ok; so I am trying to add this up; which are you are argueing for free will and which for predetermination? Additionally, I think your smirks and slanderous remarks only weakens your positions as the incoherant and the uneducated tend to rant and commit the first ten logical falacies. Of late, it has begun to get a bit more difficult to determine what it is some of you are trying to illustrate. The idea that if a person was in an accident then he was predetermined to be in an accident and could not avoid it is a very interesting idea of which we have very little evidence as we have no way to test whether or not and personal change in ones actions would have the same resultant. We can argue either way, and it may be interesting and we might learn something, that a person can make a series of differenct choices and still end up in the same situation; so, does life have certain predetermined roadblocks that you must overcome or is life just a random series of events of which some you self determine to be roadblocks and is there any practical difference. This is one of the central discussions in any religion and of great interest to science and how we interpret this really what makes the difference.
wow the language mod made changes to make me seem a raging babbler of which none of that bold or flaming text did I add.
On the Satan issue. I believe he is a fallen angel and not truly God's enemy but man's. God could squash him without effort but Satan's supernatural powers can easily overwhelm a mere mortal.
The term "demon" simply refers to angels who followed Lucifer in the rebellion. Lucifer is the only ArchAngel (like Michael, Gabriel, etc.) in the camp of the "opposition". All others are lesser angelic figures.
Yes, Lucifer is more man's "enemy" than God's because he is jealous that we received "free will" (which he feels we do not deserve). His focus is on destroying us, subverting us, perverting us, despoiling us, corrupting us (pick the term you prefer). He is attemptting to prove God wrong in His bestowal of this this attribut on us.
But, because he defied God, Lucifer has a comeuppance due. Whether he's too proud to admit his error (quesitoning God's will and design and starting a family argument of epic proportions) or too obstinate to apologize hardly seems to matter. He's destined for eternal damnation along with all the angels who sided with him and any mortal who falls into his error of taking a side against God. But Lucifer is still God's enemy because he waged war against God and attempted to supplant him. That was "unforgivable", at least from God's perspective.
All in all, it comes down to a pizzing contest between the two, with us caught in the middle. If we obey God in all things, we abjure our "free will", letting it lie fallow, a gift unused and therefore unappreciated and proving Lucifer's argument that we are unworthy of it. Or, we side with Lucifer and we exercise the one gift in favor of all other things we could have had. That, in effect, would also "prove" Lucfer right, would rob God of all our worship, but would not mitigate the punishment that would come from the betrayal.
We walk a fine line between being what we were created to be and becoming what either of the two other camps would make of us. One (Lucifer) is apparently avoidable while the other may not be. The failure most people make is in not actively deciding between the two camps. Too many walk blindly between the two, balancing precariously on a tight-wire that can dump them unexpectedly into an abyss (of more than one type) from which they may never arise.
It is not the Holy Spirit which protects us, but our own "free will". We MUST choose evil to fall to him, else we cannot be convicted of the crime. Likewise, we MUST choose God to fall to Him, else we cannot be rewarded for the good; "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev. 3:16.
Bite me, you beach ball. My favorite line is where Kirth says, "Obviously you are an idiot!"
lol
Jade, you've finally outdone yourself. I'll admit that I never before understood all that 'ROFL' nonsense that people e-speak... until at last I saw the All-Seeing Eye referred to as a "beachball." And on a religious discussion thread, no less... what sacrilege!
On the Satan issue, Lawgiver, I think I agree with almost everything you said in your post.
But Lucifer is still God's enemy because he waged war against God and attempted to supplant him. That was "unforgivable", at least from God's perspective.
This is the only point that I think needs clarification. I don't agree that Lucifer's actions were unforgivable. At no time (nor, according to the conclusion illustrated in Revelation, will there *come* a time) has/will Lucifer repent of his actions/attitudes. If he did, I fully believe God would forgive and restore him. Regardless of his archangel status, God has forgiven/restored angels in the past - ie, those punished for mating with humans in Genesis but then released from inprisonment by Jesus after He descended into Hell following His death.
Your point about *choosing* one side or another is exactly the point I've been trying to make on these boards all along. It's sorta a paradox because we must release our "free will" and submit to God's will or practice our "free will" and face God's judgement but either choice is ours to "freely" make.Obviously, from reading these posts though, there is great debate about what exactly constitutes "free will".
I don't agree that Lucifer's actions were unforgivable.
Use the parenting metaphor: If you had a child that argued with you over a major household decision, and even went so far as to bring friends over to the house to beat you up, throw you out and take everything you had for himself (even try to kill you) you’d be pretty peeved. God was.
Considering what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah over something we don’t take that much exception to today, it’s not difficult to see burning in a perpetual lake of fire as suitable punishment for fomenting civil war and attempted deicide on the part of His most “perfect” creation; His most loved, most exalted Archangel – Lucifer.
there is great debate about what exactly constitutes "free will".
Picture a rat in a maze. It’s a big maze with all kinds of things to do. The rat can go wherever it wants and to whatever it wants …for the most part. There are two maze managers and two exits from the maze.
One maze manager explains to the rat that his exit leads to a rat paradise; always lots of good food and good nesting material, no predators, plenty of space to entertain friends, etc. But, the rat will have to give up something very important to it (something that is fundamental to its nature as a rat) now in order to get it, and give it up for the rest of its life. The reward will only come after death.
The maze manager explains to the rat that the other exit leads to a kennel full of rabid cats by which it will be tortured forever. The rat can have anything and everything it wants in this life, at the expense of perpetual pain after death. The other maze manager will try to tempt it with all kinds of promises, but that guy is a lying scoundrel, so don’t listen to him. By the way, they’re keeping count of how many rats chose which exit. The two of them have a bet on the eventual total. The loser of the bet loses his job and gets tossed into the kennel of cats and all the rats that sided with him well get stuck in there with him.
Which choice does the rat make?
Like that rat, we must make a choice; just one. That choice is whether or not to give up something fundamental to what makes us what we are; a portion of our personal sovereignty, a slice of our self-determination, in order to get rewards in an afterlife we have a great deal of difficulty in grasping or believing in purely on “faith”. That’s the difficult part. We have to take it all on faith and trust that we’re choosing the right maze manager to listen to; that the reward is real; that the sacrifice is worth it; that we’re not being tricked, etc., etc., etc.
The whole of “free will” comes down to that choice and that choice alone; live by certain rules we may not necessarily like or agree with – for our entire lives – for a reward we have a hard time believing is real, or exercise our self-determination now and hope that the threatened punishment is a lie.
Everything else we do in life is viewed and “judged” from the perspective of which choice we made (perhaps even whether or not we have had the courage to make that choice). It isn’t a matter of judging individual actions either. It’s a composite or gestalt view of perspective. If we don’t choose God (and live by his rules to prove it,) we’re in trouble. If we choose God, but fail to live according to his rules to prove it, we’re in trouble.
All else is dross.
If things don't "work right" then the less right they work, the less likely they were created in the first place.
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. ClarkeDoes something "work right" because it works according to your standards of measure or by the standards of measure used by the designer and builder of the system? Just because you don't like...or just don't understand... the design, doesn't mean it isn't working the way it is supposed to. Our personal preferences and conceits don't mean a hill of beans. Since we have as much chance of understanding the design and operation of the mechanism as a butterfly does understanding a nuclear power reactor, our judgement of it's outcomes is moote.
