As I said, I'd love to discuss this further, but this thread may not be the place for it.. depends on the OP I guess.
Going to second this. I think it's a very interesting debate to have, but having it in a thread that's supposed to be a safe space for Christians to share their faith may not be the most appropriate.
You all are free to start a religion debate thread if you wish, just please stay respectful of everyone's freedom to believe what they choose :thumb:
You changed the name of the thread so people would be more likely to post and that the chance of it creating drama would increase too?The other thread was very specific and people were going off topic so this thread gives a place for some of the other discussion to continue.
Spam I love you but, this is the off topic section and its a forum about keyboards this is never going to stay on topic or have any real meaningful discussionYou changed the name of the thread so people would be more likely to post and that the chance of it creating drama would increase too?The other thread was very specific and people were going off topic so this thread gives a place for some of the other discussion to continue.
Well not with that attitude! :PSpam I love you but, this is the off topic section and its a forum about keyboards this is never going to stay on topic or have any real meaningful discussionYou changed the name of the thread so people would be more likely to post and that the chance of it creating drama would increase too?The other thread was very specific and people were going off topic so this thread gives a place for some of the other discussion to continue.
Alright **** it, idc what most people on here think of me anyway and I'm pretty salty about the way I've been treated here over the last few weeks anyway so I'm just gona come out with what I didn't say in the Christianity safe zone;
- I don't hate Christians, I pity you (as I do with all people who believe in magic, ghosts, gods, karma etc etc) there is a difference. Now when I replied to Ooobly's comment about Creationism vs Evolution and I was talking about extremist views I was talking about the specific idea that the world was created in seven days and that God created us all and we all come from Adam and Eve, the world is 7k years old etc etc etc... that is in my opinion, extreme. I wasn't trying to link ISIS to general Christians who like magic and monsters and all that stuff, just the ones that read something written in a book of nonsense and short stories where people live for hundreds of years as literal facts.
- I find it hilarious that after I posted in the Christian Safe Zone thread about my own opinions, (I kept it generic and non-confrontational) and after I even defended your right and ability to have such a thread against someone who shared similar views to me, to not only get attacked by the guy causing an issue, but to then get shat all over by everyone else because I tried to call for reason and non-extreme views about actual ****ing facts LIKE THE FACT THE EARTH IS OLDER THAN 7000 YEARS OLD and had my posts equated to Christians = ISIS hurp-a-derp... like what the ****, I understand logic, reasoning and comprehension run counter to your whole life views by being Christians in the first place but if you could actually read what I said and attach it to the context of not only that post but the rest of the thread that was only two pages long, that would have been nice and possibly even the 'Christian' thing to do... but no... and hey **** it lets go after me when I post a random clear joke about Thanks Giving being so close and similar to the European Christmas celebrations....
- And just so I'm not TOTALLY off topic, personally I feel that if you give money to Churches, Mosques, Temples or any organised religion you are part of the biggest evil that exists on this ****ty little planet. All religion does is further ignorance and stupidity. I feel like teaching children about Jesus and Moses and the Bible (or any other religion) in a way that pushes them towards said religion, is child abuse (it's actually brain washing) and should be made illegal.
Well I've said my peace, I probably wont reply or follow this post up to much, idc if it get's deleted by a mod or stirs up drama and anger towards me but I felt like it needed saying so I said it. If your offended by my post or anything I've said (in regards to how I consider religious people), remind yourself that I'll probably suffer forever in what ever you think happens when you die and that my opinions are only my opinions.
Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.
Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base)
this scares the **** out of me
"Fact" is always a personal decision, based on evidence.
"Proof" is a loaded version of the word "evidence". There are no proofs in science, just conclusions based on high probability due to a large body of convincing evidence. No scientific hypothesis can ever be "proven", only disproven by presenting evidence which cannot exist if the hypothesis is true. It all comes down to the evidence and always to a personal decision based on that. Every scientific "fact" requires belief. You look at the evidence and decide to believe the hypothesis or not. Even with something as "self-evident" as gravity.
In fact, faith is at the very core of science and the scientific method.
I don't think anyone should (or does) believe anything without evidence. As an example, if your parents tell you something is true, you have the evidence of previous statements by them being shown to match your experience of the world and you trust them. So you believe it. If you're naturally sceptical, like me, you look for evidence from what you experience to corroborate what they've told you. The same goes for any information you are presented with. You judge the source (trustworthy or not), look at the evidence and make a decision (or not, sometimes you judge there to not be enough evidence either way so you withold judgement and in some cases look for more evidence that either corroborates or opposes it).
I attempted to watch that movie that recently came out about them but kept falling asleep.Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base
this scares the **** out of me
I attempted to watch that movie that recently came out about them but kept falling asleep.Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base
this scares the **** out of me
I attempted to watch that movie that recently came out about them but kept falling asleep.Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base
this scares the **** out of me
I attempted to watch that movie that recently came out about them but kept falling asleep.Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base
this scares the **** out of me
ooooh yeah i wanted to see that, thanks for the reminder. Completely forgot it was out
I attempted to watch that movie that recently came out about them but kept falling asleep.Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base
this scares the **** out of me
ooooh yeah i wanted to see that, thanks for the reminder. Completely forgot it was out
What's it called?
Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base)
this scares the **** out of me
I like how a book author cooked up his own religion.
Also, let us never forget. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)
Going Clear on HBO
Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Base)
this scares the **** out of me
I like how a book author cooked up his own religion.
Also, let us never forget. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)
The Crusades were bad. So was the Spanish Inquisition. Both were political agendas under the masquerade of a religious basis. Just because some people ****ed up in the past, does not give others a right to **** everything up now (Jihad bil Saif).
I don't think The Holocaust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust) was caused by religion, even though a religious group was one of the major victims. Hitler was not a Christian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion), regardless of Whoopi Goldberg's opinion on the matter.
I shall be honest;
I don't give a flying fluck about any of it as long as people don't push their views on me they can pray to whatever deity they want.
I shall be honest;
I don't give a flying fluck about any of it as long as people don't push their views on me they can pray to whatever deity they want.
This is pretty much how I feel. I am not religious, it was never part of my upbringing and I've never had a desire to turn to it. I respect all religions equally - I just think maybe they have some very poor advocates :P
I think religion and faith should be a deeply personal thing - but it has turned into an "us" vs "them" world view. Keep your thoughts to yourself, live your life according to your beliefs, practice whatever rituals - but as soon as you start projecting on to others, that is when I start to lose respect (for the individual, not the religion). I have no problem with entertaining an educated discussion or even heated argument on the topic, but ultimately whether or not you choose to believe or practice any religion and the question "why" should not be one imposed on you, but one you decide for yourself.
how objective
- All religion does is further ignorance and stupidity.
... I understand logic, reasoning and comprehension run counter to your whole life views by being Christians in the first place ...
Oobly no offence but there is no way I can chat with about something like this when I just found this out today; did you know that Alonso scored more points in last years Ferrari (that was a total ****-box) than Kimi can possibly score this year (when Ferrari clearly have the second best car)?
Oobly no offence but there is no way I can chat with about something like this when I just found this out today; did you know that Alonso scored more points in last years Ferrari (that was a total ****-box) than Kimi can possibly score this year (when Ferrari clearly have the second best car)?
And not only that, but he's crashed with Bottas twice recently (both times Kimi's fault) even costing Bottas a podium. Do I take this to mean that F1 is your religion?
I shall be honest;
I don't give a flying fluck about any of it as long as people don't push their views on me they can pray to whatever deity they want.
