What are your thoughts on god? by christhecynic

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

What are your thoughts on god?

POSTED BY: CHRISTHECYNIC
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 21:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 34257
PAGE 2 of 4

Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:53 PM

I agree with you on all points except one.
Priests who abuses their parishoners should be tortured... like old school inquisition torture.
Perhaps the lack of forgiveness for those men is un-christian of me, but i stand by it.

Wash: Yeah, but psychic? That sounds like science fiction.
Zoë: You live on a spaceship, dear.
Wash: So?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:56 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by JubelLate:
My first instinct is bring up the argument of passing a sense of family onto your pet or responsibility to that which requires your protection, much like an offspring.

Yeah, that's the way I would explain it away too, but I should point out I never really thought of her like a child. She was laying eggs (poor thing actually thought they might hatch it totally lacked an understanding of biology) so I thought of her as an adult while I was still a kid.

Quote:
If its existance was merely tangential to yours, such as a bird living in a tree near you, would you have felt the same regret at its death.

The same regret? No. Regret? Yes.

I regret all death, more to the point:

If I see a dead bird it means it died without purpose, without meaning. If I don't see a dead bird, which is the case with the vast majority of dead birds, it might be something's lunch (not pleasant for the bird I admit, but at least it has meaning) or it might have died defending its young (in which case it would also be something's lunch), or any number of other things (most of which end with being eaten.)

I think the only reason the amount of pointless death in the world doesn't drive me nuts is that I don't see it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:03 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by FreelancePilot:
I agree with you on all points except one.
Priests who abuses their parishoners should be tortured... like old school inquisition torture.
Perhaps the lack of forgiveness for those men is un-christian of me, but i stand by it.

Actually I believe that too, but since I don't approve of torture I thought I'd leave that out.

I believe that people, no matter how bad, can reform and ideally I’d like all people to reform and be forgiven, but a large part of me wants to see them punished, horribly. Un-Christian, immoral, cruel, and various other things too, but its part of who I am.

I’m happy I’m not in charge actually.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:05 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
I brought up the point about how Lee Sobel argued you couldn't believe Jesus was just a good man because it was him I was arguing against in the first place, so I thought it fair to use his definition.

I think that argument was originally made by C.S. Lewis. It was that you cannot say that Jesus was a "good" man, whose teachings we should follow, but not believe that He was God -- as those two statements entirely contradict each other.

If Jesus wasn't God, He was either insane or a liar. Either way, you couldn't call Him "good", and you wouldn't be too smart following the teachings of someone who was insane or a liar.

And whatever one might think about C.S. Lewis, he wasn't an idiot. His argument makes sense to me. (But then, I'm admittedly not the brightest bulb in the socket.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:15 PM

REGINAROADIE

In short, I believe in God, Jesus and the Ten Commandments. What I don't believe in is fundamentalism, which lately is starting to become really rampant. I believe in the separation of science and state with religion, and think homosexulaity is more of a genetic thing, and not a "curse" that can be cured as some people would make you believe.

And I think "The Last Temptation of Christ" is the ultimate Jesus film, and not "The Passion of the Christ" because it doesn't kowtow to the scripture, but asks very intelligent questions about faith and God. If Jesus was just as much the Son of Man as he was the Son of God, then wouldn't he have the same flaws and doubts that regular man would?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"YES!!!I'm a man posessed by many demons....Polite demons that would open the door for a lady carrying too many parcels...BUT DEMONS NONETHELESS!!!! Yes. I have walked along the path of evil many times, it's a twisting, curving path that..actually leads to a charming plot garden, BUT BEYOND THAT EVIL!!!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:22 PM

LOOTZEE

I am an atheist but it's just the way god made me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:44 PM

WINDWALKER

I tend to avoid religious discussion
It creates to many bad feelings and confusion.
Just believing for oneself is the goal and personal
God is like a juicy berry pie
You look at it and its just a plain ol dish to the eye but once you've cut into it and tasted it
everything else is garnish

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:49 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
I think that argument was originally made by C.S. Lewis. It was that you cannot say that Jesus was a "good" man, whose teachings we should follow, but not believe that He was God -- as those two statements entirely contradict each other.

If Jesus wasn't God, He was either insane or a liar. Either way, you couldn't call Him "good", and you wouldn't be too smart following the teachings of someone who was insane or a liar.

I disagree with that, in Christian religions of all sorts there are prophets a plenty and others sent to spread the teachings of god as well.

Many say prayers to, "Our father," and Jesus is called the Son of Man more than the Son of God. Doesn't make him a liar if he isn't the biological son of god.

Furthermore it was Augustine who said that the power of god was all the more impressive if he could work through a sinner. How much more if he can work through the insane (or liars)? Augustine isn’t my saint, so again this is coming from an outsider, but I just don’t see the necessity.

Also where is it written that one must return after three days to be the son of god? An Old Testament prophesy would be a good thing to quote as an answer, if there is one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 3:45 PM

PAYNE

I hate to retread points that come from the middle of a thread, but as an atheist myself, I always feel a sort of responsibility to talk about what I feel are misconceptions about atheism.

Quote:
When it comes down to it, the problem has never been if science and religion can co-exist, the problem is always political. Atheists, for instance, hold that the lack of a belief in a god is more rational then believing in god, but why? The only way to confirm that conclusion is to view the entirety of the universe and demonstrate the no god plays any part, which is wholly impossible.

It's also why no atheist with an ounce of debating experience will maintain that the existence of any god is impossible. Those who insist it is deserve to be clobbered.

