The World's Largest Sex Dating Site & Swinger Personals Community
 | Blogs > classyginger > Ginger Says... > The problem with faith and religion (Part 1) |
The problem with faith and religion (Part 1)
12/25/2008 5:56 am |
Dear friend Trav, I have a confession to make... I drew you into this discussion about religion and faith. I couldn’t think of anyone that I’d rather have this discussion with. There was no way that I would be able to address your comment as just a post comment. I’ll try not to make this too long but you did put a lot on the plate that requires addressing. I’m going to skip the whole “logic and reason” argument because I don’t think that I could address it any more eloquently than Thrill did. He and I are on the same page as to that. No friend unlike many atheists I have well thought out reasons for reaching my conclusion that religion is false. I do not just “dismiss” it due to lack of understanding. The difference between most atheists and theists is that we (informed atheist’s) have excepted the fact that WE DO NOT KNOW the origins of man and do not claim to know it using text and beliefs’ established by primitive men. We realize that science is learning more and more about the earth and its origins every day. We accept the fact that there are many mysteries of the world and that most of them will never be known to man. That my friend is completely different from just saying no it couldn’t be so. One can read the bible and dissect it and easily come to the conclusion that it is not factual. Unless of course you accept the argument that god defies all science and can do as he pleases and we must just believe ‒ blindly without questioning it. That is the theist’s argument and I think it is flawed and breeds ignorance. Friend, man fears death and has feared death from the begining’s of his existence. Because of this fear he seeks to find life after death. That’s mostly what this whole religion thing is all about. Man wants to believe that worshiping a deity will allow him to keep his life after death. Personally I believe that we are the most intelligent creatures on this earth but are no different than any other creature on this planet. We live and then we die. That’s it. If one does not live the one life that one has on earth to the fullest then he (she)is throwing it away. You speak of logic. Ask yourself does it really sound logical that there is some being that watches your every move and interacts with you? Why would a creator even need to do this? What would be the point? What is the point of the begging, bowing, groveling and thanking this deity for your existence? Or for the food on your table that you yourself have achieved? Most of all, this god... Particularly the god of Abraham shows himself to be repulsive and evil. I can’t sugar coat it friend! This is the same god that at one point required animal sacrifice. In his book “The God Delusion” the a British ethologist and evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins described the God of Abraham so correctly when he called him an “old jealous (and proud of it) petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” I couldn’t agree with him more. All one has to do is read the old testament in its entirety. This supposed living, loving god actually demands that one of his loyal worshipers and believers to kill his own son. Read the book of Job and see how he rewards loyalty! In fact he wants parents to go to the elders of the town and have them stone their disobedient sons to death! This all powerful god that could easily say be and it is ‒ yet in many cases he wants mere humans to do his evil dirty work for him. Christian like to say; "oh that was in the old testament. Jesus came along and changed all of that." Oh really! So we are expected to believe that this god that killed and allowed so many innocent to be killed (I’m speaking of the different occasions that this god allowed the first sons of families to be murdered) is a just and good god. For those that wish to use Jesus to water down gods evilness you only have to read Jesus’ supposed own words and you will find that he sanctioned the murder of non-believers: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me." Luke 19:27 When you read the bible and think about events like the Inquisition you have to say ‒ hey those people during the era of the inquisition were doing the right thing! They were following what the bible and what Jesus wanted… no, demanded them to do! It is the Christians of today that are the true blasphemers. They pick, choose and refuse what laws they wish to follow. According to the bible people that work and do business on the Sabbath (Sunday) should be put to death! Makes you think ‒ if there’s hell below where all gonna go... Some of the following that I have comprised here in this post comes from various books that I’ve read during my researching religion and its origins. It is my desire that we ‒ modern man, move forward and change the world by throwing away the mental chains of religion. The way to change the world is to open people's minds. As more and more people discuss the fact that "God" is completely imaginary, the world becomes a better place. The people who believe in religion begin to look sillier and sillier. Eventually, religion becomes a fringe activity that is meaningless. As I mentioned in my last post, I spent a considerable amount of time during my junior high and high school years in the Mormon faith. That faiths story goes as follows: In the beginning of the nineteenth century Joseph Smith (who was a Christian) was sitting in his room praying to God when his room became very bright, and an angel appeared and told Joe of a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in NY. Joe gets the plates, with the plates there are two special stones that help Joe translate the plates. When Joe finished translating them the angel takes the plates and they are never seen again. The Book that was translated from the plates tells of how there was an entire civilization of Jewish people that lived here in North America 2000 years ago. These people have things like enormous cities and massive army’s that fight in huge wars where millions of soldiers died. The resurrected Jesus came and visited these people. This is an amazing story isn’t it? It lacks empirical evidence yet Joes swears that it is true. Now let me ask you: do you believe this story? Of course not! Why is it so obvious to you that this story is not true? If you are a normal intelligent person you can’t believe this story. But why not? Why is it so obvious to you that this story is a fairy tale? First of all look, at the evidence. There were not millions of Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago building cities and waging wars. How do you know that? Because there is absolutely no evidence for it. There are no ruins of the cities. There are no battlefields where millions of people fought and died. It’s obvious that the book lying. Compare Joe’s story to any other fairy tale. As with most religious stories this story is full of magical things and beings. There’s the magical angel, the magical golden plates, the magical seer stones, the magical disappearance of the plates. The entire story is make believe and we all (except Mormons) know it. Millions of people including people that are in our government believe this story, they are Mormons. Still, if you ever meet a Mormon and ask them about it (just like Christians, Muslim and Jews) they will give you thousands of rationalizations why there story is true. They will try to answer every question you have and believe that they are making sense too! Imagine my dismay when after studying this delusional crap for years, then coming to the realization that Joseph Smith was nothing but another religious phony, with a false story. Now check this out: In and about the year 570 AD Muhammad idn’ Abdullah was born in Mecca. One day while sitting in his cave just like Joe there was a bright light, then an angel appeared (sound familiar?). The angel speaks to Muhammad for 11 years, then one day the angel brings Muhammad a magical horse. Muhammad mounts the horse and the horse fly’s him to heaven. Then the horse brings Muhammad back to earth. Everything that the angel told Muhammad was recorded by scribes and became the book that we know today as The Koran. Now once again I will ask: do you believe this story? Do you believe that an angel dictated the Koran to Muhammad? Do you believe that Muhammad rode a magical horse to heaven? I doubt it! You and I both know that magical flying horses are just as imaginary as Santa’s flying reindeer. Now, let’s look at the Christian story. The Christian story is just like the Mormon and Muslim story in that you are expected to believe that a magical ghost inseminates a virgin named Mary and she gives birth to a magical son named Jesus. A magical star leads people to the baby. When Jesus grows up he performs many miracles which just so happens to leave behind no evidence what’s so ever. Jesus dies and is magically resurrected. He appears before a few of HIS followers to prove that he is resurrected and then magically ascends to heaven, never to be seen again. All of this magic along with the remarkable lack of evidence makes it obvious to the rational mind that this along with the other story’s is a fairy tale. In the dictionary delusion is defined as: “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.” To the Billions of people that stand outside of the Mormon, Christian, Muslim or whatever bubble the people that live in that bubble are delusional! Funny thing about religion, the worshipers of one religion see all other religions as false and believe that people that don’t believe in their religion are somehow offending god. When one really looks at religion objectively one can’t help but to realize that what determines ones religion is mostly demographics. Where you were born on this planet. If you were born say on the other side of the planet, most likely you would be either a Buddhist or Muslim. With that in mind you’d have to say that the god of Abraham has done a pretty dismal job of getting his point across… Wouldn’t you agree? My hope in telling this story is that someone out there will open their eyes and step out of that religious bubble of delusion.
|
|||||||
12/25/2008 6:36 am |
 Rev Joe"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address." "This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."
| |||||||
12/25/2008 7:21 am |
My understanding is that most religions are based on Faith. People who believe accept this. As a non believer you clearly do not. I'm not sure there is a right/wrong in this situation as one who believes probably isn't changing his/her mind. Of course this doesn't include the few, like yourself, who've moved away from the religion of your childhood, unless there are quite a few people out there --of which I know none, who do what you did.
| |||||||
12/25/2008 8:36 am |
I 'pimped' this post to some friends I know. Here's one comment: +++ I don't believe that one can read and understand the Bible as if its a novel without help from others who are more educated on the why's. I believe its more like kids reading Shakespeare and not knowing how to interpret much of it. Some things are exactly as they appear, and some things are metaphors and similes that need interpreting. I did find it interesting; but only saw it as someone postulating on why Christianity makes no sense to him. I do find it interesting though that even many atheists will turn to God or some other being when shit hits the fan and things become very bleak. +++ Care to share your opinion on that last sentence?
| |||||||
 12/25/2008 9:06 am |
I've only read the first part of your post so far, but I'm with you. I used to be a Christian, but am now for the most part an atheist (I chose to call myself agnostic). There is a part of me that thinks there might be something "running the show," but whatever that thing ("god") is is not accurately represented by any of the worlds religions. I have more I want to say, but I have to get going, I'll post again later.  Bling: The Mystic_Writer collection. My Profile for standards to read.
| |||||||
12/25/2008 10:10 am |
'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come. And when he saw the creation which surrounds him, and the multitude of the angels around him which had come forth from him, he said to them, 'I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.' But by announcing this he indicated to the angels who attended him that there exists another God. For if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous? “We do not know whether the Unknowable One has angels or gods, or whether the One who is at rest was containing anything within himself except the stillness, which is he, lest he be diminished.” He neither participates in age nor does he participate in time. He does not receive anything from anything else. He is not diminishable, neither does he diminish anything, nor is he undiminishable. And he is One who subsists as a cause and source of Being, and an immaterial material and an innumerable number and a formless form and a shapeless shape and a powerlessness and a power and an insubstantial substance and a motionless motion and an inactive activity. This is not the God of the bible, for the God of the bible is a false God because he does not know from whence he came. This Hebrew god is the god of Islam, the god of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, he also serves as the Christian god, this is the god of religion. And they steered the people who had followed them into great troubles, by leading them astray with many deceptions (religions). They (the people) became old without having enjoyment. They died, not having found truth and without knowing the God of truth. And thus the whole creation became enslaved forever, from the foundation of the world until now. And they took women and begot children out of the darkness according to the likeness of their spirit. And they closed their hearts, and they hardened themselves through the hardness of the counterfeit spirit until now. There are those among us who seek perfect understanding, perfect knowledge of the Source of Being. Why? Why would anyone seek such knowledge and understanding to know the unknowable and once it is known–You cannot know it for it is unknowable. You cannot speak of it because it is unspeakable, you cannot teach it because it is un-teachable. The quantum world will reveal many, hitherto thought of, as secrets of the Source of Being–the quantum world of 10 dimensions, the quantum world where particles communicate with each other across the vastness of the universe instantaneously, the quantum world where time does not exist. However, this is just part of it. Knowledge of these things cannot be exchange for a gift or for food or for drink or for clothing or for any other such thing. Therefore, there can be no religion, no doctrine, which can contain it. All we can do is pass along to you, imperfect knowledge that IT exist and the recurring imperfect instruction that IT exist within you. The evolution of life on this planet from a single life source is a key to understanding; the root of your True being is beyond that single source. This god of the Hebrews, Moslems and Christians does not know the source of his being and he does exist in reality for we can see the fruits of his labor at work, war, famine, pestilence, greed, envy, self pride, etc. for whom among us is filled with more self pride than this god. There are those of us who are seekers of the Truth and as parts are revealed to us we pass them along in part but knowing that it is not the whole that we seek and we cannot tell you why we seek or what purpose it might serve or even if it serves any purpose but we do know that the Single Source does exist and to know that source is to know the root of existence.
| |||||||
12/25/2008 2:07 pm |
These contradictions you mention.... are they the one's you refered to in the store of Paul coming years after Christ lived and "reminding" people about Jesus--when his contemporaries didn't write about him? What 'contradictions' are you referring to?
| |||||||
12/25/2008 3:49 pm |
These contradictions you mention.... are they the one's you refered to in the store of Paul coming years after Christ lived and "reminding" people about Jesus--when his contemporaries didn't write about him? What 'contradictions' are you referring to? Besides, what we have now is not what was written. What we have is a collection of interpretations and translations. The King James version is especially noteworthy. The council had many debates over what a passage should mean or what they would like it to mean, rather than what it possibly meant. I'm sure the essence is still there, but the common folk don't have access to, or the knowledge to use, the original writings. It was all written in languages that are now dead. We see today how open to interpretation even the updated version are and how it's used to forward prejudices and hatreds. When a religious figure is asked for scriptural evidence that homosexuality is a sin, they'll usually quote the Old Testament. Since Jesus was the breaking of the Old Covenant, and his death the creation of a New Covenant (meaning followers were to adhere to his teachings and not the writings in the Old Testament), it makes no sense for a Christian to quote the Old Testament. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
12/25/2008 3:56 pm |
Unless of course you accept the argument that god defies all science and can do as he pleases and we must just believe ‒ blindly without questioning it. That is the theist’s argument and I think it is flawed and breeds ignorance. Friend, man fears death and has feared death from the begining’s of his existence. Because of this fear he seeks to find life after death. That’s mostly what this whole religion thing is all about. Man wants to believe that worshiping a deity will allow him to keep his life after death. Gin, this is the fundamental mistake that you make. Ultimately, it IS true that faith is faith, and there is no reason behind it, but your statements about "religion" constantly mistake "religion" for "church" i.e. the innate teachings of a religion, for the institutions that have supposedly promulgated those teachings. As you have pointed out, many of those institutions are as corrupt and evil as any others, political, religious, what have you. But first, for example, Jews DO NOT believe in life after death, so that very succinctly throws out that bit of your summary. But more importantly, myself, as a Conservative Jew, views the Bible - and to me, as all Jews, the Bible is what Christians call the Old Testament - not kings, judges, etc, just the 5 books of Moses, as mostly parable. Lessons to take through life. In addition, most of the "interpretations" that you use for biblical stories come from Christian sources. I love the way you research this (I'm serious, not being facetious). I suggest you look at the "Eitz Hayim" version of what we Jews call the Pentateuch. It is the most recent, most accurate, and most reliable translation of the Bible. You will find the stories different. Without straining, there are many explanations of this, most deriving from the loss of the original bible except for what became known as the septuegent, the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible. With the expulsion of the Jews from the Holy Land, and the persecution throughout most of the world from the idolators of the time, the bible, was to a large degree lost. It was the Greeks that saved it. As you know, to some degree ancient Greek, and biblical hebrew were lost for centuries, and it was not until the Rosetta Stone that we were able to begin succesful translations of original source material. These are still being worked on, of course. But more importantly, many of us do not look at biblical events as unexplainable, and that science and religion are incompatible. In fact, we view it just the opposite. I have mentioned this to you before, but there are many, myself among them, that believes that, for example, the Genesis story of creation is one of the most beautiful, poetic descriptions of the big bang theory we know. There are dozens and dozens of works about this. Try "Thinking about Creation". Another example is that the story of Abraham destroying the idols exactly replicates the story of the Egyptian Pharoah Akhenatan (Tuts father) who is generally regarded as the first mono theist. Other issues, such as animal sacrifice are easily understood as common practices of the peoples of the time. The writers of the bible wrote in the context of their days. In fact, the power of Judaism to me, lies, for example, in one of the most misunderstood of biblical stories. How could a just G*d possibly ask Abraham to sacrifice his own son? Well, human sacrifice, and particularly, infanticide, was a widely known practice at the time. The power of the story of Abraham was, first and foremost, to point out the greater responsibilities to the world that we all share, and second, to demonstrate the immorality of this act. I can go through each of the old testament stories with you like this but again, ultimately, it is about faith. As I once told you, I asked my dad, a scientist, why he believed in G*d. And it was simple. He told me that he didn't believe in the "popular" image of some old man in a robe, and beard, but that every day in the hospital, he saw things that were simply unexplainable. Not that they would always be unexplainable, but things that were miracles in their own right. Anyone who has had a child, has experienced this. Thus the term, the miracle of birth. And no matter how many times it happens, billions upon billions, it continues to be a miracle. It is that unexplainable spark, and the general spark of what might be called "humanity" our drive to good, that is the divine. As I have said to you before, think about Einstein. His view was that his work was simply attempting to understand the perfect rules of the universe that G*d had laid out. Funny, but Stephen Hawking says the same thing. Who am I to argue with minds like that?
| |||||||
12/25/2008 4:23 pm |
"Religion is the methamphetamine of the masses" -- ME All ORGANIZED religion stems from a need to control the populace. If they believe in a herafter, they will tolerate a miserable life. The more they "fear" "God", the more tractable they are. Fact since the dawn of time. It's for CONTROL, nothing more. That's what fear is for isn't it? Personally I don't have any answers for who/what is "God". I will say this. I refuse to believe in an angry, petulant diety. Not one who is cruel, jealous or vain. Not vindictive nor demanding. Not one who would willingly harm his/her creations. If this is your "God", he is not for me. The diety I would HONOR (not WORSHIP) would be caring and loving. A nurturing Creator, a FEMALE Being. I believe that whoever Created us speaks to us every day. It's called a conscience. Now perhaps if we ALL listened to it?  One last question. Whose God is right, whose is wrong? Wh is one better than another? Or perhaps in fact they are all the same? One Creator, one law. Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. That predates Christianity BTW. Only man would be so vain as to believe he resembles the Creator of All. Somewhere in the cosmos an Aardvark is laughing.  Rev Joe"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address." "This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."
| |||||||
12/25/2008 4:42 pm |
Very interesting and very thorough gin, I was once like you in that I would try and have civilized conversations with my friends about religion and how it was all a bunch of hooey(I never used that term, but still), in the end though all this would cause was bitter arguments and loss of those friendships. The bottom line is that those who believe will always end their arguments with some version of the following... "I believe therefore it is" and I would ask you in all seriousness, how can you win that argument? Especially when my half of the conversation would always end like this..."prove it". the truth of the matter is that this cannot be proved one way or another, you have said that you wish this to be proved (that god exists) and the burden of proof lies with those who believe, not with those that donÂ’t, such as you and me, and I would say to you how can you prove that a god doesnÂ’t exist? Yes the bible (&each religionÂ’s books) can be examined and found wanting and ultimately dismissed, but the fundamental fact remains as to why these books can be dismissed... they are made by man! And yes I know this would seem to prove our side of the conversation but in fact it doesnÂ’t, all it proves is that mans' understanding of a supreme being (if one exists) is flawed. for all we know we could have been created by a supreme being(s ) as a sort of test model, as if we were in a giant Petri dish somewhere being watched not out of love or joy or hatred even but out of curiosity to see how we react and evolve. Now I certainly donÂ’t want this to be true, I donÂ’t even want a god that would allow innocent people to be murdered every day to exist either but that doesnÂ’t mean it isnÂ’t so. What it comes down to ultimately, is belief. You and I believe that there isnÂ’t a god; many others believe that there is a god. I have had one other thought about this in the past few days that I would like to postulate to you now: and that is that we are ourselves a part of a "religion", a religion that doesnÂ’t believe in religion but still one anyway. Oh we donÂ’t have a meeting hall or a prescribed day of meeting and we arenÂ’t required to sign as a group (which is a good thing because I have a horrible voice) but still in the end what we stand for comes down to one simple truth: we believe that there is no god (and subsequently no afterlife). And that by trying to convince other people that there is no god, are we not just trying to convert those people to our "religion"? Does this make us no better than modern day Christians? I say modern day b/c I doubt I could stomach another inquisition. This last comment may infect stir up many comments and side arguments but I am most interested in what you have to say on these thoughts gin b/c from what I have read of your blog so far (still reading old posts) you and I share similar thoughts and opinions on "mother church" and religion in general. p.s. lay off of Rudolph the reindeer, he's my buddy 
| |||||||
12/25/2008 4:56 pm |
Wow, quite a few posts. I wonder though, for all those who don't believe --what is your interest in convincing someone that does believe they are wrong?