This is pretty much how I feel. I am not religious, it was never part of my upbringing and I've never had a desire to turn to it. I respect all religions equally - I just think maybe they have some very poor advocates :P
I think religion and faith should be a deeply personal thing - but it has turned into an "us" vs "them" world view. Keep your thoughts to yourself, live your life according to your beliefs, practice whatever rituals - but as soon as you start projecting on to others, that is when I start to lose respect (for the individual, not the religion). I have no problem with entertaining an educated discussion or even heated argument on the topic, but ultimately whether or not you choose to believe or practice any religion and the question "why" should not be one imposed on you, but one you decide for yourself.
very true,
the projection is what i have an issue with, not even with religion.
i went to some restaurant called Turning Point last weekend, the waitress came over and before taking our drink orders she did a little presentation on a Cancer Charity and put pamphlets on the table for a donation. (i know she was being forced to by the owners) but WTF, it was the most bewildering thing ever. I just waited 45 mins for a table and now i gotta hear about cancer kids dying before breakfast? and then try and guilt trip me for money by leaving the envelopes on the table... not cool
but yeah, whether your practicing religion or are vegan or like to murder people in your spare time... cool. im fine with it, just dont try and get me to stab people with you.
im sure the same could be said about us from our coworkers. "**** here comes Fred, hes gonna try and get us to press his clicky keyboard again" "dont look, dont look, dont look...." "HEY GUYS! MX BLUES TODAY! WANNA CLICK?!" :blank:
Oobly no offence but there is no way I can chat with about something like this when I just found this out today; did you know that Alonso scored more points in last years Ferrari (that was a total ****-box) than Kimi can possibly score this year (when Ferrari clearly have the second best car)?
And not only that, but he's crashed with Bottas twice recently (both times Kimi's fault) even costing Bottas a podium. Do I take this to mean that F1 is your religion?
nah just Lewis, he's so dreamy... and we could have sex in his own hot red jet
I shall be honest;
I don't give a flying fluck about any of it as long as people don't push their views on me they can pray to whatever deity they want.
This is pretty much how I feel. I am not religious, it was never part of my upbringing and I've never had a desire to turn to it. I respect all religions equally - I just think maybe they have some very poor advocates :P
I think religion and faith should be a deeply personal thing - but it has turned into an "us" vs "them" world view. Keep your thoughts to yourself, live your life according to your beliefs, practice whatever rituals - but as soon as you start projecting on to others, that is when I start to lose respect (for the individual, not the religion). I have no problem with entertaining an educated discussion or even heated argument on the topic, but ultimately whether or not you choose to believe or practice any religion and the question "why" should not be one imposed on you, but one you decide for yourself.
very true,
the projection is what i have an issue with, not even with religion.
i went to some restaurant called Turning Point last weekend, the waitress came over and before taking our drink orders she did a little presentation on a Cancer Charity and put pamphlets on the table for a donation. (i know she was being forced to by the owners) but WTF, it was the most bewildering thing ever. I just waited 45 mins for a table and now i gotta hear about cancer kids dying before breakfast? and then try and guilt trip me for money by leaving the envelopes on the table... not cool
but yeah, whether your practicing religion or are vegan or like to murder people in your spare time... cool. im fine with it, just dont try and get me to stab people with you.
im sure the same could be said about us from our coworkers. "**** here comes Fred, hes gonna try and get us to press his clicky keyboard again" "dont look, dont look, dont look...." "HEY GUYS! MX BLUES TODAY! WANNA CLICK?!" :blank:
Oobly no offence but there is no way I can chat with about something like this when I just found this out today; did you know that Alonso scored more points in last years Ferrari (that was a total ****-box) than Kimi can possibly score this year (when Ferrari clearly have the second best car)?
And not only that, but he's crashed with Bottas twice recently (both times Kimi's fault) even costing Bottas a podium. Do I take this to mean that F1 is your religion?
nah just Lewis, he's so dreamy... and we could have sex in his own hot red jet
But I see you're a disciple of Will Smith... Hopefully he allows such behaviour.
those who've grown up with faith (doesn't matter the background) and are now in disbelief of any deity, what made you change your mind?
Curious: For those who've grown up with faith (doesn't matter the background) and are now in disbelief of any deity, what made you change your mind?I just simply could not believe in some omnipotent being, some deity; it was a natural conclusion that I came to once questions of religion and belief started to crop up in my mind. I still believe in things that cannot be observed though. For example, I strongly believe that regions of land exert an influence over those who inhabit them, and I absolutely feel a connection to the land of my countries of origin, the land of my people. I understand there's no way I could prove this, but I know it to be true for me at this current moment in time. Perhaps it won't be like this for all of my life, but it is now.
I'd particularly like to hear from those, if any, who've struggled with the possibility that there is no god but very much would like to believe in one.
Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.I think this is perhaps a narrow-minded way of looking at it. It's correct, but it is a tiny truth in the huge question that is : "How has organised religion influenced the world?".
Curious: For those who've grown up with faith (doesn't matter the background) and are now in disbelief of any deity, what made you change your mind?I just simply could not believe in some omnipotent being, some deity; it was a natural conclusion that I came to once questions of religion and belief started to crop up in my mind. I still believe in things that cannot be observed though. For example, I strongly believe that regions of land exert an influence over those who inhabit them, and I absolutely feel a connection to the land of my countries of origin, the land of my people. I understand there's no way I could prove this, but I know it to be true for me at this current moment in time. Perhaps it won't be like this for all of my life, but it is now.
I'd particularly like to hear from those, if any, who've struggled with the possibility that there is no god but very much would like to believe in one.Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.I think this is perhaps a narrow-minded way of looking at it. It's correct, but it is a tiny truth in the huge question that is : "How has organised religion influenced the world?".
If you look at a specific region and go back a long time you will often see a very important transition - the transition from small, isolated communities that believe in local gods to larger communities that follow organised religion. The organised religion itself is usually the reason for this transition, the reason for the formation of larger communities. For example, Britain (excluding Ireland) was absolutely tribal when the Romans invaded in early AD. They killed the druids, and their invasion planted the seed for Celtic Christianity. It is this Christianity which eventually led to the formation of larger communities, eventually cities, culture and now civilization in Britain. This is just one example. You would find the same thing if you looked at Rome, except we do not really know so much about the organised religion that was spread, only that it wasn't Christianity.
One huge exception is Ancient Greece. They had no organised religion in the way that we know it, and their religious beliefs were spiritual and almost apolitical. They were also more rooted to the land. Now, there is one very interesting difference between ancient Greek culture and Western culture from Ancient Rome onwards : the striving for the infinite. I learned this only recently, but Ancient Greece was almost afraid of the infinite. They felt more comfortable within boundaries. I can only think of a few examples where this mindset manifested right now (I will try and get some others from a book when I can): Their mathematics stayed firmly away from the infinite, their settlements were bound by how far the eye could see (when constructing cities they would only build them to the point where you could just about see to the other side of the city with the naked eye), and their astronomy was absolutely confined to the finite. There's no way of us knowing, but I'm inclined to think that this may be linked in some way to their religious beliefs.
What I'm trying to say is : Religion has historically often resulted in the formation of larger communities, then the formation of villages, towns, cities, higher culture and finally civilization. It is through these groups of people formed by organised religion that both great and terrible things have been done. You're right in saying that religion has caused many atrocities, however I would argue that without it we would have very little that is great, that we would quite possibly not have civilizations. Perhaps we would still be tribal. Of course, much of our European culture is the result of religion. For example: art of the golden ages (renaissance, classical, romantic, etc.), classical music and grand architecture. These forms of art were deeply religious and I do think that, perhaps with the exception of music, they are far more meaningful and emotional than the overwhelmingly frigid and cold art and architecture of today. Of course, our European mindset and manners are the result of religion too.
--
Related to the point I was making above, but not to do with the argument..
I find this interesting : The Gnostics saw straying from local gods and smaller communities as a bad thing. They thought that it directly opposed the spiritual and mental connection to ones homeland and ones people.