Quote:
Therefore, not believing in a god is as religious an opinion as believing. Many, perhaps most, atheists, however, will not accept that.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the reason we won't accept that is because it isn't true. Your lack of belief in leprechauns is just that: a lack of belief, not a religious opinion. You don't need to pretend you know everything about the world and the universe in order to go on the working assumption that leprechauns don't exist. Such an assumption is not religious, it's something we all believe in everyday life because we've never seen anything that might lead us to believe that leprechauns are real.

I am, of course, not putting belief in God on the level of belief in leprechauns. That would be offensive and inaccurate. I'm trying to draw an analogy that will help explain actual atheism. One of the most famous atheist quotes (paraphrased) says that we are all atheists with regard to most gods ever worshipped by man. Actual atheists simply refuse to make an exception for the God of the Bible, or for the gods of Hinduism, etc., etc.

I do not say that God is an impossibility. I have no information, no experiences or beliefs about the divine to draw on to make that judgment. I am an atheist because I lack those experiences.

Quote:
They will wave their hands and throw around definitions, but many will never admit that they cannot prove that god doesn’t exist and that therefore their claim to a superior rationale is nonsense.

I admit it right here: I cannot prove that God doesn't exist. My rationale is not superior to yours. Well actually, it might be, I don't really know you.

But since it is impossible for an atheist to go through life without living with, working with, hanging out with, loving, and otherwise bumping elbows with theists, I really hope you don't believe we all walk around with undeserved superiority complexes.

For those who believe agnosticism more accurately describes my beliefs, I call myself an atheist for a few reasons. One is that calling yourself an agnostic sometimes implies that you're only awaiting the right push into full-fledged theism or atheism, because you currently have a "lack knowledge." I don't lack knowledge. It's just that the current set of knowledge I possess doesn't indicate that there is a God. My knowledge is of course incomplete, and perhaps some day new information will come along someday that doesn't jive with what currently leads me to atheism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:02 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I disagree with that, in Christian religions of all sorts there are prophets a plenty and others sent to spread the teachings of god as well.

I'm sorry. In my initial haste to reply, I inadvertantly left out one crucial part of Lewis's argument. Jesus did claim to be God. As such, we have to believe He is God, or that He was a liar and/or insane, as one doesn't claim to be God if they're not God (unless they're crazy or a liar -- in which case, we should ignore everything they say).

If you want me to quote you passages where Jesus claimed divinity, contact me privately. I don't want to weigh down this thread with detailed, theological intercourse -- particularly, as I'm understanding your initial reason for starting this thread to just to give a basic answer to our individual beliefs, and not deliver entire treatises.

(Besides, this thread is already too long.)

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Many say prayers to, "Our father," and Jesus is called the Son of Man more than the Son of God. Doesn't make him a liar if he isn't the biological son of god.

"Son of Man" was actually a Messianic title.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Furthermore it was Augustine who said that the power of god was all the more impressive if he could work through a sinner. How much more if he can work through the insane (or liars)? Augustine isn’t my saint, so again this is coming from an outsider, but I just don’t see the necessity.

It's hardly my place to speak for Augustine, but I think he was paraphrasing (or even embellishing upon) Paul (I think from Romans). In other words, the more desperate the individual the Lord works through, the greater the glory to God and not man. But, this certainly wouldn't apply to someone who claimed to be God and wasn't God. Clearly, such is blasphemy.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Also where is it written that one must return after three days to be the son of god? An Old Testament prophesy would be a good thing to quote as an answer, if there is one.

It doesn't say that one has to return after three days to be the Son of God, but Jesus multitudinously (and clearly) said He would return after three days in the grave prior to the fact.

There are a multitude of Old Testament prophesies fulfilled to the letter, but to my knowledge the number of days in the grave isn't one of them (and I could be wrong).

[For a good work on the subject of fulfilled OT prophesies in Jesus, I recommend: "The Case for Jesus, The Messiah" by J. Ankerberg. Also, both "Zola Levitt Ministries" (out of Dallas, TX) and "Chosen People Ministries" (out of NYC). I believe they both have websites.]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:15 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Payne:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the reason we won't accept that is because it isn't true.

A religious belief is a belief about god taken on faith. A belief is made on faith if it lacks proof.

A religious belief is a belief about god that does not have proof to back it up.

For the belief in the non-existence of god to be non-religious would require there to be proof that god does not exist, you yourself claim to lack this proof.

The belief that there are no gods is religious in the same way the belief that there is one god is and the same way that the belief there are several gods. You yourself have said this:

Quote:
One of the most famous atheist quotes (paraphrased) says that we are all atheists with regard to most gods ever worshipped by man. Actual atheists simply refuse to make an exception for the God of the Bible, or for the gods of Hinduism, etc., etc.

That defintion of atheism is wrong with respect to both dictionaries and the words roots, but it proves a good point. The belief in the nonexistance of god, any god, is a religious one.

Quote:
Quote:
They will wave their hands and throw around definitions, but many will never admit that they cannot prove that god doesn’t exist and that therefore their claim to a superior rationale is nonsense.

I admit it right here: I cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

Many does not even mean, "Most," clearly you are not one of the many which he speaks of. As he has met the people he speaks of he is more qualified than you to speak of what they do and do not admit.

-

Again: A religious belief is one about god (or gods) that is not backed up with proof. Unless there is proof that god does not exist, which you say you personally can not, then the belief that there is not a god is religious.

Its not something to get up in arms about, there is only one group on earth that do not hold religious beliefs, the agnostics, and they are hardly the norm. Take comfort in the fact that you are normal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:23 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
"Son of Man" was actually a Messianic title.

If you look into the history of the Messianic traditions it was not believed that the Messiah would be the son of god until Jesus came, before that people thought the Messiah was pure human.

