is the part where faith comes to play.


----------



## Naren (May 25, 2008)

noodles said:


> I just got a mental image of an illiterate fisherman, from a backwater village in the middle east, dictating to a scribe.



Well, assuming that they themselves couldn't write, it would be easy to find someone who could, whether a scribe or one of their educated followers.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 25, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> Yes, but there are multiple accounts of the same events occuring and even then the stuff that's written about doesn't have such a crucial time frame or really specific details like that.


Like i said, Kennedy assassination. There's multiple accounts of the same event. There's people who just accept that the truth is some dude in an office building shot the president 3 times. Then there's people who believe there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. And there's accounts, books, histories, etc. of both sides. 
Shit, there's people that try to convince me a cruise missle hit the pentagon, and that only happened 6 and a half years ago. 



D-EJ915 said:


> Yeah pretty much, but if it was divinely inspired then it would be absolutely correct  I guess this is the part where faith comes to play.


Right, and that's the part i can't buy. Cause ALL other religious texts also claim the same thing.


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 25, 2008)

The pharisees definitely would have been able to read and write.


----------



## noodles (May 25, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> The pharisees definitely would have been able to read and write.



The very same pharisees who sent Jesus off to his execution? I'm sure they would have been glad to lend a hand.


----------



## Naren (May 26, 2008)

noodles said:


> The very same pharisees who sent Jesus off to his execution? I'm sure they would have been glad to lend a hand.



 True. "Oh, the guy that we absolutely hated and spent quite some time trying to get killed? Suuuure. I'd love to help you write his life story, claiming he's the son of God."

Jesus definitely could read and probably could write (he read scripture at the temple and was believed to be constantly reading the Bible).

But all the scriptures were supposedly written after he died. And, as noodles said, the disciples were mostly fishermen who didn't seem to have the initiative to learn to write (read? Maybe, maybe not).

Anyway, if they wanted their own words written down, even if they couldn't read or write, it wouldn't have been difficult to get it done.


----------



## shupe13 (May 26, 2008)

> D-EJ915
> I just wish people would ignore the rituals. There are only a few things Jesus really did with his disciples.


 
You know, one of the greatest things the Catholic Church practices is ritualism. On any given Sunday, anywhere on earth, mass is the same. The church may look different and the people may speak different languages but the topic for that given Sunday is the same. The priest may tell a different life experience story but the biblical passages are the same. Not twisted to meet that particular group's or priest's liking, but the same. Not much has changed over the years. We haven't altered our beliefs. The church has less power than it did years ago. True, the Catholic Church had tons of money and power and I'm sure it was used to influence many and it probably wasn't good times for all. But I am amazed at the hate and resentment some have for Catholics. We all agree on loving one another right? Helping those in need? Putting others before ourselves? What happened? Did the big bad Catholic kids hold you down and pull your hair? Wow. Is this a learned response or have the Catholics personally hurt you? Amazing. 

As far as Jesus only doing a few things with His disiples. What does that mean? He didn't walk with them? He didn't explain God's love and expectations? He didn't perform miracles before them? They didn't share a last supper? He was crucified, died and buried but He didn't return to them after His ascension into heaven?

Yeah, I used the F word. I guess thats more hurtful than bashing. Bad Catholic! Bad Catholic! Guess a crusade is out then. I'll ask for forgivness tonight.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 26, 2008)

Naren said:


> Jesus definitely could read and probably could write



That just begs the question: If he wanted to get it right, why didn't he just write it down himself?


----------



## Naren (May 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> That just begs the question: If he wanted to get it right, why didn't he just write it down himself?



I'm not the person to ask since I don't believe in the existence of God or in Christianity, but I assume many Christians might say "God works in mysterious ways."


----------



## Metal Ken (May 26, 2008)

shupe13 said:


> You know, one of the greatest things the Catholic Church practices is ritualism. On any given Sunday, anywhere on earth, mass is the same. The church may look different and the people may speak different languages but the topic for that given Sunday is the same. The priest may tell a different life experience story but the biblical passages are the same. Not twisted to meet that particular group's or priest's liking, but the same. Not much has changed over the years. We haven't altered our beliefs. The church has less power than it did years ago. True, the Catholic Church had tons of money and power and I'm sure it was used to influence many and it probably wasn't good times for all. But I am amazed at the hate and resentment some have for Catholics. We all agree on loving one another right? Helping those in need? Putting others before ourselves? What happened? Did the big bad Catholic kids hold you down and pull your hair? Wow. Is this a learned response or have the Catholics personally hurt you? Amazing.



The catholic church is constantly changing. I'll argue that with you. When i defended Catholicism earlier, i was also defending that change. The creation of purgatory around the 12th century is an example of that. If the Catholic church is a group of divinely inspired guys put there by god, then why _isn't_ that change a good thing? The church has changed its mind on several issues, including evolution. Why are those changes bad?


----------



## Naren (May 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> The catholic church is constantly changing. I'll argue that with you. When i defended Catholicism earlier, i was also defending that change. The creation of purgatory around the 12th century is an example of that. If the Catholic church is a group of divinely inspired guys put there by god, then why _isn't_ that change a good thing? The church has changed its mind on several issues, including evolution. Why are those changes bad?



Some other changes that are not scriptural would be: indulgences (papers that exempt you from sin), the divinity of Mary (while the Bible indicates that she was a normal person - this was possibly borrowed from non-Christian religions of the time that had a "divine mother"), child baptism, last rites, and so on.