I do agree with most of your points however religion was very different at these points of time from what it is today.Curious: For those who've grown up with faith (doesn't matter the background) and are now in disbelief of any deity, what made you change your mind?I just simply could not believe in some omnipotent being, some deity; it was a natural conclusion that I came to once questions of religion and belief started to crop up in my mind. I still believe in things that cannot be observed though. For example, I strongly believe that regions of land exert an influence over those who inhabit them, and I absolutely feel a connection to the land of my countries of origin, the land of my people. I understand there's no way I could prove this, but I know it to be true for me at this current moment in time. Perhaps it won't be like this for all of my life, but it is now.
I'd particularly like to hear from those, if any, who've struggled with the possibility that there is no god but very much would like to believe in one.Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.I think this is perhaps a narrow-minded way of looking at it. It's correct, but it is a tiny truth in the huge question that is : "How has organised religion influenced the world?".
If you look at a specific region and go back a long time you will often see a very important transition - the transition from small, isolated communities that believe in local gods to larger communities that follow organised religion. The organised religion itself is usually the reason for this transition, the reason for the formation of larger communities. For example, Britain (excluding Ireland) was absolutely tribal when the Romans invaded in early AD. They killed the druids, and their invasion planted the seed for Celtic Christianity. It is this Christianity which eventually led to the formation of larger communities, eventually cities, culture and now civilization in Britain. This is just one example. You would find the same thing if you looked at Rome, except we do not really know so much about the organised religion that was spread, only that it wasn't Christianity.
One huge exception is Ancient Greece. They had no organised religion in the way that we know it, and their religious beliefs were spiritual and almost apolitical. They were also more rooted to the land. Now, there is one very interesting difference between ancient Greek culture and Western culture from Ancient Rome onwards : the striving for the infinite. I learned this only recently, but Ancient Greece was almost afraid of the infinite. They felt more comfortable within boundaries. I can only think of a few examples where this mindset manifested right now (I will try and get some others from a book when I can): Their mathematics stayed firmly away from the infinite, their settlements were bound by how far the eye could see (when constructing cities they would only build them to the point where you could just about see to the other side of the city with the naked eye), and their astronomy was absolutely confined to the finite. There's no way of us knowing, but I'm inclined to think that this may be linked in some way to their religious beliefs.
What I'm trying to say is : Religion has historically often resulted in the formation of larger communities, then the formation of villages, towns, cities, higher culture and finally civilization. It is through these groups of people formed by organised religion that both great and terrible things have been done. You're right in saying that religion has caused many atrocities, however I would argue that without it we would have very little that is great, that we would quite possibly not have civilizations. Perhaps we would still be tribal. Of course, much of our European culture is the result of religion. For example: art of the golden ages (renaissance, classical, romantic, etc.), classical music and grand architecture. These forms of art were deeply religious and I do think that, perhaps with the exception of music, they are far more meaningful and emotional than the overwhelmingly frigid and cold art and architecture of today. Of course, our European mindset and manners are the result of religion too.
--
Related to the point I was making above, but not to do with the argument..
I find this interesting : The Gnostics saw straying from local gods and smaller communities as a bad thing. They thought that it directly opposed the spiritual and mental connection to ones homeland and ones people.
While I'm not much of a historian, I think much of what you wrote rings true and if I understand your primary point, your suggesting that it's not necessarily religion that's the culprit, but rather people exploiting the power of religion to do bad things for personal gain.Yes that is basically my point, Christians now want to get to heaven, but Christians then just wanted to escape hell. Things that couldn't be explained got an easy explanation via religion (does not mean there isn't a creator). Religious people and atheists only bothers me when they discard facts, just because their believes says otherwise, or try to force belief onto others (all these facebook videos...).
Nietzsche believed Christianity to be a religion for slaves. Weak people who would prefer to be conquered and controlled rather than risk fighting for personal independence. In some ways I agree. Believers in Christ acknowledge their dependence on God's provision and forgiveness, and so will submit to God's lordship. The perspective being that compared to the Creator we are weak. Of course Nietzsche meant it more as an insult than a suggested way to live.
Raised Jewish. Refused bar mitvah because I was into buddhism at age 13 (pissed family off). Married gentile in self-officiated ceremony (pissed family off). Refuse to practice any religion now, but do take part in "traditions" (ie food, gathering with family, etc).
Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.I think this is perhaps a narrow-minded way of looking at it. It's correct, but it is a tiny truth in the huge question that is : "How has organised religion influenced the world?".
If you look at a specific region and go back a long time you will often see a very important transition - the transition from small, isolated communities that believe in local gods to larger communities that follow organised religion. The organised religion itself is usually the reason for this transition, the reason for the formation of larger communities. For example, Britain (excluding Ireland) was absolutely tribal when the Romans invaded in early AD. They killed the druids, and their invasion planted the seed for Celtic Christianity. It is this Christianity which eventually led to the formation of larger communities, eventually cities, culture and now civilization in Britain. This is just one example. You would find the same thing if you looked at Rome, except we do not really know so much about the organised religion that was spread, only that it wasn't Christianity.
One huge exception is Ancient Greece. They had no organised religion in the way that we know it, and their religious beliefs were spiritual and almost apolitical. They were also more rooted to the land. Now, there is one very interesting difference between ancient Greek culture and Western culture from Ancient Rome onwards : the striving for the infinite. I learned this only recently, but Ancient Greece was almost afraid of the infinite. They felt more comfortable within boundaries. I can only think of a few examples where this mindset manifested right now (I will try and get some others from a book when I can): Their mathematics stayed firmly away from the infinite, their settlements were bound by how far the eye could see (when constructing cities they would only build them to the point where you could just about see to the other side of the city with the naked eye), and their astronomy was absolutely confined to the finite. There's no way of us knowing, but I'm inclined to think that this may be linked in some way to their religious beliefs.
What I'm trying to say is : Religion has historically often resulted in the formation of larger communities, then the formation of villages, towns, cities, higher culture and finally civilization. It is through these groups of people formed by organised religion that both great and terrible things have been done. You're right in saying that religion has caused many atrocities, however I would argue that without it we would have very little that is great, that we would quite possibly not have civilizations. Perhaps we would still be tribal. Of course, much of our European culture is the result of religion. For example: art of the golden ages (renaissance, classical, romantic, etc.), classical music and grand architecture. These forms of art were deeply religious and I do think that, perhaps with the exception of music, they are far more meaningful and emotional than the overwhelmingly frigid and cold art and architecture of today. Of course, our European mindset and manners are the result of religion too.
--
Related to the point I was making above, but not to do with the argument..
I find this interesting : The Gnostics saw straying from local gods and smaller communities as a bad thing. They thought that it directly opposed the spiritual and mental connection to ones homeland and ones people.
Raised Jewish. Refused bar mitvah because I was into buddhism at age 13 (pissed family off). Married gentile in self-officiated ceremony (pissed family off). Refuse to practice any religion now, but do take part in "traditions" (ie food, gathering with family, etc).
oh to be a fly on the wall at that family discussion :eek:
In fact, I do believe religion has brought some good to society.
Raised Jewish. Refused bar mitvah because I was into buddhism at age 13 (pissed family off). Married gentile in self-officiated ceremony (pissed family off). Refuse to practice any religion now, but do take part in "traditions" (ie food, gathering with family, etc).
oh to be a fly on the wall at that family discussion :eek:
Yep. It was ****ing UGLY. Haha. I knew how much money I was missing out on, too. They even said I could get enough to buy a car when I turned 16. Buddhist me was not interested. In fact, I was pretty much written out of my grandmother, aunt, parents' will at that point. Haha. They all came around eventually, though.