-

I was going to say more, but you are right my intent was not to bog down the thread with debate, and both sides of the argument have been outlined, and that is enough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:25 PM

UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION

I used to be very religious, but I always had more questions than answers. I spent a lot of time in the corner at Sunday school for asking questions the teachers did not want to answer.

I decided on my own to read the bible from cover to cover instead of just the passages the preacher told us all to read. Years earlier, I had realized a lot of stuff was being taken out of context. I read very fast and used to read the passages before and after the assigned ones waiting for the slow people to get doen.

Anyway, I started with the old testiment. Didn't take long for me to seriously question the whole religion thing after that...LOL

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:01 PM

PAYNE

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by Payne:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the reason we won't accept that is because it isn't true.

A religious belief is a belief about god taken on faith. A belief is made on faith if it lacks proof.

A religious belief is a belief about god that does not have proof to back it up.

But no opinion, one way or the other, can be backed up with objective proof. Religious conversion relies on subjective experience. I can't agree with your definition, I think it includes far too much. Religious belief seems pretty inextricably bound up with a positive belief in some kind of supernatural deity.

Quote:
For the belief in the non-existence of god to be non-religious would require there to be proof that god does not exist, you yourself claim to lack this proof.

I do lack that proof, but lacking proof that a supernatual being doesn't exist does not make my working assumption that it doesn't equal to a religious belief. It's just that absent positive evidence for a god, I lack belief in one. That's not the same as a positive assertion that there is no god.

I take no offense at being told I have a religious belief, believe me, but to say I do just seems kind of bizarre. Would you say you have a religious belief about leprechauns?

Quote:
The belief that there are no gods is religious in the same way the belief that there is one god is and the same way that the belief there are several gods. You yourself have said this:

Quote:
One of the most famous atheist quotes (paraphrased) says that we are all atheists with regard to most gods ever worshipped by man. Actual atheists simply refuse to make an exception for the God of the Bible, or for the gods of Hinduism, etc., etc.

That defintion of atheism is wrong with respect to both dictionaries and the words roots, but it proves a good point. The belief in the nonexistance of god, any god, is a religious one.

Belief that there cannot be a god is, I would say, a religious one. But lack of belief either way?

If you want to call that agnosticism, I have no objections. Whatever helps us understand each other better is fine. Among atheist groups and discussion forums, the distinction is referred to as "hard atheism" versus "soft atheism." I am referred to as a soft atheist. I lack belief in a god.

Quote:
Quote:
They will wave their hands and throw around definitions, but many will never admit that they cannot prove that god doesn’t exist and that therefore their claim to a superior rationale is nonsense.

I admit it right here: I cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

Many does not even mean, "Most," clearly you are not one of the many which he speaks of. As he has met the people he speaks of he is more qualified than you to speak of what they do and do not admit.

Perhaps I came off as aggressive in that last point I made. Yes, he has met the people he has met and I have not, but I've met many atheists myself. Very few of us, I would say, see a reason to consider ours a religious belief. We do not believe categorically that there is no God. That's simply the working assumption we're left with when we see no evidence for the Gods others propose to us.

Quote:
Again: A religious belief is one about god (or gods) that is not backed up with proof. Unless there is proof that god does not exist, which you say you personally can not, then the belief that there is not a god is religious.

I just don't agree with your definition of a religious belief. It seems to me that a religious belief requires some kind of positive assertion that there is something beyond the material world we see. By your definition, it seems that anything qualifies, even agnosticism, because nothing can be backed up with proof.

Quote:
Its not something to get up in arms about, there is only one group on earth that do not hold religious beliefs, the agnostics, and they are hardly the norm. Take comfort in the fact that you are normal.

I may be, but remember I stated a position that some might consider agnostic: namely that the current knowledge I possess doesn't lead me either to the conclusion that there is some kind of higher power or to the conclusion that there isn't. I can't say. To many, "atheism" seems to mean hard atheism, i.e. the belief that there definitely is no God. I don't hold to that, nor do most atheists I know.

As for being up in arms, I'm really not. I just like debating these things, because I feel that atheism is often misrepresented. You won't see me blow up about it, I promise you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:04 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:
I used to be very religious, but I always had more questions than answers. I spent a lot of time in the corner at Sunday school for asking questions the teachers did not want to answer.

*Raises hand*
"Um, Adam and Eve were the only ones around right?"
"Yes"
"And they had two kids, Cain and Abel"
"Yes"
"So there are four people on earth at this point?"
"Yes"
"Then Cain kills Abel and there are only three people left, right?"
"This is taking up a lot of class time."
"Well then Cain goes to the village next door, where did the village come from?"
"Too much class time, moving on ..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:10 PM

STDOUBT

Tao Te Ching
56
Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know.
Keep your mouth closed.
Guard your senses.
Temper your sharpness.
Simplify your problems.
Mask your brightness.
Be at one with the dust of the earth.
This is primal union.
He who has achieved this state is unconcerned with friends and enemies, with good and harm, with honour and disgrace.
This therefore is the highest state of man.
~Lao Tsu 6th century BCE
--
(another thought)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:26 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

Lucifer had some good lines, not the least of which is his:
"Here at least we shall be free"
which brings up a question many people have, a lot of versions of god seem incredibly totalitarian, not just in what you do but even in what you think. Is that really a good thing?

Well, not to attack Judeo-Christian mythology, but as far as I can tell, Jehovah is supposed to be worshipped and praised because:

(1) He is bigger and stronger than everyone else.

And

(2) Because if you don't worship him, in exactly the right way, he'll torture you. Forever.

Myself, I like a competitive market in deities. Keeps 'em honest.