I'm not condemning them, because I don't believe in the protestant side of things, but I think these are reasons that the protestants sometimes criticize the catholics. My mother, for example, believes that the worship of Mary is idolotry and unscriptural. So, to her, that's a pretty serious point. She believes that there are Catholics going to heaven, because you can still be wrong on many things and get to heaven. 

The Catholic Church has changed quite a bit since it's founding. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to personal opinon.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 26, 2008)

Naren said:


> Some other changes that are not scriptural would be: indulgences (papers that exempt you from sin), the divinity of Mary (while the Bible indicates that she was a normal person - this was possibly borrowed from non-Christian religions of the time that had a "divine mother"), child baptism, last rites, and so on.
> 
> I'm not condemning them, because I don't believe in the protestant side of things, but I think these are reasons that the protestants sometimes criticize the catholics. My mother, for example, believes that the worship of Mary is idolotry and unscriptural. So, to her, that's a pretty serious point. She believes that there are Catholics going to heaven, because you can still be wrong on many things and get to heaven.
> 
> The Catholic Church has changed quite a bit since it's founding. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to personal opinon.



I'm aware. But if you accept that god gave the catholic church the authority to compile the bible and scripture to begin with, shouldn't they have the authority to revise it? That's all i'm getting at.


----------



## El Caco (May 26, 2008)

On the subject of the Church following the pattern set in the Bible.

Very, very few organised religions follow the pattern in the Bible. 

Some key points,

The Christian Church in the Bible was non-denominational, it's organisation was each local Church appointed Elders, they were the highest rank and there were no Bishops or anyone higher then them to dictate doctrine. There were no councils of elders to decide on Church doctrine, an elder of one congregation could advise another but ultimately each Elder only had responsibility for his own congregation. This meant if one congregation went off the rails it did not effect another.

No church had all the scriptures in the new testament and most had many not contained in the new testament. The early church did not follow the Bible, this means any church that relies on the Bible alone for scripture is not following the pattern that the church in the Bible followed.

There is another group in the New Testament who's pattern no one follows today, the Nazarines, these were followers of Jesus who followed the law.


It should be mentioned that many concepts that Christians claim are unique to Christianity are not and were not created by Paul or the early Church.

Baptism was performed by Jews before Christians existed.

Most Jews never believed Pauls concept of death once you sinned, the forgiveness of sins is a Biblical concept previous to Christianity, even Jesus Taught it. Most Jews believe that sin separates you from god but repentance restores your relationship, there are many Old Testament examples to support this claim.

Jews also don't believe that if you are not Jew you are going to hell, Jews believe that they are Gods chosen people and they enjoy a special relationship with God (by keeping the law) that only the Jews share however they believe that God judges Man by his works and those that are not Jew will be judged by their works. If a man is a Jew he is required to keep the law but if a man is not a Jew he is not bound by the Law but by what is right, by God first and by the Jews second here on earth, so technically it is easier for a non Jew to be judged righteous.

IMO when Jesus taught against tradition I believe he was also teaching against organised religion. In his day the Jewish "religion" was just as corrupt as the Catholic church is today yet Jesus was still a Jew. John also taught against the organisation yet he was a Priest. 

I think it is important to come back to the Golden Rule, the most important teaching contained in the Bible is love, not scripture, not law. Even Paul emphasised this. If you don't have love, as the Samaritan did (one who didn't follow the entire law), you don't have anything. It does not matter what pattern you follow or what scriptures you think are the right ones to be reading, it doesn't matter if you accept Jesus as your personal saviour, it doesn't matter if you are baptised, if you do not have love you are empty, if you don't have love you don't have the spirit, if you don't have love you are not one of Jesus' deciples and you are not Gods.

I know of a church who believe that the Bible is Gods divine and complete will for man, they follow the pattern of the church in the Bible, they do not believe in adding anything to it or taking away anything from it, they do not even have instrumental music in worship as it is not found in the New Testament. This church had about $100,000 in the bank that was to be put into obtaining and paying the wage of a new full time preacher as their former full time preacher had retired and the one he was training was/had fallen away (me). The money could also be allocated to helping those Christians in need and anything else that was authorised by the New Testament. A need for assistance due to tragedy arose and it was suggested that some of that money be used to assist those that were in need, the problem is that those in need were not Christians and as the New Testament does not give authority for charity to non believers it was decided that the Church had no authority to give funds to that need and would not be doing Gods will but mans. See you can follow exactly what the Bible says and still miss the point, love.


----------



## Naren (May 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> I'm aware. But if you accept that god gave the catholic church the authority to compile the bible and scripture to begin with, shouldn't they have the authority to revise it? That's all i'm getting at.



There's a verse in Revelation that says "Let no man add or take away from this scripture" and says something about anyone who does being condemned to Hell or something like that.

That's part of the reasoning behind the bible being the unerring word of God and revision being completely wrong. And some people who aren't very intelligent use that as reasoning for saying that the King James translation is the only valid translation and don't accept the NIV (they seem to forget that the KJ is a TRANSLATION from the Greek and Hebrew).


----------



## Metal Ken (May 26, 2008)

Naren said:


> There's a verse in Revelation that says "Let no man add or take away from this scripture" and says something about anyone who does being condemned to Hell or something like that.



wasn't that only pertaining to revelation, though? (i'm not sure actually )


----------



## Naren (May 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> wasn't that only pertaining to revelation, though? (i'm not sure actually )



You could interpret it that way, but most people extend that to all scriptures.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 26, 2008)

Naren said:


> You could interpret it that way, but most people extend that to all scriptures.