Show Image(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/extremists/3.png)
More like, "let's go actively seek out those with other beliefs and needlessly deride them for the sake of our own misguided sense of superiority, and then when some of them get offended we can criticize their rude responses as hypocritical even though we just did the exact same thing to them and we did it first and unprovoked!"Show Image(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/extremists/3.png)
Religion is the cause of the worst **** in history.Maybe the justification for it, but not the cause. Just like Jodie Foster is not the cause of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.
While I can appreciate your enthusiasm on this subject (as you have so eloquently laid out), it seems rather presumptuous to label someone 'narrow-minded' based on a single comment regarding my personal belief system.Sorry, that was poor word choice. I did not mean to say that you're narrow-minded, rather that the statement alone was perhaps not considering all the historical implications of organised religion. My meaning would've been better described if I had just left out the first sentence :
While your statement is correct, I think it is a tiny truth in the huge question that is : "How has organised religion influenced the world?".
In fact, I do believe religion has brought some good to society. I do not believe that we as a species would not have come this far without religion. If we are to believe in the values that some religions teach us, then this conflicts with your statement of 'we would have very little that is great', because what makes humanity great is the acceptance of others beliefs and personal decisions (the condemnation of gays, abortion, etc).That's fair enough and I can't dispute any of it. While I think religion played an enormous part in creating larger groups of people, and therefore an incredibly important part in our history, I don't think it will have an importance always (for good or for bad). I'm certain that at some point in the near future the vast majority of people will not be religious. Perhaps the world would be a better place if we had lost our religions earlier in history, or perhaps the world would be a better place if organised religion had never come about. I don't think so though. I think that until recently religion played a very important and necessary role in the history of humanity. That's just a conclusion I have drawn from what I know about history though, so there is no way of knowing whether or not I'm right in thinking this.
This is a larger discussion that veers into the 'science versus religion' that we could spend an eternity on. I myself, am agnostic. I do not dispute the possibility of an omnipotent being, but I rely on physical evidence rather than belief. I think religions are a way for humans to cope with their existence in the universe. How could we be the only intelligent life in a universe so vastly infinite? If we are to believe what Christianity tells us, then the existence of the entire universe goes against all of it. There are things that exist in the universe that we can't comprehend how they are possible. Quantum theory shows us a world that would not be possible without science, or a belief that there is more than what religion tells us to believe.
So tl;dr - I am not against the thought of a 'God', but I just need to see the hard evidence. I am not condemning religion completely, but realistically, it has caused more irrational thought and harm through the ages.
While I'm not much of a historian, I think much of what you wrote rings true and if I understand your primary point, your suggesting that it's not necessarily religion that's the culprit, but rather people exploiting the power of religion to do bad things for personal gain.Yes, I do think that. However, it should be noted in some cases the creator of the religion can also be the one who looks to exploit it. I mean, take Scientology and Islam as examples. This is why I have called Islam a religion of conquest - that's what Mohammed used it for after he founded it and even while he was still founding it. In fact, that's how it was founded.
I do agree with most of your points however religion was very different at these points of time from what it is today.All really good points. My knowledge of Ancient Rome and Greece is limited, so there's not much I can add. However, I do know that while Ancient Greece did not have ties between politics and religion, Rome did at least have some. The one example I can think of is the Emperors. While there was no real state religion in Ancient Rome, the Emperor was absolutely worshiped by all as a God or as someone with a Holy force. This was not the conclusion of the people, but something that was forced upon them and something that they were indoctrinated with from early age.
In the period of feudalism religion was used to make slavery and misery natural since God wanted "priests to pray for everyone, soldiers to fight for everyone and farmers to produce food for everyone". This was a common theme in history, abusing God to force people into slavery etc. It wasn't the loving God who formed these communities it was the God of wrath, scaring people into obeying priests or popes.
The biggest difference with the large communities in Antics and the ones after, was religion and slaves. Neither Antic Greece nor Rome were influenced by religion (Rome got introduced to Christianity in the downfall to unite the population in a "state religion"). The thing that build the world as we know it today are slaves. In the Antics slaves were the major source of income for both Rome and Greece and once they couldn't occupy more land resulting in no more slaves, it fell apart quite quickly. After the Antics, slavery was still a thing but just rebranded. Man was slave of God and indirectly slave under the church. The kings and queens of the middle age abused this to the best of their abilities resulting in better economy, and to the point we are at today.
The common theme is that it's the people abusing Religion who are the bad guys, not religion itself. However religion is not the reason we are at the point we are today, it's about the people abusing the unkown (not necessarily religion) to scare us into something uncomfortable. Therefore I have a hard time thanking religion for the society we have today, even though it had a big part in our history.
Soz for my grammar, Swedes no englando
I'm certain that at some point in the near future the vast majority of people will not be religious.
Perhaps the world would be a better place if we had lost our religions earlier in history, or perhaps the world would be a better place if organised religion had never come about. I don't think so though.
I think that until recently religion played a very important and necessary role in the history of humanity.
I don't hate Christians, I pity you:(
Science has consistently had to revise its understanding of many of the mechanics of our universe.
Just look at how often science has corrected its position on something as seemingly simple as the human diet.
Information theory says that this type of information can ONLY be generated by external intelligent input, so there never will be a mechanism found that can generate this (like the complex specified information in DNA) through naturalistic means WITHOUT some outside intelligent influence.
There is no scientific method for a hypothesis being more likely than a fact.
...
Alright, I'll put it this way rather: A closed system does not generate new information (although it can lose information), it only has the capacity to rearrange the information it had at the start through processes and laws built into the system (which themselves constitute a form of information).
Proponents of evolution will say that the biological systems in which such information is supposed to be generated are not closed systems and the environmental pressures and complex laws are the driving factor in introducing more information. But the complete biosphere of the earth is an informationally closed system, which implies that the informational content and complexity found in DNA has to have been present in some form in the environment (the biosphere of the earth) or the laws of nature. They're simply shifting the responsibility for the information from one place (information present in biological cells) to another (information present in the environment and the laws of nature). This doesn't in any way explain the origin of the information, merely moves the focus.
From our experience, this type of information always has an intelligent source, so to ascribe this kind of intelligent arrangement of information to some laws of nature and natural processes is a very far stretch (since this level of complexity is not present in any laws we've yet studied). Particularly when every mechanism that is proposed for this that can be tested, has been and the results are not promising. Claims that anagenesis causes speciation over long periods is not supportable due to a number of factors, one being the tendency to approach the genetic mean as mentioned by Phirr, another being the observation of mutation of e.coli bacteria and fruit flies over many generations that shows a tendency to loss of information and any so-called gain through duplication of existing information and "spliced" DNA is detrimental and sometimes fatal. I say so-called because duplication of existing information is not the same as generation of new information.
Software simulations of evolutionary processes are all flawed in that they either have the environment that drives the process contain the target information (such as Dawkins' systems) or contain the information in the formulas and laws used in the process. The end result is that the output contains less information than was put in by the intelligent programmers. It's also worth noting that all such systems require intelligence to create.
Then there is the existence of structures that are irreducibly complex, that cease to function if one component is changed or missing. These thus require all their components to come into being at the same time to create a functional structure. If just one arises through whatever means, it cannot generate a beneficial structure and would thus be eliminated in the evolutionary process of selection. Evolution cannot "see ahead" to the final beneficial structure and thus it wouldn't retain these partial, unbeneficial (and often detrimental) partial structures.
Speciation is a theory with no convincing supporting evidence, whereas design is implied everywhere you look. A particularly good example is the functioning of a cell. There are so many truly complex and amazing interdependent functions going on in a living cell that the probability of such a molecular machine to have come together by natural processes (even very complex ones) is effectively zero. There are very many "chicken or egg" problems, such as that certain proteins are necessary to enable replication of DNA, but that same DNA is necessary for the production of those proteins.
There is no scientific method for a hypothesis being more likely than a fact.
...