"The Torah... the gospels... the Koran... Each claimed as the infallible word of God. Misquoted, misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misapplied. Maybe that's why he doesn't do any more interviews." -- Tatsuya Ishida

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:26 PM

ZIIANARKIST

Double gor'ram post...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:28 PM

ZIIANARKIST

Quote:

*Raises hand*
"Um, Adam and Eve were the only ones around right?"
"Yes"
"And they had two kids, Cain and Abel"
"Yes"
"So there are four people on earth at this point?"
"Yes"
"Then Cain kills Abel and there are only three people left, right?"
"This is taking up a lot of class time."
"Well then Cain goes to the village next door, where did the village come from?"
"Too much class time, moving on ..."

Can someone make that a MacHall guest comic?

Traits:

*Addiction/Caffeine(1) *Alertness *Allergy/Pollen(1) *Combat Paralysis(1) *Fast Learner *Good Hearing *Tech Empathy *Vehicle(1) *Owns Vehicle

*Anarchist *Dependants(2) *In For Life/Browncoat *Introvert *Patience *Quirk/Jerk(1) *Quirk/Stubborn(2)
*Quirk/Regret Wasting School Years(1) *Stigma/Abjured Christian *Stigma/American *Stigma/Ricer
*Stigma/Pizza Delivery Driver

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:29 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Payne,

I wish you had said you were a soft atheist before; it would have cleared things up significantly. Your stating you are not agnostic seemed to imply hard atheism.

Belief in a lack of god is religious; lack of belief in god is not. Agnosticism and soft atheism (which I don’t choose to differentiate between unless forced) are not religious because they are of the second mindset.

I mean it is so simple, if you have a set of beliefs, that set could be a set of one, based on faith about god it is religious. The belief that there is no god is by far the most comprehensive set of all, it covers every variation, every situation, it has universal application that no other religion dares to dream of, all of this in a set of one.

On the other hand a soft atheist, unless I fail to understand the term, does not have any beliefs, based on faith or anything else, about god. Thus that is not religious.

-

To any onlooker here the distinction is important, on god there are three groups of believers:

People who believe in god (or gods.)
People who do not believe.
People who believe there is no god.

A lot of people lump the second and third together because neither believes there is a god, but that is just as faulty as grouping the first two together on the grounds that neither believes there is no god.

The first and third groups are characterized by belief. More than that they are positions of belief without proof; blind faith in point of fact. Because they are about blind faith with respect to god (and not say leprechauns or people named Isabel) they are religious.

The middle group does not believe things on blind faith with respect to god so they are not religious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:32 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
"The Torah... the gospels... the Koran... Each claimed as the infallible word of God. Misquoted, misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misapplied. Maybe that's why he doesn't do any more interviews." -- Tatsuya Ishida

Great quote.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 7:57 PM

PAYNE

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I wish you had said you were a soft atheist before; it would have cleared things up significantly. Your stating you are not agnostic seemed to imply hard atheism.

Belief in a lack of god is religious; lack of belief in god is not. Agnosticism and soft atheism (which I don’t choose to differentiate between unless forced) are not religious because they are of the second mindset.

I apologize for not stating that up front. I suppose I've gotten too used to discussing this with people who assume that atheists are soft atheists unless stated otherwise.

Quote:
I mean it is so simple, if you have a set of beliefs, that set could be a set of one, based on faith about god it is religious. The belief that there is no god is by far the most comprehensive set of all, it covers every variation, every situation, it has universal application that no other religion dares to dream of, all of this in a set of one.

On the other hand a soft atheist, unless I fail to understand the term, does not have any beliefs, based on faith or anything else, about god. Thus that is not religious.

To any onlooker here the distinction is important, on god there are three groups of believers:

People who believe in god (or gods.)
People who do not believe.
People who believe there is no god.

A lot of people lump the second and third together because neither believes there is a god, but that is just as faulty as grouping the first two together on the grounds that neither believes there is no god.

Agreed 100%. In my own experience, I've found that the third group are a small but extremely vocal contingent, and seem to have an awful lot emotionally invested in letting people know they're wrong. Sort of like preachy atheists.

Quote:
The first and third groups are characterized by belief. More than that they are positions of belief without proof; blind faith in point of fact. Because they are about blind faith with respect to god (and not say leprechauns or people named Isabel) they are religious.

The middle group does not believe things on blind faith with respect to god so they are not religious.

Sorry for making you waste so many words on a misunderstanding. The reason I brought up an objection to the post I originally quoted was that it referred to atheism as if it was all hard atheism. You're right, the distinction is important, and messing up its explanation leads to trouble, as I've amply demonstrated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:44 PM

TANSTAAFL28

Science is an open system of inquiry

Religion is a closed system of philosophy

Religious/Spiritual beliefs should be a personal thing, but in far too many ways, it's become too public. Western Religion has infiltrated politics in a way that makes it dangerous.

When people of faith become impassioned to make actions or statements of political import, they begin to lose touch with where their beliefs end and their politics begin. This spawns fanatics willing to kill, and die, for their beliefs.

I support freedom of religion, but I also believe we must have freedom from religion as well.

"You can't take the sky from me..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 9:39 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL

*checks location, nope, not RWD, weird* I should stay out of this. Alas, I cannot! Somebody turn off my computer...please....

gorram.

I believe in God. I believe in science. I don’t think one precludes the other. I've done a lot of theological study and have my own understanding about the universe, soul and God. In short, I'm a Catholic with Pagan veins.

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
To make it short, yes, I believe in God -- the God of the Bible.

Which God of the Bible? There are two distinct God personalities in the Bible: the vengeful all-powerful and the loving father.