Well, i mean, if revelation was written on its own, and then compiled like the rest of the bible, that'd be the interpretation i'd go with.


----------



## Naren (May 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, i mean, if revelation was written on its own, and then compiled like the rest of the bible, that'd be the interpretation i'd go with.



Good point. However, most people think that the Bible was written as different parts of a whole and that Revelation was written on its own to be part of the Bible.

That's probably why people interpret it the way they do.


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 26, 2008)

revelation is definitely different than the rest of the bible. Like I said in an earlier post, it's the only one which explains what it's talking about. In fact it says in the opening passage that the reader is blessed and so are those who hear it.


----------



## El Caco (May 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Right, but by people 15 years or so after the 'death' of jesus? like i said above, i think that might not be the most reliable source of information. Especially when they get into word-for-word recitation of parables.



Exactly, this is why the there are contradictions. 3 out of 4 Gospels tell the story of the Cock crowing and they all tell it differently, at most only 1 can be correct. 

If you bring that up to a Christian they will point out that it's just details, it is not important, because it was written by men who make mistakes, they will go on to ask for a contradiction in teaching. My point is if the Bible is to be taken as Gods infallible word then the details are important, if you can't trust someone to get the details right then how can you trust them with the important stuff. The fact is you are getting a mans interpretation of what he remembers he had seen or heard. As far as contradictions of teaching, why are there so many religions, it's because there are so many contradictions and different people reconcile the differences differently, of course there are no contradictions in teaching once someone tells you that you don't know how to read and they will show you how that should be interpreted.



D-EJ915 said:


> The pharisees definitely would have been able to read and write.



Paul claimed to be a Pharisee and apparently his writing was crap, good thing his best mate was Luke.



Naren said:


> Jesus definitely could read and probably could write (he read scripture at the temple and was believed to be constantly reading the Bible).
> 
> But all the scriptures were supposedly written after he died. And, as noodles said, the disciples were mostly fishermen who didn't seem to have the initiative to learn to write (read? Maybe, maybe not).
> 
> Anyway, if they wanted their own words written down, even if they couldn't read or write, it wouldn't have been difficult to get it done.



Jesus obviously could but had no need as according to John he was the word of God manifested as flesh.



Metal Ken said:


> wasn't that only pertaining to revelation, though? (i'm not sure actually )



Yes



Metal Ken said:


> Well, i mean, if revelation was written on its own, and then compiled like the rest of the bible, that'd be the interpretation i'd go with.



And you would be correct.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 26, 2008)

For some reason i didnt see your post on the previous page until just now. I really like reading your posts on things biblically-related.


----------



## El Caco (May 26, 2008)




----------



## DaemonSvek (May 27, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> I too, like boober, was raised on it. And that was more than enough for me. Difference between me and him is that i'm a spiteful motherfucker.





thats the same with me right on the dot. i'm no satanist but i hold my youth of misery against them...fuck catholacism cause if all that shits true i'd rather reign in hell than be a whore in heaven


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

CaptainD00M said:


> I'm not attacking science...  i finish my post by saying 'Many Paths, same Goal' something i really believe and happens to include Science.


Still, you are lumping science in with a faith. Science is not a faith, it really isn't. If it was, what would you call a religious scientist? Someone who's hedging their bets on the afterlife, or a religious flipflopper or someone who just plain can't make up their mind? They are exclusive really untill proven to be not. By hedging the "scientist may prove an existance of a higher power" bet, you're lumping an OBJECTIVE methodology (science) into a SUBJECTIVE view (faith)



CaptainD00M said:


> Second, you prove my point... Science require faith in something, Math, Physics, That Atoms, Logic... If your arguing tangibility then in wouldnt talk in terms of Logic, or math... these things are not physical and they were create by a species that is noticeably illogical...They also require to believe in their effectiveness.


 Actually, no. This is the excuse used by people that don't understand math, have never taken it past simple addition,subtraction,division and maybe in some people's cases algebra. You don't believe in math, any statement like this, and no offense, just implies a great deal of ignorance or an underlying fear of something that is hated worldwide in every classroom. You need proof in math, and some of them are amazingly convoluted, hard to follow, but eventually come right back down to logic and counting. THose squiggly symbols? All methodologies to represent what would otherwise be a quite horribly long calculation. Please go study maths to degree level in an engineering field at least before you make a quite frankly ridiculous statement that math is a faith.

Then, logic, man, seriously, logic is a faith, something that must be wrong because it's construed by an illogical species? You've already made a blanket statement there without any proof which then flaws the rest of your argument significantly. Logic is a mathematical discipline, based on the base of something either being true, or false as a state. Everything then flows from that. It's not faith, it's not a massive assumption, it all requires firm proof coming of the basic, if something is not true, then it is false. 

Physics (which includes atom physics, so "That Atoms" as you put it isn't another discipline, and don't forget Biology, Chemistry, Biochemistry and all the other disciplines and cross disciplines either) is based of physical objective observation, with then math underpinning it and then used to explain and reproduce natural phenomina. 



CaptainD00M said:


> Your basing your argument on the idea that science is less subjective than 'feeling' that something larger is there, or that humanity is not just the mind.
> Also the ego of which I speak is the one that Easter Philosophy refers to, its far to lengthy a subject, buy Im happy to recommend some books if you wish to 'know your enemy' better.



Science is objective. A scientific approach doesn't rely on emotion, it does not rely on assumptions that do not hold weight or are tenuous. It is not a feeling that something larger is out there, it's wanting to know how everything works, in a way it's a rigorous proof version of a philosophical approach based on experimentation. Whilst this methodology does share similarities with a wanting for spiritual enlightenment, it is solely the desire to better understand the world that drives it, without any extra baggage of concepts that are assumptions that aren't watertight (at best).