And how do you judge what is a "fact" and what is a "hypothesis"? There are no scientific "facts", only hypotheses with large bodies of supporting evidence. And speciation (what most understand by the term "evolution") is not one of those, since the supporting evidence is very severely lacking (and in some cases actually opposed to it).
Adaptation has evidence and many evolutionists present such as evidence of speciation, claiming all it takes is time for one to become the other, but this is pure speculation and ignores evidence in opposition to it. It doesn't help that they lump both together into the same term. That simply shows their desperation in trying to convince people using testable theories on the one hand to "prove" the other, which is in fact not even directly related, let alone the "same thing". Adaptation uses the information present to adjust to a changing environment, sometimes with some loss of information. While some species can re-adapt back to their original configuration, others can't. An example of this is dog types. You can't breed back to the original wolf-like dog type from only say french bulldogs. The ancestral wolf-like type contained the potential for all the current breeds, but the resultant breeds don't contain the potential for anything but their own breed and some variations thereof. It's possible to breed back to the original genotype, but only by mixing some or all of the extant breeds to reintroduce the missing information.
I'm a scientist, sceptic and Christian and believe all three are healthy models for experiencing, and interacting with, the world / universe.
I started to discuss the "science vs faith" issue in the other thread and would like to continue the discussion here.
In essence, I don't think science and faith are at odds at all since science requires faith. And faith can be scientific. I consider my own faith to be evidence-based and would say a lot of other Christians would be able to make the same claim.
I will quote my prior posts:
What is aQuote"Fact" is always a personal decision, based on evidence.
And:Quote"Proof" is a loaded version of the word "evidence". There are no proofs in science, just conclusions based on high probability due to a large body of convincing evidence. No scientific hypothesis can ever be "proven", only disproven by presenting evidence which cannot exist if the hypothesis is true. It all comes down to the evidence and always to a personal decision based on that. Every scientific "fact" requires belief. You look at the evidence and decide to believe the hypothesis or not. Even with something as "self-evident" as gravity.
In fact, faith is at the very core of science and the scientific method.
I don't think anyone should (or does) believe anything without evidence. As an example, if your parents tell you something is true, you have the evidence of previous statements by them being shown to match your experience of the world and you trust them. So you believe it. If you're naturally sceptical, like me, you look for evidence from what you experience to corroborate what they've told you. The same goes for any information you are presented with. You judge the source (trustworthy or not), look at the evidence and make a decision (or not, sometimes you judge there to not be enough evidence either way so you withold judgement and in some cases look for more evidence that either corroborates or opposes it).
I'm a scientist, sceptic and Christian and believe all three are healthy models for experiencing, and interacting with, the world / universe.
I started to discuss the "science vs faith" issue in the other thread and would like to continue the discussion here.
In essence, I don't think science and faith are at odds at all since science requires faith. And faith can be scientific. I consider my own faith to be evidence-based and would say a lot of other Christians would be able to make the same claim.
I will quote my prior posts:
What is aQuote"Fact" is always a personal decision, based on evidence.
And:Quote"Proof" is a loaded version of the word "evidence". There are no proofs in science, just conclusions based on high probability due to a large body of convincing evidence. No scientific hypothesis can ever be "proven", only disproven by presenting evidence which cannot exist if the hypothesis is true. It all comes down to the evidence and always to a personal decision based on that. Every scientific "fact" requires belief. You look at the evidence and decide to believe the hypothesis or not. Even with something as "self-evident" as gravity.
In fact, faith is at the very core of science and the scientific method.
I don't think anyone should (or does) believe anything without evidence. As an example, if your parents tell you something is true, you have the evidence of previous statements by them being shown to match your experience of the world and you trust them. So you believe it. If you're naturally sceptical, like me, you look for evidence from what you experience to corroborate what they've told you. The same goes for any information you are presented with. You judge the source (trustworthy or not), look at the evidence and make a decision (or not, sometimes you judge there to not be enough evidence either way so you withold judgement and in some cases look for more evidence that either corroborates or opposes it).
i want to see the science behind jesus walking on water
I'm a scientist, sceptic and Christian and believe all three are healthy models for experiencing, and interacting with, the world / universe.
I started to discuss the "science vs faith" issue in the other thread and would like to continue the discussion here.
In essence, I don't think science and faith are at odds at all since science requires faith. And faith can be scientific. I consider my own faith to be evidence-based and would say a lot of other Christians would be able to make the same claim.
I will quote my prior posts:
What is aQuote"Fact" is always a personal decision, based on evidence.
And:Quote"Proof" is a loaded version of the word "evidence". There are no proofs in science, just conclusions based on high probability due to a large body of convincing evidence. No scientific hypothesis can ever be "proven", only disproven by presenting evidence which cannot exist if the hypothesis is true. It all comes down to the evidence and always to a personal decision based on that. Every scientific "fact" requires belief. You look at the evidence and decide to believe the hypothesis or not. Even with something as "self-evident" as gravity.
In fact, faith is at the very core of science and the scientific method.
I don't think anyone should (or does) believe anything without evidence. As an example, if your parents tell you something is true, you have the evidence of previous statements by them being shown to match your experience of the world and you trust them. So you believe it. If you're naturally sceptical, like me, you look for evidence from what you experience to corroborate what they've told you. The same goes for any information you are presented with. You judge the source (trustworthy or not), look at the evidence and make a decision (or not, sometimes you judge there to not be enough evidence either way so you withold judgement and in some cases look for more evidence that either corroborates or opposes it).
i want to see the science behind jesus walking on water
it wasn't water, it was custard...
I'm a scientist, sceptic and Christian and believe all three are healthy models for experiencing, and interacting with, the world / universe.
I started to discuss the "science vs faith" issue in the other thread and would like to continue the discussion here.
In essence, I don't think science and faith are at odds at all since science requires faith. And faith can be scientific. I consider my own faith to be evidence-based and would say a lot of other Christians would be able to make the same claim.
I will quote my prior posts:
What is aQuote"Fact" is always a personal decision, based on evidence.
And:Quote"Proof" is a loaded version of the word "evidence". There are no proofs in science, just conclusions based on high probability due to a large body of convincing evidence. No scientific hypothesis can ever be "proven", only disproven by presenting evidence which cannot exist if the hypothesis is true. It all comes down to the evidence and always to a personal decision based on that. Every scientific "fact" requires belief. You look at the evidence and decide to believe the hypothesis or not. Even with something as "self-evident" as gravity.
In fact, faith is at the very core of science and the scientific method.
I don't think anyone should (or does) believe anything without evidence. As an example, if your parents tell you something is true, you have the evidence of previous statements by them being shown to match your experience of the world and you trust them. So you believe it. If you're naturally sceptical, like me, you look for evidence from what you experience to corroborate what they've told you. The same goes for any information you are presented with. You judge the source (trustworthy or not), look at the evidence and make a decision (or not, sometimes you judge there to not be enough evidence either way so you withold judgement and in some cases look for more evidence that either corroborates or opposes it).
i want to see the science behind jesus walking on water
....
idk what you've been reading (maybe the same sites which praise the great Kimi?) but there is massive amounts evidence which proves evolution and documents that slow process that took place millions of years ago.
A hypothesis btw is an idea or concept which has no evidence to back it up; like hypothesising that Kimi is a good driver and has had a good season this year.
....
idk what you've been reading (maybe the same sites which praise the great Kimi?) but there is massive amounts evidence which proves evolution and documents that slow process that took place millions of years ago.
A hypothesis btw is an idea or concept which has no evidence to back it up; like hypothesising that Kimi is a good driver and has had a good season this year.
Like what? Please point me to this "massive anounts of evidence" or a document that "proves" speciation.
Nope. A hypothesis is equivalent to a theory, usually one that can be tested and it remains a hypothesis unless disproven. It can never be proven, only supported by evidence.