| |||||||
12/25/2008 5:07 pm |
Wow, quite a few posts. I wonder though, for all those who don't believe --what is your interest in convincing someone that does believe they are wrong? But I'll ask a question in return: Why is a book, that has been mangled and politicized several times, several ways (the Old Testament was an oral tradition before it was ever put to parchment) proof enough? Why THAT book and not another that is just as valid? The mythology of ancient Greece has as much validity, in those terms. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
12/25/2008 5:24 pm |
Ged - According to Rabbi Simmons, on about dot, 'the afterlife is a fundamental of Jewish belief.' This squares with what other Jews have told me. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
12/25/2008 5:30 pm |
On the written WORD of God, according to any religion, is inspired from on high but WRITTEN by man. This is the ultimate failing of such works, for, also according to any religious doctrine, man is flawed, imperfect, therefore, his works are flawed and imperfect. This has to be especially true if he is documenting the acts of a perfect being, as a deity turns out to always be. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
12/26/2008 2:52 am |
I do agree with GimmeAThrill's comment concerning various bibles. Why are there different books and passages in different bibles if they were not being 'cherrypicked' for that specific religion. If religion was true, there should be only ONE bible. On the side, aren't most religions that believe in jesus living a lie anyway, especially that they celebrate his birth December 25? Wasn't the so-called birth of jesus supposedly in April or August, depending on what science / astrology / theists note where the star would have been at that time of year or the story in the book? that his birth was moved to December 25 to split so-called secular celebrations? Why do they not search out the truth so to move the birth celebration to the TRUE date? And I do also like to ambush those who happen to wander to my stairs to tell me that I will go to hell if I do not believe in god. I've gone as far as to ask them if they can answer my questions w/o digging in to the bible ... using their own conciousness and individualness that their god gave to them to think with ... to which many will revert to the bible anyway. I am not a religious person either, nor an atheist, agnostic, nor satanist or such. A couple of years ago I was listening to a now defunct independent Saturday show known as 'Lionel'. (He currently is on AirAmerica.) He commented that several decades ago a teacher coined the word 'brite' to mean someone who is essentially 'neutral' to religious beliefs, but does not necessarily knock those individually' who have a belief. I used to believe I was an atheist since that is essentially not religious nor satanist. Yet, since I did not really knock those who were ... albeit if the organization or the person would shun you if you were not a part of their group I would prefer not to associate with them for reasons associated with that type of thinking ... since I heard the word 'brite', I took on that aspect instead. It is often interesting that those who are atheist often have a grasp of the bible also. A show I listen to known as 'Tom Leykis' http://Adult FriendFinder.com the host is an atheist. He on occasional segments, will do an 'ask the atheist' hour. He will dig in as well as Gin does making those who can only speak bible, hang up in frustration because they cannot get him to 'convert' as he shreds the section of the bible they are preaching to him. Here is a curious question to the heavy duty religious / christian folk: Someone who is in their late 80s --- example --- in the hospital with maybe a level 4 cancer, on machines, etc., their family begs the doctor to try to keep them alive, when one of the HUGE things that religion pushes, is that the kingdom of god is great, that people will live their life happily and in no pain there. If so, a person that old and sick ... why not let that person pass on so they can be happy and in no pain. Aren't you most likely putting your own sin of 'selfishness' that you want to keep that person alive even if they are so far along so YOU can still have them, ahead of what truly would be best for them in religious terms? I worked at a hospital for awhile where a comotose 89 year old severe cancer patient on mechanical systems to keep them alive, the family was begging the doctors to do more to try to keep that person alive as they wanted more time with him, while asking jesus to help out. Gin, thanks. It won't make those who are so thick headed for religion, say 'hey, she may have an idea'. Arguments like what is being said here have been going on for centuries now and this is one more place that the arguments are going on because of the posting. It is nice to hear a very well worded script from someone like you, vice the junk I often hear between the thick headed folk --- of which it SEEMS a couple of posters here are stuck in the rut of doing also --- I often come across on the for / against, using the 'because it is so' mode only. Gregg
| |||||||
12/26/2008 3:28 am |
Oh, and one more thought / curiosity ... ... ... I was not alive during the time of King James so I can only pass on this wonder from the many websites and posts I have read before. SUPPOSEDLY, King James was buried next to his 'GAY' lover. 'IF' true..........................with the religious right people against gay marriage --- not sure if against gay people in general as a whole though for sure individuals are of such mindset --- why use or support a 'version' of a bible that was approved by a gay person? Many parishes, churches and ????? repel any person wishing to head the church if gay. Having the King James Bible in their hands isn't that contradictory if as I said, the belief is true they are using a 'gay' bible?????
| |||||||
12/26/2008 1:17 pm |
Wow, quite a few posts. I wonder though, for all those who don't believe --what is your interest in convincing someone that does believe they are wrong? But ultimately my big concern with religions in general, is they are so harmful to mankind. We live in dangerous times. At any time a muslim with access to WMD's could say 'enough with these infidels. The President of the US could pull the switch saying he was sure God wanted him to and told him to. Religion is behind most if not all the major wars. Truly the bible is a book that portrays peace yet brings division. It is NOT the good book. JMHO.
| |||||||
12/26/2008 2:34 pm |
I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong; I just pointed out, and proved, that the Bible is not evidence. Other facts and evidence will be needed. But I'll ask a question in return: Why is a book, that has been mangled and politicized several times, several ways (the Old Testament was an oral tradition before it was ever put to parchment) proof enough? Why THAT book and not another that is just as valid? The mythology of ancient Greece has as much validity, in those terms. I'm curious as to why? As for proving the Bible isn't evidence, it may not be for the non believer. I wonder if those who believe seek the 'proof' that those who do not believe seek? If they do not, do you think they need the same level of logical proof you do? Also, these conversations that many of you engage in with 'believers', who starts them? Are the believers proselytizing? Or are the non-believers seeking to shoot down the beliefs of others?
| |||||||
12/26/2008 6:17 pm |
We base a lot of our life on "blind faith". The last election was people putting their faith in a politician that has not really been tested or vote for the same old crap. I am a Christian, however, I am a polytheistic Christian. The bible states that we are to put no other god before God. It does not say that there are no other gods. To my Atheist friends I always just offer up this one thing.. If you are right and God does not exist, when we die that is it. It is finished. If I am right and God does exist, you might have wished that you believed. Call me a pussy (I am what I eat) but I prefer to play this one safe. listen if you wish to have your faith and believe in a god and an afterlife and all the rest of that ok fine, but please please please tell me that the mainstay of your faith isnt "if he exists i'll wish that i had believed"
| |||||||
12/27/2008 3:54 am |
Gin, A couple of points to help you. Essentially there are three schools of thought in Judaism. Orthodox, like all orthodox, believe the 5 books of Moses to be the literal word of G*d as transcribed to Moses on Mt. Sinai. When asked how Moses could have written about events that were to take place in the future, they're response is "that is G*d's power" essentially. Conservatives, like myself, view the Bible as essentially parables, with some of it the word of G*d. Principally the 10 commandments. Conservative Jews largely follow what is known as "Halacha" or rabbinic law. The rules of the religion as set up over the millenia by the Rabbis. From Rabbi Akiva through Maimonedes and even Martin Luther Kings spiritual advisor Abraham Joshua Heschel. As I have said, it is our view that the divine is that spark within you that is what we consider humanity. i.e the drive for goodness, and help. These are what the 613 Commandments of the Torah deal with. Finally, Reform Jews believe none of the above, and they preach that you practice and believe what you want. i.e. cherry pick to fulfill your own needs. They tend to be what we call "cultural jews". This obviously does not include what you might know as the black hats, which are really Chasidic and Lubavitch (it was Lubavitch Jews that were killed in Mumbai). These sects are orthodox, but have their own rather bizarre social customs. Finally, 2 points. One that is important. You missed my point about infanticide and human sacrifice. Got it exactly wrong. We DON'T and never did approve it. We condemned it and that is the point of the story. There were NO JEWS before Abraham. The Abraham story was, as I said, to demonstrate the G*d does NOT APPROVE of this practice. In particular, there were semitic tribes in the region (in addition to later on in Greece and Persia, and the Huns, etc) that practiced this. And this was a lesson to them all. (as a note, the reason Jews have various names for G*d, from "I am that I am" to Yahweh, to adonai, etc, is because there were several semitic tribes at this time, all coming to the concept of mono theism. Biblical, and thus modern Judaism adapted all of these various names into the bible - I can't do hebrew letters here or it would be easier to show) In fact, the origin of most anti semitism in the world is very simple. Remember, at the time of the birth of mono theism, or Judaism, there were gods for everything. You wanted to get drunk, there was a god. Go to war, there was a god. Have sex, there was a god. The Jews were the first people to say "there is a certain moral right and wrong that needs to govern human interaction". Bachannalia is not right. We were the original party poopers. And thus, hated. The Jewish Bible is largely the explication of these rules. But you have to understand all these stories in the context of the people that wrote them. Just as you might look at stories of the 1950's in the US in the context of segregation. It was wrong, but it was a fact. Life on earth was a more brutal experience 5000-2000 years ago. Hell, Jews recognize the HISTORICAL Jesus (not as any messiah or profit but as a real man that lived at the time) and look at the way the Romans killed him. How brutal is that? Finally, your friend is wrong. Judaism, at least the bible has no belief in an after life. There have been millions of words written about it. And of course there is a concept of a "heavens" but it is not "heaven" as Dante would see it. And Jews do not get sent to hell, or go to heaven. You are obligated to treat others with the respect and dignity that you would want of yourself because it is your duty, nothing else. We teach that each act of kindness makes it more likely that you will perform another one, or "mitzvot". And as you continue to do them, eventually, like all behaviors, they become habit, a way of life. We do have a concept of a messiah. However, the messiah will not come to save us. But rather the messiah will "come" only when we humans have perfected the world. This is the reason we strive to make the world a better place.
| |||||||
12/27/2008 6:06 am |
OK I left a comment on Won's blog that pertains to this subject, so I've cnp'd it here. If you want to check I haven't swiped it, it's the last comment I left on Won's, so feel free to hit my post number to check. As for believing the Bible...*sigh* for so long, it was the only source of information available comparatively widely, and even then, it was literally only "men of the Scriptures" who could read it, and disseminate the information...but only as pertaining to their personal agendas. If you only have one source of information, you're gonna believe it, because there isn't knowledge enough to challenge the status quo, and even if inspiration does strike.... how are you to challenge the "intelligentsia"?* Especially when to challenge meant death? I think this has gone on for so many years, and down so many generations that believing the Bible is almost...instinctive by now. Remember, too, *we* are the first generation that has free access to this information at our fingertips should we want to know, plus more information is being discovered daily... the new "lost city" they said they'd found yesterday, for instance. How much information will that yield? As much as new things are coming to light daily, there are still strongholds of witheld information *cough* Vatican *cough* Kinda veered off there, sorry. Suffice it to say, when you and your ancestors have been indoctrinated in one way of thinking, it's hard to comprehend another way. The Bible is still, fundamentally, the main frame of reference, consciously or not, for millions. So much new information cannot be processed quickly enough, by enough people, to affect the mainstream beliefs significantly in this generation. Perhaps in two or three, but not at this moment in time. *intelligentsia: the people with access to the writings, the ability to understand them and the need to manipulate the information, ie the Popes etc. People who use their knowledge for personal gain to the detriment and active harm of others, is how I meant it. So that's my belief about the Bible... now, I can't immediately lay my hands on my bible but, if memory serves, when Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden, it was made very plain that mankind had been abandoned by God, and all the torments of the world would rain upon mankind because of their lack of faith, so why people complain about God being harsh, uncaring and cruel, I don't know. It's not that, it's just *he* doesn't care. Mankind made its choice. Joe is right, "and ye harm non" predates Christianity by thousands of years. The Commandments are specifics set down because people need to know the why's wherefore's, how's and when's. OK...my religious background: raised Catholic (feel free to sympathise), converted to Jehovah's Witnesses when I was but a tot (*Now* I need sympathy LO  , back to Catholicism as a teen  , and finally, as an adult, Wiccan. In amongst all that I was getting Protestantism from the school system, and one half of the parental units encouraging free thought and research.Richard Dawkins is an extremely good thinker and writer. However, neither you nor he, nor I can hope to "convert" anyone to atheism... nor should we try. Know why? Because that's what religion does.... and look how that worked out for the people who didn't want to convert. Present the facts, present the arguments, then leave them to think, and to be found by the inevitable. Otherwise atheists face the danger of turning into that we dislike.... a sect who are convinced *our* way is the *only* way. Hope you had a good day Take care Jess PS You could do worse than read "The Epic of Gilgamesh" Don't even try to understand Just find a place to make your stand And take it easy
| |||||||
12/27/2008 9:20 am |
We base a lot of our life on "blind faith". The last election was people putting their faith in a politician that has not really been tested or vote for the same old crap. I am a Christian, however, I am a polytheistic Christian. The bible states that we are to put no other god before God. It does not say that there are no other gods. To my Atheist friends I always just offer up this one thing.. If you are right and God does not exist, when we die that is it. It is finished. If I am right and God does exist, you might have wished that you believed. Call me a pussy (I am what I eat) but I prefer to play this one safe.
| |||||||
12/27/2008 3:35 pm |
I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong; I just pointed out, and proved, that the Bible is not evidence. Other facts and evidence will be needed. But I'll ask a question in return: Why is a book, that has been mangled and politicized several times, several ways (the Old Testament was an oral tradition before it was ever put to parchment) proof enough? Why THAT book and not another that is just as valid? The mythology of ancient Greece has as much validity, in those terms. My very simple point is-- those who believe, believe. If you don't, that's OK...but why can't someone else choose to believe?
| |||||||
12/27/2008 4:53 pm |
gin, congrats on getting, and staying, sober. that isnt easy, i know people that cant do it. perhaps i was wrong in how i stated my position, i dont mean to say that you are wrong to try and convince people of your view points i was just curious as to why you are so passionate about it. having more of a live and let live out look i only get riled when someone actively trys to convert me or when as someone i used to know from the college days refered to me as (and i quote directly here) "a godless heathen". sadly, he was being serious and thought that i was a direct threat to him. only in those situations am i motivated to actively changing peoples minds. if someone asks me my opinion i will gladly give it, but beyond that (for me at least) it is too much like beating my head against a wall. oh sure its fun at first, but gets old quickly. would be glad to have a listing of books from you though about where you get some of your stats listed above. p.s. the aa meatings are a conspiracy run by the doughnut industry as a way to sell day old products thats why they need to keep thier memberships up so high.... its insiduious, i know!
| |||||||
12/28/2008 5:52 pm |
Ginger you write a fun blog, I'm sure you're well aware when you post about controversial issues -- you'll get responses from both sides. I think you like it, I think you like the intellectual exercise of 'defending' your point of view. Am I mistaken?
| |||||||
12/28/2008 7:51 pm |
Wow, now that I didnÂ’t know. I forgot to tell you that I did know that Jews are waiting for a Messiah. I donÂ’t know anything about this messiah though. I mean what happens when he gets here? Does he perform all kinds of miracles and magic? I'm curious about this. I canÂ’t really challenge much of what you said due to a lack of knowledge about Judaism. I am however very curious about a religion that doesnÂ’t promise an afterlife. I ask myself what is it all for? You know, all the laws and Commandments. I know that you said that the goal is to make the world a better place. But do you think that that is a realistic goal? Considering how divisive religion is, or that the Jews are always being scapegoated and demonized. I mean really now, couldnÂ’t god do all of this without the help of man? Why all of the complicated games? See this is what I mean when I say you have confused "church" with religion. First the judaism question. If you go back to what I wrote, you will see that Judaism teaches that the messiah will come ONLY when humans have perfected the world. In other words, our reward is our own behavior. It is truly a humanistic religion. The Messiah will not perform magic tricks, or heal the sick or anything like that. He will, I guess, guarantee the continuity of what we have already achieved. True peace and harmony on earth. As to the commandments. Most of the commandments deal with interpersonal relations. There are those that set things like the mezuzzah, circumscision, and the kashrut (kosher) laws. But most deal with the responsibilities to fellow man. Limitations on dealings with others, necessity for charity, etc. I'm surprised at your question about "what is it all for". Why do you live? Isn't your goal simply to help make your, and those you love, lives better? Your passion for politics - doesn't it come from wanting this to be a better world? It is the same thing, channeled a different way. But there are political, and moral and ethical laws. As I said, the birth of antisemitism came because the Jews were the first peoples to say "there are just some things that are ALWAYS wrong (adultery, incest, murder, theft, etc) that there are HIGHER laws than those of any government. Finally, you say religion is divisive. No, it is not. Religion is welcoming and non divisive. It is those leaders that preach falsely in the name of religion, and those institutions that seek to maintain authority that are divisive. That is what I mean by your mistaking religion for the institutions that have sprung up around them. Finally, with regard to afterlife. Judaism simply does not discuss this in detail. As I said, there is much misunderstanding of all of this. In fact, Christainity really does not discuss this much either. It is the church that has created the conception of this. Dante who established the ideas of heaven and hell. To us, it is rather that by leading a moral and just life you will be granted eternal peace. You will be blessed by god. But there is no concept of "going to heaven" in the way you are thinking, or having eternal life, etc. Finally, what is most interesting to me (and has been a hobby for along time - the growth of Christianity out of Judaism) is that Jesus, historical Jesus, was preaching a RETURN to traditional Judaism. The Temple (another institution) of the time had become corrupt and lost the mission of it's founding. Jesus was looking for a return to that original mission of spreading the word of g*d. i.e. the fundamental mission of our humanity toward each other. It was really with Augustine that the church, or Christianity became what it is that we know today.
| |||||||
12/28/2008 8:52 pm |
For the record, I am NOT a Christian. As I read these responses, it occured to me those who don't believe are trying to convince those who do believe-- God doesn't exist. I'm curious as to why? As for proving the Bible isn't evidence, it may not be for the non believer. I wonder if those who believe seek the 'proof' that those who do not believe seek? If they do not, do you think they need the same level of logical proof you do? Also, these conversations that many of you engage in with 'believers', who starts them? Are the believers proselytizing? Or are the non-believers seeking to shoot down the beliefs of others? It occurs to me that even believing in God should require more faith in his creations, i.e. us. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
12/28/2008 8:55 pm |
We base a lot of our life on "blind faith". The last election was people putting their faith in a politician that has not really been tested or vote for the same old crap. I am a Christian, however, I am a polytheistic Christian. The bible states that we are to put no other god before God. It does not say that there are no other gods. To my Atheist friends I always just offer up this one thing.. If you are right and God does not exist, when we die that is it. It is finished. If I am right and God does exist, you might have wished that you believed. Call me a pussy (I am what I eat) but I prefer to play this one safe. Your idea man. That's not faith or belief, though. I don't think it qualifies, and, if you've wagered correctly, you'd still lose the bet. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
12/29/2008 6:05 am |
classyginger replies on 12/28/2008 7:37 pm: Personally I donÂ’t care if they do or donÂ’t. What I would like to see them do is stop playing the victim. One of the statistics that I posted to you was from the US census (where it says that nonbelievers make up only 16.1% of the population). Personally I believe that it is more. Many people are afraid to admit that they are nonbelievers or just claim it because thatÂ’s what their parents told them that they are. I was always told by my Mom that I was Catholic even though I know that she didnÂ’t practice it. If I grew up with her I would probably tell people that IÂ’m Catholic. >>> Be careful of how you use statistics. In many cases you use them to support your POV. Here you disagree with one of your own statistics. I suppose it's quite possible you're out in front of what may be a Major movement in this country.... Rights of Athiests! I'll keep my eye open, if this becomes a National Issue, I'll be sure to say I read it here first!