Grimcleaver:
That last post came across a bit terse. I didn't mean to seem beligerant or challenging; I was in a hurry (life gets in the way) and had to get off system, so I just wrote the core of the thought. If you want expansion on the idea, let me know. Just don't think I was going outside the "civil" concept of thread.
Picture a rat in a maze. There are two maze managers and two exits from the maze.
You've very clearly illustrated what's probably my biggest gripe with Christianity, Lawgiver. Serve god as a slave and go to Heaven, or use the free will He gave you and go to Hell. God is good, the devil is bad. Everything in the Bible is Truth; everything people learn using their senses and reason is falsehood, because using senses and reason imply that you're not being a good mindless robot.
Contrast this with the Buddha's message:
"Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves — these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness — then do you live acting accordingly."
-- the Kalama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya III.65
I'm not saying one is a better message than the other; only that one tells humans to be the deciders of their own fates, and the other tells them that they are merely slaves or sacrifices.
The problem with the maze illustration is that it fosters a bunch of complaints amounting to "...but I never *chose* to be a servant of evil". If one does not choose God then that person is automatically in the opposite camp. Sort of "if you're not with us, you're against us" philosophy.
Picture one of those annoying airport conveyor belt walkway thingies. Once a person steps onto the automatic walkway, unless he puts effort into walking against its directional flow, he will eventually be deposited at its terminus whether that was where he "intended" (read- chose) to go or not. Standing immobile on the walkway while loudly declaring "This walkway is useless and has no meaningful purpose. It is incapable of taking me anywhere" does not keep said person from moving just the same, and ending up at the specified exit point just as the designer established.
Contrast this with the Buddha's message:
....
I'm not saying one is a better message than the other; only that one tells humans to be the deciders of their own fates, and the other tells them that they are merely slaves or sacrifices.
Thank you, Kirth (sincerely, I'm not trying to be snarky). Your presentation of a glimpse into some fundamental differences between Christianity and Buddhism was very enlightening (to me, anyway). It gives me new-found respect for those who choose to believe in that message. Some of the quotes you provided aren't actually that different from Jesus's gospel, when it isn't being distorted with "man laws", rituals, and traditions,that is.
The problem with the maze illustration is that it fosters a bunch of complaints amounting to "...but I never *chose* to be a servant of evil". If one does not choose God then that person is automatically in the opposite camp. Sort of "if you're not with us, you're against us" philosophy.
Picture one of those annoying airport conveyor belt walkway thingies. Once a person steps onto the automatic walkway, unless he puts effort into walking against its directional flow, he will eventually be deposited at its terminus whether that was where he "intended" (read- chose) to go or not. Standing immobile on the walkway while loudly declaring "This walkway is useless and has no meaningful purpose. It is incapable of taking me anywhere" does not keep said person from moving just the same, and ending up at the specified exit point just as the designer established.
Superb metaphore...perhaps even better than the rat maze. But, perhaps instead of an automated walkway, we're just caught up in the crush of the crowd...a very "peer pressure" or "cattle mentality" kind of thing. We're all headed inexorably to the grave, what happens after that is something we cannot comprehend (from either a religious or secular position). There's someone standing outside the herd telling us whcih way to go, how to avoid the slaughterhouse, the cliff, or whatever the ill fate is that awaits us. We, the individual, must give up our herd mentality, listen to that voide outside the herd and travel in a direction we would not normally choose for ourselves, and of which others might disapprove, in order to avoid the inevitable massare. There's nothing to it that involves mindless slavishness. We can still be a cow, just not one of the ones that are gonna end up someone's dinner. One single choice is all it takes.
Some of the quotes you provided aren't actually that different from Jesus's gospel, when it isn't being distorted with "man laws", rituals, and traditions,that is.
The Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, after first reading the New Testament, remarked, "This Jesus fellow was quite Enlightened! He must have been a Buddhist!"
We're all headed inexorably to the grave, what happens after that is something we cannot comprehend (from either a religious or secular position). There's someone standing outside the herd telling us whcih way to go, how to avoid the slaughterhouse, the cliff, or whatever the ill fate is that awaits us. We, the individual, must give up our herd mentality, listen to that voide outside the herd and travel in a direction we would not normally choose for ourselves, and of which others might disapprove, in order to avoid the inevitable massare.
You need to leave NY or CA and come to Texas. You Christians have completely taken over here (and in much of the rest of the US, in the last decade or so, except in those "evil Blue states"). You ARE the herd now, despite all the protestation about Satanic liberal media and this country going to Hell in a handbasket and all that other stuff that people have been saying, without pause, since before Socrates. Fundamentalism is at its highest ebb since its last great revival, just after the Civil War (when you folks added "In God We Trust" to the currency). Everyone I meet tells me to "join the club" and go to heaven (despite the fact that I, a non-Christian, follow most of the Commandments and they do not). In Texas, I am the lone free-thinker in a state completely packed to the gills with church-goers. I'm almost at the point of loving anyone who promises to protect me from that tyranny. Jesus preached tolerance. His followers now preach "You're with us or against us!" and "We need to re-take [sic] this country for Jesus!" and, basically, "anyone not Christian, get out or die!"
I'm aware this will offend many, and I am truly sorry. But it hurts me to see the Gospel stood on its head in this way.
Lady Aurora, your posts make it clear you follow the Sermon on the Mount, not the hate-mongers of the choir. Many thanks to you for that. If more Christians (like you and Erian) actually followed the teachings of Christ, I'd be first in line to sign up.
You need to leave NY or CA and come to Texas. You Christians have completely taken over here (and in much of the rest of the US, in the last decade or so, except in those "evil Blue states"). You ARE the herd now, despite all the protestation about Satanic liberal media and this country going to Hell in a handbasket and all that other stuff that people have been saying, without pause, since before Socrates. Fundamentalism is at its highest ebb since its last great revival, just after the Civil War (when you folks added "In God We Trust" to the currency). Everyone I meet tells me to "join the club" and go to heaven (despite the fact that I, a non-Christian, follow most of the Commandments and they do not). In Texas, I am the lone free-thinker in a state completely packed to the gills with church-goers. I'm almost at the point of loving anyone who promises to protect me from that tyranny. Jesus preached tolerance. His followers now preach "You're with us or against us!" and "We need to re-take [sic] this country for Jesus!" and, basically, "anyone not Christian, get out or die!"
Be it noted that:
1) As I knew would happen, someone knee-jerked an insult, violating the tenet of a "Civil" religious discussion for this thread. Congratulations, Kirth, you've just won the gold medal in the Conclusion Jumping event.
2) I am deffinitely not a Christian.
3) I play "devil's advocate" for the fun of it. I'm taking the Pro side this time just for a change of pace. It was fun while it lasted, but now that the mask is off, I guess I'll have to revert to my older tactics. I've proven that I can successfully immitate a hard-core born-againer, so there's no point taking it any further.