And "Kimi is a good driver" is not synonymous with "has had a good season this year". They are independent since the latter is contingent on other parties and not directly derivable from the former, but that's off-topic for this thread.
....
idk what you've been reading (maybe the same sites which praise the great Kimi?) but there is massive amounts evidence which proves evolution and documents that slow process that took place millions of years ago.
A hypothesis btw is an idea or concept which has no evidence to back it up; like hypothesising that Kimi is a good driver and has had a good season this year.
Like what? Please point me to this "massive anounts of evidence" or a document that "proves" speciation.
Nope. A hypothesis is equivalent to a theory, usually one that can be tested and it remains a hypothesis unless disproven. It can never be proven, only supported by evidence.
And "Kimi is a good driver" is not synonymous with "has had a good season this year". They are independent since the latter is contingent on other parties and not directly derivable from the former, but that's off-topic for this thread.
I'm at work so I can't link EVERY example but here is a good recent one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
it dosn't take too much googling... and #Kimisucks
I'm keeping this chat non-serious and light hearted because it's pointless to try and do anything else with a person who believes in the nonsense of a silly book and in miracles yet still talks about 'scientific theory'
^-^
One of the unfortunate direct results of a belief in evolution vs creation is the downgrading of the status of human beings from "a little lower than the angels", "crowned with glory and honour" and "created in His own image" to "a more evolved animal, but still just an animal". This is not just a scientific classification, but a very powerful philosophical one that paints the path for supporting absolutely horrific behaviour, such as the holocaust. It places our existence firmly in the sole realm of the physical, with no allowance or space for any form of abstract conciousness or "soul" aside from an emergent phenomena of the physical brain, without any plausible theory of how this could even come about.
This made me laugh a lot, cheers m8 lmao
This made me laugh a lot, cheers m8 lmao
Most people who know me, think that I have a good sense of humor, but I must have missed the joke. What did you find funny in that statement?
It is a pretty rare commodity these days , isn't it?
- I don't hate Christians, I pity you
Thanks for the clarification. On a serious note; why do you pity Christians? Speaking from personal experience, my faith has enriched my life. I admit that there is a comfort in believing that there is a purpose in all of this. When I first believed 42 years ago, I'm 61 now, my belief was partly prompted by emotion and partly from reasoning. Over the years I've questioned many things about my faith. I am a natural skeptic. People speak of seeking the truth and those words ring true to me. Sometimes it's creates an uneasiness, letting your belief system be vulnerable to inquiry but veracity demands it. Most of what I've chosen to read the last few decades is opposing positions. I already know what my position is. I want to hear the best counter arguments available. If my ideas are wrong, it may be unsettling but I really want to know it. So far, while my ideas are better developed, they have essentially remained the same.
For me, this thread is a window to a world of ideas I may have not yet been exposed to and I hope to learn from others here. That's why I hope that we can approach this with not only fun and humor but a spirit of honest inquiry.
Religion is a coping mechanism born in prehistoric man to deal with concepts like mortality and causality, as our Welsh ambassador has pointed out it's been a brilliant tool to help our social evolution, but the time has come to move on. You invisible childhood friend never really existed and we've binned your comfort blanket.
"chicken or egg" problems
I often hear warnings from people that they shouldn't indoctrinate their children. They should be allowed to fill their own blank slate as their personal experiences dictate. I hear that all the time and yet I've rarely seen it practiced, and then it was in cases of neglect or abandonment. A parent can't help but indoctrinate their offspring, at least if they are present in their children's lives. I chose to offer my daughters the best guidance I could and without regret. I think any responsible parent would.
Religion is a coping mechanism born in prehistoric man to deal with concepts like mortality and causality, as our Welsh ambassador has pointed out it's been a brilliant tool to help our social evolution, but the time has come to move on. You invisible childhood friend never really existed and we've binned your comfort blanket.
What evidence do you have to support that? The almost universality of man's quest for something greater out there suggests the opposite. A man experiences hunger because his body is made to function on the assimilation of food. I think it could logically follow that man's almost universal hunger for something greater outside this world is reasonable evidence that it likely exists.
All of the talk of God being a crutch becomes irrelevant if God really exists.
"chicken or egg" problems
I am going to mostly stay out of this thread, because is becoming more bickering than substance, but here is an amusing example.
For a creationist, the chicken obviously came first because the birds were created on the same day, and the first egg would not have been laid for days later.
With speciation, there would be one specific final characteristic that determines "chicken-hood" and at some point there were 2 parent birds, non-chickens but very close proto-chickens, that produced an egg which contained an embryo with a mutation that gave it true "chicken-ness" so clearly the egg came first.
"chicken or egg" problems
I am going to mostly stay out of this thread, because is becoming more bickering than substance, but here is an amusing example.
For a creationist, the chicken obviously came first because the birds were created on the same day, and the first egg would not have been laid for days later.
With speciation, there would be one specific final characteristic that determines "chicken-hood" and at some point there were 2 parent birds, non-chickens but very close proto-chickens, that produced an egg which contained an embryo with a mutation that gave it true "chicken-ness" so clearly the egg came first.
What I'd like to know is how exactly you have personally ruled out the possibility of the existence of God?
While I can follow your arguments Oobly, I still posit two overarching problems that are not specifically yet addressed:
1. The arguments tend to lean towards a 'God of the Gaps' type of reasoning that I've already mentioned. Interestingly, while science is now used as the primary (and I dare say only possible) means of describing the universe around us, the counterpoints to science made here so far appear to be done... using science. Which is of course how science is supposed to work. However, religions have twiddled their thumbs for millennia, secure in their beliefs. When science started to produce vast quantities of material indicating that some of those deeply rooted beliefs are either misguided at best and blatantly wrong at the worst, there is now this scramble to find these gaps in science as last bastions of faith and proof for a deity of some sort.
Inevitably upon gaining enough scientific knowledge to see some type of a gap in our collective understanding, one points at it as conclusive proof and leans back in contentment that their work is done. This is much easier to do so, of course, than to spend your entire life in academia looking for alternative explanations (which may be much more difficult to comprehend), as science has done over past few centuries. I find this kind of process just a bit disingenuous.
As a side note, it is extremely hard for the human brain to process phenomena that occur in geologic time scale. Millions and billions of years are quite hard to visualize. I do wonder if you accept for example that the solar system formed over a significant time span, and that the various chemical elements on Earth are a result of them being seeded by early cosmic processes.
2. Supposing even just for a second that said gaps are in fact indications of some sort of intelligent tampering, I fail to see how it logically follows that this is proof of a God. Leaving even the arguments of 'which God' also aside, a God is an extremely loaded concept to insert into such a gap, with a lot of excess baggage. Does it really have to be, for example (apologies if too extreme) "we don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened, therefore every word in the Bible is literally true and you will burn in hell for not believing"?
...
But what I am sick and tired of is people using what they "believe" to browbeat other people who do not share those beliefs.
If anyone ever showed me even a tiny shred of evidence for the existence of the Hebrew God, I would take it very seriously and might adjust my opinions accordingly.
There is already a large body of evidence for the existence of God,
One thing that often gets missed is the agenda that organised religions have. They want and need your devotion in order for them to continue to exist. Science has no such agenda and is only interested in the truth.
One thing that often gets missed is the agenda that organised religions have. They want and need your devotion in order for them to continue to exist. Science has no such agenda and is only interested in the truth.
Heck, even just look at the guy who published the article about vaccinations
Heck, even just look at the guy who published the article about vaccinations
The vaccination hoax is pure anti-science. That has been proven time and again, most recently in front of a Congressional committee when one of its leading proponents admitted under oath that there was no evidence whatsoever that any vaccination ever did the harm that they were trying to describe.