CaptainD00M said:


> I'm not bitter at all about science, i welcome science's discoveries, without it i would not have tension and compression calculations and would not know more about correct string gauges for my guitar, would not have this computer to debate the pro's and cons of religion with you and others etc...


 You'd not have cars, plastics, calculators, microwaves, air travel (now, air travel would be fairly difficult without the mathematical transforms used for aerodynamic wing design, ie the shape of a wing, interestingly enough, is derived by transform from a unit circle), and pretty much every bit of technology you touch is all based on physical properties of materials and the use of the disciplines you kind of rubbish as being subjective. Now, if they were subjective then all these devices would work differently for everyone depending on their opinions, ergo, subjective. Seeing as me thinking that a plane is dinosaur powered, versus you feeling it is suspended by wires on an invisible train track does not change how a plane works (to make a ludicrous example) I'd have to completely disagree with anyone who even decides that "science" (which just seems to be a term for everything people cannot understand or refuse to, because, it's hard, not easy, and requires use of the grey mass for things other than the "E entertainment channel" and other brain rot) is subjective in any way.



CaptainD00M said:


> Futher more, you dont know explicity what I happen to Believe, so how do you know that my belief's dont 'stand up to observation'. Observation is very very subjective, as is reality you only have to look at someone who's color blind for proof that perception is not unanimous.


 I really couldn't care less about someone elses beliefs, as long as they quite happily draw the line between their beliefs which are in the realm of the subjective, and the world of the measurable and observable. Both can coexist quite happily side by side, just don't go doing cross polinating with the intention of making one discipline a subjective one, or those planes will start dropping out of the sky, which I wouldn't appreciate much thank you very much 



CaptainD00M said:


> Also, science hasnt YET proved that some higher power exists, or whatever... its only had about 300 years, theres still time yet, and with discoveries being made daily who knows?


 Can't prove, there you go. Maybe after 300 years the reverse would be true that if you're still trying and haven't got any closer (not aimed at you, but for some people those pesky dinosaurs seem to be a fairly large setback, I am still not convinced by their counter argument) to proving it, or found more clues, then I'd say it's a fairly dead end.



CaptainD00M said:


> The irony in this is that your reaction is just as Knee Jerk as some of the Christians you seem to deplore.
> Naren, i would hope that someone pro science would relish someone who is openly spiritual endorsing science, it seams it makes a change from most attitudes that are being discussed by 'people like me'.
> 
> Peace
> CD


Actually, no, my reaction is more one of complete "head in hands and sighing" at some peoples stances. Endorsing science is not like supporting a political candidate, it's fairly ludicrous imagining someone waking up and suddenly deciding, yeah, that science shit looks good. Endorsing science? How about putting in a way that doesn't sound completely condescending? 

While the stance is nowhere near as infuriating as the wonderful people that believe the sun revolves around the earth, and fear sailing off the edge, or those that fear anything that involves their beliefs being questioned, it is quizzical in a way that you choose to endorse what you seem to view as another strain of a faith, belief or path to a spiritual enlightenment.

I am not saying anyone is worong, should be hanged tried or rubbished for having spirituality, or some belief in something, but I do find it just absolutely incredible that even in a world where we are supposed to be enlightened with knowledge that an increasingly larger amount of the population just does not know very basic priniples due to a dumbed down education system and a laziness fostered through the blanket of technology that enshrouds them, and a standard of living unimaginable a century ago. THis lack of knowledge then slowly transforms into a fear, fear of the unknown, the supposedly inexplicable, people are scared of what they do not understand, and scared of understanding things that contradict their current thinking. And as such "endorsing" something is tantamount to viewing the science and technology as a doctorine, philosophy, religion if you will.

Going off on a tangent, it really does seem to me that people are increasingly becoming detached from anything related to science in a way where it is like a witch hunt. Burn the scientist! Science is such a filthy word. Tell most people that there's a DiHydrogenOxide leak outside their house and they'll freak out. Tell them it's a waterleak and they'll not bat an eyelid, which just demonstrates science is seen as this great immoral monster that is out to crush humanity, poison your kids, destroy their brains through the advent of wiFi (yes, mothers against wifi, but they still think it's a good idea for kids to have mobile phones, but I forgot, that scare passed long time ago, they're no longer worried about them cooking your brain). It's all part of this current and increasing trend of fearmongering, keep the population scared (it used to be nuclear holocaust, the russians, now it's terrorism, how prophetic 1984 is now).

I'll stop now, but all this just plain infuriates the self. No spiritual enlightenment and balance for me for a while...


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

Drew said:


> There's a WORLD of difference between philosophical Taoism and religious Taoism. The latter is new age crap (IMO), the former is actually pretty interesting stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> See above comment on how Taoist philosophy and the "religion" it spawned are VERY different things. Try to hunt down a good copy of the Chuang-tzu or (and this may be trickier, as so many of them are pretty new-age-y) the Tao te Ching. If it helps, I don't remember the translator of the one I had, but it was based upon a newly discovered, significantly older scroll than many of the existing translations, and the translator made the argument that it was perhaps best described as a political text.


Philosophy rather than religion. Philosophy is always interesting, as it does employ a lot of scientific principles in the form of arguments, and steps to go from one place to another to explain it's concept. It's one of those things I really would have enjoyed doing more of.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> And the problem with Pascal's Wager at the end of your posts are as such:
> You assume you're worshipping the right god.
> I like the alternate version better:
> "You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him."