| |||||||
12/29/2008 7:18 am |
classyginger replies on 12/28/2008 9:36 pm: Mmm, I don’t know this “Won’s blog”. Let me know about it. Very eloquently put! Personally I’m straight but I’m a chicks, chick ‒ love my girlfriends - your after my heart Tess! You mentioned Adam and Eve. Now there’s a story that expects you to believe the impossible. How many children did they have? According to Genesis 4:25: “Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” Then in Genesis 5:4 it says: “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.” Wouldn’t that mean that mankind came about as a result of ancestral relationships. The bible goes on to condemn incest. Pretty contradictory I’d say. Not to mention the whole living until the age of 800. Yeah right! My objective is not to convert anyone to atheism. All I wish for them to do is seek the truth and knowledge outside of their religious books. I firmly believe that that is all that is necessary, the rest will happen on its own... WonDumFok.... nods. *chuckles evilly* Uh huh yeah.... I've asked (so far) Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Witnesses and Muslims about the biblical incest thing and guess what? I got told to shut up. Some were polite about it, some were impolite about it, but the message was the same...stop asking awkward questions. I quote a Catholic and a Witness "It's the Bible.... it WASN'T incest, now shut up and sit down". I was about eight at the time so I got threatened to death as well for being a wee bitch The Protestant was even better.... he threw me out of his RE lesson and sent me to the headteacher for a telling off. Apparently I wasn't old enough to ask questions like that *blinks*The Jewish lady's response was...some things just *are*, have a bit of faith, and the Muslim... shrugged his shoulders and just said...it's the Bible. So much for me and religion *shrugs* The longevity is all in propaganda, misreads, and calenders I think.... the Gregorian calender has been in operation less than 500 years, so taking the Bible literally and using *our* calender is a loser to begin with. The old calenders (Pagan) use a lunar year...which is thirteen months (full moons) comprise a year, and if each season was counted as a year??? Then it makes slightly more sense. Slightly more. Then, of course, you have the scribes... these were never written down until relatively recently, and they were handwritten, so, as much sense as it doesn't make, if a scribe misreads 80 as 800, it's more than his life is worth to not copy it like that. Or you can go the "alien" route... I don't know much about that, but try the blog I mentioned, he has lots on this type of thing Take care Jess Don't even try to understand Just find a place to make your stand And take it easy
| |||||||
12/29/2008 9:01 am |
I already asked the converse of that question, so I'll ask again, but not to you specifically (since I mistakenly thought you were an Xtian): Why do those people who do believe require so little proof? Why must there be something more than what they see? It occurs to me that even believing in God should require more faith in his creations, i.e. us. More than what they see? Do people of faith, have faith because of something they can see? I think you lost me here.......
| |||||||
12/29/2008 10:17 am |
Why thank you for the kind words Ginger, I hope you will accept my apologies in being late to post... Didn't have the internet at the folks house. And so let us begin our discussion  Well as far as logic and reason go, Gimmmie couldn't have messed it up more if he tried to. Please read my blog Reason vs Logic , it is short and simple. Quoting Ginger: "One can read the bible and dissect it and easily come to the conclusion that it is not factual." Have you ever stopped to contemplate the nature of a parabel? A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. A parable is NOT factual in nature and often uses hyperbole, allegory, general exaggeration, simile, etc to provide emphasis for an other wise simple idea. Some would go so far as to say that a parable works best if it is sarcastic. The more amazing or MEMORABLE the story, the more effective it's lesson will be. Much of the NEW Testament, which is the Teachings and record of Christ is parable based. In fact, very little of Christ' direct teachings are not parables. There are MANY stories in the Bible which make complete sense if you bother to take them OUT of a religious context. An easy example is the Tower of Babel... This is a story which tends to be used as an example of the Bible being a "fairy tale". However, the story is a PERFECT story which illustrates the social casts of the time and the creation of spoken language into different dialects. It was actually used in a linguistics course I took in college. The point is, that the New Testament is a text book. It is meant to TEACH the beliefs of Christ as he saw them. The Bible is not Fact, it is Truth. Please read my post Truth vs Fact , which briefly discusses the difference between truth and fact. Morals are truths and not facts, just as religious beliefs could be considered truths rather than facts. I have taken MANY of the scriptures which you have brought to my attention and explained how they do NOT contradict or point to fallacies as you believe them to. I will continue to do so if necessary. Quoting Ginger: "Friend, man fears death and has feared death from the begining’s of his existence. Because of this fear he seeks to find life after death. That’s mostly what this whole religion thing is all about. Man wants to believe that worshiping a deity will allow him to keep his life after death." I should say you are right... If it weren't for salvation and the afterlife then what good would Christ' message be? Or the message of any religion for that matter. Is that what you would like to hear? I mean I don't think that is something which too many believers would argue against - do you? But let us examine something Ginger... Where does the idea of a diety come from. Where does the idea of re-encarnation come from. Where does the idea of spirits or souls of living animals come from. How are all of these things present in the ancient peoples of the world? Surely they didn't all allow this fear to create religion out of thin air. There HAD to be a catalyst for such widespread thought and belief. Perhaps there is no God of the Bible, perhaps Abrahams God does not exist... But can you explain religion? NOT organized religion, but the greater religion as instilled in the ancient peoples of the world? Where would such adamant beliefs come from my dear? Would all the people of the earth come up with the same solutions for their fear? Where would the great stories and teachings come from, and how would they be present in nearly identical form within completely issolated populations around the ancient world. You choose to attack western religions and the biblical texts which you find so easy to dissect... But can you do do the same for religion as a whole? Can you go to ancient summeria, ancient South America, Asia, Africa, etc and explain how they all came to believe in Gods? The answer is you can not. And you will not let others explain how these beliefs came to be because you dismiss all of the ancient texts as religious fairy tales. Yet these religious texts are often times the only records which are present in a strictly religious civilization. When the church and state are the same, the religious text IS "factual" and historical. When the stories of the Old Testament can be found in the texts of the oldest civilizations in the world, shouldn't that tell you that there is more than meets the eye? When Summerians, Mayans, etc all have a story of a great deluge... Should one be so quick to dismiss such a story because it is in the Bible? Is the creation of Gods, souls, etc a natural occurence within the mind of humans? And if it is, why do you fight to make others believe that their natural thoughts or unnatural? You can not have you cake and eat it too Ginger. Quoting Ginger: "You speak of logic. Ask yourself does it really sound logical that there is some being that watches your every move and interacts with you? Why would a creator even need to do this? What would be the point? What is the point of the begging, bowing, groveling and thanking this deity for your existence? Or for the food on your table that you yourself have achieved?" Ask yourself this, does it seem logical that you would understand this being? You must understand that what is logical to you is merely a subjective opinion formed via YOUR manner of logic. I find it highly illogical to think that you or I for that matter would even remotely understand a being and what it's motives or actions would be... Why would we? Why would such a being abide by OUR human understandings of the reality. Why would a being as such, have the same reality as us? You are guilty of a far more "illogical" assumption and opinion than that of those who have faith in such a being. These people believe in a being which is not like us, and thus do not claim to understand why it would or would not do something. You claim to understand a being which you do not believe in... How utterly foolish is this? How can you expect me to take such thinking seriously? How can you attack the logic of faith with such illogical argument? I am very dissapointed in this! Quoting Ginger: "Christian like to say; oh that was in the old testament. Jesus came along and changed all of that. Oh really! So we are expected to believe that this god that killed and allowed so many innocent to be killed (I’m speaking of the different occasions that this god allowed the first sons of families to be murdered) is a just and good god." And Christians have every right to say oh that was the old Testament. Why? Because the Old Testament is NOT the teachings of Christianity. THe Old testament is a record of what was and how what is came to be in regards to Christ and God. Technically speaking a Christian never needs to read a single word of the old Testament. To a believer, the merits of Christ and the actions told within the New Testament are enough. Now we can argue this all you would like, but the reality is that the Old Testament is a written history of the Jewish Tribe, a book of laws or moral codes, and allows the the passage of prophecies from generation to generation. The "Word" of God (the Bible), according to Christianity, is the word of Christ... So anything Prior, is null and void if it contradicts Christ. THis is the reason that you can not provide contradictions between the two different Testaments as proof that they are wrong. They are two seperate works of literature. Further more, you are NOT *expected* to believe anything Ginger. IF you actually stopped and read - REALLY read the Bible... You would not see a contradiction in this. Christ explains that Love is the greatest and utlimate law (love is the fullfilment of ALL laws). This is the basis of his teachings. In the Old Testament the word is about accountability and behavior. The people of the Old Testament were savage, they were nomadic and constantly warring with one another. Moral codes were non-existant and behavior was very crude in nature. The Jewish faith, and the Old Testament served as a means to "tame" the people. If you are unwilling to look at the evolution of man and his civilization, then you are also unwilling to understand the Bible. The people of pre-old Testament times, pre-Abraham, are NOT the same as those who follow the Old Testament teachings. Ged has explained this in a very straight forward manner. The Bible (Old Testament) may have had harsh consequences and seemingly foolish laws, but they were laws in a time of lawlessnes. They shaped the very society and allowed for an evolution of the people as such. The New Testament states that Christ is the son of God and thus his teachings are the word of God. Christ says that man has become lost, and that he must lead them back on the path (the Great Shepherd if you will). Christ states that Love is the fullfillment of all laws. Both his love, God's love, and our love. He teaches that the old laws are not necessary and are self evident (the meanings and purposes) if one abides by the law of love. The ten commandments in essence are pointless IF you abiide by the law of love. Now you can argue that this is not true, but if you bother to read the teachings of Christ then you will see that this is indeed what he says. Going back to the idea of an evolving civilization and an evolving people... THe people have embraced the laws, and have evolved into a society, they have come to a point where the laws may not always lead to a the best outcome. Or rather they have come to a point where they begin to add laws as the word of God. Such things were called the Traditions of the Elders and such laws were actually referenced in the Bible itself (New Testament). SO Christ bings knowledge and teachings to the people in order to further the evolution as a people. He allows them to be accountable to themselves and to God alone rather than one another. He teaches that love will allow one to always do the right thing. These are his words... So often lost on the deaf ears of those who would rather not hear them. Quite simply, the God of the Old Testament did not change... We did. And thus a new set of laws were necessary as such. Quoting Ginger: "For those that wish to use Jesus to water down gods evilness you only have to read Jesus’ supposed own words and you will find that he sanctioned the murder of non-believes: 'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.' Luke 19:27" I grow so tired of this Biblical quotation without context bullshit. Why is it that those who wish to tear down the Bible have no ability to understand the Bible? Why is it that you chose to quote one line out of an enitre PARABLE which Christ is telling. Christ did NOT say to bring his enemies to him and kill them. The story was about a new King addressing his servants. It is called the Parable of The Ten Minas and he tells this parable to Zacharius the Tax Collector (a sinner) who will understand a parable ABOUT investing and putting money to work. You fail to even understand the basic principle of a PARABLE, how can you claim to understand the meaning of one? Or rather, you fail to understand that a parable is meant to teach a lesson, how can you assert that it is fact or action. Don't bother quoting a scripture unless you have read that which gives it context, it annoys me greatly to have to explain something so simple. Quoting Ginger: "When you read the bible and think about events like the Inquisition you have to say ‒ hey those people during the era of the inquisition were doing the right thing. They were following what the bible and Jesus wanted… no, demanded them to do! It is the Christians of today that are the true blasphemers. They pick, choose and refuse what laws they wish to follow. According to the bible people that work and do business on the Sabbath (Sunday) should be put to death! Makes you think ‒ if there’s hell below where all gonna go..." They were doing the right things? Really? They abided by the law of love? By the teachings of Christ? I will not even humor you with this argument. Jesus was killed for witchcraft... Do you think he preached that this should occur to others? Use common sense Ginger. Your argument amazes me in it's childish nature... Not trying to be rude, but I am growing weary of such statements. You then claim that we break the sabath and thus should go to hell. Well I ask you which sabath we are breaking... Saturday or Sunday? Further more, is it simply the day of worship and rest, or is it Gods holy day? You want a battle here you go... EVERY DAY IS THE SABATH. IN Genisis the story of creation lists the 7 days of creation. Each day has a begining and an end. But on the 7th and final day, God rested and stated that it was a holy day. And guess what, there in NOT a statement which says the day ended. We are in the 7th day. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation." (Genesis 2:1-3) Further more, the word "seven," the word "sabbath," and the word "rest," are all the same basic word in Hebrew, Shabat, seven, sabbath, rest. And we can see that God speaks of resting and being done with creation. The story does not say that he is not active and that he is doing nothing. He is an active force who is not creating. His creation is done, but he is capable of doing other things. We can see this is true by reading John Chapter 5... The healing of the man by the pool. Specifically lets look at the passage in regards to Christ breaking the Sabath to heal the man: "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto and I work." John 5:17 Darby Translation He specifically states that his father (God) has worked up to this point and that he shall continue to work as well. He says that God wroks on the Sabath... But isn't the Sabath the holy day which God sanctified - doens't he rest on the Sabath day? Yes, he does rest from creation - not from all activity! "Jesus therefore answered and said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of himself save whatever he sees the Father doing: for whatever things *he* does, these things also the Son does in like manner." John 5:19 Darby Translation Jesus says again, that he is doing only that which his father (God) is doing... He is working on the Sabath just as his Father does. There are other examples as well - the day that he defies the Sabath by picking grains to eat is another well known example. Let me continue... The Sabath is a day which ends with Christ. Or rather the day of Sabath as practiced is no longer a "law" due to Christ. Collossians pecifically states that the Sabath day is on of the things which is absolved and that you can not be judged for or by. "Let none therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in matter of feast, or new moon, or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ." Colossians 16-17 Darby Translation As you can see, if you are a Christian then the Sabath is something that you can NOT be judged for doing. It is part of the old law and you can NOT go to hell for breaking the Sabath if you are a Christian. I think you need to decide what religion you wish to attack and then go from there. Your use of Jweish principles and Christian principles interchangeably confuses the ideas within each seperate religion. I will address the second 1/2 of your post later... I must get some things done around the house. stop by and say hi TravelerMan83
| |||||||
12/29/2008 1:20 pm |
Quoting Ginger: "I doubt it! You and I both know that magical flying horses are just as imaginary as Santa’s flying reindeer."    Reindeer aren't real? *runs away crying* I know that "magical" anything would seem to be highly illogical or improbable. Then again, science and medicine were once considered magical... So while illogical, perhaps not unreasonable? This is the very thing that I tried to put emphasis on when discussing these things with you and gimmie. When you rule out something because it is unknown, not understood, or illogical, you rule out the ability to determine if it is true or real. Let me try this. There is no Factual evidence which proves that flying reindeer do not exist or have never existed. A lack of evidence against is NOT evidence that it exists and this same lack of evidence is not proof that it does not exist. In a void of fact one must(under the guise of reason) assume that the most reasonable answer is that a flying reindeer COULD exist. Conversley the most logical answer would be that flying reindeer could not exist. One can not use logic to prove or disprove an unknown in the presence of a LACK of facts. Quoting Ginger: "All of this magic along with the remarkable lack of evidence makes it obvious to the rational mind that this along with the other story’s is a fairy tale." As stated above, a lack of evidence for a point is not a body of evidence to the contrary of a point. Quoting Ginger: "In the dictionary delusion is defined as: “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.” To the Billions of people that stand outside of the Mormon, Christian, Muslim or whatever bubble the people that live in that bubble are delusional!" How do you place a definition in your response and then not abide by that very definition... Your definition stated that delusion must be in the "FACE OF FACTS" which disprove the belief. There are no FACTS which disprove their beliefs or more importantly a diety. Further more your arguments use LOGIC and NOT reason, there for you must change your arguments which you intend to confront these individuals with. You must have arguments based upon reason and or have facts... You have provided neither of these. Your assertion that these people are delusional is indeed logical, but it is not reasonable (via the use of reason). The belief in a diety is just as reasonable as the belief that there is no diety. To a person who believes, the idea of not believing is illogical. To the person who does not believe, the idea of believing is illogical. Reason does not need to abide by what YOU or I think is logical. So could I not say that it is you who is delusional? Quoting Ginger: "Funny thing about religion, the worshipers of one religion see all other religions as false and believe that people that don’t believe in their religion are somehow offending god. When one really looks at religion objectively one can’t help but to realize that what determines ones religion is mostly demographics. Where you were born on this planet. If you were born say on the other side of the planet, most likely you would be either a Buddhist or Muslim. With that in mind you’d have to say that the god of Abraham has done a pretty dismal job of getting his point across… Wouldn’t you agree?" I don't agree actually. I mean don't get me wrong, I understand the argument. But I do not agree with your argument. I would say that Islam and Judaism find the idea of Jesus as offending God. And Christianity would think that denying the son of God is such, would be offensive to God. However, the TEACHINGS of the religions and the messages found within the three major religions are pretty much the same. Now I'm not talking about nit picking the beliefs, I'm talking about the overall messages and teachings. So on that note I would have to say that Abraham's God did not do a bad job. Further more, Eastern Religions are far from fitting this description. Eastern beliefs are not from an absolute nature. IN fact Jesus is believed to be an embodiement of Krishna... Far from offending their beliefs wouldn't you say? Further more the God of Abraham has over 1/2 of the worlds occupants who prescribe to his religions. Your right, he must be doing something wrong. In addition, non-religious peoples account for roughly 16% of the worlds population. Now lets assume that if there is a God or supreme being, that the other religions with a God are the same God (tribal diety based religions, etc). That adds another 15% to the God of Abraham. This leaves about 20% of the popualtion for Hinduism and Buhdism (accurate as of 2006). SO you are right... If there is a God who desires worship he must be messing up considering only 36% of the world doesn't worship him. And if you want to stretch it you can say that Hinduism is the same God or rather that the God of Abraham is also a God of Hinduism... So that leaves you with 22% of the world who do not worship God. Now lets take into account that Budha says that Gods come from nirvana just as we do, and that we can essentially become gods via enlightenment... That puts another 6% of the population in the believe in God section. That leaves you with the 16% of non-religious peoples and roughly 2-3% of peoples who's religion does not invlove God per say. Oh and of that 16% non-religious it is presumed that roughly 1/2 are actualy theists who choose "other" or "no preference". So that really leaves you with about 8% of the world who do believe in a God. Now as far as your argument for demographics determining religious affiliation... I agree to a certain extent. However, religious affiliation is irrelevant when you are accusing a God doing a bad job. As long as they believe in the God then he has accomplished his task has he not? Wait a minute... How do we know what his task is? What if he could care less what we believe, as long as we live within the constraints of a functioning society? Hmmm, how interesting of a concept. I mean is that not the purpose of the teachings of every religion? How to be a good person? Hmmmm, interesting indeed my dear Ginger! Now the ultimate goal is generally enlightenment, salvation, etc... However, to do so one must be a good person and contribute to the society. If one does is not a good person then one can not attain these greater goals. Now remember, this is a generalization of all religions so do not come at me with some Christian based argument. stop by and say hi TravelerMan83
| |||||||
12/29/2008 1:42 pm |
Require proof? This is a faulty question as it questions/challenges faith. A person of faith doesn't reequire proof--you do. You wish to have the person who believes "convince" you. More than what they see? Do people of faith, have faith because of something they can see? I think you lost me here....... My arguments are to those that present religion as a valid foundation for everyday life and use it as a tool to influence others, bad and good. But I do have serious doubts about people who, with no tangible evidence, push 'god' end all, be all, to everything. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
12/29/2008 1:52 pm |
How could you possibly try to sell me on this religion isn’t evil crap. Intrinsically, religion isn't evil. What is evil, is man's corruption of religion for their own gain, political, monetary etc. You've said about how many wars have had religion at the root of the thing.... the wars are fought in the name of the religion, to fit the particulars wants of the people in charge of said religion at that time. If two men fight over you simply because they both want you, and you stand passively, or have said no to the fight previously, does that make you evil? Or a victim of other's wants and desires? I think where you and I differ is I have serious problems not *with* any particular organised religion as an entity, but rather how people apply that religion, or their own twisted version of it. It is the one subject that is universal, and so public, yet extremely private... what your views on religion are. People who believe in anything are easily manipulated by those with greater knowledge (or claiming greater knowledge) of that subject. We all want to be right, ultimately, ego won't allow for anything else, so the power brokers twist and connive the truth to ensure they are proved correct. Damn the human cost, they have their idea of a deity to satisfy...and the deity, oddly enough, always prefers their offerings over another followers. Religion itself isn't evil. What is done in the name of it is evil. Take care Jess Don't even try to understand Just find a place to make your stand And take it easy
| |||||||
12/29/2008 2:01 pm |