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
"...turn right at the corner then skip two blocks...no, SKIP, the hopping-like thing kids do...Why? Why not?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 9:59 PM

MATTIE

Wow, what a rousing question. This is right up my alley, though.
First off, I was raised LDS--that means that I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. In colloquial terms/situations, most people refer to members of my relitgion as "Mormons"--in reference to the scripture we have called the Book of Mormon. Just a little side note so that if I come off sounding...what?...a little gung-ho(?) you know why.
I believe in God. It's as pure and simple as that. I look at my surroundings and marvel at how people can dismiss the idea that some divine person did not create this world, this universe, this home that we all share. The other night I saw the most beautiful sunset that I had ever seen in my life. Now, people can explain that with science, but I look at it and say that it isn't just chance. It's not just particles in the air reflecting the sun's light a certain and special way that creates such an amazing effect. And if you explain the phenomenon of the sunset I saw using examples and explanations from science, then it is my turn to ask a philisophical question and say this: who invented those particles? Where did they come from? You can't create something out of nothing. Even if the big bang theory is true--and I have a cool picture of God swaying his hand through the air and the particles in space arranging themselves--then SOMETHING had to catalyze that. Why not God?
I believe that God created all things--even the body which my soul inhabits. I believe that I am here for a divine purpose, that God sent me to this Earth for a reason. I believe in a heaven where I can live with God and all of his other beloved creations, and I believe that it is my goal here on Earth to overcome secularity in order to prepare myself spiritually for the day that I die so that I CAN return and live with my Creator.
I know that I have free will. However, I don't think that it's FREE. God is just and will judge mankind according to his actions, thoughts and feelings. Humankind had agency--the ability to make choices--but I believe that it came at a drastic price. The price I'm referring to is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus died for the sins of the world, because he transcended below ALL things, mankind is able to repent--allowing an atonement for sins and allowing God to be merciful.
There is a hell. I would define it as a complete disconnection between the inevitable tie that humankind's spirit has with God's spirit. This hell can be experienced here on Earth and it comes when a person completely and totally denies God from their lives. I believe that a description of this hell would be a lack of joy in one's life. Now, atheists, don't crawl up my butt for saying that. This is what I believe. I'm not saying that everyone has to believe it too. And, I'm not saying that people who don't believe in God are bad people. That simply isn't true. If you aren't clear on that, ask me to explain myself better and I happily will, just don't tear me down on the thread.
Here's the deal. God:yes. Heaven:yes. Agency:yes.
My beliefs may be somewhat drastic to some. Others may think that I'm completely off my rocker. Maybe someone will read this and take confidence in what I have to say. It's possible that people will resent what I wrote. This is it, though. I believe in God, pure and simple. If you don't, or if you're not sure you do, that's cool. A question was asked and I answered because I feel strongly about what I believe and why.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:15 AM

BROWNFIELDCOAT

yo-yo

That's how my belief in God flows. In an evening, I can debate myself from believing that God is the Universe in all its entirety and infinity (both time and space) to thinking that maybe God is space-faring, greatly advanced humans from an earlier period of Earth's history (or maybe even [Acchhhkk! maybe too much science fiction in the blood!] future time travellers trying to affect the past), and back again.

There have been many good points on this thread, and some weak, too. It really all boils down to faith. We're nearing the end of the Age of Pisces (hence one of the symbols of the Christ being a fish [fisher of man]). 2012 marks the end of the Mayan calender - the Age of the Angry Sun. Or will the Dragon return. Or will Planet X come crashing into this third rock from the sun on its regular cycle that ancient astrologers and mathematicians predicted; but our own interpreters just didn't get the language to understand that it all really has happened before. Too much time has passed since then, and the Tower of Babel confounded us all. Who knows? Heh, well, God does, I suppose.

Religious-wise: I think that Christianity is a tangent. Believe it or not, Jesus was born a Jew, not a Christian. He may be the Way and the Light, but He certainly did not tell us to bow down before a cross or statue of Mary to pray. (Monty Python's take on what happened with worshippers of Christ (Brian, as the case may be, "His shoe!", etc.), fits what seems to have happened.) Considering that I, and most who spent their early years going to church with the parents, have been taught Christianity based on only four out of twelve personal points of view (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), His vision and views have been extremely narrowed by some group of people who thought they knew best what it was that Jesus meant (even if it was four centuries later). I really tend to believe that what the Christ was trying to do, and what actually happened, are so far apart now that there is no possible repair. I, nor anyone else now, can really say what it is He was trying to do; but, something just doesn't seem right.

Logically: I have to use the Greatest Possible Being argument. Think of the Greatest Possible Being. If you can image it, it must be able to exist, because how and why could something not exist that is within the scope of the mind to imagine? One certainly cannot disprove the existence of such, anymore than can it be concretely proven. Of course, the same argument is used for the Greatest Possible Island. I can't remember whose argument this was - Aquinas? I actually failed Philosophy of Religion -- twice; but, passed Logic with a perfect grade. Oh well.

Historically: Read "Fingerprints of the Gods". It's pretty eye opening to an extent. Again, faith. You can either take what we have been taught by our history books as pure fact; or, merely the extremely rough biased interpretations of men and women with too many letters after their names: B(ull)S(**t), M(ore)S(**t), and Piled Higher and Deeper.

There were so many points and opinions that I could comment on. There is just no space or time to do so. I have gone through so many of my own phases and torments that I would bash none, but question many.

I was sorry to see Shepherd Book go. So many unanswered questions; and a loss of direct influence on the conscience of Serenity's crew. Maybe now that a major secret is out of River's brain pan, Serenity won't need the order of a secretive shepherd to balance the choas of an insane psychic.