"Science" (whatever that social body might represent) is always desperate to find any available penny to fund real research and I doubt that anyone serious about it would squander money on false propaganda. "Science" (whoever that is) has never had any agenda except for the search for truth.
Please present the evidence for your "organized science" disinformation - that is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard!
Now if you are talking about "junk science" funded by people like the Koch brothers and other climate deniers, that is "organized anti-science" in my book.
Heck, even just look at the guy who published the article about vaccinations
The vaccination hoax is pure anti-science. That has been proven time and again, most recently in front of a Congressional committee when one of its leading proponents admitted under oath that there was no evidence whatsoever that any vaccination ever did the harm that they were trying to describe.
"Science" (whatever that social body might represent) is always desperate to find any available penny to fund real research and I doubt that anyone serious about it would squander money on false propaganda. "Science" (whoever that is) has never had any agenda except for the search for truth.
Please present the evidence for your "organized science" disinformation - that is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard!
Now if you are talking about "junk science" funded by people like the Koch brothers and other climate deniers, that is "organized anti-science" in my book.
One thing that often gets missed is the agenda that organised religions have. They want and need your devotion in order for them to continue to exist. Science has no such agenda and is only interested in the truth.Every sector is corruptible. Many parts of science have been corrupt and money-driven for a very long time. Just look at the pharmaceutical industry. Other parts of science are corrupted not by money but by political correctness.
You've simply altered the definition of 'science' to disprove my point.
What you're calling "junk science" is exactly what I'm referring to when I say "organised science".
You've simply altered the definition of 'science' to disprove my point.
What you're calling "junk science" is exactly what I'm referring to when I say "organised science".
"Real" science is the epitome of a system of checks and balances.
"Real" science depends on careful research, experimentation, and rigorous and unbiased examination and evaluation of data.
"Real" science is delighted when a theory is proven wrong and replaced by a better theory.
A better terminology for what you describe would be "false science" and it just worrisome as false religion, if not far more so.
But of course what it really is is propaganda.
And it has nothing to do with science because it is just a wolf in sheep's clothing and nobody ever punishes the wolf.
You've simply altered the definition of 'science' to disprove my point.
What you're calling "junk science" is exactly what I'm referring to when I say "organised science".
"Real" science is the epitome of a system of checks and balances.
"Real" science depends on careful research, experimentation, and rigorous and unbiased examination and evaluation of data.
"Real" science is delighted when a theory is proven wrong and replaced by a better theory.
A better terminology for what you describe would be "false science" and it just worrisome as false religion, if not far more so.
But of course what it really is is propaganda.
And it has nothing to do with science because it is just a wolf in sheep's clothing and nobody ever punishes the wolf.
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. There are many parallels between different things when you consider the genuine and how it's contrasted with the fake or insincere. In many cases we point a finger at the wolf and then shoot the sheep.
As I have said elsewhere, my respect for Jesus and his teachings is immense, and I consider him to be one of the greatest and most beautiful minds that the human race has ever produced, in spite of the fact that he lived in a primitive time where supernatural beings were deemed intellectually acceptable.
One thing that often gets missed is the agenda that organised religions have. They want and need your devotion in order for them to continue to exist. Science has no such agenda and is only interested in the truth.
Hmm, I'm not convinced it's so clear cut. I think that you're absolutely correct about organised religion, but there are many instances of what I would call "organised science" having money and greed as a higher interest than knowledge. Heck, even just look at the guy who published the article about vaccinations and all that; there's plenty of money floating around the science world, though I can't comment on the severity - it may be nowhere near the same order of magnitude. But I think it's there to some degree, and shouldn't be ignored.
What I'd like to know is how exactly you have personally ruled out the possibility of the existence of God?
I have not ruled out the possibility of God's existence by any means.
...
...
Dawkins is rational and compelling, unsubstantiated belief in the supernatural is not.
One thing that often gets missed is the agenda that organised religions have. They want and need your devotion in order for them to continue to exist. Science has no such agenda and is only interested in the truth.
Hmm, I'm not convinced it's so clear cut. I think that you're absolutely correct about organised religion, but there are many instances of what I would call "organised science" having money and greed as a higher interest than knowledge. Heck, even just look at the guy who published the article about vaccinations and all that; there's plenty of money floating around the science world, though I can't comment on the severity - it may be nowhere near the same order of magnitude. But I think it's there to some degree, and shouldn't be ignored.
It's pretty clear cut because that one bloke or that group of researchers were paid to produce those results and stood in opposition to the rest of the science and medical worlds.
One thing that often gets missed is the agenda that organised religions have. They want and need your devotion in order for them to continue to exist. Science has no such agenda and is only interested in the truth.
Hmm, I'm not convinced it's so clear cut. I think that you're absolutely correct about organised religion, but there are many instances of what I would call "organised science" having money and greed as a higher interest than knowledge. Heck, even just look at the guy who published the article about vaccinations and all that; there's plenty of money floating around the science world, though I can't comment on the severity - it may be nowhere near the same order of magnitude. But I think it's there to some degree, and shouldn't be ignored.
It's pretty clear cut because that one bloke or that group of researchers were paid to produce those results and stood in opposition to the rest of the science and medical worlds.
Right, but the point still stands that this near-perfect entity (the modern "science" field) has its flaws and can have nearly the same thing happen (corrupt people screwing others over for personal gain). I was merely pointing out the similarities that may not have been immediately drawn. I, AGAIN, was not saying that they are perfectly equal in severity or anything of that sort. Just providing a counter-example for thought.
You could easily make the point that The Church was acting "in opposition to the rest of the [religious] world" when they did all the bad things they've done, no? O.o
Religion, science, and politics are 3 different things with completely different functions (as we know them today).
As long as each "stays in its place" there is little conflict, but as soon as one "gets into the other's business" there is bound to be contamination.
If all of the "religious" components could be removed from this thread, it could be a discussion about progress and improving the human condition.
If all of the "science" components could be removed from this thread, it could be a discussion about the society, ethics, and governance.
If all of the "political" components could be removed from this thread, it could be a discussion about theology and cosmology.
The fact that these (as we know them today) disparate streams have become so convoluted and intertwined makes it hard to extricate any one thing and discuss it in a straightforward manner.
If someone asked me "What is the problem with religion and politics today?" I would point to the the frenzy in the US over abortion/gay rights/etc, the frenzy in Israel over the continued occupation of Palestinian territory, and the frenzy in the Iraq/Syria/etc region with primitive barbarians attempting to re-establish a theistic government, and I see the same thing in each area, albeit to different degrees of cruelty.
Regardless of theological debates, the most important thing to me, for the very safety of the human race itself, is to do what our Founding Fathers worked so diligently to accomplish in this country, and that is to completely separate the Church from the State. And I would recommend that recipe to all other nations, worldwide, as well.
One thing that often gets missed is the agenda that organised religions have. They want and need your devotion in order for them to continue to exist. Science has no such agenda and is only interested in the truth.
Hmm, I'm not convinced it's so clear cut. I think that you're absolutely correct about organised religion, but there are many instances of what I would call "organised science" having money and greed as a higher interest than knowledge. Heck, even just look at the guy who published the article about vaccinations and all that; there's plenty of money floating around the science world, though I can't comment on the severity - it may be nowhere near the same order of magnitude. But I think it's there to some degree, and shouldn't be ignored.
It's pretty clear cut because that one bloke or that group of researchers were paid to produce those results and stood in opposition to the rest of the science and medical worlds.
Right, but the point still stands that this near-perfect entity (the modern "science" field) has its flaws and can have nearly the same thing happen (corrupt people screwing others over for personal gain). I was merely pointing out the similarities that may not have been immediately drawn. I, AGAIN, was not saying that they are perfectly equal in severity or anything of that sort. Just providing a counter-example for thought.