Why thank you for the kind words Ginger, I hope you will accept my apologies in being late to post... Didn't have the internet at the folks house. And so let us begin our discussion Well as far as logic and reason go, Gimmmie couldn't have messed it up more if he tried to. Please read my blog Reason vs Logic , it is short and simple. Quoting Ginger: "One can read the bible and dissect it and easily come to the conclusion that it is not factual." Have you ever stopped to contemplate the nature of a parabel? A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. A parable is NOT factual in nature and often uses hyperbole, allegory, general exaggeration, simile, etc to provide emphasis for an other wise simple idea. Some would go so far as to say that a parable works best if it is sarcastic. The more amazing or MEMORABLE the story, the more effective it's lesson will be. Much of the NEW Testament, which is the Teachings and record of Christ is parable based. In fact, very little of Christ' direct teachings are not parables. There are MANY stories in the Bible which make complete sense if you bother to take them OUT of a religious context. An easy example is the Tower of Babel... This is a story which tends to be used as an example of the Bible being a "fairy tale". However, the story is a PERFECT story which illustrates the social casts of the time and the creation of spoken language into different dialects. It was actually used in a linguistics course I took in college. The point is, that the New Testament is a text book. It is meant to TEACH the beliefs of Christ as he saw them. The Bible is not Fact, it is Truth. Please read my post Truth vs Fact , which briefly discusses the difference between truth and fact. Morals are truths and not facts, just as religious beliefs could be considered truths rather than facts. I have taken MANY of the scriptures which you have brought to my attention and explained how they do NOT contradict or point to fallacies as you believe them to. I will continue to do so if necessary. Quoting Ginger: "Friend, man fears death and has feared death from the begining’s of his existence. Because of this fear he seeks to find life after death. That’s mostly what this whole religion thing is all about. Man wants to believe that worshiping a deity will allow him to keep his life after death." I should say you are right... If it weren't for salvation and the afterlife then what good would Christ' message be? Or the message of any religion for that matter. Is that what you would like to hear? I mean I don't think that is something which too many believers would argue against - do you? But let us examine something Ginger... Where does the idea of a diety come from. Where does the idea of re-encarnation come from. Where does the idea of spirits or souls of living animals come from. How are all of these things present in the ancient peoples of the world? Surely they didn't all allow this fear to create religion out of thin air. There HAD to be a catalyst for such widespread thought and belief. Perhaps there is no God of the Bible, perhaps Abrahams God does not exist... But can you explain religion? NOT organized religion, but the greater religion as instilled in the ancient peoples of the world? Where would such adamant beliefs come from my dear? Would all the people of the earth come up with the same solutions for their fear? Where would the great stories and teachings come from, and how would they be present in nearly identical form within completely issolated populations around the ancient world. You choose to attack western religions and the biblical texts which you find so easy to dissect... But can you do do the same for religion as a whole? Can you go to ancient summeria, ancient South America, Asia, Africa, etc and explain how they all came to believe in Gods? The answer is you can not. And you will not let others explain how these beliefs came to be because you dismiss all of the ancient texts as religious fairy tales. Yet these religious texts are often times the only records which are present in a strictly religious civilization. When the church and state are the same, the religious text IS "factual" and historical. When the stories of the Old Testament can be found in the texts of the oldest civilizations in the world, shouldn't that tell you that there is more than meets the eye? When Summerians, Mayans, etc all have a story of a great deluge... Should one be so quick to dismiss such a story because it is in the Bible? Is the creation of Gods, souls, etc a natural occurence within the mind of humans? And if it is, why do you fight to make others believe that their natural thoughts or unnatural? You can not have you cake and eat it too Ginger. Quoting Ginger: "You speak of logic. Ask yourself does it really sound logical that there is some being that watches your every move and interacts with you? Why would a creator even need to do this? What would be the point? What is the point of the begging, bowing, groveling and thanking this deity for your existence? Or for the food on your table that you yourself have achieved?" Ask yourself this, does it seem logical that you would understand this being? You must understand that what is logical to you is merely a subjective opinion formed via YOUR manner of logic. I find it highly illogical to think that you or I for that matter would even remotely understand a being and what it's motives or actions would be... Why would we? Why would such a being abide by OUR human understandings of the reality. Why would a being as such, have the same reality as us? You are guilty of a far more "illogical" assumption and opinion than that of those who have faith in such a being. These people believe in a being which is not like us, and thus do not claim to understand why it would or would not do something. You claim to understand a being which you do not believe in... How utterly foolish is this? How can you expect me to take such thinking seriously? How can you attack the logic of faith with such illogical argument? I am very dissapointed in this! Quoting Ginger: "Christian like to say; oh that was in the old testament. Jesus came along and changed all of that. Oh really! So we are expected to believe that this god that killed and allowed so many innocent to be killed (I’m speaking of the different occasions that this god allowed the first sons of families to be murdered) is a just and good god." And Christians have every right to say oh that was the old Testament. Why? Because the Old Testament is NOT the teachings of Christianity. THe Old testament is a record of what was and how what is came to be in regards to Christ and God. Technically speaking a Christian never needs to read a single word of the old Testament. To a believer, the merits of Christ and the actions told within the New Testament are enough. Now we can argue this all you would like, but the reality is that the Old Testament is a written history of the Jewish Tribe, a book of laws or moral codes, and allows the the passage of prophecies from generation to generation. The "Word" of God (the Bible), according to Christianity, is the word of Christ... So anything Prior, is null and void if it contradicts Christ. THis is the reason that you can not provide contradictions between the two different Testaments as proof that they are wrong. They are two seperate works of literature. Further more, you are NOT *expected* to believe anything Ginger. IF you actually stopped and read - REALLY read the Bible... You would not see a contradiction in this. Christ explains that Love is the greatest and utlimate law (love is the fullfilment of ALL laws). This is the basis of his teachings. In the Old Testament the word is about accountability and behavior. The people of the Old Testament were savage, they were nomadic and constantly warring with one another. Moral codes were non-existant and behavior was very crude in nature. The Jewish faith, and the Old Testament served as a means to "tame" the people. If you are unwilling to look at the evolution of man and his civilization, then you are also unwilling to understand the Bible. The people of pre-old Testament times, pre-Abraham, are NOT the same as those who follow the Old Testament teachings. Ged has explained this in a very straight forward manner. The Bible (Old Testament) may have had harsh consequences and seemingly foolish laws, but they were laws in a time of lawlessnes. They shaped the very society and allowed for an evolution of the people as such. The New Testament states that Christ is the son of God and thus his teachings are the word of God. Christ says that man has become lost, and that he must lead them back on the path (the Great Shepherd if you will). Christ states that Love is the fullfillment of all laws. Both his love, God's love, and our love. He teaches that the old laws are not necessary and are self evident (the meanings and purposes) if one abides by the law of love. The ten commandments in essence are pointless IF you abiide by the law of love. Now you can argue that this is not true, but if you bother to read the teachings of Christ then you will see that this is indeed what he says. Going back to the idea of an evolving civilization and an evolving people... THe people have embraced the laws, and have evolved into a society, they have come to a point where the laws may not always lead to a the best outcome. Or rather they have come to a point where they begin to add laws as the word of God. Such things were called the Traditions of the Elders and such laws were actually referenced in the Bible itself (New Testament). SO Christ bings knowledge and teachings to the people in order to further the evolution as a people. He allows them to be accountable to themselves and to God alone rather than one another. He teaches that love will allow one to always do the right thing. These are his words... So often lost on the deaf ears of those who would rather not hear them. Quite simply, the God of the Old Testament did not change... We did. And thus a new set of laws were necessary as such. Quoting Ginger: "For those that wish to use Jesus to water down gods evilness you only have to read Jesus’ supposed own words and you will find that he sanctioned the murder of non-believes: 'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.' Luke 19:27" I grow so tired of this Biblical quotation without context bullshit. Why is it that those who wish to tear down the Bible have no ability to understand the Bible? Why is it that you chose to quote one line out of an enitre PARABLE which Christ is telling. Christ did NOT say to bring his enemies to him and kill them. The story was about a new King addressing his servants. It is called the Parable of The Ten Minas and he tells this parable to Zacharius the Tax Collector (a sinner) who will understand a parable ABOUT investing and putting money to work. You fail to even understand the basic principle of a PARABLE, how can you claim to understand the meaning of one? Or rather, you fail to understand that a parable is meant to teach a lesson, how can you assert that it is fact or action. Don't bother quoting a scripture unless you have read that which gives it context, it annoys me greatly to have to explain something so simple. Quoting Ginger: "When you read the bible and think about events like the Inquisition you have to say ‒ hey those people during the era of the inquisition were doing the right thing. They were following what the bible and Jesus wanted… no, demanded them to do! It is the Christians of today that are the true blasphemers. They pick, choose and refuse what laws they wish to follow. According to the bible people that work and do business on the Sabbath (Sunday) should be put to death! Makes you think ‒ if there’s hell below where all gonna go..." They were doing the right things? Really? They abided by the law of love? By the teachings of Christ? I will not even humor you with this argument. Jesus was killed for witchcraft... Do you think he preached that this should occur to others? Use common sense Ginger. Your argument amazes me in it's childish nature... Not trying to be rude, but I am growing weary of such statements. You then claim that we break the sabath and thus should go to hell. Well I ask you which sabath we are breaking... Saturday or Sunday? Further more, is it simply the day of worship and rest, or is it Gods holy day? You want a battle here you go... EVERY DAY IS THE SABATH. IN Genisis the story of creation lists the 7 days of creation. Each day has a begining and an end. But on the 7th and final day, God rested and stated that it was a holy day. And guess what, there in NOT a statement which says the day ended. We are in the 7th day. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation." (Genesis 2:1-3) Further more, the word "seven," the word "sabbath," and the word "rest," are all the same basic word in Hebrew, Shabat, seven, sabbath, rest. And we can see that God speaks of resting and being done with creation. The story does not say that he is not active and that he is doing nothing. He is an active force who is not creating. His creation is done, but he is capable of doing other things. We can see this is true by reading John Chapter 5... The healing of the man by the pool. Specifically lets look at the passage in regards to Christ breaking the Sabath to heal the man: "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto and I work." John 5:17 Darby Translation He specifically states that his father (God) has worked up to this point and that he shall continue to work as well. He says that God wroks on the Sabath... But isn't the Sabath the holy day which God sanctified - doens't he rest on the Sabath day? Yes, he does rest from creation - not from all activity! "Jesus therefore answered and said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of himself save whatever he sees the Father doing: for whatever things *he* does, these things also the Son does in like manner." John 5:19 Darby Translation Jesus says again, that he is doing only that which his father (God) is doing... He is working on the Sabath just as his Father does. There are other examples as well - the day that he defies the Sabath by picking grains to eat is another well known example. Let me continue... The Sabath is a day which ends with Christ. Or rather the day of Sabath as practiced is no longer a "law" due to Christ. Collossians pecifically states that the Sabath day is on of the things which is absolved and that you can not be judged for or by. "Let none therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in matter of feast, or new moon, or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ." Colossians 16-17 Darby Translation As you can see, if you are a Christian then the Sabath is something that you can NOT be judged for doing. It is part of the old law and you can NOT go to hell for breaking the Sabath if you are a Christian. I think you need to decide what religion you wish to attack and then go from there. Your use of Jweish principles and Christian principles interchangeably confuses the ideas within each seperate religion. I will address the second 1/2 of your post later... I must get some things done around the house. So if these are all stories, to demonstrate lessons for life, then the 'God' of those parables is just as imaginary. Why is it if someone who doesn't believe can never understand the Bible? That's obscenely elitist. You can't really separate Jewish and Xtian principles. They are far too closely related. The religions themselves are too closely related. You propose the idea that the idea of religion is natural, and found in the most primitive cultures. Why should that bind us? By the same token, is natural as a survival impulse. Does that make ok? Are we to be bound by our most basic nature? By that same token, what makes any idea of a deity rational? What makes the idea of an Xtian god any better than the most primitive beliefs? It's no better than Greek mythology or Native American beliefs. It's as valid as Pastafarianism. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
12/29/2008 2:53 pm |
Trav: I suppose I should have addressed this before, but I'll address it now: It seems to me you've operating from the idea that logic and reason are a counter to faith and religion. This couldn't be farther from the truth. One of the goals of philosophy is to use logic and reason to prove the existence of god. They're not alternatives, with flaws equal to or greater than, faith and religion. They are only tools. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
12/29/2008 8:03 pm |
Quoting Ginger: "True, but it wasn’t, was it." It was THEN wasn't it? Do you truely choose to ignore the reality of my statement. What if 300 years from now something you deem to magical and a fairy tale is proven to be the truth... It was still magical NOW according to YOU, even though it isn't then according to whomever. This is the point, just as science continues to make new discoveries, things which we do not understand continue to be found understandable. Things that were once magic are now real and accepted. The idea of radio waves or of photography is magic to issolated tribes. It doens't make it less magical to THEM that WE understand it. Quoteing Ginger: "Your trying to bulk all of these religious faiths as the same as worshiping of the god of Abraham" No I am not. Each religion is different, but is there ANY proof that they pray to a different God than one another. NO, in fact the majority of religions ackowledge and are aware that they pray to the same God. The God isn't what causes the differences between the religions, it is the belief in Jesus, the Sons of Abraham, etc. As I stated, it is believed that Jesus was Krishna... This is the embodiement of holy figures from one religion into that of another. Further more, "the great spirit" of many aboriginal societies is described as in the same manner as the Biblical God. Why would the God be a different God? Merely because they call it something different? Kind of like Allah, God, Yahweh, and the other names which are the names of the SAME God in different religions? YOU assume that each religion must worship a seperate diety... I do not make such an assumption. If I meet 10 people who tell me that there is a God of the forest, and each of these people give me different names... Do I assume that there are 10 different gods, or that there are 10 different NAMES for the one god of the forest? You say that I make an assumption... And in return I say that YOU make an assumption. It is as simple as that. Quoting Ginger: "hey it doesn’t matter who you pray to the end result will be the same." Again, this is what YOU say and not what I say. I stated that each of these religions believe in God. And that many of them DO have the same God, and that many of the others acknowledge the others God as a God or diety of some type within THEIR religion. This is what I have said. My point was, that if there is a supreme being, and roughly 75% of the world thinks that he exists, either as THE god or as A god, then how can you claim he has failed? Further more why do presume to know what his goals are in the first place? Quoting Ginger: "Again, religion is mans effort to explain the unexplainable. More than anything else I believe that the men that wrote these books were evil manipulative men that used this religion text for political gains and goals. I beleive that this is the only ‒ I repeat the only reason for these men to have concocted these tall tales." But you said earlier that religion and the belief in a diety exists in order to confront the fear of death. Which is Ginger? Is it both? How can two different reasons be given as the SOLE reason by one person? ANd I ask you again, can YOU explain where religion comes from and how it has evolved in nearly the same manner in every major and minor society around the world? How is it that ancient and isolated societies worshiped gods of the same description, or how is it that they all have the same stories of creation, or that same stories of heavenly or godly men who walked the earth, or how about the tale of the great flood... You can not explain this and there for your argument against religion is flawed, and your two explanations of religion and of a diety can not be assumed as truth much less fact. Your explanation, to me, raise far more questions than they answer. Quoting Ginger: "please don’t get into the whole “a hundred years meant something different back then” argument because I’ve heard it and it amounts to more special pleading as far as I’m concerned. I’ve had this argument before and have always found the theist defense as coming down to believing that the bible cannot be interpreted by the standards of a normal document - without of course, unreal and outlandish stretches with more special pleadings. I will repeat again that god has done a pitiful job of getting his point across." Hmmm, but everything was different back then. The number of days, the multiplication tables, the seasons of months of the year. It was NOT the same as it is today. But I guess that doesn't matter to you. It doesn't matter that one acient civilization used multiples of 6, while another use multiples of 5, while another used 10's. I am sure that this is totally unimportant in the search for the answer to this question. How about this one Ginger, aging is a gene. We have yet to determine what gene or gene sequence causes aging, but we know that it is indeed genetic. Take reptiles or fish or many other animals as examples which do not "Age" as we understand aging to occur. Further more, take into account some animals which can literally live forever if they do not die, now I know that seems like a horrible silly statement... But that is the truth. Some reptiles continue to grow untill they die, and they don't die of "old age". They die because of environmental influences. Now the liklihood of a perfect environment is probably around zero, but if it occured there is no reason for some animals on earth to die during its occurence. Scientists speculate that eventually the animal would outgrow it's organs and cause organ failure, but the point is that it doesn't "age". Now you can dismiss this as crazy, or you can look up the research yourself... I believe there was an article in National Geographic or some such publication just a month or two ago. SO lets assume that it is genetic... Why could someone not be born with a genetic mutation which doesn't have this gene sequence. Or better yet, what is the liklihhod that a gene sequence as such is a dominant mutation, and at one point humans did not have such a gene sequence naturally. There are so many SCIENTIFIC possibilities that it is baffeling. Yet you choose to dismiss it because it is a religious idea which is unknown or unexplainable. I will also state again... What is God's point? Do you claim to know it? If you do can you please tell me what it is, I would really like to know. Quoting Ginger: "“enlightenment, salvation” Friend, do you really believe that man needs religion in order to be good. If so, I suggest that you look into the most atheistic societies in northern Europe before you make these blanket statements. Look at the crime rates and the general socialization of these countries as opposed to societies like our country (that has so much crime and so many of its population in prisons)." Hmmmm, I think I will leave this for another response... Tricky tricky my dear. stop by and say hi TravelerMan83
| |||||||
12/29/2008 8:20 pm |
Quoting Gimmie: "Oh, so NOW it's all a parable? Nothing factual at all? Not even based in fact?" You are kidding right? The scripture in question IS a parable because it is labeled as a parable IN the freaking Bible Gimmie. I'll leave you to look up the definition of a parable and it's use. Quoting Gimmie: "So if these are all stories, to demonstrate lessons for life, then the 'God' of those parables is just as imaginary." Gimmie, do you understand what a parable is? Because it was defined in my post which you have quoted. A parable is a story used for teaching. The validity of the parable is in the MESSAGE of the parable and not in the details of the parable itself. Your argument does not even make sense. Quoting Gimmie: "You propose the idea that the idea of religion is natural, and found in the most primitive cultures. Why should that bind us? By the same token, is natural as a survival impulse. Does that make ok? Are we to be bound by our most basic nature?" Actually Ginger was the one who proposed the idea of religion being natural. She said that it was the manner in which man coped with the fear of death and that it had always been there since the begining. If it has ALWAYS been there since the BEGINING and it is a coping mechanism, then I would assume that it is natural by HER words and not by mine. I responded to HER and I didn't assert these things. *I* stated that it would need a catalyst to start such wide spread beliefs if it was not natural... And I asked if she could explain what that catalyst would have been. What the cause of said fear, and the rationalization of diety would have been inspired from. This is what I said Gimmie. Further more, I never said that we should be bound to anything, it is you who stated this in your response. Quoting Gimmie: "By that same token, what makes any idea of a deity rational? What makes the idea of an Xtian god any better than the most primitive beliefs? It's no better than Greek mythology or Native American beliefs." I'm sorry, did I state that a diety was rational or that one diety or religion was more rational than another? Did I make a case for Christianity as the "one religion". NO I DID NOT Gimmie. Ginger has chosen to attack Christianity via her use of scripture to show how the diety is illogical or how the teachings of Christianity contradict themselves.... I have defended against these accusations and that is all I have done. Am I suuposed to cite the teachings of Buhda to defend the teachings of Christ? I should hardly think so Gimmie. You would surely be posting about how I was a moron if I did so. stop by and say hi TravelerMan83
| |||||||
12/29/2008 8:28 pm |
Trav: I suppose I should have addressed this before, but I'll address it now: It seems to me you've operating from the idea that logic and reason are a counter to faith and religion. This couldn't be farther from the truth. One of the goals of philosophy is to use logic and reason to prove the existence of god. They're not alternatives, with flaws equal to or greater than, faith and religion. They are only tools. stop by and say hi TravelerMan83
| |||||||
12/29/2008 8:41 pm |
I operate under no such idea Gimmie. Reason and logic are both ways in which to operate. One is designed to lead to the best answer and one is designed to lead to the most logical answer. That is ALL that I have said in any of my statements. I have discussed the emotional reality of logic and the idea that emotion is merely a factor in the realm of reason. I have made no such claim that logic and reason are some counter to faith and religion. Perhaps you read into what I say. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
12/30/2008 4:43 pm |
Very thought out and well written as always. Quick Thoughts, from someone raised in a institution that teaches that Mickey Mouse is evil, Dancing is the road to hell, and Revivals are week long events. More commonly known as the Southern Baptist Church. All types of faith have their inherent flaws, that's why they must be taken on some level of faith. Even atheist's views rely on faith, as there is no way to definitively prove their case; only the holes in the cases of others. So they take it on faith that their information is valid and the logic is sound. Leave it to Kevin Smith to nail it on the head: When are you people going to learn? It's not about who's right or wrong. No denomination's nailed it yet, and they never will because they're all too self-righteous to realize that it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Your hearts are in the right place, but your brains need to wake up. Having your heart and head in the right place is the most important thing; and if believing that a unicorn is going to storm into your room and stab you gets you there....then what does it really matter? And God is a woman......