Post of the thread. +rep


----------



## Nick (May 27, 2008)

biggness said:


> I know without a doubt that there is a God. Everything in this world lines up and matches to perfect not to be. From the sun feeding our plants that make oxygen which we breathe, to how we process oxygen. Just think how awesome every function in the human body supports another function and tell me that was all by chance. No way. I like to think of it like this:
> 
> "Hunger proves the existence of food."



never saw this post before holy shit!

Youl find your body works the way it does due to genetic mutations being selected for and so the reason things work is because when something mutates and happens to work well the organism with the mutation gets to pass on its genes to lots of offspring the said genes then become the norm until another mutation that works even better replaces them.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

biggness said:


> I know without a doubt that there is a God. Everything in this world lines up and matches to perfect not to be. From the sun feeding our plants that make oxygen which we breathe, to how we process oxygen. Just think how awesome every function in the human body supports another function and tell me that was all by chance.


No, evolution, creatures have evolved by necessity and in order to adapt. Life is a strange strange concept, with the conciousness being the main sticking point, and the brain, the full evolution of thought, which is always a strange one to go and think about. However, physically we have adapted towards this balance, that's evolution in play. If the world was more watery there's a good chancethe best evolut8ionary step may have been to have developed webbed feet for better being able to hunt fish underwater, and ability to breathe both oxygen from the air, and be able to extract it from underwater.



biggness said:


> No way. I like to think of it like this:
> 
> "Hunger proves the existence of food."


Actually, no. I think you'll find that hunger is a biological mechanism to warn the physical being of a need to consume a form of energy required to keep physical functions running. Whether this energy be retrieved from sugars, carbohydrates, fat, the sun or a myriad of other chemical reactions. 



JBroll said:


> Tell me why God designed us to be horribly inefficient. Tell me why so many people are nearsighted, why so much of our genetic material is junk, why children are born with diseases that'll kill them before they know what it means to exist. No, our body is the biological equivalent of a hack job that barely got a passing grade, as is all life on the planet. It doesn't take design to have simple things that adapt and improve.
> 
> And how did this God come about? Did it need to be created? If it did, as one would expect of such a powerful and intelligent creator, you have an infinite regression of even more powerful deities and you've answered nothing. If it did not, then you have an even more complex being than our life systems and you've complicated matters greatly without answering anything.
> 
> ...





biggness said:


> Not once does the bible state that everything in life is hunky dory. In fact, quite the opposite, hence trials and tribulations. You are telling me that you are not amazed at how your body sustains and repairs itself?
> 
> God was there from the beginning. That is why He is called God, not "dude who created stuff" Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it does not exist. You have to have a "child like" faith and the man that think he the wise is the fool.
> 
> I will continue to live my life worshipping God, if I was wrong and there is no God, heaven or hell, worst thing that happens is, well, nothing. You on the other hand if you are wrong have quite a bit to be worried about. Eternity is a looong time. Think how long you have been alive. Seems like forever huh? Not even close to touching eternity.


You know what, the eternity in hell and damnation clap trap has to be the best doctorine and fear mongering ever invented. THe best way to keep people inline. I don't mind religion, I don't mind faith, but stuff like this is really just the dark ages revisited. Also, it kind of means a hell of a lot of non-christians are in the same boat. I bet we'll have a good time laughing about our erronous ways if it all proves to be true. I'll have a laugh with all the buddhists, taoists, muslims, treeworshippers, the romans, greeks, all those who worship false idols...

I am not going to convince you it's all claptrap, but at the same time, waving a stick made of fire and brimstone that reeks of sulphur is not the best way of endearing a religion to me...



biggness said:


> Though this sounds good and all,(and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs , a la' "free will") I don't really agree with it all. My faith is rooted in salvation. You can be as good as you as you possibly be but if you don't have Jesus as your saviour, it really doesn't matter. You hear people say all the time "Oh he was a good ol boy, he would give you the shirt off his back" If the good ol boy wasn't saved, all that tells me is he went to hell without a shirt. In my faith you are not saved by works, but by grace. I would recommend a book called "How good is good enough" for some helpful insight into this. Again, everyone can have their own beliefs and that is mine. Not everyone will be saved but I can at least help and point them in the right direction. It is totally up to them what they decide to do.


Well, fat lot of good god did creating man then, as last time i looked all the other religions that don't have jesus christ as their savious significantly outnumber those that do. Be a bit of a bitch as a supreme being (or a wicked sense of humour) to damn the vast majority of your creations to a life of fiery hell and brimstone for all eternity just because they weren't born in the right religious zip code...


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

biggness said:


> No it doesn't mean that. To have Jesus as your saviour you have to repent for your sins and ask for forgiveness and then live your life accordingly. If you say that Jesus is your saviour and there is no distinction between the "before and after" then you were never saved to begin with. You just went through the motions. If I stole from you and asked for forgiveness but kept on stealing after you forgave me then I was never truly sorry. Take the theif on the cross behind Jesus. Lived a horrible life up until he asked for forgiveness. Though he died a short time later, his life after forgiveness and up until his death was for worshipping Christ. No one knows how long there life is.


That's more a moral guide really, with a lot of exclusion caluses. You could apply this to the simple moral of not fucking with anyone elses shit, and if you do, then make ammends. I'd say that's more a way of having no regrets in life. Depends how you word it, in one case it's a basis for a belief in a deity, worded differently it's a life philosophy. But, seeing as I am going to hell anyways I'll probably see noodles and Metal Ken there. I hope they do good beer.



biggness said:


> To noodles, the bible says it only applies to those that have heard the word of God. If he hasn't heard it, he hasn't heard it. He is in the same as children and the mentally handicapped.