See you all in time and relative dimensions in space

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:12 AM

BACKFIELD22

i bet you think about god in your own way.

i bet you consider the greater good whenever you do things.

to my mind that's the same thing.

i entertain the idea of a 'god'. i definitely believe in the interconnectedness of all things. but i pretty much despise organised religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 2:03 AM

GENNIE

I will try not to be long-winded, as you can see, most people are when talking "God".
I am an agnostic by nature, but I fear I am grasping for straws in the dark. I want to think there is a "All Powerful Being", but I feel that we think that way so we will not fear death. Most people cannot concieve the thought of when you die, that is it. Done. No More. The Big Nothing.
I do not buy the whole Hell thing, so I suppose I do not believe in Heaven.
I believe that our end will be what we make of it. Hey, if I am wrong....well,

I will have company.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 2:57 AM

NUCLEARDAY

Just felt like throwing my two cents in here:

As I'm still in my 20's I feel there's plenty of time for me to come up with THE answer, so for now I'm more interested in the philosophy and ideas, I guess you could say I'm more into gnosticism at the moment than anything.

Some interesting bits of wisdom I've come across though:

H.P. Lovecrafts essays on the topic of the nature of the universe. (In short: the universe is so vast an incomprehensible that even the faintest glimpse into the truth by a human mind would lead to madness.)

Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series. (fiction, but still an interesting idea and somehow comforting I think: God is at the nexus of all possible universes. He lines up all the parameters of each universe during the big bang in the search of the most 'harmonious' one possible. ie, God as a scientist itself.)

What the BLEEP do We Know, a very interesting movie, compiling interviews with a wide range of quantum phycisists and other intelligencia on a number of subjects relating our current knowledge of quantum physics and how it applies to our place in the universe and such.

Which is why I'm a gnostic lately. Has to do with the "fishbowl paradox." A fish in a fishbowl can tell you quite alot about it's own habitat, but very little about the world around it. Therefore it lacks the context to truly understand the world it lives in. Much the same with mankind as a whole. We know alot about our own world, very little about the universe, and basically nothing about what's "beyond" our current universe, giving us very little context as far as describing our own place in it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:05 AM

JUBELLATE

Quote:
Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series. (fiction, but still an interesting idea and somehow comforting I think: God is at the nexus of all possible universes. He lines up all the parameters of each universe during the big bang in the search of the most 'harmonious' one possible. ie, God as a scientist itself.)

If you like Clarke's ideas in Rama, read his book "The Light of Other Days".

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:06 AM

UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION

"Myself, I like a competitive market in deities. Keeps 'em honest."

Hee hee hee....

Best line I heard in weeks.

As for how can someone look around nature and not believe in god? Well, I guess a further study of some of the earth's species might make you ask a few questions......

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:24 AM

CHRISISALL

Wow. I type one letter, and this whole place changed.
Act o' God. or sumpin'.

Anyway, God's soul is all of us, every living thing, like a universal battery that drives life.
We are all cells in God's body, if you like.
Mine is a terse concept.

Bible-thumpin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 7:17 AM

MEIMEIMEG

Quote:
Originally posted by Mattie:
Wow, what a rousing question. This is right up my alley, though.
First off, I was raised LDS--that means that I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. In colloquial terms/situations, most people refer to members of my relitgion as "Mormons"--in reference to the scripture we have called the Book of Mormon. Just a little side note so that if I come off sounding...what?...a little gung-ho(?) you know why.
I believe in God. It's as pure and simple as that. I look at my surroundings and marvel at how people can dismiss the idea that some divine person did not create this world, this universe, this home that we all share. The other night I saw the most beautiful sunset that I had ever seen in my life. Now, people can explain that with science, but I look at it and say that it isn't just chance. It's not just particles in the air reflecting the sun's light a certain and special way that creates such an amazing effect. And if you explain the phenomenon of the sunset I saw using examples and explanations from science, then it is my turn to ask a philisophical question and say this: who invented those particles? Where did they come from? You can't create something out of nothing. Even if the big bang theory is true--and I have a cool picture of God swaying his hand through the air and the particles in space arranging themselves--then SOMETHING had to catalyze that. Why not God?
I believe that God created all things--even the body which my soul inhabits. I believe that I am here for a divine purpose, that God sent me to this Earth for a reason. I believe in a heaven where I can live with God and all of his other beloved creations, and I believe that it is my goal here on Earth to overcome secularity in order to prepare myself spiritually for the day that I die so that I CAN return and live with my Creator.
I know that I have free will. However, I don't think that it's FREE. God is just and will judge mankind according to his actions, thoughts and feelings. Humankind had agency--the ability to make choices--but I believe that it came at a drastic price. The price I'm referring to is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus died for the sins of the world, because he transcended below ALL things, mankind is able to repent--allowing an atonement for sins and allowing God to be merciful.
There is a hell. I would define it as a complete disconnection between the inevitable tie that humankind's spirit has with God's spirit. This hell can be experienced here on Earth and it comes when a person completely and totally denies God from their lives. I believe that a description of this hell would be a lack of joy in one's life. Now, atheists, don't crawl up my butt for saying that. This is what I believe. I'm not saying that everyone has to believe it too. And, I'm not saying that people who don't believe in God are bad people. That simply isn't true. If you aren't clear on that, ask me to explain myself better and I happily will, just don't tear me down on the thread.
Here's the deal. God:yes. Heaven:yes. Agency:yes.
My beliefs may be somewhat drastic to some. Others may think that I'm completely off my rocker. Maybe someone will read this and take confidence in what I have to say. It's possible that people will resent what I wrote. This is it, though. I believe in God, pure and simple. If you don't, or if you're not sure you do, that's cool. A question was asked and I answered because I feel strongly about what I believe and why.