4) I've taken the Con side on organized religion for years, arguging the weaknesses to make people think about what they believe so they understand why they believe what they do. I have never actively attempted to convert anyone towards or away from any belief. I just try to make them think about their position. It's an exercise in debate and rational thought....Oh, sorry...my mistake.
5) You got my geography all wrong too...I'm already in TX. I live in Austin; have for 14 years. Have lived in TX since late 1976 (minus a 4 year chunk because of military service).
...I, a non-Christian,...it hurts me to see the Gospel stood on its head in this way.
If you're not Christian, why do you give a fig about how the Christian gospel is massage, mainpulated, misquoted, maligned, or otherwise misrepresented or mutilated?
Swallow your little slice of humble pien now, and we'll return to our "civil" discussion.
Next?
|
As I knew would happen, someone knee-jerked an insult, violating the tenet of a "Civil" religious discussion for this thread. Congratulations, Kirth, you've just won the gold medal in the Conclusion Jumping event.....
Swallow your little slice of humble pien now, and we'll return to our "civil" discussion.
Next?
Lawgiver, I don't see how being a smart-arse really seems terribly civil either. Maybe you could engage with his comments? After all, Kirth's experience would appear to be one of religious intolerance and prejudice - surely a bit like experiencing racism, which can hardly be dismissed as "Oh, don't be rude by pointing that out." Hardly going to make him feel positively about Christians en masse, or even non-Christians in your case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi to all!
usually I don't have the time to write on the messageboards... but the religion topic is irresistible! I'm very proud that a civil and interesting discussion like this comes from the role-players community...thanks to all
I am a 30years DND player (since 1990) and I'm a christian believer - but I admit to share many points of view with those who are not, in particular some I have read in this thread: my problem is once again with the logic of free will, love of god and the "cosmic system" of punishment & rewards (it seems to me like a huge not-so-fun form of rolplaying game...)...anyway I think one of the better things in life is to give it a meaning... so I'm still trying! ;-)
...but more on this later - ideed I write for another reason.
I live in Italy, and since here there are very few religion at least in comparison with the USA - my "search for God" has been until now "self-made".
Anyway an "american religion" is very active in my country - I'm talking about Jehovah's Witnesses.
Was it only for curiosity'sake, I'm thinking to study the Bible with them... they guarantee it contains all the answers to my religious questions...
by the way they told me they have more than 1.000.000 adherents in the USA
The question is: any Witness out there that play dnd? I thought it was easier to find one... but reading this thread it does not seem the case
anyone else has first hand informations about the Witnesses? what do you think of them or their belief? do you know what they think about roleplaying or DND?
Serve god as a slave and go to Heaven, or use the free will He gave you and go to Hell. God is good, the devil is bad. Everything in the Bible is Truth; everything people learn using their senses and reason is falsehood, because using senses and reason imply that you're not being a good mindless robot.
This is simply not true of the majority of christians. I have met a large number of very religious christians who still find the free will to interpret their scriptures. Remember that little thing called the Protestant Reformation? Not all christians are "slaves to God" as you put it.
This is simply not true of the majority of christians. I have met a large number of very religious christians who still find the free will to interpret their scriptures. Remember that little thing called the Protestant Reformation? Not all christians are "slaves to God" as you put it.
Thanks, Dirk. That's exactly the sort of discussion I was hoping for here. Lawgiver and Lady Aurora had a bunch of black/white, either/or analogies going; I was hoping someone could provide a wider alternative. Can you expand on how the Reformation affects your own views? (Obviously, it frees you from the priesthood, but how do you see it changing the concept of free will?)
Can you expand on how the Reformation affects your own views? (Obviously, it frees you from the priesthood, but how do you see it changing the concept of free will?)
Well, as I said, its all about interpretation. Let face it, religious scriptures are vague. We have the ability to take what we want from our religions by this very nature of our texts. The Reformation is only one example of different interpretations of the same text; another one in Christianity is the iconography disagreement that led to the formation of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists even argue over whether the Pali Cannon IS the difinative Buddhist text.
So back to the point: free will is exercised every single time you read a religious text. Your own views shape your understanding of the text as much as the text shapes you views, if it even does this at all. In fact, free will is used in choosing which texts to read. Despite the fact that many religious people claim that their way is the only way, that is the interpretation they made using their own free will, and others reading the exact same scriptures come to different conclusions.
So back to the point: free will is exercised every single time you read a religious text. Your own views shape your understanding of the text as much as the text shapes you views, if it even does this at all. In fact, free will is used in choosing which texts to read.
Awesome! This is along the lines of things that Erian posted earlier in the thread... except now you've used the more recent free will discussion to bring it into better focus.
Despite the fact that many religious people claim that their way is the only way, that is the interpretation they made using their own free will, and others reading the exact same scriptures come to different conclusions.
Agreed, and it's exactly that view that allows us to maintain discussion and, hopefully, come to a better understanding of one another. As Aubrey points out, I'm often assailed by the "my way is the only way" people where I live; it's a great pleasure for me to be able to talk with Christians who take the time to explain, rather than to lecture. Thanks to all who do so.
Lady Aurora, your posts make it clear you follow the Sermon on the Mount, not the hate-mongers of the choir. Many thanks to you for that. If more Christians (like you and Erian) actually followed the teachings of Christ, I'd be first in line to sign up.
Thank you! Your kind praise is always appreciated. I'm sorry that you've had such negative experiences with so-called Christians. The problem is that many people (especially in the US) call themselves Christians and rather than "true born-again believer" what they really mean is "not a practicer of Buddhism, Islam, or any other defined religion". Especially in the South, it is considered "American" to attend church on Sunday and indeed most church attenders do believe in God and Jesus Christ as His Son and probably assume they will enter heaven when they die. This doesn't mean they have a personal relationship with Jesus or that they follow (or even attempt to follow) the principles of scripture. On top of all that, there are DOZENS of denominations of Christianity just within Protestantism (not to mention Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others that sometimes consider themselves part of the Christian religon). Just within Evangelical Christians, different denominations can not agree on the interpretation of scripture and vigorously disagree about appropriate living standards, etc. Then, don't even get me started on the Catholic church - which is a breed unto itself! So even though you feel "surrounded" by the herd mentality of professing Christians in Texas, it's actually a sad and confusing tangle of people who can, often times, not even get along with each other let alone tell some unbeliever how he/she should live!
Hi to all!
Anyway an "american religion" is very active in my country - I'm talking about Jehovah's Witnesses.
Was it only for curiosity'sake, I'm thinking to study the Bible with them... they guarantee it contains all the answers to my religious questions...
by the way they told me they have more than 1.000.000 adherents in the USAThe question is: any Witness out there that play dnd? I thought it was easier to find one... but reading this thread it does not seem the case
anyone else has first hand informations about the Witnesses? what do you think of them or their belief? do you know what they think about roleplaying or DND?
Can't really answer your questions (I'm not a Jehovah's Witness). And I don't know what they think about DnD, either. But your post reminded me of an interesting encounter I had once.