| |||||||
12/30/2008 9:20 pm |
Gin, Again, you are so confrontational!! Take a breath, please. It's funny but you are prosletyzing your own version of atheism. I am just trying to explain my religion. If by "many Jesus'" you mean that Jesus was a common name, that is correct. If you meant that there were many roaming, prosletyzing rabbis at the time you are correct. But the HISTORICAL Jesus (i.e. a man named Jesus that was a Rabbi, with a large following) is a fact. Our most reliable source of the time, the historian Josephus, as well as Roman sources have confirmed this. My point to you was that as a Jew, it has no bearing on me. We do not view him as any different than thos many Jesus you mentioned. But I don't deny his existence. I do deny that he was the son of g*d or anything else of a divine nature. As to Gaza, actually what it proves is EXACTLY my point about religion. It is not religion that is causing the war but the CORRUPTION of religion. ( I don't want to go into too much detail here). As you may or may not know, I am not a fan of Islam generally, but the fact is that Islam was hijacked beginning about 100 or so years ago by what has become known as Wahhabism for the Sunni, and Salafism by the Shia. i.e. the new fundamentalism. And Sharia law. The religion has been hijacked by the political bodies that look to control their populace through it. Another perfect example of the difference between Judaism and Islam is the REQUIREMENT in Judaism to accept civil authority. As to your personal experience. First, you might note in my explanation of the various division in Judaism I left out Chasism and Lubavitch. I am not sure which you saw praying that day, and it is too long to really explain. But, in brief, Chasidism was born in Poland and Russia during the reign of Catherine the Great. Catherine was a true enlightenment leader. Made French the official language of the Russian court, and tried to bring all the varied ethnicities in Russia together. There was a group of Jews, a sect, or cult, if you will, that wanted to remain amongst themselves. Finally, as to the whole marrying Jewish thing, it is entirely two separate things to say you accept someone and you marry someone. Intermarriage runs 50% in the Jewish community. BUT, the cultural drive NOT to intermarry is the thing that has preserved the religion for 5000 years. There is a reason why the Jews are the only biblical peoples (historical biblical as opposed to divine bible) that still survive. No hittites, Hasmoneans, Jebusites, Philistines, Samarians, etc etc.
| |||||||
12/30/2008 11:29 pm |
gin, just a few things i wanted to point out and since they come from mulitple places i will just list them here w/o direct quoting. (this is what happens when i get sick, i miss all the fun stuff! we both got sick at the same time? i wonder if we are being punished? ha! i made a funny) you were talking earlier about how it has been proven that superstitions dont actually do any good- be it prayer or the lucky horseshoe- i would like to point out that these can infact have an effect on lifes outcomes. talk to any major league ball player about his superstition, i dont care if its rubbing a bald mans head or not washing his socks, but he believes it to be true... and for him it is. for him, the mere act of carrying out his superstition will put him in the right frame of mind...serve to calm his thoughts so to speak. do the unwashed socks themselves get him a big hit? no of course not, all the socks to is attract flies and gross out his teamates. but by following his susperstition he allows himself to think that he is "lucky" or perhaps even "blessed" which has the chemical effect of triggering endorphins which make him both happy and calm putting him in the right frame of mind to do his thing. the same could be said for someone in the hospital who is sick, saying his prayers, or hearing someone say them for him can cause those same feel good emotions can infact speed the healing process. doctors more commonly say that laughter is the best medicine b/c they release the endoprhins as well.... but we all know that laughing like an idiot wont heal of us of all our troubles but perhaps it can indeed help us to turn the corner... mabey a little faster and mabey even to turn it period. just food for thought, never underestimate the power of the mind to heal the body. so while perhaps prayer wont lead to god healing someone mabey perhaps the act will lead to the person(s ) healing themselves. Traveler, i must disagree with you when you make your claim about the 3 major religions believing in the same entity. go and ask any 10 random jews or muslims how they feel about worshiping the same diety and see how they feel about that statement. if you mean by your statement that the fundamental teachings, or lessons, of each is similiar to each other that doesnt mean that they come from the same source (only with a different name)necessarily. if you look that broadly you can compare many things together. man and lions are both animals but that doesnt make us the same, the same is true of religion. just b/c two religions teach about peace doesnt mean that the message is coming from the same place!
| |||||||
12/31/2008 12:21 pm |
Here is another whopper Ginger, I hope you feel better. Quoting Ginger: “Much of what you’re doing here is trying to prove things with that flawed book again (Bible). This can’t be done with me.” Ginger I love you, and I really enjoy these discussions... But please do not attempt to belittle me and my responses. It was YOU that used scripture to provide evidence for a point. I merely used the same source that you did in order to provide evidence that your point was wrong. I am not trying to use the Bible to prove religion… You are trying to use the Bible to disprove religion. You stated that Christians would go to hell for defying the Sabath because this is the law or teachings of the religion. I provided evidence that Christians do not go to hell for this, and I did so using the one book which determines if this is true (law) or not. You also quoted scripture and stated that it was the exact words and sentiments of Christ, I used the SAME scripture that you had chosen and showed that you were again wrong. I am not trying to prove anything with the Scripture other than the fact that you continue to miss-quote and provide false context for scripture. ***If you do not want me to use scripture to prove you wrong, then I suggest YOU use restraint and not use scripture in YOUR arguments.*** Quoting Ginger: “If I speak about time (like a year) I’m speaking about a Year! None of this a year doesn’t mean a year crap. Goes back to what I was saying about god having a sorry way of getting his point across.” You certainly do not fail to entertain me Ginger… I am sick, and you always get me to smile with your responses I would like to ask you for about the fifth time, WHAT IS GOD’S POINT? I mean the only way you could determine that he does a poor job of getting it across is to know what his point is. Do you think that you could enlighten me as to his point? Quoting Ginger: “First of all I don’t claim that it is natural to think that there is a god. I will say that it is normal to create these things due to ignorance.” And you accuse *Me* of being a “wordsmith”? LOL Are you kidding me with this one Ginger? So saying that something is “normal” in the presence of ignorance is your great sidestep? That is it? SO it is not natural to create God or religion, but it is normal to do so in the presence of ignorance? Would that not be the same thing Ginger... Would a “normal” occurrence in a given situation (the presence of ignorance) not be a natural occurrence? I mean if it is the normal response, how is it not the natural response? Here are some definitions for you, I will use multiple so that I am not accused of twisting things in favor of my point: Natural: *happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc. *based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice. *proper to the circumstances of the case *growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation *existing in or formed by nature *in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional Normal: *approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment *free from any mental disorder; sane *of natural occurrence *serving to establish a standard *conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural Gee Ginger, there seems to be an awfully big similarity between these two words. In fact, it appears that in some cases the words might even be interchangeable!?!? Or rather, it appears that the natural occurrence is normal, and that a normal occurrence is natural. Or better yet, it appears that the normal response to a given situation is the natural response. If it were not natural it would be abnormal, and thus not normal… Oh, and ignorance is simply a lack of education or understanding. It is NOT an indicator of intelligence of overall knowledge. And I would say that ignorance in relation to death or what occurs there-after is natural or normal. In the void of a record of what occurs after death, it is impossible to know or to understand what occurs. So without a record of what occurs it is natural to be ignorant in regards to death and there-after. Now we can argue all day about whether we currently understand what happens after death, but you cannot deny that it would be unnatural or abnormal to “know” what occurred after death without firsthand experience on your part or the part of another. So basically this ignorance is a natural and normal occurrence, and you stated that the creation of something (God) in the presence of ignorance was normal (which is also natural). So you basically stated that it is natural to create a god or religion. If you are going to attack me for my “rationalizations and excuses” then do not expect me to let yours slide by uncontested. Quoting Ginger: “Let me tell you of a great example that I read that puts the silly practice of prayer to the test. That pretty much proves that the belief in prayer is a superstation” (I’m not going to quote your entire argument, but I wanted to give context to my response to it.) Why is it that you apply logic to something which for all intents and purposes is illogical? If someone is aware that they must have *faith* in something, then they are very aware that it can be proven as illogical. I have never understood the attempt to prove that prayer is illogical. But I will address your arguments none the less. Let us start with quotation of scriptures as proof that prayer must be answered, and that people must be given that which they ask for. Now remember, it is YOU who has used the scripture and I am merely RESPONDING to your use of the Bible. Do NOT accuse me of attempting to use the Bible as proof of anything. I am using it to address YOUR use of it as proof of YOUR point. Scriptures YOU have chosen as proof of your point: **In Mark 11 verse 24 Jesus says: "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." This is the greater scripture from Mark 11:20-26, Darby Translation: 20And passing by early in the morning they saw the fig-tree dried up from the roots. 21And Peter, remembering [what Jesus had said], says to him, Rabbi, see, the fig-tree which thou cursedst is dried up. 22And Jesus answering says to them, Have faith in God. 23Verily I say to you, that whosoever shall say to this mountain, Be thou taken away and cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart, but believe that what he says takes place, whatever he shall say shall come to pass for him. 24For this reason I say to you, All things whatsoever ye pray for and ask, believe that ye receive it, and it shall come to pass for you. 25And when ye stand praying, forgive if ye have anything against any one, that your Father also who is in the heavens may forgive you your offences. 26But if *ye* do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in the heavens forgive your offences. Earlier in the Chapter, Jesus was hungry and saw a Fig tree in the distance. When he approached it he found that there were no Fig’s to be found on its branches, and so he cursed the Fig tree and said that no one shall eat from it again. When they walk by the Fig tree as they leave the city later in the day, it is completely dead. As we can see in Mark 11:21, Peter is amazed by the dead tree and more or less asks if Jesus had done this. Jesus replies that you must have faith in God, and you must believe that what you say or ask for is done. He is saying that since he believed it to be real, it WAS real and the tree had died. He says to BELIEVE in what you ask for and it shall come to be. He does NOT say that whatever you ask for will be granted. In fact, he stated that if you so much as have a shade of doubt in your heart, that it will not happen. So he says that A.) you must believe it will happen and B.) that you must have absolutely NO doubt for it to happen. This is far from stating that anything you ask for will be granted. In my opinion, doubt is natural, and one must overcome the natural occurrence in order to abide by what Jesus says we must do. I would say that the average person will never be free of doubt, I think that you would agree with this statement would you not? And that perhaps this could explain why prayers seem to go unanswered. YOUR second scripture is as follows: **In John 14, verse 14, Jesus says: "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it." The greater Scripture from John 14 4-18, Darby Translation: 4And ye know where I go, and ye know the way. 5Thomas says to him, Lord, we know not where thou goest, and how can we know the way? 6Jesus says to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father unless by me. 7If ye had known me, ye would have known also my Father, and henceforth ye know him and have seen him. 8Philip says to him, Lord, shew us the Father and it suffices us. 9Jesus says to him, Am I so long a time with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father; and how sayest thou, Shew us the Father? 10Believest thou not that I [am] in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words which I speak to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father who abides in me, he does the works. 11Believe *me* that I [am] in the Father and the Father in me; but if not, believe me for the works' sake themselves. 12Verily, verily, I say to you, He that believes on me, the works which I do shall he do also, and he shall do greater than these, because I go to the Father. 13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, this will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it. 15If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16And I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, 17the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him nor know him; but ye know him, for he abides with you, and shall be in you. 18I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you. In this scripture Jesus is discussing his resurrection and his assent to the heavens and his Father’s home. He is telling the disciples that he will ensure that there is a home for each of them who believe in him. He states that anyone who knows him, also knows his Father and that he will go before his Father and beg for a comforter or spirit of truth to be sent to them upon his assent to heaven. More importantly for your claim, Jesus states that he who believes in Him (Jesus and thus God), AND his works (teachings and miracles), AND continues his works after he is gone shall be granted that which they ask for. It is important to note that he stated that they shall do greater works than he has done, and he is telling them that he will grant them what is necessary to do these works so that his Father may be glorified through them. I have always thought this was very straightforward, but I suppose not. Jesus further qualifies by saying that he who loves him will follow his commandments (there is that pesky law of love again). ***So Jesus says that they must continue his work, and thus anything that they need to glorify his Father will be granted. That is the meaning of this scripture. If you note, there is NO mention of prayer in this scripture what so ever.*** So once again you have misused and taken scripture out of context to provide proof of a point. And once again I have provided you with the written words of the surrounding scripture to prove this. When will you learn Ginger? Quoting Ginger: “We’ve looked at a few examples. In each case, the effect of prayer is exactly the same as the effect of a lucky horseshoe.” Ginger, your cases are based upon the incorrect assumption via scripture that all prayer must be answered and that all that is asked for must be granted. I have shown that the basis of your argument is wrong, and thus your comparison of the horseshoe to prayer is not valid. I am more than willing to discuss the nature of prayer, the perception of granted prayers, and the downfall of “logical” prayer application if you would like. But I see no point in humoring this current argument since your basis is wrong and the conclusion is not valid without the basis of the argument. Quoting Ginger: “And think about this. What if a minister says, "God tells you to tithe money to the church. If you do, God will answer your prayers." This is fraud. The minister is lying to you in order to get your money. Again the belief in prayer is pure superstition. It is time to point out that the superstition of prayer, like all superstitions, is silly. And it’s nothing but a fraud.” Personally, I have NEVER heard a minister say this, and if he did then it would be a fraud and inappropriate. The idea of the Tithe has NOTHING to do with prayer and thus I am confused as to why you would even mention it within an argument against prayer. I am done for now, the meds are wearing off and I'm feeling crappy again… I’ll try to respond to the rest later. I hope you feel better! And I hope it doesn’t ruin the New Year for you! You will be in my thoughts stop by and say hi TravelerMan83
| |||||||
12/31/2008 12:27 pm |
BTW, Gin, I meant to wish you good luck convincing your original target of this posting of anything. I gave up on him. He's still trying to convince me he's not a Republican. Anyone who still believes and vehemently, blindly supports the IDIOT known as our current (p)resident, George W. Bush, will not accept an idea that takes true analytical thinking. Eight years ago he couldn't spell Republican. Now, he are one! I am a social liberal no different than Ginger and many other liberals, however, I do not believe that the Federal Gov't has any place being involved. This does NOT make me a Republican. In addition, where do you get off saying that I am some blind follower of GW? Get off me Tandy. stop by and say hi TravelerMan83
| |||||||
12/31/2008 2:36 pm |
Wow.................... > Truman, Truman , Truman, friend you’re trying to explain the bible > using the bible. As Thrill said: this is a circular argument. I > suggest that you step out of that bubble and research your religion > independently. > > Might be shocked at what you find... I like this reply from Gin. I had a comment about this little bit from back on page one, following Gin when she said she would question people on what they were trying to tell her, that they would STILL revert back to the bible when asked what "THEIR OWN" opinion was on the questions thrown at them independent of the bible. To me that is brainwashing, considering you hear constantly that god gave the human a brain and independence to think. Sheeeesh......... Now, a couple of other thoughts concerning the 'ways' of those who follow the bible, supposedly...................... How many people who are in prison for breaking the laws of the land, were religious BEFORE they broke the law? Are laws of religion so much different than man made laws that it is ok to burn down someone's house or murder someone because of their sexual belief --- example --- if you believe you are doing the will of god in 'cleansing' because you believe HE said it's ok to do? AND, you should not go to prison for what you did due to your belief in HIS word? Yet, if someone burns it down because the person did wrong to him/her, you believe they should go to jail because they sinned if they do not have the belief of god within them to forgive what they did? (I have heard this argument many times over........................ not necessarily the the sin of 'wrath' if you believe you are doing god's will ... but how many of a religious background act in the basis of 'wrath'?)) How many of those who have bilked the general population of probably a trillion dollars over the years --- think of the sin of greed --- are of religion? Is it really any different that you ask god to forgive what you did and though you may be in jail per man-made laws you would be cleared in his eyes so it was ok to do what you did? Not like 100% of those who have gone to prostitutes, or 'wife swapped', or such --- think of how many in our government that have been exposed just this year so far --- were NOT of a religious background. (Tell me the sin of Lust does not apply if you ask god for forgiveness.) And how many people who believe in the bible, STILL EAT SO HEAVILY on a DAILY basis that they are waaaaay over their ideal weight, which by their overeating is taking away food from those who are truly in need? (Called gluttony???) How many of the christian faith are on drugs to keep them from being so in deep with depression --- the sin of sloth --- where they may even kill themselves? (Isn't suicide ALSO against religious laws???) And envy and pride........................don't know if those in the high seats at the companies that essentially ripped off the public of funds were envious of those who had money and wanted that money for themselves instead, but I would doubt that ONLY those who are NOT religious are the ONLY ones to be envious. Pride.......... gawd the amount of folk I meet that have to have this way, can't be just the non-religious sect. Just seems that if you believe in god and ask forgiveness, it is ok in their eyes to have done what they did, to those who do the same but do not believe in god, it is wrong in their eyes. Wow.....................................