I like how they're both lumped in together. But this actually is some of the funniest shit I've heard for a while. What happens if you have heard the word of a different god? Does that just mean you're fucked?


----------



## Naren (May 27, 2008)

I  you, James.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

biggness said:


> Correct sir. People may go through life never hearing the word. The bible says you will be judged on your knowledge and what you did with it. This isn't referring to scholastic knowledge either. It is if you heard about Jesus and acting upon the word or decided to blow it off as absurd. If you never had a chance to hear anything about Jesus, then God will take this into account, like a loving, caring Father. By you reading this you have been presented with the word...


Good. I am quite happy I have been presented with my writ, hand delivered telling me I am damned for eternity. I'll see a fair few people from this thread down there. 

I find it absolutely absurd how one divine being could be so malignent, and with contradiction send his only son down to be scarificed for the sins of mankind, to preach forgiveness, and then ends spawning a load of people who use his name to exclude, damn and push morality onto other people, that's not forgiveness, it's more like terrorism (which, apparently, only muslims do, especially seeing as they at best see jesus as a prophet, and no, those lovable irish weren't terrorists, they were the IRA freedom front, as no catholic could ever be equated to a muslim...)


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

biggness said:


> To Drew:
> 
> Jesus used that parable to show the lawyer that know matter how perfect you think you are, it is still not "good" enough for God. He making a point that even though the lawyer thought he was perfect, he still had flaws, one being that he could not confess the samaritan's name because he despised them. Which translates to him not loving his nieghbor. So what this is saying is that you can not be saved by works but only by grace.


It's a well known fact lawyers are all the spawn of satan. The gradient of how much depends on your clients.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

Naren said:


> I  you, James.


I really tried staying away from this thread, but just snapped


----------



## Naren (May 27, 2008)

7 Dying Trees said:


> I really tried staying away from this thread, but just snapped



You said everything that I tried to say but couldn't and you said everything that I wanted to say but didn't. 

Just so you know, I agree with everything you said 100%. 110% if that's possible.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 27, 2008)

Naren said:


> 110% if that's possible.



I don't know if that's mathematically or scientifically possible, but I have faith that it is.


----------



## dpm (May 27, 2008)

James... seriously.... BRAVO!

I too have been avoiding posting in this thread, but reading along with a mix of admiration, revulsion, and a few giggles thrown in for good measure.

I'm not going to bother saying too much, as 7DT, Noodles, Naren, JBroll, Metal Ken and a few others have said it for me. I suppose a summary might be in order though, so.... religions disgust me, but personal beliefs are OK by me providing they're kept that way. I still get very angry about being preached at, but on the whole try not to let it get to me. I do find myself getting very concerned about what seems to be a regression of our society to the bad old days, at a time when so much (genuine, provable) knowledge is so readily available to anyone who cares to take the time to learn. Is this the result of a society that recieves everything prepackaged with no inkling of what's going on inside? Fucked if I know. Stay in line, don't rock the boat, and buy what you're sold.


----------



## zimbloth (May 27, 2008)

Epic rants James, well said.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

dpm said:


> James... seriously.... BRAVO!
> 
> I too have been avoiding posting in this thread, but reading along with a mix of admiration, revulsion, and a few giggles thrown in for good measure.
> 
> I'm not going to bother saying too much, as 7DT, Noodles, Naren, JBroll, Metal Ken and a few others have said it for me. I suppose a summary might be in order though, so.... religions disgust me, but personal beliefs are OK by me providing they're kept that way. I still get very angry about being preached at, but on the whole try not to let it get to me. I do find myself getting very concerned about what seems to be a regression of our society to the bad old days, at a time when so much (genuine, provable) knowledge is so readily available to anyone who cares to take the time to learn. Is this the result of a society that recieves everything prepackaged with no inkling of what's going on inside? Fucked if I know. Stay in line, don't rock the boat, and buy what you're sold.


It is, i genuinely get the feeling that these days most people don't know hardly anything anymore. I find people's lack of mathematical ability appalling (I mean, I am talking basic addition, subtraction and multiplication here, you, stuff that is usefull in day to day life, such as figuring out how much money you owe, how much you can pay back per month, and how interest rates will affect you, it's all part of the majority of people's lives and not very hard at all)

people don't know how it works, they don't know that taking loads of antibiotics strengthens bacteria's resistance to them, that they are becoming less effective, they don't understand the pills they're popping back, how they generally work and why you should try to avoid making your body reliant on an extra dose of chemicals lest it actually stops produsicing them as it sees no need, they don't understand how trees make oxygen, or even that plants even do this in the first place. If I said photosynthesis to some people I'd be met with a blank stare, some people don't understand menstrual cycles, don't understand why they keep on popping out these balls of flesh, have no idea how contraception works, people have no idea how to make bread, cook for themselves, people have no idea how to analyze news, find out the other side of the story and question what the media feeds you as by and large it is all biased.

People do not understand technology, i wouldn't expect anyone to know the internal low level workings of a transistor, how holes and electrons flow from hole rich to electron rich infused silicon via electrical current (transistor amp-lification) or that mosfet transistors work on the principle of applying a voltage across a channel made within silicon that then controls an electron flow across it. How people have no idea of simple physics, simple chemistry, and how people just look at anyone with this knowledge as some sad "boffin", "nerd" or strange scary alien creature that obviously has no life.