This thread is so interesting, I was excited to see a discussion of this type. As for myself, I'm LDS (Mormon). I was going to state my beliefs, but Mattie already did it so well, I don't have much to add. I agree completely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 8:15 AM

DARKLIGHTER9

He exists alright, i don't fink hes wating on a cloud to throw a lightning bolt at us the moment we slip up (a la catholisism) i fink hes a benevolent farther/teacher who has limiless grace. I guess u could call me a new wave christian (sort of a more relaxed protestant)

________________________________________________
"its clear that the only way around this is to stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes and sing the firefly theme very loudly" a friend of mine talking about a cirtain scene in the BDM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 8:23 AM

CAUSAL

I'm a Christian theist. I believe in an immanent-yet-transcendent creator God, and believe that He has a purpose for His creation which is being fulfilled in the person of Christ and in Christ's church (not proselytizing, just reporting).

Incidentally, I think that science starts with the same assumption as faith--that is: "There has got to be some explanation for all this." That being the case, my opinion of science is that it can be integrated with but not elevated above faith, and likewise that faith can be integrated with but not elevated above science (in the sense that faith explores the Creator, and science explores the creation). The point of contention I have with science is the (unmerited) assumption of deterministic material monism that some science implies.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:46 AM

MIDNIGHTSHADOW

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

Everything we are as human beings comes from the contrast in life, only the poor can truely appreciate being rich, only those who have loved, and lost, and then loved again can understand the value of that love.

So... maybe then reincarnation would make sense... ya don't get to nirvana until one has suffered through all / learned all the lessons of life. Just an idea, a tie-in. Not my belief, just a thought.

It is what USMC says is the fear that brings about religion, the fear of truely dying.

For me, the idea of truly-dying-that's-it-yer-gone doesn't bother me a bit. I kinda like the idea of all of one's energy & form just dispersing (energy quickly, physical more slowly) but all eventually becoming part of the larger stuff of the verse. Sounds good to me. I don't feel the need for a more concrete after-life.

In discussing with my 15-year old daughter... her main fear re: dying seems to revolve around not wanting to lose her discrete sense of self. Interesting, as I had not run across that concern before.

Anyone remember that old movie (can't remember the name) about the people on the spaceship (were they space garbage collectors? or was that a different movie?) who all end up dying, and the outcome was different for each, depending on their individual beliefs?

Oh, and it's OK with me to be "just an animal;" human animals just being a different variety, no better or worse than any other.

"Lost in the woods" feels comfortable for me, like bathing in chaos.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:31 AM

SKYDANCE

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Yarbro&y=6&tn=Mic
hael&x=38

A good overview of the information can be gotten from http://www.michaelteachings.com/introduction.html . However, I view everything on the website with a skeptical eye, because the author makes some "adjustments" to the original material which do not strike me as necessary for someone who accepts and understands the message. (It could just be the Priest in me, watching for heretics around every corner. *chuckle*)

Michael had words on the subject of Christ rising from the dead. To paraphrase: the people who pulled him down were in a hurry to do it before the holiday. Medical technology being somewhat limited at the time, they thought he was dead, when (in fact) he had entered a coma (from which he recovered, once the body was not stressed by being suspended vertically).

Michael also tells us the soul which manifested as Christ has also manifested as Lao-Tzu, Sri Krisna, and Siddhartha Guatama (no others). Its Teaching has survived to this day in its most pure form as Taoism (Christianity is a distortion of the message of unity, imposing many rituals and conditions which have nothing to do with it, and much to do with controlling others). The Infinite Soul is expected to manifest again within our lifetimes; Gandhi was a manifestation of the Transcendental Soul, which prepares society for the manifestation of the Infinite Soul.

Well ... you asked. *shrug*

__________________________
"They weren't cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see the sky and they remember what they are."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:38 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
*checks location, nope, not RWD, weird*

Well it's sort of like asking people what their job, age, or location is. Since those are done here I just figured ... um ... *hangs head in shame*

Quote:
I should stay out of this. Alas, I cannot! Somebody turn off my computer...please....

No, you should speak your mind.

Quote:
I believe in God. I believe in science. I don’t think one precludes the other.

I want to say, "Amen," but it sounds too much like it would be a joke, considering the topic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:52 AM

CAPTBRYAN

Yes I believe in God.

Thus I believe there is Lucifer.

God is Love.

Lucifer is not.

God is Truth.

Lucifer wants you to believe he is truth.

Knowing the difference is where God becomes a reality to you.

Seeing that reality and chooseing that reality is your free will.

Evolution theory is as its name says a theory. I know of no proof that it works.The only way to make it work is to bend rules and laws.

If you believe there are no absolutes then you cannot believe that.

God is not the author of confusion.So if your confused it aint God.

My cook likes my artillery...I like where she lets me holster my gun

Ridin the Ocean's boring when there aint no waves

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:53 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Gennie:
I do not buy the whole Hell thing, so I suppose I do not believe in Heaven.

The two things are unrelated. I believe there are six sects of early Christians that we know of, three believed in (eventual) universal salvation, two believed in oblivion (not hell) for the bad, and one believed in eternal damnation.

Then again all of my information is years out of date (archeology seems to overturn old theories with great speed) and it was not necessarily accurate when I got it in the first place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:03 AM

CAUSAL

Edited to avoid pointless controversy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:04 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by midnightshadow:
In discussing with my 15-year old daughter... her main fear re: dying seems to revolve around not wanting to lose her discrete sense of self. Interesting, as I had not run across that concern before.