| |||||||
12/31/2008 3:25 pm |
Speaking of 'lust'................................................... How many profiles on THIS system, do males, females, couples (married or not), list a religious backround including Catholic, then state they are looking for NSA sex or an extra-marital affair, or something as such also? (I wonder how many on the many other adult systems and/or sex systems, are the same of a religious belief and still horny looking for something on the side?????) . . . . . I do socialize with pastors, priests, ministers, nuns, etc., when I am at their place of work. I would chat with them at grocery stores, gas stations etc., also. I said once before that unless they push, push, push their ideals on me and totally refuse to believe I can be a good person w/o bowing to their god, I rarely have a problem being around them. (Why................they are also human, yes?????) And MOST I know, even if they may not agree with my principle that I do not worship a 'god', do not seem to turn away from me since I do try to keep a decently clean lifestyle. (Does not mean --- example --- if I happen to be at a grocery store or casino ... not often but I have wandered in at times for maybe $30 out this year ... if I happened to meet a lady and we hit it off that should we end up at her place for an evening I would not accept....................), They understand people are people and should be allowed to live their lives the way they decide to do so as long as they strive to keep a good basic moral to them. (IE, follow the base laws of the land ... don't murder, steal, what-have-you..................................) THEN, comes the religious 'WHACKOS' --- note I am 'NOT" pointing the fingers at EVERY PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN GOD on this tidbit --- who even though I do not subscribe to THEIR 'PRIVATE' PARTY: want to shove 'THEIR' beliefs in 'OUR' faces via CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, that say we MUST marry the opposite sex, and 'MUST' force people who are 90+ years old to continue living per the 'WHACKOs' 'right to life' attitude ... yes ... an amendment wording I had read included 'NOT' allowing a 'living will' that says they would allow the doctor to pull the plug no matter what age or medical problem including if it is determined at 90+ with stage 4 cancer and EEGs state you are essentially 'brain dead' but only still around because you are hooked up to a dozen machines............................... etc...................................yet........................... they do the same (bad) things they dare to propose the amendments so to change 'US' to be required to STOP doing even though we are 'NOT' religious........................................................... Hipocrites.......................................................... Gregg
| |||||||
1/1/2009 6:00 am |
happy new years
| |||||||
1/1/2009 8:18 am |
One should always keep their faith,but religions and denominations are questionable.  ---------------------Dennis US ARMY (RETIRED) AND YOUR FRIEND 
| |||||||
1/1/2009 3:25 pm |
"If you were born say on the other side of the planet, most likely you would be either a Buddhist or Muslim." When I was 8 years old, living on a Presbyterian mission station in Zaire, I came to this same realization. My parents did not teach it to me. My church certainly did not teach it to me. I did not read it in a book. At eight, I was hardly of an age to be thinking about the larger world at all. It is my opinion/belief that this realization came directly from God. Ultimately, this realization led me to separate myself from the Christian family, until I finally found other Christians who shared my realization. And I have talked to Muslims and Jews who also have this understanding. Yet we still believe in and pray to God. Have you ever read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? It's not long, and it's available online. Might lose my job....(Or, How I Won a Wager With a Rich Asshole) "Thank you for your honesty" They say love conquers all.....--Zevon
| |||||||
1/1/2009 3:52 pm |
Sorry for repeated postings, but this subject is dear to my heart. I have a suggestion for you, Ginger, and for anyone else who gets accosted by someone trying to convert them to religion. Thank them sincerely for their concern (I mean this, they think they are saving you from eternal damnation!) and then get down on your knees with them and pray, or ask them to pray over you. When they are done, thank them again, get up, and go on about your business. I've done this with Mormons and fundamental Christians, and they never bothered me again. Then you don't have friendships busted either...one of the people I've done this with is still a dear friend (and still an evangelical, but maybe a little more open-minded, lol!) Might lose my job....(Or, How I Won a Wager With a Rich Asshole) "Thank you for your honesty" They say love conquers all.....--Zevon
| |||||||
1/1/2009 6:29 pm |
[quote] Quoting 4acbetman  'pimped' this post to some friends I know. Here's one comment:+++ I don't believe that one can read and understand the Bible as if its a novel without help from others who are more educated on the why's. I believe its more like kids reading Shakespeare and not knowing how to interpret much of it. Some things are exactly as they appear, and some things are metaphors and similes that need interpreting. I did find it interesting; but only saw it as someone postulating on why Christianity makes no sense to him. I do find it interesting though that even many atheists will turn to God or some other being when shit hits the fan and things become very bleak. +++ Care to share your opinion on that last sentence? My friend, I too believe in the old adage "There are no atheists in a fox hole." Well, I suppose there may be some. But most humans, subjected to great distress, will tend to turn to someone for help. When all possible help has been exhausted, they may even reach out for a lifeline and pray to God for help. And what is so wrong with that .... even for the non-believer .... especially when it brings comfort and hope? Even an atheist will at some point in their lifetime seek the peace, comfort and hope which cannot be gotten by the most smug, eloquent and lawyerly arguments against the existence of a Higher Power. This is the WORST argument for faith. You've basically said that desperation validates religion. It's no better than Pascal's Wager. 'Just in case' is not faith, and neither is a desperate plea in dire circumstances. And why the fuck are 'lawyerly' arguments smug? Seems to me you have a problem with the function of logic and reason, even though they're often used to PROVE god exists? If you're going to argue for something, you should have more respect for the opposite opinions if you hope to have a chance to defeat them. So stop playing to the audience, and concentrate on using better arguments. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/1/2009 6:40 pm |
gin, just a few things i wanted to point out and since they come from mulitple places i will just list them here w/o direct quoting. (this is what happens when i get sick, i miss all the fun stuff! we both got sick at the same time? i wonder if we are being punished? ha! i made a funny) you were talking earlier about how it has been proven that superstitions dont actually do any good- be it prayer or the lucky horseshoe- i would like to point out that these can infact have an effect on lifes outcomes. talk to any major league ball player about his superstition, i dont care if its rubbing a bald mans head or not washing his socks, but he believes it to be true... and for him it is. for him, the mere act of carrying out his superstition will put him in the right frame of mind...serve to calm his thoughts so to speak. do the unwashed socks themselves get him a big hit? no of course not, all the socks to is attract flies and gross out his teamates. but by following his susperstition he allows himself to think that he is "lucky" or perhaps even "blessed" which has the chemical effect of triggering endorphins which make him both happy and calm putting him in the right frame of mind to do his thing. the same could be said for someone in the hospital who is sick, saying his prayers, or hearing someone say them for him can cause those same feel good emotions can infact speed the healing process. doctors more commonly say that laughter is the best medicine b/c they release the endoprhins as well.... but we all know that laughing like an idiot wont heal of us of all our troubles but perhaps it can indeed help us to turn the corner... mabey a little faster and mabey even to turn it period. just food for thought, never underestimate the power of the mind to heal the body. so while perhaps prayer wont lead to god healing someone mabey perhaps the act will lead to the person(s ) healing themselves. Traveler, i must disagree with you when you make your claim about the 3 major religions believing in the same entity. go and ask any 10 random jews or muslims how they feel about worshiping the same diety and see how they feel about that statement. if you mean by your statement that the fundamental teachings, or lessons, of each is similiar to each other that doesnt mean that they come from the same source (only with a different name)necessarily. if you look that broadly you can compare many things together. man and lions are both animals but that doesnt make us the same, the same is true of religion. just b/c two religions teach about peace doesnt mean that the message is coming from the same place! Wade Boggs had a ritual of making his mistress go to his games commando for luck. He also once told authorities that he avoided being stabbed by an assailant by 'willing himself invisible'. This is all true, so make what you will of superstitions and the frame of mind thing. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/1/2009 6:58 pm |
Yes,how could we be the only creatures,to reason and have the fire of logic within us?Surely this was an accident of evolution.Maybe we are an experiment from some long lost alien culture from another galaxy?Wait...that would be a fairy tale too,wouldn't it?I think that up to date,there hasn't been a shred of evidence to "disprove" a supreme being.I do wonder how I am able to so eloquently weigh the difference between right and wrong,and have feelings of something that feels like an immortal "soul",happen to me every second of my life.I don't feel like an accident of a "big bang" victory garden.Once again...I don't think that there is a shred of evidence to "disprove" that there is a God.Even chaos has an order to it. BTW... It's been proven that apes have feelings and the basic concepts of morality. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/1/2009 7:08 pm |
Trav: At least twice you've presented the argument that religion is natural or normal. I'm assuming that you're using that argument based on the assumption that 'natural' is 'right' and/or 'good'. Present your reasoning that 'natural' is 'right' and/or 'good'. I've presented one counter-argument, and that's all I need. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/1/2009 7:34 pm |
No one can prove the existence of God,and if you do not want to believe in a God, you never will. There can be no scientific proof, simply because God is not physical or material . Since it is impossible to "prove" with absolute certainty, any amount of belief in a God has to come from your own spirit, from within your own heart,
| |||||||
1/1/2009 7:35 pm |
I am Catholic, btw ....
| |||||||
1/2/2009 6:37 am |
woww this is a great blog...even though I disagree with Gin on a lot of things I admire your intellect. I wish I had more time to put my 2cents but I'm at work and thus I will only leave this comment for now. I have always wondered about the intellectual arggument for atheisim....thanks for the post
| |||||||
1/2/2009 1:07 pm |
The "Agument by Design" is simply far and away the best response in and of itself, the multitude of words beyond that is just.
| |||||||
1/2/2009 2:06 pm |
To all those religious who have posted here: Does your god approve of you being on Adult FriendFinder? If he wanted you to be with someone, wouldn't he have used his power to make it happen? Might lose my job....(Or, How I Won a Wager With a Rich Asshole) "Thank you for your honesty" They say love conquers all.....--Zevon
| |||||||
1/2/2009 2:37 pm |
The "Agument by Design" is simply far and away the best response in and of itself, the multitude of words beyond that is just......that.
| |||||||
1/2/2009 3:29 pm |
Most religion has become a form of Mind Control, there are truths hidden though, look to the mystery schools. The 25th of December is when the Sun(son) is born again in its horizon movements after ceasing on the solstice 21st December. (So what's Easter about? Mixed up dates?) Do you believe you'll find answers in the after life? Or don't you believe in that any more either? Maybe you don't even believe in SPIRIT anymore? Speculating. Science has found many answers, but there is an establishment keeping the important discoveries from seeing the LIGHT of Day. Ascelepius III "O Egypt, Egypt, of thy religion nothing will remain but an empty tale, which thine own children in time to come will not believe; nothing will be left but graven words, and only the stones will tell of thy piety. And in that day men will be weary of life, and they will cease to to think of the universe worthy of reverent wonder and worship. And so religion, the greatest of all blessings,-for there is nothing, nor has been, nor ever shall be, that can be deemed a greater boon,- will be threatened with destruction; men will think it a burden, and will come to scorn it. They will no longer love this world around us, this incomparable work of God, this glorious structure which he has built, this sum of good made up things of many diverse forms, this instrument whereby the will of God operates in that which he has made, ungrudgingly favouring man's welfare, this combination and accumulation of all the manifold things that can call forth the veneration, praise, and love of the beholder. Darkness will be preferred to light, and death will be thought more profitable than life; no one will raise their eyes to heaven;the pious will be deemed insane, and the impious wise; the madman will be thought a brave man, and the wicked will be esteemed as good. As to the soul, and the belief that it is immortal by nature, or may hope to attain to immortality, as I have taught you,-all this they will mock at, and will even persuade themselves that it is fake. No word of reverence or piety, no utterance worthy of heaven and of the gods of heaven, will be heard or believed." pleasehertime happym;
| |||||||
1/2/2009 11:36 pm |
It's virtually a universal approach by most, who seek to disprove the existence of God, to take verses of the Bible (why not the Quran? or the Egyptian Book of the Dead?, or the Lotus Sutra?... et al -- perhaps God might actually be found in the Bible and it becomes the target of those who challenge God?) completely out of context in order to portray some "indisputable" contradiction. I won't debate the entirety of this post (or comments) because it would be a waste of time -- for us all. Those who have made their minds up to reject God (for whatever personal reason they may have) are not going to be convinced by me of anything. My words, here, are for those who might believe. Classy has offered up a number of one-line extrapolated verses (in a reply to a comment) which, with benefit of merely a cursory glance, appear as verse-to-verse total contradictions. However, any statement, which one claims to be stand-alone, and when stripped of the substantiating factors... well, I think the explanation is made quite clear using just the following verses: In Classy's statements of contradiction, we can read these one-line verses from her proposition #13... 13. God is to be found by those who seek him - Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17 God is not to be found by those who seek him - Prov 1:28 From these above two extrapolated verses, we read the first two of the actual verses: Pr 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. Mt 7;7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. These three verses are self-contained. The totality of intent is contained without need for supporting comments by the writer. Now, we move on to the supposed contrary statement: Pr 1:28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: It is clear that this is a partial answer to a question, as can be determined from these words... "Then shall they call upon me..."; there is also a colon used. "Then..." is a partial answer to what, when and why. In order that the answer be understood, it is necessary to include the verses which contain all of the answer, as well as those which pose the actual question generating the partial answer we have just read... which verses can be found directly preceding and subsequently, as follows: (the Why?...) Pr 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; 25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: 26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; (and, the When?...) 27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. 28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: (and, the What?...) 29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: 30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. 31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. 32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. 33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil. God has not stated anything contrary to truth. On the one hand , God has made it clear that He will be found of those who ask and seek. On the other hand, God has made it clear that He will not be found of those who reject His counsel and refuse His call. Because God has clarified His rejection based upon our rejection, does not create a contradiction in these verses. I have heard these claims of contradiction most of my life. I have yet to find one that can be substantiated without using one-liners extracted from their intended context. Another prime example is this verse... Ho 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:... Interesting statement, even as a stand-alone. This partial verse is quoted over and over by "believers" as a catch-all for directing chastisement toward other "believers". However, the statement is but part of the truth. You'll notice there is a colon used in this verse, as well as that previous example (which is where most everyone truncates any verse -- at the colon.) Now, we may read the following continuation of the verse... ...because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Amazing! Seems that the writer, Hosea, had pretty much the same thing to say as Solomon... in that God rejects those who reject Him. The knowledge of God is at hand in the blink of an eye, my friends. Refusing that knowledge can result in eternal rejection by God. I really wouldn't want to take that chance for rejection by Him. Then again, I believe in God. 1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Solar...
| |||||||
1/2/2009 11:44 pm |
Likes_curves... Jesus was quite clear when He stated in Lu 5:32 "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." I would think God approves of mingling with sinners... hmmm? Then again, perhaps only the righteous are to be found in AFFland? Solar...
| |||||||
1/3/2009 8:03 am |
How about keeping it a little simpler? I keep a fire extinguisher in my bed in case there is a house fire! And of course that is my final argument. What good would pages and pages of argument do? I use to give them and for every reason I give as to why I believe there was a reason returned as to why it was stupid. There is no reason to post pages and pages of faith based reasoning when it will fall on deaf ears. The bottom line is, If God does exist I will see all you Atheist in hell. You can exaggerate what ever you wish to exaggerate and claim fire extiguishers and dragons to try to promote your agenda. I would suggest in simplicity that the evidence supporting a common fire is far greater than the evidence that supports the existance of Dragons. Just as I feel the evidence supports God and gods more than the evidence supports some supposed evolution. Why did some monkeys decide to evolve into man and other monkeys say fuck it I wanna stay a monkey and throw my shit around on a blog on Adult FriendFinder?
 New York Giants win Super Bowl XLVI 21-17    An Obscene Display of Power TO DIE BLOGGING IS TO LIVE FOREVER Blog Disclaimer
| |||||||
1/3/2009 9:27 am |
Ah, Classy... Surprisingly, I'm not shocked nor disappointed in you. Somehow, when you use that flawed and unbelievable book as the support for your position based on some contrived contradictions, it is perfectly acceptable. Yet when someone else uses that very same book (right down to your own hand-picked phrases) to refute your position, you become intolerant of it? But really, Classy, is it necessary to resort to innuendo to attack a person's 'intellect' simply because you feel threatened by someone's non-existent god? Can't you just come right out and call me a fool? I'd appreciate that much more than a convoluted allusion. Of course, your intent was not to engage me in debate but to engage others in rallying 'round your banner of truth; right? Just as Potius Pilate asked of Jesus, "What is truth?"... Jesus replied, "I am the Truth." Actually, to be honest, the single reason most haven't offered rebuttal -- beside wasting their time -- to your issue of "Horus" (as with all other gods) is because they are not "Christians", Classy. If they were, they'd know that Jesus didn't have a mother-god. In fact, He didn't have a father-god. The reason those many "previous religions" presented the trinity of gods was an attempt to equate the natural world, in which any offspring must have a father and mother -- logically, why not a father-god and mother-god(?) -- to the realm of the real God. The existence of God as a singular entity has been known from day-one. The fact humans have attempted to mold Him into myriad idols does not mean He is myriad gods... or even merely three gods. Christianity has been associated with the Catholic church for nearly 1,700 years. Of course, most do not know that the Roman church was, and is yet, a collection of pagan practices wrapped up in a "Jesus" shroud. Therefore, is it so much of a stretch to end up with Dec 25th as God's supposed birthday? Or, is it such a stretch to end up with fertility idols (eggs and rabbits) as a representation of the death and resurrection of Jesus? After all, Easter is nothing more than the westernized version of the Rites of Spring practiced by Asteroth and Ashtar, and others, for thousands of years. Those christmas trees, with the little shinny ornaments are nothing more than a carry-over from the "sacred groves" of the many previous pagan groups. The fact remains, these are pagan practices incorporated into a false Christianity by those who use "religions of man" to negate the Salvation of God; and then you have the intellects who use contrived contradictions within the Word of God to win their own converts. As I pointed out: "I won't debate the entirety of this post (or comments) because it would be a waste of time -- for us all. Those who have made their minds up to reject God (for whatever personal reason they may have) are not going to be convinced by me... of anything. My words, here, are for those who might believe." Again, as I quoted: 1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Happy New Year to you, as well, Classy. Solar...
| |||||||
1/3/2009 11:30 am |
since i promised to throw my 2cents i will keep it short and simple since my intent is not to attempt to sway anyones opinion in either direction because this discussion would never end; i will put it this way: the problem with religion is not religion itself but all the trash, garbage, myths, junk and half-truths that one has to sort out to get to the truth. Time and people have made this even more difficult. And then there is the FAITH part which i will save for another time....
| |||||||
1/3/2009 3:36 pm |
Classy, my dear... I made no attempt to argue the existence of God. I made it perfectly clear that I was arguing the statements you made were invalid because they were tailor-edited, by your having taken them out of their context, for the purpose of deceiving those who might not know better. I assure you I, too, am quite capable of taking any single line of anything written, as an element of context, and using it to completely veil the true statement intended. You are the one arguing the existence of God -- rather the non-existence of God. Since you wish to provide the appearance (as part of your ounterpoint) of having an in-depth understanding of the pre-Jesus false deities with which you (yet most likely others, I suspect) claim Jesus shared those same attributes -- such as the god Horus (you did name him, specifically; did you not?) -- I would think you would be versed, as well, in the origins of those deities and their predecessors. It may lend some limited credence to your argument. Then, too, would it not be more fruitful to search for those answers you feel I have evaded -- or, rather, made unintelligible -- in those same volumes from whence your arguments emanate? If I wanted to post a "bible"... I might present the counter to your arguments. However, the Bible is readily available to all; and you certainly would not be convinced, anyway. As well, I certainly won't waste that amount of time knowing your stance on the issue. Even so, as I said, I didn't comment to convince you of anything, other than to point out the errors of context you chose to misuse; and then, again, my words were meant for those who might believe... and not for you. There are any number of excuses for rejecting God (as well, attempting to elicit others to do likewise.) I know, full well -- I've rejected Him in the past, also; though I, through no particular effort on my part, have been brought to my senses. And thanks be to God for that. Yes... I suppose we're having fun. Although, I regret to see you go through such effort to present so many truly arbitrary and out-of-context statements... just to make sure God knows where you stand with respect to Him. You convinced me of your position months ago. Is there really any need to reiterate it to me? Solar...
| |||||||
1/3/2009 3:36 pm |
just a question for ginger...u say that you studied Christianity for quite some time...how in-depth is your knowldge of other faiths?
| |||||||
1/3/2009 9:07 pm |
Classy... As I've stated from my very first comment on... I am not arguing the existence or non-existence of God -- honestly, that's your issue. I've merely pointed to the errors in your misuse (rather, removal) of actual context. I do have a question, though: exactly where was it I said you misquoted anything? But, hey! Who really cares about the truth when we can fall back on semantics... or, better yet, condescension? Solar... BTW: Was it really Peter who killed them? After all, Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. I'd say the Holy Spirit was just providing for a little clean-up on aisle 5... 