Hardly anyone would know the basics of how the combustion engine works, the difference between fission and fusion, how a plane flies, how a microwave works and why it's not wise to try and dry your dog in it, how a computer works, a mobile phone, in fact hardly anything... It's just seen as a device that does something, how it does it, it doesn't matter, let's just laugh at those nerds over there as they aren't the cool kids with the cool gadgets, lets just be oblivious to our relentless march, hell, lets just discount global warming as a theory concocted by a bunch of retarded hippies that want us to stop driving SUV's and trucks that consume a shitload of petrol just so we can big ourselves up driving an inneficient penis extension (oh, but don't forget that our fat, underexcercised kids will be safer in them, especially with the 2 mile looooooong journey to school, nevermind that hitting someone elses kid with it, at the height of their head and all internal organs means a pretty much assured death, but, i suppose that's ok, as the SUV makes me look more affluent), that oil will never run out, man, the list is just endless...

How people are obsessed with celebrity, with vacuous human shells who have done nothing, will never do anything, and release sex tapes of them getting a good anal rimming to promote their new waste of paper novel, their rubbish film appearance. I swear this shit solely exists to blanket people into thinking that hey, everything will be allright, that they don't have to try, they don't have to constantly try to better themselves, as they have 1000 TV channels, and a character on second life that is doing what they wish they had.

And then, on top of that, a whole bunch of people, who use all this amazing stuff, rely on the medical system to keep them alive well after they should have naturally died, rely on the things that objective, constructed thought has given them, then come along and start trying to halt the progress, the technology they are reliant on as it scares them solely because they have never opened a book that started with anything other than "in the beginning there was..." and read it seriously. People who have no desire to question, to ask why, to question their beliefs or anything.

ANd yes, i believe everyone should question, not just follow blindly, if you come out the other side with a stronger faith, then it's been an excercise in strengethening your belief, but learning a hell of a lot along the way, if you come out without it, then that is just another path of enlightenment.

However, if you never try, and just sit there taking a book, or someones sermon, or even a book on electromagnetics, evolution, philosophy, religion, new age numerology, on pure "that's just how it is" without looking at the underlying principles and questioning it then you are doing yourself, and everyone around you a disservice.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 27, 2008)

Well I agree with you to a point. I don't think everyone needs a science degree to not be a dipshit. I mean politics, economics, and a lot of science is just way over my head. I do okay with math, and I'm a computer geek so I'm sure you're not talking about people like me, but still.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Well I agree with you to a point. I don't think everyone needs a science degree to not be a dipshit. I mean politics, economics, and a lot of science is just way over my head. I do okay with math, and I'm a computer geek so I'm sure you're not talking about people like me, but still.


It's not that, i don't expect everyone to have a degree, honest, it's all about whether you strive to actually think, use the gray mass inside ones head, to actually sit down and think, hey, wait a sec, something is fishy here, something's not quite right.

It's more about just not fearing something just because you don't understand it, or moreso going off to question the people that created it for you using principles rooted in observation, and then go off an lambast them for even thinking that such an approach could be sane, and accusing them of subjectivity.

I know not everyone gets science, gets math, understands chemistry, but these people are more likely to be better at other things, have different skills. 

It's more about the general fear of wanting to find out, wanting to know and about making your won rational informed decisions, whether it be on a religious stance or otherwise. 

You simply cannot expect to claim something and believe in a fact without having looked at the other side first, and that is what I am getting at really. Some people don't want to understand, or don't care too much, as long as it works, and everything is a building block really, much like lego, and the universe as a whole.

Now, I don't expect everyone to have a degree, or understand this stuff, but at the same time, I don't really take seriously anyone who argues a point without having looked at both sides of the equation and given a firmly balanced view where they can counter-argue and argue and build upon the observations within "the enemies" ideas or observation. This is true for any debate, as it is true for proving a scientific theorem.


----------



## Nick (May 27, 2008)

i agree that metal kens post was epic.

Iv come across far too many 'christians' who have said 'dont you think it would be a better idea to just believe in god just in case cos if your wrong you dont really lose out'

To them i say, if your right, i'll see you in hell.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 27, 2008)

The other thing i was trying ot get at is that mainly people just don't think of what they are doing, don't care, someone is telling them it's all going to be ok, whilst, really, at the end of the day, by sitting there and not looking at the bigger picture they are ensuring an apathetic response to problems that only worsens them. I don't really want to go off into climate change, the prevelance of increasing natural disasters and such, it's not the place for it, and i've possibly strayed off tack quite enough already...


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 27, 2008)

7 Dying Trees said:


> ...i've possibly strayed off tack quite enough already...



Not really.  I think you've been right on the ball the whole time and you should keep going.

I'm interested to see the responses though... 

Bravo, by the way.


----------



## dpm (May 27, 2008)

Well, politics is a very different thing to science, though it has enormous repercussions within science  Economics I don't get either, if you're talking about stock trading and all that.

For me.... I suppose electronics would be the best way to explain... I have books on electronics, lots of formulae etc, but I can't just read something like that and grasp it entirely like some people can. I'm hands-on, I need to do something, manipulate something, after which I can understand the theory behind it. So I can read a whole bunch of stuff about modding amps, pedals, whatever, and I kind of get it, then I sit down with the real deal in front of me and start experimenting and that's when what I've read comes together in my mind. There's other people who can read the theory and seemingly understand things just from that, but perhaps they suck at putting into practice (I know a lot of musicians suffer from that ). What I'm trying to say is that people learn in different ways, and people have abilities in different areas which, as a species, makes a whole lot of sense as those abilities will be complementary in a group situation (aka society). The important thing is to have the desire and will to at least _try_ to understand how things work, the cause and effect, because this is vital to our survival as a species. Like James says, with a little understanding of how antibiotics work it's easy to see how fucking dangerous they are, and with that knowledge you can make an informed decision (in consultation with your doctor) about whether you really need to be using one for a given infection.