I made a dear friend of a neighbor on a military base once who originally professed to be a Christian. When explaining her religious "history" one day, she said that she was raised a Catholic and became very bitterly offended by their rituals and Church heirarchy and so rejected Christianity altogether. Then as a young teenager she met some Jehovah's Witnesses who lived according to the scriptures. Since the Catholic church she attended discouraged self-reading/interpretation of the Bible, she was very much drawn in by the JW's reliance on it and amazing ability to quote it. On a side note, if more Christians studied scripture and used the precepts/characteristics of God as a basis of their beliefs rather than have their belief system spoonfed to them by some church official, perhaps more people would be drawn to them like they are to Jehovah's Witnesses. But anyway, my friend, Michelle, later sorta "phased out" of her Jehovah's Witness affiliation because they only believe a distinct number get to go to heaven and since it seemed unlikely she was included, she sought out a different path to paradise.She still firmly believed in alot of the JW value system though and she really knew her Bible. I always enjoyed discussing spiritual matters with her. I always prided myself on basing my beliefs on my personal interpretation of scripture, (hopefully) unclouded by human distortion. One day, however, we were chatting and she mentioned she didn't believe in the Trinity. I was shocked. When I started to debate it with her, she was like "should me in the Bible where it says the Trinity exists". I was like pfft, "no problem!" but the more I studied, the less evidence I could find. This made me really angry because I felt like I had really been deceived by the church. Clearly, IMO, the Trinity is one of those man-made concepts. Sure, there are a handful of scriptures that can be interpreted to mean that the Trinity exists but those same scriptures can just as easily be interpreted to simply mean that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit share one purpose/goal but are three distinct beings. This totally rocked me! For really the first time, something fundamental in my belief system was questioned and found lacking. I really appreciated my friend for pointing it out to me.
I think it is important to question your beliefs. I don't like to argue just for arguments sake but I do like to hear others' viewpoints because so often it can lead to a deeper understanding of one's own.
Sorry for my long post!
The question is: any Witness out there that play dnd? I thought it was easier to find one... but reading this thread it does not seem the case
anyone else has first hand informations about the Witnesses? what do you think of them or their belief? do you know what they think about roleplaying or DND?
I can't be of much help either. There is one small JW church in my area, but most of my town thinks D&D=Satanism, so I'm a bit dubious about asking what they think.
I think that if they seem open-minded and understanding, just showing them the "magic" section of the PHB would convince them that we don't all think it's real. But I think it would vary from group-to-group and person-to-person.
Also, Lady Aurora's right about their adherence to the Bible--its very refreshing really. Local JWs come by my house every so often too, they once left this very interesting pamphlet on creationism (something about ants--I might still have it).
|
The question is: any Witness out there that play dnd? I thought it was easier to find one... but reading this thread it does not seem the case
anyone else has first hand informations about the Witnesses? what do you think of them or their belief? do you know what they think about roleplaying or DND?
I can't be of much help either. There is one small JW church in my area, but most of my town thinks D&D=Satanism, so I'm a bit dubious about asking what they think.
I think that if they seem open-minded and understanding, just showing them the "magic" section of the PHB would convince them that we don't all think it's real. But I think it would vary from group-to-group and person-to-person.
Also, Lady Aurora's right about their adherence to the Bible--its very refreshing really. Local JWs come by my house every so often too, they once left this very interesting pamphlet on creationism (something about ants--I might still have it).
...
|
I made a dear friend of a neighbor on a military base once who originally professed to be a Christian. When explaining her religious "history" one day, she said that she was raised a Catholic and became very bitterly offended by their rituals and Church heirarchy and so rejected Christianity altogether. Then as a young teenager she met some Jehovah's Witnesses who lived according to the scriptures. Since the Catholic church she attended discouraged self-reading/interpretation of the Bible, she was very much drawn in by the JW's reliance on it and amazing ability to quote it. On a side note, if more Christians studied scripture and used the precepts/characteristics of God as a basis of their beliefs rather than have their belief system spoonfed to them by some church official, perhaps more people would be drawn to them like they are to Jehovah's Witnesses. But anyway, my friend, Michelle, later sorta "phased out" of her Jehovah's Witness affiliation because they only believe a distinct number get to go to heaven and since it seemed unlikely she was included, she sought out a different path to paradise.
She still firmly believed in alot of the JW value system though and she really knew her Bible. I always enjoyed discussing spiritual matters with her. I always prided myself on basing my beliefs on my personal interpretation of scripture, (hopefully) unclouded by human distortion. One day, however, we were chatting and she mentioned she didn't believe in the Trinity. I was shocked. When I started to debate it with her, she was like "should me in the Bible where it says the Trinity exists". I was like pfft, "no problem!" but the more I studied, the less evidence I could find. This made me really angry because I felt like I had really been deceived by the church. Clearly, IMO, the Trinity is one of those man-made concepts. Sure, there are a handful of scriptures that can be interpreted to mean that the Trinity exists but those same scriptures can just as easily be interpreted to simply mean that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit share one purpose/goal but are three distinct beings. This totally rocked me! For really the first time, something fundamental in my belief system was questioned and found lacking. I really appreciated my friend for pointing it out to me.
I think it is important to question your beliefs. I don't like to argue just for arguments sake but I do like to hear others' viewpoints because so often it can lead to a deeper understanding of one's own.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
I'm not sure what the JW Bible says, but this is about as close as I can get to one verse that says that there is a trinity -- but even this verse leads itself to interpretation.
There are a fair number of verses that suggest/imply/say that Jesus was God. I think that the trinity concept as "understood" by Christians may be a little bit off. Truthfully, there is rather little information on the Holy Spirit. Very little information provides very little "proof". Depending on how you define the Holy Spirit will probably further define your view of the "Trinity".
Ok -- "delete"
I had this whole rant on JWs, but it was probably inappropriate. Basically, my experience with JWs is that I have NEVER met JWs that could think for themselves. They only said what the Watchtower told them to and anything outside of that, they had to seek permission.
That said, I also feel that Christians are doing an incredibly poor job of educating their own. And I feel that it is getting worse. There are far too many "Christians" who truly do not know what they believe. This may be as much a psychological/socialogical as anything. For whatever the reason, the "masses" seem to want to be told what to believe. They don't seem to want to think about it for themselves.
"I'm Catholic" (or whatever)
"Why are you Catholic"
"My parents are Catholic"
This came across as a bit of a rant. Sorry if I offended anyone.
|
|
The question is: any Witness out there that play dnd? I thought it was easier to find one... but reading this thread it does not seem the caseanyone else has first hand informations about the Witnesses? what do you think of them or their belief? do you know what they think about roleplaying or DND?
Here's my take. Ask yourself this question:
how do you personally feel about you or a family member getting blood transfusions at the hospital in the event of injury, surgery, or gastrointestinal bleeding?
Maybe the JW's have changed their official answer on this one, but I'm not sure as I'm not all that up on them recently. I seem to recall that once upon a time, the JW line was no blood transfusions. The Catholic church also once upon a time came down pretty heavy on that guy that discovered the whole "earth around the sun" deal, but have since changed their stance...
On the Satan issue, Lawgiver, I think I agree with almost everything you said in your post.
But Lucifer is still God's enemy because he waged war against God and attempted to supplant him. That was "unforgivable", at least from God's perspective.
This is the only point that I think needs clarification. I don't agree that Lucifer's actions were unforgivable. At no time (nor, according to the conclusion illustrated in Revelation, will there *come* a time) has/will Lucifer repent of his actions/attitudes. If he did, I fully believe God would forgive and restore him. Regardless of his archangel status, God has forgiven/restored angels in the past - ie, those punished for mating with humans in Genesis but then released from inprisonment by Jesus after He descended into Hell following His death.
Your point about *choosing* one side or another is exactly the point I've been trying to make on these boards all along. It's sorta a paradox because we must release our "free will" and submit to God's will or practice our "free will" and face God's judgement but either choice is ours to "freely" make.
Obviously, from reading these posts though, there is great debate about what exactly constitutes "free will".
This is a good point. God is supposed to be infinitally forgiving, that is one of the basises for having the Christian religion in the first place: forgiveness. So, anyone can be forgiven, even Lucifer, so long as they ask.
Jesus preached tolerance.
I hate to nitpick and I think I understood your point to be that overzealous (and sadly, often misguided) professing Christians have treated you in a decidedly un-Christlike manner. However, I'm not sure it's fair to say Jesus preached tolerance. As much as I hate to quote scripture out of context, a famous example, follows:
John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."Does that sound tolerant to you? Jesus did NOT preach tolerance (this is a common misconception). He taught love. Often that is the same thing but sometimes it's not. We are called to be ambassadors for Christ, not diplomats. We are supposed to be representing Jesus/God here on earth (though Christians can/do fail miserably at this sometimes) and *not* trying to make God's will palatable to the masses. Jesus didn't waste time with the Pharisees (theJewish religious/political leaders and self-appointed know-it-alls of their time) and sometimes digressed into name-calling at them. He didn't bother trying to explain Himself to them when they weren't sincerely interested in what He had to say. Sometimes, in the name of "love", professing Christians can do some outrageous things and ultimately bring more dishonor to the Gospel than glory. This is tragic. I sincerely apologize if you have been on the bad end of this kind of action, Kirth. Back to the Old Testament argument, though, God often visciously wiped out those who opposed His will. And since the Bible also says that God is the same "yesterday, today, forever" it's not unfair to say an action that is abrupt can also be considered by some (namely those suffering) as cruel. Sort of, what constitutes "tough love" discussion.
Jesus did NOT preach tolerance
So is tolerance even good? Is it desirable in the eyes of god? If Jesus didn't mention something as basic as tolerance would this mean that tolerance is a bad thing?
Anyone else has first hand informations about the Witnesses? what do you think of them or their belief? do you know what they think about roleplaying or DND?
Being an advocate for various groups and having an interest in everything, I've put some serious time into understanding the Jehovah's Witnesses. Here's the basics:
Created by Carl Russel and a group of college associates who studied the Bible with the intent that it should be clear and easy to understand and beyond contestation since it is the word of God. Their premise was that the clear message of the Bible has been garbled by traditions and spin, but that read with a completely open and logical mind the book's secrets will unravel themselves.
Russel stepped away from this group (interestingly over a disagreement over the interpretation of the "divinity" of Jesus) and formed his own organization which eventually grew into the church as it's known today.
They are one of those churches that has really made an attempt to get an answer for each of the big questions. They believe in contention and arguing when it comes to religion as opposed to peaceful co-existance, since for them religion is akin to dragging people out of a burning building--well worth disturbing the peace to accomplish.
They have a variety of colorful beliefs. They forsake birthdays and all pagan holidays. They consider the condemnation of "eating" blood to extend to taking it intraveinously--and hold blood as the sacred transmitter of life. They rigourously attack the idea of the Trinity, accepting Jehovah as the only true God, the Holy Spirit as being the "active force" of Jehovah and in no way its own thing, and Jesus as God's most elevated servant, but in no way Jehovah.
They use scriptures known as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which they claim is a direct retranslation from original versions of the Bible in the original ancient languages--interestingly allowing for whole "lost" verses that are ommitted by a dash where it is claimed that traditional text has been inserted, and also other sections seem to have strained language in the attempt to clarify the original meaning though it seems a bit spin-doctory.
They also make great effort to avoid being associated with the Christian cross, taking great pains to establish that "cross" was in fact a pole and so the symbol is wrong (rather than have to say that they are distancing themselves from the symbols of protestantism which I tend to think is more the truth).
Primarily their worship services consist of weekly meetings where they discuss the Bible and the church magazine, with infrequent larger stadium style conventions. Another big deal for them is the 144,000 people who are to go to heaven. This gets misrepresented a lot. They believe the primary abode of the saved will be a glorified Earth made completely Eden again. Of those who are Jehovah's Witnesses 144,000 will serve leadership position in the actual city of Heaven. These few are the ones that partake of the Lord's Supper in an annual commemoration of Jesus' last meeting with his disciples. While it's concidered a great and special honor to be one of the 144,000 (and how it's determined that one is, is a subject the church is a bit tight-lipped about) it doesn't confer any special status as "more saved" than anyone else. Every righteous Jehovah's Witness is considered "saved". Oh and there's no hell either. They believe the wicked are destroyed by Sheol, burned like trash, not tormented for eternity.
There's loads more, but that's the basic rundown.
I've never gotten their specific take on roleplaying games, but I can infer. They avoid birthdays because they come from the worship of an individual's birth daemon, and the flaming cake is a symbol of the sacraficial cake offered to secure its services for another year. If they feel that way about birthday cakes, I'd imagine that they would likely connect roleplaying to ancient storytelling traditions of older societies--the casting of bones as fortellers of fate, the muses of Greece and other similar pagan practices. It might be concidered another form of modernized idolatry in the same way a lot of our modern celebrations are.
Wow, Grimcleaver, thanks for your explanation of some of the Jehovah's Witness's beliefs. My roommate in college was raised in a JW home and had never celebrated her birthday before (before we "corrupted" her) but I never knew the whole birth daemon/flaming cake thing. Jehovah's witnesses also don't do the pledge of allegiance to the flag and other similar rituals/traditions.
Jehovah's witnesses also don't do the pledge of allegiance to the flag and other similar rituals/traditions.
Yeah, interestingly they're not the only ones who opt out of the Pledge of Alliegance. It's because it requires a pledge to a flag, something which they (as well as other groups like quakers) equate with idolotry.
Also Jehovah's Witnesses choose not to participate in the military--from the Roman Centurian who asked Christ what he must do to join him and was told not to again shed the blood of any man. Hence, it's taken that the a soldier's life is antithetical to the Jehovah's Witnesses' religion.
I'm not sure it's fair to say Jesus preached tolerance. As much as I hate to quote scripture out of context, a famous example, follows:
John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Does that sound tolerant to you? Jesus did NOT preach tolerance (this is a common misconception).
Thanks for the clarification, Aurora, although it kind of worries me in a way, as well. Does that mean that there is, for Christians, no such thing as peaceful co-existence? That they cannot tolerate the fact that some of us do not believe, and they won't rest until the Constitution is cast down in favor of the Bible, and eveyone is converted? (Obviously not everyone feels that way, but "should" they?)
Coupled with the number of people lately referring to themselves as "culture warriors" and "soldiers for Christ," this makes me a bit concerned that perhaps my experiences are not unique, and may soon become widespead... please understand that I value the conversations I've had here. Although I'm accused of being rude and "uncivil," I can accept that, because I am, at least, honestly trying to learn. But if the bottom line is that Christianity expressly forbids a standpoint of mutual respect for those of other religions, then I'm not sure how much point there is in interfaith dialogue. Maybe my efforts would be better spent in fleeing to Europe, the way my ancestors fled here? (There is some irony there, I'm sure!)
Does that mean that there is, for Christians, no such thing as peaceful co-existence? That they cannot tolerate the fact that some of us do not believe, and will not rest until the Constitution is cast down in favor of the Bible, and eveyone is converted?
Whoa! Let me reign my words in here before I besmirch the gospel in some way! I am NOT trying to saying Christians can't peacefully co-exist. Another snippet of scripture taken out of a larger, more complex context:
Romans 12:18 "As much as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." and an earlier verse urges us to "Live at harmony with one another..." (v.16)So, no, it doesn't mean there's no such thing as peaceful co-existence. Quite the opposite. On the other hand, it *does* mean that love for my fellow man will always put a burden on my heart to pray for the souls of those I believe are heading toward eternal damnation. But as I've tried to make clear in previous posts, it is not my job to convert anyone. That's the Holy Spirit's job. I've got my own business to deal with. If someone questions my beliefs, the Bible says I need to be ready with an answer (and hopefully the Holy Spirit can work through my weak words). If someone is not interested in my beliefs, or worse yet, is hostile toward God or me; I am compelled to keep my big mouth shut! (Rom 12:18) Peace above all. I can show love to the unbeliever by not offending him. I can also show love to someone of a different faith by understanding what and why they believe the way they do. I greatly appreciate the conversations we've had here, Kirth. I want to understand where you're coming from and I appreciate your interest in my point of view. Am I hoping to convert you? No, not really (though I certainly wouldn't mind if you did) just like I don't suspect you've got some plot to convert me to your belief system.
On the Constitution topic, I don't personally think it contains anything anti-Biblical (quite the opposite, many of the founding fathers were professing Christians). Does Roe v. Wade offend me? Absolutely. Should I therefore shoot an abortion clinic doctor? Absolutely not! God is the one who establishes authority - sometimes even allowing tyrannical rulership as a form of punishment (not implying that America is a tyranny) and we are sinful to disrespect that authority. I can use my voting power to try to legally & peacefully shape my government to what I perceive as Christian values but I'm not sure even I would want a "Christian" government (or any state religion-based rulership) because it would mean giving up many choices/freedoms to be replaced by what some individual or group of individuals is deciding is morally best for me. Besides, expecting or even striving toward mass conversion is just silly and impractical. That kind of authoritarianism just leads to outward obedience to some "code" while inside thoughts/attitudes/opinions remain hardened and unchanged. That's just about as opposite of Jesus's plan as you can get. Having some outside force determine your behavior (not including necessary laws/government to prevent complete anarchy) does not address the issues of the heart and mind. This is what God cares about. Manmade rules for moral behavior are complete nonsense and more dangerous (to God's intentions and just plain peaceful existence) than complete amoral societal norms. God does NOT call his followers to "fix" society or even our fellow man, only ourselves. He speaks to us through the Holy Spirit and through His Word (the Bible) - not through some council of pious do-gooders. This is the same reason I reject the practice of church doctrines (a book of "man laws" to reflect how church members should live), though many evangelical christian churches have them. God wants us to be open to the conviction of the Holy Spirit to what constitutes right and wrong, not to necessarily have such distinctions foisted on us from any external source (the church included). When the Bible lists the "fruit" of the Spirit (the characteristics of God we should strive to emulate): love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, it concludes "against such things there is no law".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, another thing I've kinda noticed about Texas, it seems to be a little more on the religious/conservative side than other places in the U. S. 'struth.
I believe what I believe, and don't really give a rat what anybody else does. Everybody goes before the creator in their own time, and in their own way, and it ain't any of my business.
And anybody who feels evangelical about things, oughtta go smuggle bibles into China or something. Nagging at fellow U.S. citizens about how they need to quit their atheist or buddhist ways is, IMHO, weak-assed.
…this makes me a bit concerned that perhaps my experiences are not unique, and may soon become widespread…
At the risk of also quoting scripture out of context…
Exodus
21:12
Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.
21:15
Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
21:16
Whoever steals a man, whether he sells him or is found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
21:17
Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
22:18
You shall not permit a sorceress to live
22:19.
Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death.
22:20
Whoever sacrifices to any god, save the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed.
Yes, all Old Testement but highly indicative of the kind of “God” we’re dealing with. Many people think that Jesus abjured the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Laws, statutes, etc. Not true. He only added things to the list of Do’s and Don’ts given out to the Israelites through Moses. It may seem a “kinder and gentler” message, but the basic, uncompromising fire and brimstone message is still there. Do things my way or burn forever. Jesus was simply announcing that he was to be the intermediary through whom everyone must go to get to God and Heaven. No more direct connect.
Many Christians today believe the world is coming to an end. They see all kinds of “Signs and Portents” that tell them (right or wrong) that we’re living the times of Revelations and “the end of the world is nigh.” They see Social Security numbers, animal- and even human-implantable Radio Frequency ID chips (RFID) as the Number of The Beast. They see all the havoc going on overseas as “wars and rumors of wars”. Mass media and high speed communications now lets us see “nation rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom”, “famines and earthquakes in various places”.
Their religion is one that is very active/expansive, actively seeking new followers/converts/worshippers. Their religion is ego-centric. To them it is the only right one, thus all others are wrong. All those who do not believe are wrong and doomed to eternal punishment. They feel their holy mission includes explaining “the word” to everyone who will listen, convert as many as possible to save all their souls from the devil. Yes, they’re a bit scarry. And they will get more so. Their firm belief that the clock is ticking down on their time limit will push them towards more and more fanatic activity.
But, remember, that these levels of fanatics thankfully comprise a small percentage of the whole group. Most people who have been indoctrinated have been fed, and swallowed whole, the whole “love thy neighbor”, “turn the other cheek”, and “judge not lest ye be judged”, dogma and graze happily on the pap of their enforced misconceptions.
Thanks, Aurora and Heath, and may I say again that I wish more people I talked to were like you two.
(1) I'm constantly amazed, Heath, that in moving from NY to TX I went from being a "right-wing reactionary" to being a "left-wing liberal communist" just by changing states of residence (my views are the same, but the neighbors sure aren't!). It's a big country we live in, that's for sure-- and not just area-wise.
(2) Aurora, I know of no examples of Buddhists trying to convert, but all of the (very few) others I've met greatly enjoy the exchange of views, as do I with you. Thanks for being such an excellent source of philosophy, and for being--sight unseen, but no less appreciated for that--a supportive friend as well. Your comments reflect what I gleaned from reading the New Testament myself, but which I very seldom hear echoed amidst the din for a "Christian America" that comes on the radio disturbingly often. I guess reasonable people who preach peace just don't get the ratings or the air time that the hate-mongers and rabble-rousers do.
|
|
I know. By degrees, I used to be a total Right Wing Extremist, "this one bears watching by the Liberal Thought Police," totally out there whacko.
Now, I'm a hippy. I bear watching, well, not so much anymore. Any watchers/listeners outside in my cul-de-sac, at the end of Baskerville Drive, in a van that says "Cy's Indoor Airconditioning" would be bored to tears.
I dunno. How do you believe in a religion enough to actually practice it without feeling that it's actually right. I mean this is described as egomania, but doesn't it just kind of make sense? Why bother with a religion that isn't THE right one? If it's all the same, and everyone has a right to believe blah blah then it just seems a euphamism for "it makes me feel good, but ultimately it's just my cultural baggage".
If you honestly believed that folks you really like and think are good people are getting prepped to be hug-darred into the old toaster oven forever--wouldn't it make you be ready to go to the matresses with them over it? I'd imagine yeah, or you don't really believe it. Certainly if I figured my family was in some kind of mortal eternal danger I'd be ready to club them over the head if I had to and drag them to safety.
When I hear things like "interfaith dialogue" it just kind of makes me chuckle and smile a little. If there really is to be some compromise to be had, it's only to be found at the expense of everyone who participates--because it would only invalidate the claim to truth of every church that seded to it. They might as well just go home and have a beer. Naw, it's just PR. It's a ruse designed to let the religious guys into your house under a flag of nonagression so they can sell you on their beliefs. It's a way to open each other to conversion and conversation by getting each other's defenses down. At the end of the day, nothing real has changed--and it shouldn't or it invalidates the whole thing.
It seems to me that with religion, if you really believe it, you either are out there fighting for it--come what may, are coldly insensitive to the affairs of others, are to timid and mamby-pamby to force the issue and ridden with guilt, or to one degree or another you just don't think it's necessary for others (read: not really the truth as much as a helpful fiction).
Grimcleaver,
What you say may be 100% correct if you're dealing with black & white, "heaven vs. hell" religions. Wait, actually, I take it back. C.S. Lewis had some intersting ideas about people who followed the Commandments, but didn't do it God's name, were unwittingly serving God, whereas those who gave lip service but didn't walk the walk were serving the Devil.
As far as Buddhism goes, I've seen empirical evidence that some of the teachings work "as advertised" when applied to real life, with regards to lessening one's personal suffering. But I also understand that forcing that on anyone else would make them MORE miserable, not less, and would thus serve exactly the opposite purpose from what was intended.
So I have to disagree with you. Not all of us see everything as "my way or the highway." Or, as I've said before, there can be mutiple paths to the same destination.
The problem with your argument, Grimcleaver, is the absence of the fact that you can't *force* someone to think/feel/believe anything. All my immediate family is saved with the exception of my oldest brother. I love him dearly and pray for him regularly. It frightens me that his soul is in danger but he knows all the "head knowledge" he needs to make a decision, he just chooses not to. If/when he brings something up regarding spiritual matters I'm happy to share my thoughts with him but I don't badger him. What would be the point? It would just drive him further away and not be very representative of my loving Lord. I can't *make* him choose and I certainly wouldn't want to set up some kind of situation where he might be tempted to fake it. If I was aggressive towards him, it would damage our relationship which would make it even less likely that I could affect some change of heart in his life. So while I agree that yes, I think "my" way is *the* right way it doesn't mean I must therefore attempt (stupidly and vainly) to force others to accept it. And it would likewise be foolish of me to ignore the thoughts and opinions of those of a different belief. Where's the love in that? Besides, for lesser reasons, it's not really any fun or very interesting to narrow your friends/aquaintances to only those who share your exact opinions/beliefs. In fact, I have plenty of friends and family who, though I'm not necessarily worried about their eternal destination, don't agree with me on a myriad of spiritual issues.
At the risk of also quoting scripture out of context…Yes, all Old Testement but highly indicative of the kind of “God” we’re dealing with. Many people think that Jesus abjured the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Laws, statutes, etc. Not true. He only added things to the list of Do’s and Don’ts given out to the Israelites through Moses. It may seem a “kinder and gentler” message, but the basic, uncompromising fire and brimstone message is still there. Do things my way or burn forever. Jesus was simply announcing that he was to be the intermediary through whom everyone must go to get to God and Heaven. No more direct connect.
Their religion is one that is very active/expansive, actively seeking new followers/converts/worshippers. Their religion is ego-centric. To them it is the only right...
You're right. You're quoting those scriptures completely out of context, and in these cases that context is everything.
Secondly, you're right again - they *are* highly indicative of the kind of God we're dealing with. He is a God who is offended by disrespect (which is universally what those laws address). The Old Testament laws served a purpose in early biblical times and they served a different one today. Though they seem silly, harsh, and maybe even arbitrary, they can reflect the characteristics of God (like Respectfulness & Loving Kindness for your fellow man). Those issues have already been discussed at length earlier on this thread.Thirdly, you are dead wrong about Jesus simply adding to the list. You need to read the New Testament, especially Romans, as the bulk of it addresses the issue of the powerlessness of the Law in favor of the leading of the Spirit. Jesus is NOT about a bunch of do's & don'ts. It's people who watch a list of rules that they can follow and feel safe versus break and be punished. People want physical rules because that's easier than addressing the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (which is what God really cares about).
Fourthly, you're wrong again about Jesus plunking himself in the middle so "no more direct connection" to God. Quite the opposite is true. Before Jesus came, the only connection to God was through a priest (and for the Isrealites, priests were only chosen from the elite Levite tribe). The priest was the only one who could really "talk" to God. He was the only one who could offer repentence for the sins of the people and he was the only one who could offer sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. There was a special section of the temple called the Holy of Holies, where only the High Priest could even go. When Jesus came, He became the ultimate high priest for *everyone*. Now, anyone could talk directly to God because Jesus acts as the role of the priest who would stand blameless and make our petitions Himself. We are free to "approach the throne of grace" the Bible tells us because of our relationship with Jesus. This is why prayers are often ended with the words, "in Jesus' name"; we're pretty much "reminding" God that we have the priviledge to make our requests/complaints/whatever made known to the Almighty because it's really His Son who is making them for us. When Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom. This was significant firstly because that curtain was the divider between the common sanctuary and the Holy of Holies - no division of petitioners to God was ever going to be necessary again. Also the curtain was really a huge heavy, extremely thick barrier better described as an unsupported wall than a "curtain" and was impossible to breach. Jesus's death on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice so maintaining a special place (the cloistered Holy of Holies) to make sacrifices for the sins of the people was, again, no longer necessary.
Lastly, Lawgiver, I find it odd that you can speak so definitively about a people that you deny any affiliation with. You must be blessed with uncommon clarity to be able to "accurately" make such sweeping generalizations, most of which are misrepresented if not patently false, with your unique tone of dripping derision. If you are definitely not a Christian, and Christians are so ridiculously misguided, foolish, sheep then what do you care? (Gee, I think I heard someone else ask a similar question in an early post - oh yeah, that was you.)
|
|
Grimcleaver,
I just look at as a big I Love Lucy episode. Every episode Lucy tries to trick/nag/cajole Ricky into letting her do something, and turns it all into a big awesome mess.
I'm not perfect, nobody else is perfect, and meddling in other peoples' business rarely yields the intended results. It's one thing to jump in front of a bus to tackle somebody out of the way, it's entirely another to try and save somebody's immortal soul.
There's such a thing as the cure being worse than the disease, there's such a thing as making things worse than inaction would've done.
There's such a thing as driving people away. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And who knows, maybe I'm wrong anyhow.
The core of my problem with religions
1: I think the bible (Koran, Torah ect) is most useful as a paper weight
2: Attrocities many organised religions have done and continue to do by abusing power (power in the form of the trust and devotion of a people)
3: The majority of the people I've encountered within religions
4: The problems that occur when trying to justify an all powerful all loving creature are numerous and I can't ignore them or explain them away. A not all good or all powerful creator makes a lot more sense but if so then their isn't much point to worship.
5: I don't really care what happens after I die. My current theory pegs the experiance as a lot like going to sleep, only considerably longer and with accelerated decomposition. Who am I to say hell is worse than peacefully not existing.
None of these thoughts are malicious towards any people or group of people. I'm not angry at Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, Jews, Wiccans or any other flavor of any other faith (I sometimes become angered at what some practitioners choose to do). I'm not angry at a god or gods. I simply cannot justify their existance or presence.
I came by these personal beliefs through contemplation and logical processes that led me to follow the theory with the most useable evidence. I just did what came naturally to me.
Now I am to believe that some faiths worship a God who is more than happy to damn me for eternity. Just for doing what, ultimately, he built me to do best.
Now as a serious question to any who hold these beliefs. Why worship a god like this? He's a douchebag.
It's the equivalent of giving a person a choice between 2 balls and a frisbee, one blue ball, one red. The red ball says "pick me or burn in hell", the blue ball says "don't worry just pick your favorite and you won't burn in hell no matter what" and the frisbee says "there is no such thing as hell, don't pick any ball if you don't want to".
One of the objects is right but only one boasts an ultimatum. Now each item has good reasons for being chosen, and lots of information to back those up. The only real issue I have is with the red ball. I'm not going to pick it just because I am afraid of what it will do if I don't obey (In fact as a general rule I frown on terrorism). The blue ball and the frisbee seem like much better choices to me because my favorite color is blue and I really like frisbee (note that enjoying frisbee and having blue as a favored color aren't really active choices they just happen to be parts of my personality and thus out of my control).
My point, that is hidden deep within this largely useless metaphore, is this. How can a God put me in a world with many many choices of religion, each choice really just a matter of cultural influence and personality since most have equally extensive tomes and compelling faculty to preach them. But make only some of the choices the "get out of burning in hell card" and not be a huge jackass by any human standards of behavior?
|
|
Sexi, my views accord completely with yours when it comes to God, frisbees and multicoloured balls. So this isn't an attack or anything. However, I gave up following this thread a while back because it was either preaching to the converted or sort of thrashing about inconclusively. We are not going to change anyone's mind about God, and we are not going to make any inroads as to the issue of whether He exists or not. (NEWSFLASH - Paizo website discovers God is alive and well and living in Boise!)
This thread is sort of about mutual incomprehension, with those of us who simply fail to understand why on earth otherwise intelligent, educated people bother with an ancient superstition which seems to cause far more misery than joy, and those who see the hand of God in the world and take comfort that He cares. And you can ask them your frisbee question, but the only people who will give you an answer which will even make sense to you will be the people who already agree with you.
There are loads of philosophical get-out clauses with religion, it can be twisted this way and that to say virtually anything, but it is couched in such as way that, well, if you believe in God it is pretty obvious He exists, and if you don't, it is pretty obvious he doesn't. I used to be pretty interested in the idea of religion, as I studied these sorts of questions at university. But once you reach your accommodation with the idea of God which feels comfortable to you - which is what it boils down to at the end of the day - the philosophical arguments aren't worth the breath it takes to utter them. Belief, or otherwise, isn't about philosophy or logic, it is about what feels right. I just don't like the idea of God, and lots of people just do.
So we can argue until the cows come home about whether he exists - and we will change no one's mind (which is a shame - religion shackles the mind, in my opinion, which is why otherwise average people can perpetrate horrible crimes in the belief that they are doing God's will, when in fact they are pawns of some vile human agency with an extreme political agenda). So I, personally, got a bit bored with all of this, and went and played World of Warcraft. Your question is very well put, gets straight to the nub (I think the philosopher Pascal (possibly sic) made a similar comment, but suggested that belief in God cost nothing and hopefully guaranteed heaven, and so went for the red ball) but is not going to make anyone much question their faith, I suspect.
The problems that occur when trying to justify an all powerful all loving creature are numerous and I can't ignore them or explain them away. I don't really care what happens after I die.
I came by these personal beliefs through contemplation and logical processes that led me to follow the theory with the most useable evidence. I just did what came naturally to me.
That's why I'm Zen Buddhist. No god, no afterlife. Just a recipe to try and lessen the suffering in this life. Arguably, you could call that "applied psychology," but I consider it spiritual (your milage may vary, as they say). And, as I've said, I have some empirical evidence that it works, at least to some extent.
On the Satan issue, Lawgiver, I think I agree with almost everything you said in your post.
But Lucifer is still God's enemy because he waged war against God and attempted to supplant him. That was "unforgivable", at least from God's perspective.
This is the only point that I think needs clarification. I don't agree that Lucifer's actions were unforgivable. At no time (nor, according to the conclusion illustrated in Revelation, will there *come* a time) has/will Lucifer repent of his actions/attitudes. If he did, I fully believe God would forgive and restore him. Regardless of his archangel status, God has forgiven/restored angels in the past - ie, those punished for mating with humans in Genesis but then released from inprisonment by Jesus after He descended into Hell following His death.
Your point about *choosing* one side or another is exactly the point I've been trying to make on these boards all along. It's sorta a paradox because we must release our "free will" and submit to God's will or practice our "free will" and face God's judgement but either choice is ours to "freely" make.
Obviously, from reading these posts though, there is great debate about what exactly constitutes "free will".
well, basic theology says Lucifer cannot be forgiven because he has sinned in his rebellion against the Holy Spirit of God which is that which forgives and loves; this is the only thing that cannot ever be forgiven. Frankly, all of the fallen angels are doomed. Humans have to be pretty far gone to do this sin as it is advanced evil; it is my interpretation of the reading of the events of the Noah and the flood and the story of Lot and the destruction of that city that those humans had advanced to that level of evil; God will not tolerate that and destruction is emminant. I dont thinks this sin is possible for humans for this reason as any who try it are destroyed. Interestingly enough; open homosexuality acceptance is always the signal flag for the begining of this destruction according to these stories. Something to think about.
I feel you Aubrey but I'm not trying to (convert?) anyone else to the legions of the damned. I'm just asking a question. The rest of the post was really just framing my mind set as a whole.
And for those of whom it applies all I want is an answer. Either their chosen God does appear at face value to be a jerk but he still offers eternel bliss so, no biggie.
Their God does not really work like that and I am horribly misconstruing something.
Or any other answer I may not have considered.
Sure religions and scriptures can be twisted and "reinterpreted" to fill in any of the divots I migh make but that isn't why I keep asking questions. I simply like seeing what happens when I ask them.