| |||||||
1/3/2009 10:40 pm |
Hi, I came to this post rather late... and so I am not sure that I am going to be strictly relevant.... but there you go. I should also state that I am not a monotheist in the traditional sense... in that I do not believe in the relegions of Abraham, if I were to believe in one of them it would be Islam... if you read any of the holy books of Abraham then that is the one that makes most sense and chimes with my believes. I do not agree with you either though, for a number of reasons... Do not get me wrong, what you said about Christianity (and by implication Judaism - if we take the Old Testament to represent the Torah) could be seen as correct (although another part of me thinks that it is rather trite and touches upon very tainted and literal thinking)... but you state that you are an Atheist.. and just because you refute Judaism and Christianity does not mean that you have refuted God. So at the moment scientists at CERN in Europe are working hard to get the Hadron Collidor up and running... this is a massive machine that has been built to prove (or disprove) the existence of the Higgs Boson and therefore, by implication, the Higgs Field and further to that The Standard Model.... (all of those terms can easily be Wiki'd)... it is an exciting time... and my reply to you is going to presume that The Standard Model of particle physics works and that the scientists at CERN find the Higgs.... why? To show you something.... You see if they succeed they can trace our universe back to the Big Bang. Now I do not know if you have a great understanding of the Big Bang... but what that says is that in the beginning there was nothing and then from nothing there was a massive explosion that threw out everything from a finite point... and from that point things are still expanding..... Nice ain't it? And I do not doubt it, not one word. But even if this is true there are still a number of questions.... like what was before the Big Bang (to say that it was nothing is simply unsatisfactory)...and what caused the Big Bang (there must of been some catalyst)? You see no matter where you explain the Universe to there will always be the ability to ask, but what was before that.... In essence Science is seeking to provide an explanation of things in much the same way as, say, philosophy and relegion... the difference is, I guess, that they are not starting with a premise and following forward... they are following it back. An important point to realise here is that all these explanations rely upon one event happening. Creation. And none of them provide particularly good explanations of it. Exodus does not actually have God creating everything... he draws forth everything from a kind or primordial soup and seperates it into land and sea, day and night. Is that any more or less satisfactory that saying that everything was really compact and nothing and then there was a massive explosion and there was everything? Science, when I was younger, could still purport to be able to answer everything... but I think that as we push into the 21st century we can begin to see that it maybe overstated its ability to explain everything... sometimes it gives nothing better than an alternative, or even creates more questions than it can answer...... One thing that all relegions and science can agree on is this. Creation.... it happened. So here is the important part... There is a God, it is a fact. God's existence is no more in doubt that your own, in fact it is your existence that proves that there is a God. We can call God the act of creation, somthing happened that changed time to lead to this moment and you and me and all of it, and whatever that thing is that changed time is God. That is all we can say about him/her/it. Does God still exist? Well.... I dunno. That is the point where we start to ascribe ourselves knowledge that we do not have.... maybe God was an explosion that took place many millions of years ago and was over in an instant. Maybe God was/is a force, much like the Higgs Field, which pervades everything that we know to this day, entirely undetectible by us. Maybe God is a man walking around and doing capricious and unexplanable acts. To be honest I do not give a shit. I was not at the act of creation. No-one I know, nor trust, was. I know that there are much higher forces in this Universe than me... and I know that within those forces some remnant of God might dwell and remain (and it is to those higher forces that I sometimes direct prayer - conscious or unconscious)... so there is a, or was, a God, your existance and mine proves that... what we are arguing over (and what the world is arguing over) is What is God? But to be honest that rather does not matter, because it will always require a leap of faith wahtever you believe (paganism, montheism, science....) Your view of relegion is rather narrow and limited (and I say that as someone who is not a fan of, nor a believer in, relegion, bear in mind that the Bible is a man-made allegory and do not judge God for that... bear in mind that, like the U.S. today, relegions goods are easily overlooked in favour of its ills (like reading? No church, no books, like medicine? No church, modern medicine, building technology, pioneered by the Church... all maths and science - which you so love - then thank Islam etc). All the bad stuff that you think came from relegion actually came from man... a gun in a hunters hand will provide you with food, whereas in a murderers hand..... Should you wish to cast off that ignorance then I thoroughly recommend 'A History Of God' by Karen Armstrong (it is a history of the relegions of Abraham, written from an athiests point of view). If you are happy in your ignorance then I would not, if I were you, act like someone who has looked at it all from all angles when in fact most of your thinking is limited, narrow and straight from the pub.
| |||||||
1/3/2009 11:18 pm |
Dream on, Classy, my friend. Solar...
| |||||||
1/4/2009 12:07 am |
"If you are presuming that science has a limit and has reached or is reaching it, then I would suggest that you rethink that." Never said nor implied that.... but yes of course science has a limit, there is not anything in the universe that is not finite and that includes knowledge. Point is that your beef is with Christianity in particular (maybe Judaism and Islam in general) but I am afraid that relegion and God belief is too general a scope to blanket condemn.... for example there are forms of Judaism and Islam that see God as an object that created but that is not aware that it did and is certainly not aware of us.... (which blows your interaction complaint, which is particular to Christianity, out of the water and gives us something more akin to that Big Bang theory...) however, they see it as thus, just because God is not aware of us does not mean that He/She/It is not worthy of our worship...... Bottom line, your argument and view is quite narrow and particular (to a form of Christianity which has become too literal and dogmatic) and is not representative as an argument for Science and against God belief..... you do not, no matter what you claim, have any/all the answers and you have not disproved the existence of God, at best you have railled against some Christians.
| |||||||
1/4/2009 6:35 am |
Darlin', just remember, the latest round of commentors are the same folk who: A. Thought Sarah Palin was intelligent B. Thought John McCain would be a great president C. Think George Bush IS a great president D. Believe in talking snakes E. STILL think Obama is the Anti-Christ So what do you really expect from them? Rationality? Peckerhead is a most apt handle.  Rev Joe"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address." "This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."
| |||||||
1/4/2009 9:59 am |
NM_BOB you claim that the "fundamental belief of the non-believer is that the universe is a rational entity open to inquiry, learning and ultimately human understanding...." - not sure if this an attempt to show a distinction between non believers and believers but as a person of faith i strongly believe that the universe is a rational entity and science is an important of my faith thus my life. In fact my faith encourages it. And of the things that have being explained by rationalism that were once attributed to a supernatural being can you just give me some examples. As to your literal meanings of scripture; those literal meanings of scriptures can and have been twisted to serve one's own interests and passions. However literal meanings is not the same as understanding and depth of knowledge. And to your fundamentalist friend, I also would fight anyone that comes to my doorway to force their belief on me. But this leads me to another point: There are hundreds and/or thousands of those fundamentalists but that is a small fraction of the faith based population. It seems to me you are accepting the fundamentalists version of religion. there are millions of people who do not share this version and yes the fundamentalist does pose a threat but it does not mean that his version is correct. It could actually be that the fundamentalist is going against the same faith that he believes he is upholding. It perplexes me that you choose to use this example to show what is wrong with religion when in fact the fundamentalist is interpreting the religion incorrectly.
| |||||||
1/4/2009 12:12 pm |
Ginger: ahhh but you are assuming that I am of the Christian faith and that I share those beliefs...on yor other point there are a lot of interpretations and sects but there can only be one truth which goes back to my earlier post when I wrote that the truth is surrounded by myths. lies......
| |||||||
1/4/2009 3:24 pm |
No one can prove the existence of God,and if you do not want to believe in a God, you never will. There can be no scientific proof, simply because God is not physical or material . Since it is impossible to "prove" with absolute certainty, any amount of belief in a God has to come from your own spirit, from within your own heart, The issue is which proof is more compelling. For myself, I tend to b think that most people are most swayed by the argument that meshes most closely with their own cultural experiences. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/4/2009 3:38 pm |
You, sir, are one who seems to have no respect for the opinions of others. Afterall, you are the one who has attacked me. I have attacked no one in my comments. I have simply presented by opinions. Good day, sir!  And really? Who's being smug now with all these 'sirs'? NOW you can accuse me of making a personal attack. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/4/2009 5:02 pm |
please let us not get started on Bush...
| |||||||
1/4/2009 5:12 pm |
Gin- I debate like I play tiddlywinks. It can get a bit rough. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/4/2009 6:35 pm |
Trav: At least twice you've presented the argument that religion is natural or normal. I'm assuming that you're using that argument based on the assumption that 'natural' is 'right' and/or 'good'. Present your reasoning that 'natural' is 'right' and/or 'good'. I've presented one counter-argument, and that's all I need. I have not intended to argue for or against the idea of a natural religion. I am merely trying to understand what has been said and what they think. So far I have not recieved an answer. stop by and say hi TravelerMan83
| |||||||
1/4/2009 7:05 pm |
No further witnesses your honor, I rest my case. Rev Joe "McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address." "This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."
| |||||||
1/5/2009 10:09 am |
NM_BOB: Let me preface by saying that I am not here to defend Christianity I will let others of that faith do that. You do bring up some very good points regarding science and religious values. What I got out of your take on science and religion (correct me if I'm wrong) was that both science and religion have erred regarding the origins of the universe. I agree with this but again it takes me back to one of my earlier post which I said the truth is often times covered up by a lotta garbage; for lack of a better word. Finally, your point on religious values. in pluralistic societies is well taken. However I think the greater issue is which religion will those values come from. I believe religious values will always be embedded in secular laws even if one does not want to admit. even our bill of rights mostly grew out of religious values. l like you said let us hope we deal with those issues in a civil manner
| |||||||
1/5/2009 10:29 am |
Could the believers please tell me which religion I should follow - I don't want to make a mistake because I'm currently heading for athiest hell and I wouldn't want to spend a lot of effort worshiping the wrong god and still end up in hell. I take it that worship is a fundamental requirement - leading a good and virtuous life, without actually believing, isn't good enough? If it helps, I need my religion to be non-violent, non-sexist, non-racist and tolerant of others. I'd prefer it to be meat-eating (including bacon), non-teetotal, contraception-using and not too big on singing (I really can't sing). Obviously sex outside marriage and for reasons other than procreation are absolute requirements And I'd prefer it if the god didn't go in for the testing thing - life is hard enough without being tested by an immortal, omnipotent and omniscient being who really should know better.
| |||||||
1/5/2009 10:57 am |
There's a very simple way to dismiss religion. Holy texts were written in a time where the belief was that the Earth was the heart and centre of everything. Here we stand today knowing blatantly that this is not the case. We're not even near the centre of the Milky Way, we're on the outskirts of one of it's arms. The most deeply religious among us have the most dread of the world around them. The film "Carrie" portrays this perfectly in my opinion. The best faith can be found in imperfection! That would lead to true happiness would it not? Knowing the world can be a turbulent place, just like the planets, the stars, etc. If the universe is hostile, why should we be in different? It's idiotic! Dan x Click below to visit my blog!  CheekyRock
| |||||||
1/5/2009 1:39 pm |
In an earlier comment, you classyginger wrote as follows ... In an article in Mensa magazine Paul Bell concluded that of the 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between one’s religious beleief and one’s intelligence and/or education level all but 4 found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold any “beliefs” of any kind. Later in the thread of commentary, I indirectly challenged you, Ginger, for inferring that Christians are generally "ignorant" in my direct comment to Solarpowered0, to wit: Well done, Solar! A persuasive argument indeed! Of course, however, I'm already leaning in favor of God and Jesus and all that other unbelievable stuff Ginger says is written in the Good Book. I, like you my friend, am one of those mean old, ignorant Christians! You didn't like me to challenge you by making reference to your general glib and condescending tone throughout this entire posting that people of faith, Christians in particular, are ignorant and prone to believing in magic and hocus-pocus, so you replied as follows: classyginger replies on 1/3/2009 6:16 pm: Well done ‒ are you kidding me? How do you figure? LOL!!! I think not. Not in even close. The bible is not evidence. I guess you either ignored the contradictions that I posted because it does not support your argument. I never said “ignorant Christians”. Please don’t put words in my mouth! Although I do believe that they are both deceived by the wicked men that created these myths and fairytales. I would never make a blanket statement like that about ALL Christians because I don’t believe that it is true. I have many Christians in my family and many Christians that are dear to me, they are nether ignorant or evil! If you can’t handle the conversation without lying and getting bent out of shape then I suggest that you bow out. You'd love for me to "bow out of the discussion" here, now wouldn't you? That's because I won't allow you to twist the truth, deny statements and inferences you've made, and I won't allow you, an atheist, to speak as the "authority" against billions of people of religious faith. I can be a pretty crafty, cantankerous and resourceful lawyer too, Ginger. I can refer to your own statements and twist you in knots, were I of a mind to do so. Not that God requires a lawyer to defend Him. You, with all your clever words and twisted "evidence", try as you might, cannot put God on trial. And I am no shrinking violet who will back away from the foul, demeaning and blasphemous things you are writing here about religion and people of faith. You have spouted lots of things here as though you have set yourself up as the authority on religion and the judge and jury over all people who have religious faith. All of your railing against religion and the existence of God is hogwash, and I am here to call it just exactly that, hogwash! Remember this, Ginger .... "Someone who essentially believes in nothing will ultimately fall for anything." You believe in nothing of any real substance (atheism is a belief in nothing), and you are apparently falling for all the clever arguments offered by the so-called intellectuals of the secularist movement, glib individuals like Christopher Hitchens and others. You trust in your own human intellect and reject the notion of a Creator and a Higher Power with unfathomable intellect. You reject and mock the great wisdom, life lessons and parable teachings contained within the Bible. You set yourself up as one who, at age 28, knows far more about what is right and wholesome for your life than may be found in all the great books of religious faith. That is pretty presumptious, I think. There is something of value for each of us in all of those old books of wisdom. But only if we humble ourselves and are willing to be receptive. I expect that you will not like what I have written here nor what I have written in previous comments. You may have become quite angry with me by now. But I tell you, Ginger, for your sake and your sake alone, I have withheld nothing, and I have spoken plainly from my heart. Ignore it all, reject it all .... but please do not reject The Lord Your God. If you delete this comment, I will not be surprised. If you ban me from making any further comments, I don't really care. I am only concerned with your militant religious cynicism and your hostility toward people of faith. And I ask you to consider thoughtfully what has separated you from a personal relationship with your God. I wrote all this to shake you for your own sake .... if that is possible. As humans, we are all strong-willed, and we are always very much tempted to follow our own individual will rather than His Will. Believe me, Gin, when I tell you I know from personal experience of that which I speak. Things have always tended to go a bit better in my life when I subordinated my own stubborn will to His Will. I would not lie to you. There is no reason for me to lie to you. And contrary to your protestations, I do not believe that the Scriptures will lie to you. Be well, Ginger. And may God bless you that you may open your heart to His Word. An atheist doesn't replace a belief in god with a belief in the absence of god. They just don't believe in god. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/5/2009 1:41 pm |
Bring it on buster!  Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/5/2009 1:47 pm |
I cannot see gravity...therefore it does not exist (as I step off the building). Sorry Ginger I couldn't resist that. Ginger, with all these folks who wish to "Know God", why would He/She/It want to know them? Are they "special"? Answered my own question there didn't I? BEEP BEEP, bus is here. Is that "Know" in the biblical sense, BTW? Just wondering. Peckerhead. Short sighted? Narrow minded? You really need to go back and take remedial reading.  Bragging about your lack of education AND upbringing is not necessary BTW. It's evident, and we've all known for some time now. No need to belabor the point. Don't let my degrees get in your way sport. It's never to late to learn something. In your case ANYTHING. "McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address." "This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."
| |||||||
1/5/2009 2:08 pm |
A word on science and its errors: The scientific method, quite unlike religion and faith, is open to being questioned. In fact, that's part of the scientific method. Facts are observed. A theory is proposed to explain the facts. It is tested to see if it's accurate and to see if it can predict results. It does not stop being tested. EVER. If it fails, it is scrapped or modified to fit new facts. As for the comment about gravity: You may not directly observe it, but you do observe the effects. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/5/2009 2:44 pm |
A word on science and its errors: The scientific method, quite unlike religion and faith, is open to being questioned. In fact, that's part of the scientific method. Facts are observed. A theory is proposed to explain the facts. It is tested to see if it's accurate and to see if it can predict results. It does not stop being tested. EVER. If it fails, it is scrapped or modified to fit new facts. As for the comment about gravity: You may not directly observe it, but you do observe the effects. Consider for a moment the Big Bang vs Steady State theories of the universe. The original BB theory was deeply flawed - people didn't take it as gospel, objections were raised. The theory was trashed, only to be redeveloped in a way that fits the facts better. Experimental evidence came later that validates (not proves) the theory. That doesn't happen with issues of faith - the name gives it away, you have to believe... any set of irrational beliefs will do, all the better if they were formulated a couple of thousand years ago
| |||||||
1/5/2009 3:16 pm |
Ginger: I disagree that morality comes naturally. the same crimes have been committed from civilization to civilization, the majority of which from the same nations. how do you explain natural morality when mankind continues to make the same moralistic crimes. as for the scandinavian countries, it seems like you are ignoring other factors such as diversity and poverty. Just to quickly touch on another point: i believe that religion can be questioned and tried; no one is forced to believe. only after one is satisfied with his\her investigations comes the faith. i disagree with the notion of blind faith
| |||||||
1/5/2009 4:49 pm |
As I said, a belief in nothing. No matter how much you may attempt to spin it for your purposes. I can believe that the earth orbits the sun without invoking some supernatural being to create either or to make it so. I'll say it again, this time less flippantly, which god should I believe in? And what cultural and social conditioning should cause me to make that choice?
| |||||||
1/5/2009 6:16 pm |
Ginger: Pardom my earlier post if it was not clear enough. I was trying to say that there are other factors that explain the violence in the US and Africa as compared to the Scandinavian countries. In the US, the majority of the violence happens in the inner city. This does not stem from religion even if religion may be practised. ther are a myriad of reasons to explain this violence such as poverty. In Africa, the violence is a little bit more complex. Aside from cultural (which is diff than religion) reasons there exists also corruption, complex history and once again poverty. if i am not mistaken, scandinavian countries are not devoid of religion even if it is less than other places. If you look through history (ie Spain) there are examples where people of different religions have lived in peace. as for israel and the middle east; it is was it is...
| |||||||
 1/6/2009 3:24 am |
prove it and i shall believe it
| |||||||
1/6/2009 10:16 am |
man I signed on thinking I would be reading some insightful comments...lol..guess not
| |||||||
1/6/2009 1:55 pm |
As I said, a belief in nothing. No matter how much you may attempt to spin it for your purposes. There is no such thing as a 'belief in nothing'. It's an oxymoron, moron. You can either believe in something, or not believe. Something is not nothing, and nothing is not something. Basic concepts. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/6/2009 4:48 pm |
For anyone who has ears to hear .... "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." Proverbs 4 (KJV)I believe that we must first begin with God's word, if we desire that other things in life should prosper with us, contrary to the judgment of the world, which too often make it their last study, or else care not for it at all. A desire for wisdom is wise. We must look upon our teachers as our fathers. Though all instruction carry in it reproof and correction, bid it welcome. King Solomon's parents loved him, and therefore taught him. Wise and godly men, in every age of the world, and rank in society, agree that true wisdom consists in obedience, and is united to happiness. Get wisdom, and take great pains for it. Get control and rule over your corruptions; take more pains to get this than all the wealth of this world. An interest in Christ's salvation is necessary. This wisdom is the one thing needful. A soul without true wisdom and grace is a dead soul. How poor, contemptible, and wretched are those, who, with all their wealth, power and technical education, die without getting true understanding, without Christ, without hope, and without God! We should give heed and respect to the sayings of Him who has the words of eternal life. In so doing, our path will be plain and straight before us. By taking and keeping fast hold of wise instruction, we shall avoid stumbling along on the path of life. I do wish you'd tell us which god's words we are to believe - until you define him and his words you are telling us nothing. And until you can define your belief and tell us why you have made the conscious decision to believe in a certain deity your words are empty. Did you evaluate a number of belief systems before making your conscious decision to believe one above the others? What are your reasons for believing in Christ rather than say adopting Judaism or Islam? You did make a conscious decision didn't you? Or did you merely fall in with the conditioning provided by your environment? I'm not surprised you wish to do away with logic because all your arguments are circular, beginning with belief in order to justify belief.
| |||||||
1/7/2009 9:12 am |
Ginger: hmmmm you bring up some good points...can't wait to read the response
| |||||||
1/7/2009 11:01 am |
The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Uh, I'm not a biblical scholar so could someone explain to the me misinterpreted prophecy in Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1? I admit, I read it -- but missed the misinterpreted prophecy.
| |||||||
1/7/2009 1:28 pm |
What a diverse woman! From grannies to the bible without blinking an eyelash. I like you even morer!
| |||||||
1/7/2009 1:46 pm |
Oh my, Thrilla! Your skin is a wee bit thin, me thinks! Insult and name calling, eh? Remember what Patrick J. Buchanan is fond of saying, Thrilla .... "Personal insult is the final refuge of an exhausted mind." When I say an atheist believes in "nothing", I simply mean to say that that which he/she does believe in ultimately "amounts to nothing". All that science, all that pseudo, contorted logic, all that self-centered, stong-willed reliance upon his/her own will, etc. shall eventually come to exactly "nothing". When the human being is devoid of spiritual faith, then I submit to you that he/she has "nothing". Figure it out for yourself, Thrilla. This is called 'dissembling' and 'rationalization'. Science, once again, is not a belief. It is constantly subjected to tests to refute any theory or supposition. It does not require faith or belief. It is all about observed facts, and nothing more. In point of fact, holding to a belief in science is the surest way to make bad science, for a belief is nothing more than an assumption with no facts to support that assumption. You're only calling it 'pseudo, contorted logic' because it doesn't support your assumptions. The logic is far soundeer than your submission. Your submission is nothing more than another belief. A belief that, somehow, a human is not human without faith. Another assumption with no facts in evidence. It's just an assertion. A belief. I have facts. Facts that atheists can be exceedingly compassionate and humane. Facts that people of 'faith' can be cruel and vicious. To wit... prison is full of people of faith. All you have to argue with is belief. No facts, no logic, nothing. So who really believes in nothing here? You and I are both far more substantial than anything you claim to believe in. So is my will and self-reliance. In other words.. I am here. God is not. Get arguments without assumptions. Get arguments without belief. Come back and see me when you're assumptions aren't your conclusions. In case you're wndering, I can prove the existence of god without belief and using the logic you denigrated. Why can't you? Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/7/2009 3:08 pm |
You do not have ears to hear, Thrilla, so you won't understand nor will you humble yourself to be admonished by the following Bible verse, although these wise words were written exactly for you and strong-willed, rebellious people like you who stubbornly, arrogantly and foolishly reject the Lord God Almighty and His intructions for living a good life. Those who do have ears to hear will understand the meaning of this verse and will strive to learn the wisdom so succinctly stated therein. Good luck on your faith journey! "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." Proverbs 12:15 It's not that I (or anyone else) don't hear it because I have heard it, and far more. I just don't believe it. If the Bible is your best proof, you've lost before you can start. I'll ask this: You have an interpretation x 3 or 4, a tranlation x at least 2, probably more, and a few editions for updates AFTER an oral history to say that the Lord actually said that, so, besides taking the word of other, dead men for it, what's your proof that god said that? Even as a person of faith, you must acknowledge that man is flawed, and so are his works? I'll even forgo contesting the origins of the Bible as 'divinely' inspired and will even allow that the original oral tradition was perfect, we are several versions separated from that. And if you're wondering, I'm agnostic, not atheist. I was raised Catholic, one generation from nuns and Catholic schools. I have studied both theology and philosophy, and I have made no conclusions. By the way... your dissembling of 'belief in nothing' to 'consists of nothing'? Great lawyering. And, yes, I'm going back to that one. Person A is a person of faith. His world is shaped by that faith. Everything he perceives is perceived through the prism of his beliefs. His morals and ethics, his choices, and his views.. all shaped by that faith. Person B is not a person of faith. His world is not shaped by anything but his collective experiences and conclusions. His morals and ethics are his own. His choices are his own. His views are his own. The result is that a person of faith is nothing more than a shadow. He is not free to make his own choices, unless he's willing to shatter his faith-shaped world by going against that faith. He is, in essence, empty. Conversely, the person without faith is free of predisposition and everything about him is completely him. The conclusion here is that the person of faith is far less substantial than the person free of faith. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/7/2009 5:46 pm |
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." Proverbs 12:15 "Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavour of the soup" Oh, but it was Buddha who said that... and your compassionate god has already cast him into eternal hell.
| |||||||
1/7/2009 10:04 pm |
You make a very good argument! I am a catholic, but do not consider myself religious (thank catholic school beatings for that), nor do I find myself an atheist. I think for a good many people that Faith is a good thing. Be it to God, Buddha, Allah, Shen or any one of the other religions gods. It gives them hope for the future, the afterlife, and/or that someone is there for them when they need it. For a good many, it does provide a moral compass, which seems to be lost in this country and in other places around world today (murders, robberies, racial hatred, etc.). The problem is NOT with Faith, but with Religion itself. Look at all the conflicts/wars happening in the world today and any through History, and you will not find one that did not start over Religious beliefs or that was carried out in the name of a god or a particular dogma. What people really need to focus on IS having a Faith, NOT a Religion. This sort of goes with what Machiavelli had posed in The Prince and why he believed that morality did not belong in government. Your morals are not and will not be the same as my morals. That does not make either of us right OR wrong... as long as we at least have a Faith that is providing our moral compass to help guide us in the proper direction and to do the right things. On the other hand a great many people today are confusing Faith and Religion. People treat them as one in the same, which they are not. You can almost say they are polar opposites. Everyone who has a Faith actually believes in the SAME thing whether they know it or not... People who follow a particular Religion believe in ONE thing/person, and that everyone else is wrong. Those same People believe that if you do not practice that Religion you are confused, wrong and/or a bad person or culture. Then add large numbers of other people who are not part of YOUR Religion and suddenly the hatred erupts overtime. Then the next thing you know, you are bombing abortion clinics or setting up roadside IED's. All because of a hatred toward people who do not believe what you believe... or better yet believe in. Religion has been and will always be a dividing point. We need not to believe, but just have Faith.
| |||||||
1/8/2009 6:04 am |
But belief is intertwined in faith. What is faith if one does not believe in anything...there would be nothing to have faith in.... Its important to talk about all the wars started in the name of religion, but let us not forget the good (charities, shelters, food drives...) that has been initiated by religion.
| |||||||
1/8/2009 9:49 am |
Thrilla, I originally came here to have discussions with Ginger, but you have interjected yourself into the conversation between me and Ginger as well as the conversations between others and Ginger. Your comments appear all over her postings on the subject of religion to the extent that it's difficult to know whether this is her blog or yours! You evidently have some obsession with putting down God, religion and all people who dare to profess their personal faith. Several pages (and days ago), you sought to oppose the comments I left for Ginger. Had I any inclination or desire to develop a dialogue with you, I would surely have come to YOUR blog rather than here to Ginger's. However, let us not be quarrelsome or "disagreeable". For it is written: "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." Proverbs 15:1 And it is also written in that same Book of Proverbs: "Pleasant words are as a honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones." Proverbs 16:24 Therefore, I will attempt to control my impulses and try to be pleasant and civil with you. You throw so much "stuff" around that it is difficult to respond to it all. But let me just address a few things you have said .... 1. You opened by saying ... "The conceit of the faithful." Oh really? That statement, in and of itself, is condescending, contemptuous and presumptious. It arises out of your personal paradigm and distinct and observable bias against religion and people of faith. But as I said, let us not quarrel. My simple response to you is this .... All human beings suffer from the sinful afflictions of "False Pride and Conceit". The faithful are no more are less subject to this human failing than are those of no or little faith. We are, afterall, created equal. Hopefully, by hearing and understanding the teachings of their religious faith, the faithful acknowledge these personal temptations and human failings and they strive to resist such temptations. Yet, it is ALWAYS a struggle, for the nature of man is to be PRIDEFUL and CONCEITED. Now, I can't speak for all religions, but I believe this to be the case for practicing Christians. (By the way, it's spelled Christians NOT Xtians, Thrilla. Be a little respectfull, lest ye insult a sizeable portion of the earth's population. But, I'm sure that's what you INTEND to do anyway, because that's just the kind of person you are!) 2. In your conclusion, you said ... "The result is that a person of faith is nothing more than a shadow. He is not free to make his own choices, unless he's willing to shatter his faith-shaped world by going against that faith. He is, in essence, empty. Conversely, the person without faith is free of predisposition and everything about him is completely him. The conclusion here is that the person of faith is far less substantial than the person free of faith." Amazing viewpoint, ol' boy! Who's being conceited? You apparently don't know some of the people of deep faith that I know ... Christians, Jews and Muslims. I find many of them to be quite happy, content, fulfilled and yes, substantial in every way. The people I know lead purposeful and successful lives. Some struggle with personal crises of various kinds .... much the same as all people do from time to time during the entirety of their lives. Do NOT speak against that which you obviously know and understand very little. Why is it that you are so hateful and contemptuous toward people of religious faith, Thrilla? Why is it you are soooooo obsessed with being negative toward those who choose to believe in God and the teachings of their religion? No one is threatening you in anyway whatsoever. You are free to be an atheist, an agnostic or anything else you want to be. I am not here to convert you to anything. On the otherhand, I will not sit idly by and allow you to spew all that hate and nonsense that you feel compelled to spew upon me and other people of goodwill and religious faith. I can, at a minimum, call you out and expose your hateful, warped pronouncements for exactly what they are. Well, you see, Thrilla, it is very hard to contain one's anger and speak only "soft, pleasant, honeycombed words" when one is being attacked the way you have been attacking me, others of faith and God Himself. Even we "shadowy, non-substantial people of faith" can be provoked to anger and righteous indignation. Alas, Thrilla, we can only recognize our own personal failings and keep trying to improve until the day we die. I have not put down god and xtianity. I have put down your arguments for them. I've said as much before. Your argument that I can not hear your arguments is just that... conceited. The intention is to imply that a believer is superior, possessed of a faculty that a non-believer lacks. I'll quit saying xtians and xtianity (I might even capitalize the 'g' for god) when you drop the assumption that an atheist is a deluded, empty human, devoid of humanity simply because they do not share your views. Fair enough? I have no problem admitting my conceits and prejudices. How about you? I told you, I'm one generation away from nuns. How's that for deep faith? I've had this sort of discussion with a nun, a priest, two preachers, and a rabbi-in-training or whathaveyou. Then again, none of them have tried to defeat an argument with assertions that a non-believer is of lesser stature. Or is a person who amounts to nothing supposed to be considered equal? By the way, priests and rabbis have crossed me as very well-versed in the arguments against the existence of a deity, and are perfectly willing to debate the subject without quoting either the Bible or the Tanakh. You are taking this wayyyyy too personally. I offered an argument that opposes it, and, rather than quoting a tome, I showed you the assumptions and the reasoning that led to my conclusion. A conclusion that is no more vicious than your own submission, for it is only equal, but opposite. Who are you trying to kid? Personal affront at an insult that is, in content, no different than what you've said about atheists? Don't dish it if you can't take it. You skipped my argument against the bible and the various translations it's gone through. I'll give you the countering argument because I'm magnanimous like that: God is perfect, therefore, all his works are perfect, which includes his Word. Being perfect, his Word is immune to the flaws of man. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/8/2009 11:30 am |
Is anyone familar with the story behind the book - 90 Minutes in Heaven? Don Piper is the author. I'd post a video link but Adult FriendFinder doesn't allow outside links.
| |||||||
1/8/2009 2:25 pm |
90 Minutes in Heaven by Don Piper: Editorial Reviews Product Description More than 1 million copies sold! On the way home from a conference, Don Piper's car was crushed by a semi-truck that crossed into his lane. Medical personnel said he died instantly. While his body lay lifeless inside the ruins of his car, Piper experienced the glories of heaven, awed by its beauty and music. 90 minutes after the wreck, while a minister prayed for him, Piper miraculously returned to life on earth with only the memory of inexpressible heavenly bliss. His faith in God was severely tested as he faced an uncertain and grueling recovery. Now he'd like to share his life-changing story with you. 90 Minutes in Heaven offers a glimpse into a very real dimension of God's reality. This New York Times bestseller encourages those recovering from serious injuries and those dealing with the loss of a loved one. The experience dramatically changed Piper's life, and it will change yours too. "A friend handed me this book at about midnight, and come two or three in the morning, I was still reading, my heart pumping, bumps on my arms, the hairs on the back of my neck on end. It's a wonderful and inspiring story that brightens your perspective, giving you a sense of security, clarity and warmth."--Donald Miller, author, Blue Like Jazz "The book describes the brief but sweet heavenly reunion Piper enjoyed with deceased relatives (as well as his grueling recovery, which has included 34 surgeries)."--Publishers Weekly "Captivating and well written, this books holds your attention and often holds your heart. Don tells his story, his experience that all Christians long to hear. I appreciate especially his honesty and candid feelings of dealing with his recovery and pain. Don's experience will lift your spirit and soften any pain."--Ron Hill, pastor, The Fellowship of San Antonio "Don Piper's ninety minutes in heaven changed his life and his perspective. Reading his book will give you the assurance that God is faithful to bring you through even the most horrific of circumstances. May his eyewitness account of the hope that lies before you change your perspective of this life as well!"--Michael Carter, CBN chief financial officer --------------------------------------------------------------------- A few reader reviews : Written in straight-forward, simple style without a lot of "religionese," Don Piper has told the story of his devastating accident, his brief time in heaven and his return to a life full of pain and questions. I read it cover-to-cover in two hours and then loaned out my copy. I would recommend this book to just about anybody -- to those with questions about faith, questions about prayer, questions about life and death and pain which we all face to some extent. His descriptions of heaven are human ones -- simple, not overly poetic or grandiose, just those of someone who experienced the indescribable and then tried to describe it. I loved the descriptions of the incredible heavenly music and I get the feeling that vast choirs and heightened senses await us there. And despite the incredible experience, Piper found it too personal, too private, and too intimate to share with anyone for over a year after his accident. I'm so glad he found the courage to do so. I also love the honesty with which he describes his pain and depression and the inevitable questions that we must face when we have close encounters with the Almighty. The God we meet is often not the one we expected, and while we can't understand why God does what he does, we can no longer deny this God we don't understand. And while we hold these two things together, our lives are changed and grace is showered down amid the ruins of what we thought was important to us. A simply-told story of the greatest mystery of all -- you HAVE to read this book!! -------------------------------------------------------------------- I never buy these kinds of books. I have always viewed them as a type of preying on believers or , at best, a sleazy attempt to cash in on faith. This book was different. I read the title and synopsis and passed over it many times but something kept drawing me back to this book. I didn't know why at the time, but I had to buy this book. I loved it from the very first page. It has a ring of truth. Most of the book is about what happened to Mr. Piper after his experience in heaven and during his long, painful recovery. I bought many copies and gave them to family and friends, urging them to read it as I believe it has the power to transform lives. About a month after I 1st read this book my son was killed in Iraq. I now know that God was preparing me for what was to come and not be afraid but be joyful that my son is with Him in an indescribly beautiful place, in His presence. I have a peace of mind I NEVER would have known if I had not read this book. I will be forever grateful for this.
| |||||||
1/8/2009 4:53 pm |
Is anyone familar with the story behind the book - 90 Minutes in Heaven? Don Piper is the author. I'd post a video link but Adult FriendFinder doesn't allow outside links. And why is it always white lights and choral music - how cliched! How come you never hear of the "all I could see was this dim red light getting closer and as it got closer it got hotter and hotter... flames were licking at my flesh... all I could hear was the wail of souls in anguish... I saw Einstein, Buddha and Gandhi, their broken bodies in chains, tormented by the flames" type of experience?
| |||||||
1/8/2009 6:55 pm |
I used to have a recurring dream that I wore my PJs to school. Then, in my junior year, there was a PJ day for spirit week leading up to our homecoming. I wore my PJs to school. Does that mean I saw the future? The mind is little understood, but the 'white lights' phenomenon is eerily similar to what happens when a person passes out. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/9/2009 7:39 pm |
Thrilla, We're gonna have to stop meeting this way! There is so much more to life than incessant arguing. For example, today is a sunny day in Missouri, and the temperatures have moderated. And so, I'm gonna take a nice long walk. But let me leave something from the Bible for you to consider. It's a teaching parable from Jesus .... 1 And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land. 2 And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, 3 Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: 4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. 5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: 6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. 8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. 9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. 13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? 14 The sower soweth the word. 15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. 16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; 17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended. 18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, 19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. 20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred. 21 And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick? 22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. 23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. 25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath. 26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; 27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. 28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. 29 But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come. 30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: 32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. 33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples. 35 And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side. 36 And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships. 37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. 38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? 39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? 41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? Mark 4: 1-41 I am merely attempting to help "sow The Word", Thrilla. Some will be receptive to The Word and hear it. And others will not be receptive (at least not at this point in their lives) and so they will not hear it or accept it. Christians can not be accused of being "conceited" for attempting to spread The Word anymore than those who reject it or question it (atheists, agnostics as well as Christians who struggle with their personal faith) can be accussed of being "conceited" for arguing against God and religion. I have not and will not accuse you of being "conceited" because you reject/question The Word, and I will thank you very much for not insulting me by calling me "conceited" for attempting to explain my faith. In the end, Thrilla, we will both be judged by the same Authority. In that Final Judgment, I certainly know that I will have many things to answer for. I do not hold myself up as superior to any other human being. Through my Christian faith, I am just trying to learn and improve upon some of my own personal failings. And now for my walk! Have a good day, Thrilla. That's twice I've said it. Later on, I'll prove the existence of god, just for you. And I won't use any book of any sort. I'll use pure, simple logic. I'll be stealing a lot of it from Descartes, though. Well, all of it. But I'll demonstrate it for you. Smart as a horse and hung like Einstein
| |||||||
1/12/2009 12:18 pm |
He got to heaven? Didn't god realise that he was going to be resuscitated? And why is it always white lights and choral music - how cliched! How come you never hear of the "all I could see was this dim red light getting closer and as it got closer it got hotter and hotter... flames were licking at my flesh... all I could hear was the wail of souls in anguish... I saw Einstein, Buddha and Gandhi, their broken bodies in chains, tormented by the flames" type of experience? Now on to your statement... All you have to do is search for after death or near death experiences in your favorite search engine to find examples of people who describe "hell". I had the pleasure of knowing a man when I was a child. He was a police officer and NOT a religious person in any way shape or form. Then one day the officer is struck by a car while writing a ticket on the side of interstate. He dies and they actually declare him dead on the scene. THey bypass the hospital on go straight to the county morgue where his best friend and fellow officer is walking next to the stretcher his dead body lies on. The body bag is only zipped to the head, with the face exposed and the friend looks down to see his friend open his eyes and start to look around. It had been roughy 20 minutes if I'm not mistaken (it's been a while since I shared this story so that number might not be right, but it was a long time). He had been checked again at the persistence of the friend when he entered the morgue and once again they found he was dead. This was not a mistake on the scene, the man was dead. His experience is far from a pleasant one, there was no bright light, there was no choral music, there was pain and fear. He was surrounded by many "people" or beings which he couldn't clearly see. They were wearing ripped clothing, and they were corpse like, evil in nature for sure. He says there was what seemed to be a light far off in the distance, and he tried to walk there. But these beings began to claw at him, to attack him, and to pull him away from the light in the distance. He said they began to tear his clothes and slice at his flesh with their fingers/claws... And then he said he defied them, told them that he would not go with them. He said that this was not the way for him, and began to fight them off. It was at this point, when he began to fight that he opened his eyes and was once again alive. THe officer is now a very spiritual person, claiming no particular faith but identifying with Christianity the most. I know this man personally and would NEVER doubt anything this man said to me. Now that is my personal sentiment, but I can say that this isn't some book or random search on the web, this is a person that I actually know. This story is VERY similar to many people who have "Real" experiences. None of this bright light and beauty of heaven. Some people say that the beings attack them, some say they merely cause them discomfort and slow their effort towards the light in the distance. Either way the number of issolated stories that are like this are far greater and more believable than the "glorified" near death experiences that are in books and made famous on TV. I could go delve deeper into this subject but I doubt any of you really care about it. And if you do just search for it on the net or send me a message. stop by and say hi TravelerMan83
| |||||||
1/27/2009 12:43 pm |
Whew!  I made it through all the comments. Bling: The Mystic_Writer collection. My Profile for standards to read.
|
 |
 |
 |
| Become a member to comment on this blog | ||
 |
Google
Persons appearing in photographs may not be actual members. Other data for illustrative purposes only.
Copyright © 1996-2012 Various, Inc. All rights reserved.AdultFriendFinder®, Adult Friend FinderSM, FriendFinder NetworksSM and the FriendFinder Networks logo are service marks of Various, Inc.
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material, all members and persons appearing on this site have contractually represented to us that they are 18 years of age or older.
Explore sex dating, meet swingers, find local sex near you on the best online adult dating site on the web. Whether you are looking to hookups, casual dating, married dating with an Asian, White, Black, Latino, Interracial singles or couples for sex, Adult Friend Finder is the sex dating site for you. We have the hottest adult personals from Atlanta to Los Angeles; San Diego to Chicago, from San Francisco to New York. AFF members are all over the world whether you are in big cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Houston, Miami, Seattle, or in smaller cities like Springfield, Columbus, Denver, Reno, AFF has you covered.
Adult FriendFinder does not conduct criminal background screening of its members. Learn about Internet Dating Safety,
click here.