EDIT: woops, a few replies since JJ's


----------



## Drew (May 27, 2008)

JBroll said:


> See that? Skepticism gets you mad bitches.



 

Biggness, I'm not going to even try to continue this conversation until you 1.) stop copying and pasting other people's arguments, and 2.) discover paragraph structure. Seriously man, even _my _eyes glaze over whenever I see one of thos long blocks of text.


----------



## ohio_eric (May 27, 2008)

It's sad the way some people make science and religion out to be like oil and vinegar. Like you can't have both in your life. If Georges Lemaître was held up as an example instead of all these loud mouth creationists who ruin progress in both science and religion.


----------



## El Caco (May 27, 2008)

dpm said:


> I do find myself getting very concerned about what seems to be a regression of our society to the bad old days, at a time when so much (genuine, provable) knowledge is so readily available to anyone who cares to take the time to learn. Is this the result of a society that recieves everything prepackaged with no inkling of what's going on inside? Fucked if I know. Stay in line, don't rock the boat, and buy what you're sold.



History repeats itself, I see it as being circular, we keep swinging from one extreme to the other. But yeah it surprises me that with all the information available today how people can be so ignorant and so stupid.

That's one of the thing I really hate about organised religion, they are pushers of ignorance. All the faithful study doctrine week after week, they don't seek the truth, they don't care about true study and churches discourage good study habits they encourage studying doctrine but if you have strong faith you shouldn't need to study the rest, the history and the difficult parts and the apparent contradictions. Seriously how many Christians do you know that have read and studied the whole Bible, I know plenty of non Christians that have, why do you think they stopped believing. There is no excuse for a Christian who claims to believe that the Bible is Gods word to have not read the entire Bible, I'm married to a non-Christian who has read it 7 times. It amazes me that someone dare preach to others when they haven't studies their religion themselves, they study the same doctrine over and over but never look at the rest and when you point out a flaw in that doctrine they have no answer because they have never seen that before but they will be sure to write you off as a non believer with a hardened heart and go on to study the same doctrine over and over. The question is who has the hardened heart? I'd say it's the one that cant accept the truth and doesn't want to know the truth because ultimately it means that they have wasted all that time believing a lie and that is too hard to bear.

But it's not just religious people, as said above there are so many people who are ignorant and will believe almost anything they hear, those in positions of power love it because these people are easy to manipulate. Those in power have every form of communication covered and the majority of people will believe at least one of these. Unfortunately the majority of people want someone else to do their thinking for them, what they fail to realise is that they are not putting their faith in God they are putting their faith in man.

*Here's something for the Christians to munch on.* Luke 11:5 and following, lets just assume that the Bible is Gods word, right there God want the true seeker, yes seek and you will find but maybe not straight away, the parable encourages persistence because I tell you what if I was the Devil I would be waiting at that door to open it and give you what your heart wants and not the bread you need. If I was the Devil I would make religions for man and make it easy for him, I would teach a corrupted kind of truth and take advantage of mans laziness knowing he would rather others do the hard work and thinking for him and I would do all his thinking for him and give him exactly what he wants until I wear him down so much he stops seeking the truth altogether because I know that the God wants those that are truly searching for the truth and meditate on all his words day and night.

I only say this because if you really seek the truth you will find it, just prepare yourself as it may not be the truth you were expecting and I'm speaking from experience.


----------



## ohio_eric (May 27, 2008)

"The doors of heaven and hell are adjacent and identical." ~ Nikos Kazantzakis


----------



## Drew (May 27, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> "The doors of heaven and hell are adjacent and identical." ~ Nikos Kazantzakis



"The road to hell is paved with unbought stuffed dogs." ~ Ernest Hemingway.


----------



## msherman (May 28, 2008)

The road to Hell clearly starts in my shop atm, as there are 19 guitars to final sand, and paint


----------



## Drew (May 28, 2008)

Oh good lord.  Just kick one of those stuffed dogs for me, and let me know if it's paved with yellow bricks so I know if I'm on track.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 28, 2008)

Drew said:


> Oh good lord.  Just kick one of those stuffed dogs for me, and let me know if it's paved with yellow bricks so I know if I'm on track.



Down the left-hand highway with no sinister regrets?


----------



## Crucified (May 28, 2008)

<-- brutally satanic.


----------



## msherman (May 28, 2008)

Kevin doesn`t write any love songs


----------



## Crucified (May 29, 2008)

msherman said:


> Kevin doesn`t write any love songs




it's true, i've tried.... and failed.


----------



## Celiak (May 29, 2008)

It's easy just write about sex and change all the dirty words to synonyms of love.


----------



## arktan (May 29, 2008)

Yes, just like Cartman did in the "Christian Rock Hard"-Episode of South Park. He took just love-songs and replaced in every one of them the word "baby" with "jesus". Should also work with brutal sound...

EDIT: here's an example YouTube - southpark christian songs faith +1

Another one: YouTube - Faith + 1


----------



## Metal Ken (May 29, 2008)

Lets steer this back towards the topic at hand, This is supposed to be the more serious forum.


----------



## Chris (May 29, 2008)

This thread's done.


----------