My mother has that concern.

Quote:
Oh, and it's OK with me to be "just an animal;" human animals just being a different variety, no better or worse than any other.

"Lost in the woods" feels comfortable for me, like bathing in chaos.

I agree with both of those things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:12 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Skydance:
Michael had words on the subject of Christ rising from the dead. To paraphrase: the people who pulled him down were in a hurry to do it before the holiday. Medical technology being somewhat limited at the time, they thought he was dead, when (in fact) he had entered a coma (from which he recovered, once the body was not stressed by being suspended vertically).

Something I just have to say, that isn't adequate for getting rid of the miracle.

The reason is that when he was stabbed out came water and blood. Unless he had a pouch of water surgically inserted in him that lance went in deep (only so many things in the human body that look like water), and no one could live through that.

It's one thing to say he stayed dead, it's another to say he didn't die. If he lived through what happened that's just as big of a miracle as resurrection, which I guess makes it just as valid of a viewpoint.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:19 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptBryan:
God is not the author of confusion.

I'm not trying to be mean, just asking for clarification.

Ok, so who is the author of confusion? God made Lucifer, right?

So if Lucifer made confusion that would mean God authored it with Lucifer as his pen.

Is there some other force in the universe in your view? Or is Lucifer not made by God? Or am I just missing the point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:23 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Edited to avoid pointless controversy.

Oh come on, if you have something to say say it. Unless it is hateful (which I doubt) there should be no problem, people have been saying vastly different things for the whole thread, and it's only made it better.

-

So much to talk about every single time I look at it, I'm happy I made this thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:38 AM

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Well, I'm all right. - Mal

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Atheist claims absolute knowledge of God's non-existence--which, to my eyes is an act of faith. Which, oddly enough, makes Atheism a religion, while Agnosticism is merely a philosophy.

I haven't read beyond the quoted post, so don't know if this has been brought up, but:

Atheism is not having belief in god(s). Strong atheism is knowing that god(s) do not exist. Strong atheists are atheists, but very few atheists are strong atheists.

Agnosticism views that certain truth values regarding the existence of god(s) are unknowable. Weak agnostics think that they are unknown but not necessarily unknowable - in the unlikely event of a god proving its existance it would be known (see God and dice).

Carl Sagan's "The dragon in my garage" http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html from his book The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark says it better than I could: "Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder."

On this same theme, written by people more articulate (and maybe more naked) than me: "The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." - George Bernard Shaw, 1912, Androcles and the lion.

"Not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, [is like] not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it." - Edmund Way Teale, Circle of seasons, 1950.

"Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition." - Freedom from religion foundation.
--
I am Jack's username
God is real, unless declared integer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:47 AM

CAUSAL

Well, just wondering why I should take the word of the 1050 "souls" of Michael when I could read the Bible and the words of men who actually walked and talked and lived with him. (The natural rebuttal is, "They wanted power." I'll address that below).

That and Taoism started in the 7th century BCE, so Christ's teaching couldn't have "survived as Taoism" unless they went back in time to 7th century China.

Oh, and also, wondering what the "rituals and conditions" of Christianity are that are incompatible with the "real" Christianity.

Also wondering if there are any ancient documents that indicate that Jesus taught Taoism. Or am I just supposed to take the word of "Michael"? And in any event, who is to say that Chelsea Quinn Yarbro is any more reliable than Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Am I supposed to take on her word that "Messages from Michael" is any more factual than her other 67 works of fiction? The same charge of wanting influence and power might plausibly be leveled at her as at the writers of Biblical texts.

Just saying is all. This guy essentially says, "Christianity is bunk", and I'd like more than the word of a vampire fiction writer speaking on behalf of the 1050 "souls" of Michael.

The reason took this out of the above post is that it sounds (even to me, and I'm writing the damned thing) like an angry reaction to Skydance. I guess in a way it is; half his post was about his belief, but the other half was about how Christianity is all wrong, and I thought that the point of the thread was to discuss our own beliefs and not talk down the beliefs of others. Really, it's all in the eye of the beholder whether Skydance was doing that or not. I redacted my original post to avoid that controversy, but hey--Chris asked.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add: I don't want to debate these points with Skydance, because I'm fair sure neither of us will change his mind. I'm just miffed that he took the time to say, "Here's my religion; oh, by the way, yours is a lie."
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:01 PM

CAPTBRYAN

Yes God did create Lucifer(or Satan or what ever name he goes by) and he had free will just as all Gods creations do that have the ability to tell right from wrong.

God has absolutes Lucifer chose not to abide in them.

Saying that God authored confusion by creating Lucifer is like saying my sniper rifle goes out all by itself and shoots people 2 miles away so I dont get into trouble.

Free will is just that...Your choice

My cook likes my artillery...I like where she lets me holster my gun

Ridin the Ocean's boring when there aint no waves

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:03 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
Which God of the Bible? There are two distinct God personalities in the Bible: the vengeful all-powerful and the loving father.

Same person, no contradictions. As a holy God, God cannot condone sin, hence the wrath. Fortunately, God is also love. His love provides grace for those who seek it through Him, thereby escaping His wrath.

Those who dwell on the holiness, while ignoring the love are not painting an accurate portrait of the God of scripture, as likewise, are those who emphasize the love while ignoring the holiness.

R.C. Sproul's "Holiness of God" is a good work on this subject.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:12 PM

CAPTBRYAN

Thats good cartoon... This book will go on my read list

Thank you.

My cook likes my artillery...I like where she lets me holster my gun

Ridin the Ocean's boring when there aint no waves

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE