I was looking at the thread about Religulous in the movies section and people were complaining that Christians are the primary targets of atheist verbal attacks (as an aside, even though I am an evolutionist atheist I have no intention of seeing this movie-Maher and other "punditocrats" as I term the likes of Coulter, Moore, etc are too confrontational and determined to be jacka s ses to be of interest to me. YMMV and TETO). An analogy has occurred to me that might explain this: Think of religious systems as being akin to computer operating systems, and militant atheists (just for the sake of this example) as being akin to computer virus, worm or other malware writers: they'll focus on the most common system for maximum effect. For the purpose of this analogy Christianity is basically Windows in the western world and the other religions are like MAC OS, Linux, Unix, etc. Most widespread, most openings to attack and the greatest likelihood of hitting the target. Note this is just an analogy - I won't try to make a value judgment about any religion one way or another although it should be noted that the Old Testament was the core of the Torah, and the Qur'an built off of the foundation of both Judaism AND Christianity so the three are tied together and that is something that would be beneficial to keep in mind in considering any one of the three.
Note this is just an analogy - I won't try to make a value judgment about any religion one way or another although it should be noted that the Old Testament was the core of the Torah, and the Qur'an built off of the foundation of both Judaism AND Christianity so the three are tied together and that is something that would be beneficial to keep in mind in considering any one of the three.
Except Jews and Muslims are not knocking on my door selling their brand of salvation.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There are a number of ways to approach this question and I have used the following with people in personal studies.
1) God is a righteous God who will do the right thing. Part of our faith is to trust Him to do so.
2) Is this your situation? Does the theoritical ability or inability of others affect your responsibility to do what you know you should do?
3) Christ promises that the one who seeks will find. We need to trust that God will open a way for those souls who truly want to be pleasing to Him.
4) Perhaps we are the way through which those of our generation will hear the gospel preached. If you believe the gospel then you should also believe in the necessity of sharing it. We may be the way by which God provides the truth for those who are seeking. As God told Ezekiel to bear the duties of a watchman, so too we bear the duty of warning others.
Except there's a contradiction in all of this that can only be solved through appeal to the whole mysterious ways line of reasoning.
If 1) is true, then why doesn't God save the people without access to the bible?
If God is willing to save people without access to the bible, why should other people who have an awareness of its teachings need to pledge their souls to Jesus? Couldn't they get by without it given 1)?
The fact that this isn't a specific problem for me personally doesn't make it any less of a problem. If God's going to give the shaft to the millions upon millions of people that have lived and died without the luxury of reading, or access to the bible, or what have you, then he's not a God worth worshipping. And, if he's going to let them get by without the bible, but apply a different standard for those who are aware of the bible, then his book is more a curse and a blessing.
I'd much rather be ignorant of Jesus and have an opportunity to find heaven than to know of Jesus but be denied the opportunity to find heaven because I find the bible to be unconvincing.
I'd much rather be ignorant of Jesus and have an opportunity to find heaven than to know of Jesus but be denied the opportunity to find heaven because I find the bible to be unconvincing.
Now why didn't I think of that before I started reading?
Personally, I think god put me here to test some people's faith.
5. The Bible is not even worth reading, except to make fun of. Those people are superstitious fools. Example: Richard Dawkins.Dawkins suggests that people should read the Bible, actually. The article linked, of course, gives a snide clergyman the last word.
Reading it as a science book is of course still wrongheaded.
I have to say that if people find valuable MORAL guidance in the Bible I have little problem with it (unless they start proselytizing-then I get irritated) I have an ENORMOUS problem if they try to use it as a science book in contradiction to actual science. Here is a rough overview adjustment of the steps of the Genesis cycle if one wanted it to be accurate to the palaeontological and geological record (note this is a rough layout-the specifics would add a lot of twists and turns over time and each of these 'days' would be millions or even billions of years and if someone feels like tweaking this a bit if I missed something or oversimplified go ahead)
Science taking on Genesis cycle
First (the Big Bang for sake of argument)
Fourth (except moon) (stars forming, eventually the sun)
Third (land) (the Earth and other planets form from the solar disc)
Fourth (moon) (most likely Theia impacting Earth-Google it)
Second (comets crashing down on Earth's surface bringing the water and various gases that over time formed the atmosphere)
Fifth (sea creatures-invertebrates and maybe protovertebrates)
Third (land plants)
Sixth (land animals-invertebrates) (new habitats and a way to escape predators)
Fifth (sea beasts-vertebrates, air creatures-invertebrates) and sixth (edible plants, certain land creatures-vertebrates)
Sixth (air creatures-vertebrates)
A long, long time later Sixth (humans)
Not going to comment on the seventh.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
You may be right. My understanding is that god is all powerful, all knowing, loving and created everything. Am I on the right track?
Is it a civil discussion if you respond with this level of snark? We can keep a dialogue if you want, but only if your trying to understand what we believe. Your responses sure don't seem like a guy trying to know where we're coming from, but instead suggest you just want to quip instead of examine another point of view. Despite us conservative Christians having the mantle of close-mindedness forced on us, I don't sense an attempt to learn or an interest in what other people believe.
I guess it's your call, man.
Again, I yield that I do not understand the fundamentals of your faith because that is not at all what I get from Job. Job seems like a very stern warning not to question.
I guess if you read Job, and the rest of the Bible, you'd understand it better. Again, I responded with enough examples to help define an actual context on something I know a little something about. And you pick Job, and then mischaracterize the point of the book.
Job and Jeremiah both questioned God. Did He explain His sovereignty to them? Sure! But He didn't judge them or punish them for asking. Job got more than he'd ever had before, and in fact, had he not questioned the God he'd served his whole life, he wouldn't have seen God. God wants our obedience, but He is also willing to reveal a piece of Himself to us.
The disciples questioned Jesus all the time. Often, they just didn't get it, because they were looking for the Messiah the corrupt religious leaders had made a profit predicting. Jesus might have been stern, sometimes He was humorous. But He used their questions to teach them. He even invited Thomas to touch his hands and side, which is hardly the act of a big meanyhead God who kills children and brooks no questions.
I have not heard him.
Unless God communicates through His Word and His people. In which case you are hearing Him, but glibly giving him the bird instead of listening. I'd understand better if you said something like 'I guess in context the Bible might claim some plan of God. I still don't buy it, but it's true my example is just a story I heard and I didn't know its background, or significance in scripture.'
Isn't that the same sort of retort one would expect from a reasonable Christian?
You got me there. Being completely absent is a pretty good test of anyone's fidelity.
And by completely absent, you mean He is worshipped by millions daily, and gave us a record of His movement in history. I know you choose not to believe it, but acknowledge that there's another perspective besides yours. Those of us who do believe aren't idiots. You say you've never seen God, but we say we know where to find him, and there's substance to that argument, even if you disagree.
O.k. But god is all powerful so he can just say the word and we are forgiven.
Well...maybe He should have gotten your advice. Why didn't anyone else think of that?
Oh, yeah. Context. God hates sin, God loves us, so he has to do something profound to reconcile us to Him. Waving a magic wand and saying "Salright, G" is hardly reconciliation. Maybe we could screw up his Creation, crawl in bed with His enemy, and he should just let it slide. After all, I am that important in the grand scheme of things, that without His invitation I should be able to just have my sentence commuted.
The Bible says without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. The point of Passover is that if you do the singular thing God asks you to do, you'll be spared when God makes His sovereignty known. Then the crucifixion was described before it had ever been used. Then, before he'd ever been arrested, He explains 'the temple will be torn down again and raised up in three days.' The Bible is pretty clear that actual sacrifice is necessary - something has to be destroyed in our place.
Now..if I choose to forgive my kids, do they deserve it? No. If I end grounding early, or if I finish their chores so they can go do something, it is becasue I love them and I do it as a gift for them. It is not up to them to tell me 'you could just forgive us and make this all easier.' Your perspective, because you don't believe in God, is that He has an obligation to make sense to you. But if there is a God, you and I are low on choices and high on accountability. And to be honest, I have as little use for a God who just let's people reject Him and still saves them, as I do for a God who smacks people with purple lightning on a whim. Fortunately, the God of the Bible has a balance of love and righteousness. He doesn't give me what I deserve, but He does require me to accept His gift of reconciliation, which in turn requires my worship and obedience.
The story of Naaman in 2 Kings 5 ilustrated. Naaman is a lot like you. Couldn't I dip into a cleaner river? Why'd I come all this way for such a stupid set of instructions? Couldn't this guy, Elisha just do some rain dance and fix me? This is stupid.
If you invite your friends over for a party, you give them a time and a date. There are other expectations. Drink or don't drink. Maybe don't bring fifty unruly people with you, and don't do heroin or set things on fire. Your friends are welcome to come to the party, as long as they obey the rules. When one of your guests starts feeling up random women and doesn't stop when you ask him, he doesn't get to come to parties anymore. You could just forgive him and invite him anyway, if you wanted. What has your friend learned? Is he a closer friend because you didn't require anything of him? WHat if you let him come back on condition he apologizes, and he refuses? You just say the word and everything's better again?
Don't you mean “god works in mysterious ways”?
That's pretty insulting. Interesting how the claim is made Christians explain stuff away with pithy phrases, and your retort resorts to equivocating me so you can feel smug and not have to consider what I said. Maybe Christians don't say pithy things, we're just quoted as having said them so folks can be dismissive.
But amid the frequent replies to the effect of "I don't believe in God, so He doesn't exist, so your explorations aren't worth considering.", I suppose that's to be expected.
Did you like Wolverine?
That film was very visually pleasing, but like everyone, I would have liked to have seen more of the suporting task.
Hehe. "You can come in. People are dead now."
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Except Jews and Muslims are not knocking on my door selling their brand of salvation.
That's right. Christians are the extremists.
The only difference between Judaism and Christianity (at their core..there are several Judaisms and several Christianities, and several non-Christian Christianities), is that Christians believe the Messiah prophecied in the Old Testament has come, and jews don't. They live under the law, we live under grace. You can't have Christianity without Judaism, and of course we love and value our Jewish heritage, in terms of history and faith.
Their connection to Islam stops with the separation of Isaac and Ishmael, and theologically and practically diverges widely after that point. I note that there are no Christian or Jewish movements to eliminate the other two religions.
Up to that point, their history coincides, and it does take understanding something about all of them to understand much of any of them.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
(as an aside, even though I am an evolutionist atheist I have no intention of seeing this movie-Maher and other "punditocrats" as I term the likes of Coulter, Moore, etc are too confrontational and determined to be jacka s ses to be of interest to me. YMMV and TETO).
In what way is Ann Coulter like Michael Moore? One does research and wrtes books on point for her beliefs. One massages data and unapologetically lies during his films to create vitriol. You really put them in the same class?
I saw a portion of Religulous at church during a men's group discussion. While the line "They sell certainty, while I'm on the corner with doubt." is kind of funny, I found the movie to be a very lazy attempt to make a few bucks off Maher's trademark cynicism.
The guy who wants answers about matters of faith completely sidesteps well-known and articulate figures and instead goes to a tiny truckers' church, or a small black gospel church (where the pastor appears to be one of those snake-oil typse, but maybe he is just painted that way in editing). Fascinating that he doesn't go into one large non-denominational church and talk to a normal evangelical pastor. But then, if you know Maher, you know he was being a jerk for a few dollars more and hardly looking to understand what people believe.
Hey - at one point, Maher teases the black preacher about his expensive suit. Possibly attempting to illustrate some level of inclusiveness, the pastor points out that the suit was free, and was given to him by a muslim friend. Maher replies "I think it's funny that you're a Christian, you have Muslim friends, and you buy your suits like a Jew."
What if a conservative celebrity said that in the same setting?
Is it a civil discussion if you respond with this level of snark?
You feel insulted and for that, I apologize. Thank you for your responses.
|
Paul, you say that your still open to God, right?
Would you at least consider the Bible a good morale compass for leading ones life? The basic tenants of its teachings, in your opinion, are they sound and just,overall?
Parts of it, yes.
The second half of the Ten Commandments (the ones about not being an a#+@@@#$ to others rather than "Obey and love me, and only me, or else") and Jesus' teachings are absolutely good ways to live your life. The parts about "Obey the Church, obey God, without thinking about it or asking questions or you'll burn in hellfire forever"? Not so much. Like Wicht, I don't want to go into too much detail as to why I have problems with the God presented in the Bible as it could cause offence, but suffice it to say that Mr Helt and I are unlikely to reach agreement on this one.
The Wiccan Reede, however, also has a lot of good principles to live by, as does Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam and pretty much every religion. But claiming any one of them as the only truth doesn't make sense to me. I take from all religions the things that make sense to me, and the Golden Rule serves as the basis of my own morality.
Two quotes to illustrate: "I do not believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, intelligence and curiosity intended us to forgo their use." Galileo
"There are many paths towards happiness and fulfillment. Just because someone is not on your path does not mean they are lost." Can't remember who at the moment.
|
|
(as an aside, even though I am an evolutionist atheist I have no intention of seeing this movie-Maher and other "punditocrats" as I term the likes of Coulter, Moore, etc are too confrontational and determined to be jacka s ses to be of interest to me. YMMV and TETO).In what way is Ann Coulter like Michael Moore? One does research and wrtes books on point for her beliefs. One massages data and unapologetically lies during his films to create vitriol. You really put them in the same class?
How would you react to someone who wrote a book "How to talk to A Conservative (if you have to)" that perpetuated every stereotype known to man about your position (and then rinse and repeated it for the rest of their career)? For a similar effect, read Moore's ridiculous "Stupid White Men" (which I sadly have). They belong in the same category. Just because you agree with Coulter doesn't mean she's any better than Moore.
|
Except there's a contradiction in all of this that can only be solved through appeal to the whole mysterious ways line of reasoning.
If 1) is true, then why doesn't God save the people without access to the bible?
Jesus tells us, that the ONLY way to the Father, is through the Son...
That is to say, that the way into Heaven, is to accept that Jesus was the Son of God, and that He died on a Roman cross for your sins, and that He is your Lord and Savior...
That's the reason He gave us...
Now, if you come to truly believe and accept that, your heart WILL change. You will come to find that the bible is the word of God. And you will eagerly try and do the things that are pleasing to Him...
If God's going to give the shaft to the millions upon millions of people that have lived and died without the luxury of reading, or access to the bible, or what have you, then he's not a God worth worshipping.
Another way to put this is; "This makes no sense to me, therefore I refuse to buy into it!" A valid argument...
But for a real-world example, how many times did your parents do something when you were but a wee lad, that just didn't make any sense to you what-so-ever? And the only excuse you got out of them was "because I said so", or "it's for your own good"...
Why is it reasonable for a parent to do this to a child, but somehow, God has to explain everything? Because we aren't children? Really?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
Except there's a contradiction in all of this that can only be solved through appeal to the whole mysterious ways line of reasoning.
If 1) is true, then why doesn't God save the people without access to the bible?
Jesus tells us, that the ONLY way to the Father, is through the Son...
That is to say, that the way into Heaven, is to accept that Jesus was the Son of God, and that He died on a Roman cross for your sins, and that He is your Lord and Savior...
That's the reason He gave us...
Now, if you come to truly believe and accept that, your heart WILL change. You will come to find that the bible is the word of God. And you will eagerly try and do the things that are pleasing to Him...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
You misunderstood. Sebastian is asking what happened to the millions of people who died without ever hearing about Jesus. It's not an issue now, so much, but it was for hundreds of years. What did God do with all the Asians and Africans and South Americans before missionaries came?
I heartily and unequicocably deny the existence of the holy spirit. I also do not believe in Santa Claus, the wandering jew, fairies, extraterrestrial abductions by grey men, that there was a jesus, that some being more complex than the universe existed before the universe began, that there is a soul, that there are ghosts, that pointing at the moon will cut my ear, that the position of five planets among the stars has anything to do with who I am, that tiny particles of good stuff in large quantities of inert stuff will be more effective than a placebo, that there is an aura around me, that the earth energy can change me if I attune to it, that crystals can cure cancer, that tarot is anything but a cool parlour game, that giving money to a televangelist is a smart thing to do, that the universe not only had a creator, but that creator gives a f!*& about what humans eat, believe or do. I think humans are absolutely brilliant at self deception, and that anything that a human says without proof is pretty worthless, especially if they are making extraordinary claims about the nature of things. I also believe that if all of the b*&*@!@& religions somehow ended, we could start to mature as a species without clinging to insane bronze age ramblings, and without as much crazy crap getting in the way of fixing some of the mistakes of the past. The sooner we grow up and stop listening to fairie tales and myths, and start making rational decisions based on evidence, the better. If you think that life would be meaningless without a deity, or that the creator of everything took some time to talk to you during a time when you were feeling vulnerable, or that your culture has recieved a special truth that is above any need for proof, you are, quite frankly, insane. If a few million people share your insanity, then at least you can surround yourself with people who will shield you from the bitter realisation that you are squandering your life and energy on a wasteful parasitic meme from the dark ages of our past.
|
|
Two quotes to illustrate: "I do not believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, intelligence and curiosity intended us to forgo their use." Galileo
He also said: ""God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."
He was a devote Christian, that did not believe science and Christianity were divorced from each other...
|
|
Two quotes to illustrate: "I do not believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, intelligence and curiosity intended us to forgo their use." GalileoHe also said: ""God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."
He was a devote Christian, that did not believe science and Christianity were divorced from each other...
I didn't say I believed all his quotes. ;-)
|
|
You misunderstood. Sebastian is asking what happened to the millions of people who died without ever hearing about Jesus. It's not an issue now, so much, but it was for hundreds of years. What did God do with all the Asians and Africans and South Americans before missionaries came?
It is my belief, and this comes from other examples in the Bible of how He works, that God revealed Himself to these people, just as He did to Abraham. I think that He revealed Himself to these people in ways that they could understand. I think that in many, if not most of these cases, they rejected and denied Him...
As an example, Pharaoh saw the power of God, and while in the end, he said uncle, he still denied Him. Later, tutankhamun's father, Akhnaton, had a vision of one god (the sun), and he followed his vision out into the desert (moved the whole capitol out there)...
Was that God, again revealing Himself to Egypt, but Egypt yet again denying Him (because it did not end well for Akhnaton)?
It is not for us to know...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
You misunderstood. Sebastian is asking what happened to the millions of people who died without ever hearing about Jesus. It's not an issue now, so much, but it was for hundreds of years. What did God do with all the Asians and Africans and South Americans before missionaries came?It is my belief, and this comes from examples in the Bible, that God revealed Himself to these people, just as He did to Abraham. I think that He revealed Himself to these people in ways that they could understand. I think that in many, if not most of these cases, they rejected and denied Him...
As an example, Pharaoh saw the power of God, and while in the end, he said uncle, he still denied Him. Later, tutankhamun's father, Akhnaton, had a vision of one god (the sun), and he followed his vision out into the desert (moved the whole capitol out there)...
Was that God, again revealing Himself to Egypt, but Egypt yet again denying Him (because it did not end well for Akhnaton)?
It is not for us to know...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
If the only way is through Christ, then God revealing himself is irrelevant. Without knowing the story of Christ, they are condemned.
|
|
If the only way is through Christ, then God revealing himself is irrelevant. Without knowing the story of Christ, they are condemned.
But with Christ, we are under a new and different covenant...
Just as Abraham was under a different covenant than Moses and the Law...
If God revealed Himself to these early people, then He would have done so under yet another different covenant (but again, that is just my theory)...
|
|
There are a number of ways to approach this question and I have used the following with people in personal studies.
1) God is a righteous God who will do the right thing. Part of our faith is to trust Him to do so.
2) Is this your situation? Does the theoritical ability or inability of others affect your responsibility to do what you know you should do?
Except there's a contradiction in all of this that can only be solved through appeal to the whole mysterious ways line of reasoning.
If 1) is true, then why doesn't God save the people without access to the bible?
If God is willing to save people without access to the bible, why should other people who have an awareness of its teachings need to pledge their souls to Jesus? Couldn't they get by without it given 1)?
Sebestian,
I did not say that the right thing was saving people apart from the gospel. I said I trust that God will do the right thing. I must confess that I do not always know what the right solution to every dilemma is. But I trust God to know.You are correct that if people were saved apart from the gospel then logically it would be better not to preach the gospel. The New Testament unequivocally says men cannot be saved apart from faith in Christ and obedience to his commands. I believe and accept this. That is, to be honest, why I take the time to write in this thread.
I personally tend to think the question is a red herring. People are trying to find a reason why they don't have to obey and so it is easy to try and trap a believer with the question of the ignorant. If they can find a person who will say that God will save the ignorant savage apart from faith then why not others. But as I also said, this is never the case for the person asking the question so the question is always, when asked, irrelevant.
In the early church, it was believed that the gospel had been preached to all the world. It went into Africa, Asia and Europe. Some of the apostles, traditionally, were even said to have gone as far east as they could go. I will be honest and admit I don't know what the situation in the Americas was at that time. I tend to think that those that crossed over from Asia did so later, not earlier but I don't know. I do know that I believe God wanted all men to hear the message and so made it available to all men.
There have been times and places where the gospel was not as readily available as at other times. But again, God has promised that those who wanted to find Him would have the door opened to find Him. I have seen and studied of too many instances of this happening to not believe it. And, to reiterate, I trust God, implicitly and completely.
|
|
There are a number of ways to approach this question and I have used the following with people in personal studies.
1) God is a righteous God who will do the right thing. Part of our faith is to trust Him to do so.
2) Is this your situation? Does the theoritical ability or inability of others affect your responsibility to do what you know you should do?
Except there's a contradiction in all of this that can only be solved through appeal to the whole mysterious ways line of reasoning.
If 1) is true, then why doesn't God save the people without access to the bible?
If God is willing to save people without access to the bible, why should other people who have an awareness of its teachings need to pledge their souls to Jesus? Couldn't they get by without it given 1)?
Sebestian,
I did not say that the right thing was saving people apart from the gospel. I said I trust that God will do the right thing. I must confess that I do not always know what the right solution to every dilemma is. But I trust God to know.You are correct that if people were saved apart from the gospel then logically it would be better not to preach the gospel. The New Testament unequivocally says men cannot be saved apart from faith in Christ and obedience to his commands. I believe and accept this. That is, to be honest, why I take the time to write in this thread.
I personally tend to think the question is a red herring. People are trying to find a reason why they don't have to obey and so it is easy to try and trap a believer with the question of the ignorant. If they can find a person who will say that God will save the ignorant savage apart from faith then why not others. But as I also said, this is never the case for the person asking the question so the question is always, when asked, irrelevant.
Wicht,
It's relevant because if God is the sort of God who will torture people for eternity for simply being born in the wrong place and at the wrong time and therefore not knowing about Christ, he is not a god who deserves any worship and certainly isn't a god who can be portrayed in any way as loving.|
|
Nobody goes to hell because they were born at the wrong place and the wrong time. They go because they rejected a knowledge of God and did not live according to His standards. We all were in that position.
The love of God is shown in making a way out of that position and making it available to everyone. The question is a straw man argument. It creates a person and declares that he has no chance. My trust in God is such that I truly believe a man with a seeking heart will be given a chance. In other words, i don't accept the premise of the question.
The problem is not that men aren't given a chance. The problem is that men, when given a chance, often seek for some reason why they shouldn't obey. It is not that the message is not heard. It is that men do not want to accept it. They are not willing to be saved. They choose condemnation over righteousness.
I accept that the issue of hell is a difficult one for some people. It is not for me because it is so obvious to me that God does not want to condemn men and has gone to some lengths to save those who are willing to be saved.
I am reminded of an old story. A man is on his roof in a flood. The waters are rising, death looms. He prays to God to save him. A boat comes by and the men urge the man to jump on. But he refuses, saying, I am waiting for God to save me. A helicopter flies by with the ladder but the man refuses again. Finally the waters rise high enough and he drowns. When he approaches God, he asks, "why didn't you save me?" God says, "I sent you a boat and a helicopter, didn't I."
The problem, as I percieve it, is not that God has not thrown out a life preserver to save the dying sinner. Its that men are not satisfied with the manner of salvation and insist God should do it all different.
|
More attempts at levity (although I'm sure some people not on this thread think this is real)
Good one! We need some more levity in this thread.
Thank you for your response to my ealier question, I can see where you come from and appreciate the same. Like I've said although I beleive in God as our creator I can't deny the possibility...the probability that man has edited his word over the years, either out of good intent (i.e. "maybe if we put it this way people will understand it better") or out of a need to searve their own selfish goals ("if we tell them that God said this then they will have to do it!!"). Denying any possibility or opinion is a sure way to limit ones intellectual growth.(boy am I glad I'm able to think clearly this mourning ;p)
|
|
I heartily and unequicocably deny the existence of the holy spirit. I also do not believe in Santa Claus, the wandering jew, fairies, extraterrestrial abductions by grey men, that there was a jesus, that some being more complex than the universe existed before the universe began, that there is a soul, that there are ghosts, that pointing at the moon will cut my ear, that the position of five planets among the stars has anything to do with who I am, that tiny particles of good stuff in large quantities of inert stuff will be more effective than a placebo, that there is an aura around me, that the earth energy can change me if I attune to it, that crystals can cure cancer, that tarot is anything but a cool parlour game, that giving money to a televangelist is a smart thing to do, that the universe not only had a creator, but that creator gives a f%%! about what humans eat, believe or do. I think humans are absolutely brilliant at self deception, and that anything that a human says without proof is pretty worthless, especially if they are making extraordinary claims about the nature of things. I also believe that if all of the b~#!##!~ religions somehow ended, we could start to mature as a species without clinging to insane bronze age ramblings, and without as much crazy crap getting in the way of fixing some of the mistakes of the past. The sooner we grow up and stop listening to fairie tales and myths, and start making rational decisions based on evidence, the better. If you think that life would be meaningless without a deity, or that the creator of everything took some time to talk to you during a time when you were feeling vulnerable, or that your culture has recieved a special truth that is above any need for proof, you are, quite frankly, insane. If a few million people share your insanity, then at least you can surround yourself with people who will shield you from the bitter realisation that you are squandering your life and energy on a wasteful parasitic meme from the dark ages of our past.
I may be insane but we are trying to remain civil TH if you expect others to respect your beleifs then I don't see how you can't at least try not to be insulting towards theirs.
I didn't, either. At all. I came to believe in the efficacity of the prescription only after trying it and seeing results.This is what I am hearing from many of the Christians participating in this debate. I suspect most religions do this for believers. Please do not take that as me trying to say you are just like everyone else. Well, o.k., I am, but not in a bad way. I think most religion offers us some kind of comfort. Who wouldn't want that?
I think that living a good life is good for a person, yes. But there are a number of differences in how I go about it, which you've glossed over. For one, I don't deal in souls, but with this life. I don't specify that one has to follow the same exact methods; like I said above, I believe the Buddha discovered "a" way to a better life, not "the" way. I'm not insiting that anyone needs to serve anyone -- on the contrary, Buddhism is about liberation rather than servitude. Also, I'm not selling anything here; I'll answer questions only if directly asked, and I don't hand out brochures. No bus-pushing, please!
In trying to better understand how this might work, does the suffering of losing a loved one to death come from the desire (as understood by Buddhists) to have that loved one back?
It comes from insisting to yourself that a loved one is a "thing" that you are somehow entitled to "own" and hold onto. Non-attachment allows a practitioner to deeply cherish every moment spent with that person when they are present, and to quietly celebrate the memories of him or her afterwards, without feeling like the universe "stole" that person from you.
O.k. So what exactly do I need to do to try this? Is it as simple as sitting quietly for 30 minutes? Do I have to be in a place of complete silence? Does the position of my body matter or is it just about comfort?
At first, it's helpful if things are quiet. All you need to do is sit in a way that you're not hunched or overly-erect; you don't want stress on the spine to interfere, which after about 15 minutes it starts to. You don't need to fold up like a pretzel or hold your hands upside-down or any of that stuff you see in movies. Once you've settled down, all you need to do is NOT think about specific things: if a thought comes in and demands attention, gently allow it to pass, without forcing it and without clinging to it. This is a lot harder than it sounds, so it's often very helpful to create some background mental "noise" by counting your breaths. This is sitting meditation, or "Zazen." It's also a barrier for many people who think it's a total waste of time to spend half-hour a day "just sitting there" and apparently doing nothing.
After your practice deepens, you can do it on the subway, at a rock concert, while sitting, while standing, while walking, while doing the dishes, or while going up the stairs to work (my personal favorite -- I not only avoid the crowded elevator but I feel more refreshed and alert when I get to my floor). The more active methods that involve motion or tasks are a bit different; instead of clearing of all thoughts, the idea is to live fully in each moment, experiencing it as completely as possible. This is also harder than it sounds.
In what way is Ann Coulter like Michael Moore? One does research and wrtes books on point for her beliefs. One massages data and unapologetically lies during his films to create vitriol. You really put them in the same class?
Oh please. "One is good, one is bad, do you're really think they're the same?" That is a textbook case of begging the question.
I may be insane but we are trying to remain civil TH if you expect others to respect your beleifs then I don't see how you can't at least try not to be insulting towards theirs.
Here we go again, confusing respecting someone's beliefs with respecting their right to believe what they wish.
Do you respect my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If I utterly and completely believed he was God, would you be ok with me demanding (and in some cases, getting) equal time in science class? Becoming tax exempt? Putting up statues of Him in courthouses? Here's the thing: Your God is literally no more real to me than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hell, probably less; at least I know spaghetti exists.
Believe what you want. You have the right to expect (and demand) that your beliefs will be tolerated, that you won't be punished or beaten or fired because of what you believe. You DO NOT have the right to demand that others take your delusions seriously.
|
|
I may be insane but we are trying to remain civil TH if you expect others to respect your beleifs then I don't see how you can't at least try not to be insulting towards theirs.Here we go again, confusing respecting someone's beliefs with respecting their right to believe what they wish.
Do you respect my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If I utterly and completely believed he was God, would you be ok with me demanding (and in some cases, getting) equal time in science class? Becoming tax exempt? Putting up statues of Him in courthouses? Here's the thing: Your God is literally no more real to me than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hell, probably less; at least I know spaghetti exists.
Believe what you want. You have the right to expect (and demand) that your beliefs will be tolerated, that you won't be punished or beaten or fired because of what you believe. You DO NOT have the right to demand that others take your delusions seriously.
No, but on a CIVIL discussion thread, he probably has the right not to have someone swearing at him or calling him insane for believing something.
Also, you're portraying Moorluck as something he hasn't been shown to be, namely an intolerant Christian zealot. He's treated the opposing position respectfully. I know this because I'm the main member of that opposing position who's been discussing it with him. Just saying one side or the other is nonsense is not civil or discussion.
Nobody goes to hell because they were born at the wrong place and the wrong time. They go because they rejected a knowledge of God and did not live according to His standards. We all were in that position.
The love of God is shown in making a way out of that position and making it available to everyone. The question is a straw man argument. It creates a person and declares that he has no chance. My trust in God is such that I truly believe a man with a seeking heart will be given a chance. In other words, i don't accept the premise of the question.
It isn't a strawman. Millions of people have died without hearing about, or even having any conception of, your God or your religion. Your belief to that contrary is irrelevant, standing as it does in direct opposition to mountains of historical sociological data.
Of course, if I were you, I wouldn't want "accept the premise of the question" either.
In what way is Ann Coulter like Michael Moore? One does research and wrtes books on point for her beliefs. One massages data and unapologetically lies during his films to create vitriol. You really put them in the same class?
Oh please. "One is good, one is bad, do you're really think they're the same?" That is a textbook case of begging the question.
OK, if we're really reduced to arguing whether a hate-filled fat man spewing vitriol is "worse" than a hate-filled skinny woman spewing vitriol, then perhaps one of the many political threads might be a more appropriate venue?
Also, I'm not selling anything here; I'll answer questions only if directly asked, and I don't hand out brochures.
I obviously had my (censored)-hat on yesterday and did not know it.
without feeling like the universe "stole" that person from you.
That does seem like it would be very difficult to accept but I can see how that would work once you did. I would like to put another hypothetical question to you, if you do not mind. How does a woman who is in an abusive relationship ease her suffering?
Once you've settled down, all you need to do is NOT think about specific things: if a thought comes in and demands attention, gently allow it to pass, without forcing it and without clinging to it. This is a lot harder than it sounds...
It is difficult. I have told my friend that my mind does not like to be silent. He refers to it as my chittering monkey.
It's also a barrier for many people who think it's a total waste of time to spend half-hour a day "just sitting there" and apparently doing nothing.
At the risk of insulting again, that is kind of where I am. It seems very relaxing which has its own benefits. If it just for the relaxation, then why not take a bath, or listen to music or what have you.
Maybe I am trying to run before I crawl and am trying to jump to the more advanced techniques you described.
No, but on a CIVIL discussion thread, he probably has the right not to have someone swearing at him or calling him insane for believing something.
I don't recall swearing at him, so let's focus on the accusations of insanity.
Psychiatric delusions have three characterisitics:
* Certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* Incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* Impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
As far as I can see, religion is the poster boy for delusion:
* A great number of theists have said to me (not without pride) that they are absolutely certain of their convictions. In fact, such certainty is often considered a virtue(!)
* The concept of an almighty God is inherently impossible to disprove. Convenient, that.
* Taken in any other context, the tenents of almost any faith are utterly implausible. It is only through familiarity and repetition that they come to seem otherwise.
Is pointing that out "civil"? I don't know. It is almost certainly impolite. But neutering the conversation doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. If you've been following this thread, you can see that it is now clearly going in circles.
OK, if we're really reduced to arguing whether a hate-filled fat man spewing vitriol is "worse" than a hate-filled skinny woman spewing vitriol, then perhaps one of the many political threads might be a more appropriate venue?
In what way is Ann Coulter like Michael Moore? One does research and wrtes books on point for her beliefs. One massages data and unapologetically lies during his films to create vitriol. You really put them in the same class?
Oh please. "One is good, one is bad, do you're really think they're the same?" That is a textbook case of begging the question.
They're equally bad; that's the point. But you're right; I should have let that one pass.
|
|
No, but on a CIVIL discussion thread, he probably has the right not to have someone swearing at him or calling him insane for believing something.
I don't recall swearing at him, so let's focus on the accusations of insanity.
Psychiatric delusions have three characterisitics:
* Certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* Incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* Impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)As far as I can see, religion is the poster boy for delusion:
* A great number of theists have said to me (not without pride) that they are absolutely certain of their convictions. In fact, such certainty is often considered a virtue(!)
* The concept of an almighty God is inherently impossible to disprove. Convenient, that.
* Taken in any other context, the tenents of almost any faith are copmletely implausible. It is only through familiarity and repetition that they come to seem otherwise.
Is pointing that out "civil"? I don't know. It is almost certainly impolite. But neutering the conversation doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. If you've been following this thread, you can see that it is now clearly going in circles.
I'm not sure how "You're stupid" "No you are" is going to help things, though.
Believers think that we're the insane ones for not clearly seeing the truth.
You have the right to present your arguments as a dick, but you're still coming across as a dick. If you start your point with abuse, why would anybody listen to the rest? It's exactly the same as you're accusing the believers of doing. Go for it if you want, just don't be surprised when you get uncivil comments back.
|
|
Sebestian,
I did not say that the right thing was saving people apart from the gospel. I said I trust that God will do the right thing. I must confess that I do not always know what the right solution to every dilemma is. But I trust God to know.You are correct that if people were saved apart from the gospel then logically it would be better not to preach the gospel. The New Testament unequivocally says men cannot be saved apart from faith in Christ and obedience to his commands. I believe and accept this. That is, to be honest, why I take the time to write in this thread.
I personally tend to think the question is a red herring. People are trying to find a reason why they don't have to obey and so it is easy to try and trap a believer with the question of the ignorant. If they can find a person who will say that God will save the ignorant savage apart from faith then why not others. But as I also said, this is never the case for the person asking the question so the question is always, when asked, irrelevant.
In the early church, it was believed that the gospel had been preached to all the world. It went into Africa, Asia and Europe. Some of the...
Could you clarify, please? You come across to me as saying that you are confident that, for example, from the moment that Jesus died on the cross until the first missionaries arrived with bibles from Europe/Africa, God made known in some way to every generation of 'native americans' his power, plan, and the name of his Son, in whom they were required to believe to receive salvation, or pay with (an eternity of?) damnation if they did not?
Edit:
I am not asking if you can explain how God did it; I am asking if you believe/have faith that that is what occured?
I think that the question has a two part answer.
Firstly, i do not believe that every person who has lived, since the days of Christ, has heard the gospel. That's not quite what I am saying. To explain the second, longer, part of my answer requires a bit of prefacing...
The scriptures clearly teach that the majority of people will be lost, lacking the qualities that lead them to accept salvation. I find this depressing but true. God is looking for certain qualities in a man and I believe that part of the reasons why He did the things He did in the way that He did was to draw out these qualities and save those people who exhibit them. Several sections of scripture detail the qualities God desires and blesses. The beattitudes in Matthew are probable one of the best examples of these passages.
I also believe that God knows the hearts of men and knows beforehand who will believe and who will not. I trust in the promises of God and one of those promises is that the man who seeks will find.
Taking these things together I arrive at my conclusion. If in a culture or a time, there is a man who wants to be right with God and earnestly seeks such a thing, the doors will be opened to Him. For all I know, the pilgrims arrived when they did and the conquistadors when they did because God knew that there would be believers at those times and places.
I go back then to my original answer. I trust God to do the right thing. I may not and do not always understand why things happened the way they did but I know who I believe in and I trust Him to care for me and for all those who earnestly seek His will.
|
|
Psychiatric delusions have three characteristics:
* Certainty (held with absolute conviction)
Let's see, scientist believe absolutely in the Big Bang Theory...
* Incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
Scientists will not change their view on this despite the evidence pointing to this so called "fact", that it is in reality, just a theory...
* Impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
The Big Bang Theory is inherently impossible to disprove. Convenient, that...
As far as I can see, belief in the Big Bang Theory is the poster boy for delusion...
How does a woman who is in an abusive relationship ease her suffering?
Non-attachment, I should say. She walks away and doesn't look back.
I have told my friend that my mind does not like to be silent. He refers to it as my chittering monkey.
Me, too. Maybe that's why I get so much out of it.
At the risk of insulting again, that is kind of where I am. It seems very relaxing which has its own benefits. If it just for the relaxation, then why not take a bath, or listen to music or what have you. Maybe I am trying to run before I crawl and am trying to jump to the more advanced techniques you described.
No insult was taken. The best I can describe it is that a bath relaxes you now, but is of no help tomorrow when someone attacks you or the car falls apart on the way to work or whatever. A steady practice of zazen accustoms your mind to calming itself on demand, so you have a big head start when things aren't so good. I think of it almost as building up a store of calm and mental clarity for use later on (it's come in handy on many occasions, like when my tire exploded on the freeway going 85 mph, or the last time a guy pointed a loaded pistol at me).
Maybe I am trying to run before I crawl and am trying to jump to the more advanced techniques you described.
In martial arts terms, if you try to learn a back jumping spin kick before you learn to do stand correctly and do the front kick, then all you'll do is ingrain incorrect technique and create a barrier to learning. First mastering the basics, then moving on, is a more efficient method in the long run, although it might seem like it takes too long in the short term.
Let's see, scientist believe absolutely in the Big Bang Theory...
I'm a scientist. I don't "believe in it absolutely." In fact, I don't even think about it except as an exercise in mathematics. If the math works or other evidence pops up, so much the better. There's absolutely no emotional stake in it.
P.S. The Big Bang is absurdly easy to disprove. Just find an error in the math supporting it, or a case in which the underlying mathematical assumptions don't hold. The thing is, most people don't understand the supporting math well enough to even recognize it, mugh less run through it for errors.
I think it would be good to know what scientists actually believe before attributing beliefs to them. Which is sort of the point of this whole thread, in case you missed that. Hopefully the non-Christians can learn what believers ACTUALLY believe. And maybe a few of the anti-science people can acquire a vague clue about what science is actually all about. I can claim "all Christians believe that you must sacrifice infants to Cthulhu," but I'd be wrong. Likewise when people make assertions about science from a standpoint of total ignorance of science.
|
|
I think it would be good to know what scientists actually believe before attributing beliefs to them.
Only trying to point out, that his argument can be turned around the other way and be just as valid...
I believe that science and Christianity can and do coexist quite peacefully...
It wasn't until the "modern era" that the two became so diametrically opposed in the minds of many...
|
|
Which is sort of the point of this whole thread, in case you missed that. Hopefully the non-Christians can learn what believers ACTUALLY believe. And maybe a few of the anto-science people can acquire a vague clue about what science is actually all about.
And the blindly religious may learn to take faith with a grain of salt before accepting absolutely. It does work both ways... :D
|
|
It wasn't until the "modern era" that the two became so diametrically opposed in the minds of many...
It is not a new concept at all, but one that has been around for centuries.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth.
Yet this conflicts with others, IMO...
Peace if possible, truth at all costs.
Only trying to point out, that his argument can be turned around the other way and be just as valid...
See a few pages ago, about different mind-sets, and above, about how easy it would be to disprove the Big Bang hypothesis, or the theory of evolution. The argument isn't valid because it's grounded in the assumption that everyone views the world in much the same way, which isn't actually the case.
I believe that science and Christianity can and do coexist quite peacefully.
I agree completely. It can start if more scientists read the Bible (which many of them don't bother to do), and if more Christians had some level of basic science education (which, as I pointed out a page or two ago, they are led to think they do -- but actually don't -- due to the abject failure of science education in our public schools).
|
|
It is not a new concept at all, but one that has been around for centuries.
I obviously did not know the man, but I think I can explain these quotes to you...
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Because, sometimes when all else has failed, you just have to believe...
I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth.
Up until the 1960's, The Bible was taught in schools...
Up until the 1960's, Our country had more of a sense of right and wrong, good and evil...
Of course you can say this last part is just my opinion, and that there is nothing wrong with the moral standard in the United States, but I would have to point you to the many children that kill so cold heartedly. I don't know about you, but when I went to school in the 1980's I didn't have to fear getting shot and killed (and metal detectors were just unheard of), I just had to perhaps worry about a good old fashioned behind-kicking...
Yet this conflicts with others, IMO...
Peace if possible, truth at all costs.
Conflict is a bad thing, but if lies get in the way of truth or peace, then truth MUST be preserved...
Up until the 1960's, Our country had more of a sense of right and wrong, good and evil...
You mean like slavery, for example? Or murder rates in the late 1800's that make modern-day South Central look like Disneyland? Have you looked at the "Roaring '20's" and seen the excesses there that make today seem Puritanical in comparison?
"Nostalgia victimizes the unknowing by instilling in them a desire for a simplicity and innocence they can never achieve."
—James Ellroy, Clandestine.
|
|
I agree completely. It can start if more scientists read the Bible (which many of them don't bother to do), and if more Christians had some level of basic science education (which, as I pointed out a page or two ago, they are led to think they do -- but actually don't -- due to the abject failure of science education in our public schools).
They don't even do that great a job in college unless it's the student's major. Why do you think I rarely get into any science discussions that aren't basic or superficial? I don't have the background to debate intelligently if the subject gets too deeply into specifics.
The Bible, however, I will debate with anyone. All those years of regular church attendance, Sunday School, and having read the darned thing cover to cover have to be worth something in a debate ;)
|
|
Up until the 1960's, Our country had more of a sense of right and wrong, good and evil...You mean like slavery, for example? Or murder rates in the late 1800's that make modern-day South Central look like Disneyland? Have you looked at the "Roaring '20's" and seen the excesses there that make today seem Puritanical in comparison?
"Nostalgia victimizes the unknowing by instilling in them a desire for a simplicity and innocence they can never achieve."
—James Ellroy, Clandestine.
It's kind of like my 1e fanboism. Nostalgia has a way of ironing out the wrinkles...