You could easily make the point that The Church was acting "in opposition to the rest of the [religious] world" when they did all the bad things they've done, no? O.o
I'm not really following, when those scientists pushed these results against vaccinations, they were doing so at the same time as being attacked by other scientists and doctors who had and could prove otherwise. This is how the science community works, constant never ending peer review.
My example of 'the church' was only for simplicities sake, but if you subscribe to Christianity and you have questions, ' the church' is massively bias in only one direction, where as science generally has no bias one way or the other unless it can and or has been proven.
There is no 'head of science' that dictates how 'science' should be, or a book of rules that can never be changed or questioned, hell even the 'laws' of physics arn't set in stone...
eradicate it...
eradicate it...
Precisely the ISIS solution, as I understand it.
...
If anyone ever showed me even a tiny shred of evidence for the existence of the Hebrew God, I would take it very seriously and might adjust my opinions accordingly.
...
If anyone ever showed me even a tiny shred of evidence for the existence of the Hebrew God, I would take it very seriously and might adjust my opinions accordingly.
Would you consider "secular" documentation of a Biblical miracle enough of a tiny shred of evidence?
First to give the setting: Jesus died around 3pm Judea time during the Jewish Passover. The "6th hour" = noon, the "9th hour" = 3pm.
Matthew 27:45 - "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour."
Mark 15:33 - "And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour."
Luke 23:44 - "And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour."
And Matthew 27:51 - "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"
A remarkable event, which many have ascribed to an eclipse and an earthquake.
Both Eusebius and Origen refer to a description by Phlegon of Tralles (a historian who wrote "Olympiades", a compendium of Greek history, divided by 4 year cycles) of an eclipse accompanied by earthquakes during the reign of Tiberius ("during the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad" which would put it in 32/33AD): that there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun” and that “it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.”
Bithynia is in northern Turkey, on the edge of the Black Sea and it is in the same time zone as Jerusalem.
Tertullian wrote: "At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day."
And Africanus: "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Okay, so we have written evidence for an eclipse occuring at the time of Jesus's crucifixion. Significant, but not miraculous. Except that Jesus' crucifixion happened during Jewish Passover, when there was a full moon. In fact, the full moon that rose on April 3, 33AD, the date of the crucifixion (see below) -it was the day of preparation, the day the lambs were slain for the feast the following day, another interesting "coincidence" with very strong symbolism-, was experiencing a partial lunar eclipse and would have appeared in red (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEhistory/LEplot/LE0033Apr03P.pdf). Which means the moon was on the wrong side of the earth to cause a solar eclipse.
From Isaac Newton's reconstruction of the Jewish calendar in order to find the crucifixion date: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/newton.html
"the 14th day of the month Nisan will fall in the year of Christ 31 on wednesday March 28; in the year 32 on monday Apr. 14; in the year 33 on friday Apr. 3; in the year 34, on friday Apr. 23; in the year 35, on wednesday Apr. 13; and in the year 36, on saturday March 31."
It's worth noting that he narrowed it down to either 3 April 33AD or 23 April 34AD, but favoured the second due to a comment in Luke about the ripeness of the corn at passover 2 years prior which led him to think there had been 5 instead of 4 passovers during His ministry. However, it is now commonly accepted that there were only 4 and that the true date is 3 April 33AD.
So now we have a "darkening of the sun" which lasts 3 hours, an earthquake and a partial lunar eclipse on the day of Jesus' crucifixion, with references to the eclipse and earthquake in the writings of historians. Which points to Jesus having been rather more than just a special human being.
...
And you are presenting this as something above and beyond coincidence, speculation, and story-telling?
Sorry, there is zero there that interests me.
It's evidence. How you interpret it is entirely up to you.
...
If anyone ever showed me even a tiny shred of evidence for the existence of the Hebrew God, I would take it very seriously and might adjust my opinions accordingly.
Would you consider "secular" documentation of a Biblical miracle enough of a tiny shred of evidence?
First to give the setting: Jesus died around 3pm Judea time during the Jewish Passover. The "6th hour" = noon, the "9th hour" = 3pm.
Matthew 27:45 - "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour."
Mark 15:33 - "And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour."
Luke 23:44 - "And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour."
And Matthew 27:51 - "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"
A remarkable event, which many have ascribed to an eclipse and an earthquake.
Both Eusebius and Origen refer to a description by Phlegon of Tralles (a historian who wrote "Olympiades", a compendium of Greek history, divided by 4 year cycles) of an eclipse accompanied by earthquakes during the reign of Tiberius ("during the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad" which would put it in 32/33AD): that there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun” and that “it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.”
Bithynia is in northern Turkey, on the edge of the Black Sea and it is in the same time zone as Jerusalem.
Tertullian wrote: "At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day."
And Africanus: "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Okay, so we have written evidence for an eclipse occuring at the time of Jesus's crucifixion. Significant, but not miraculous. Except that Jesus' crucifixion happened during Jewish Passover, when there was a full moon. In fact, the full moon that rose on April 3, 33AD, the date of the crucifixion (see below) -it was the day of preparation, the day the lambs were slain for the feast the following day, another interesting "coincidence" with very strong symbolism-, was experiencing a partial lunar eclipse and would have appeared in red (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEhistory/LEplot/LE0033Apr03P.pdf). Which means the moon was on the wrong side of the earth to cause a solar eclipse.
From Isaac Newton's reconstruction of the Jewish calendar in order to find the crucifixion date: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/newton.html
"the 14th day of the month Nisan will fall in the year of Christ 31 on wednesday March 28; in the year 32 on monday Apr. 14; in the year 33 on friday Apr. 3; in the year 34, on friday Apr. 23; in the year 35, on wednesday Apr. 13; and in the year 36, on saturday March 31."
It's worth noting that he narrowed it down to either 3 April 33AD or 23 April 34AD, but favoured the second due to a comment in Luke about the ripeness of the corn at passover 2 years prior which led him to think there had been 5 instead of 4 passovers during His ministry. However, it is now commonly accepted that there were only 4 and that the true date is 3 April 33AD.
So now we have a "darkening of the sun" which lasts 3 hours, an earthquake and a partial lunar eclipse on the day of Jesus' crucifixion, with references to the eclipse and earthquake in the writings of historians. Which points to Jesus having been rather more than just a special human being.
Well, you had me going for a while and I was just about to denounce my faith, but when I got home and began checking your references I realized I had been a bit premature in my decision.
I would encourage anyone reading this to check Waateva's references. If this is the best he has, he may want to reconsider his decision. Most of his contradictions just don't stand up to a cursory glance. Rather than explaining them now, if anyone reads them and needs a simple and logical explanation to any, I'd be happy to respond. The only one that offers any real concern appears to be his last reference to the open tombs and I don't think that alone is a faith shaker.
I don't deny some difficulties within the texts and even with comprehending concepts that are hard to resolve. For example, the theodicy of evil and suffering. But just because I can't comprehend something, doesn't mean it's not true.
Would you consider "secular" documentation of a Biblical miracle enough of a tiny shred of evidence?
First to give the setting: Jesus died around 3pm Judea time during the Jewish Passover. The "6th hour" = noon, the "9th hour" = 3pm.
Matthew 27:45 - "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour."
Mark 15:33 - "And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour."
Luke 23:44 - "And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour."
And Matthew 27:51 - "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"
Both Eusebius and Origen refer to a description by Phlegon of Tralles (a historian who wrote "Olympiades", a compendium of Greek history, divided by 4 year cycles) of an eclipse accompanied by earthquakes during the reign of Tiberius ("during the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad" which would put it in 32/33AD): that there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun” and that “it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.”
Bithynia is in northern Turkey, on the edge of the Black Sea and it is in the same time zone as Jerusalem.
Tertullian wrote: "At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day."
And Africanus: "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
...
They're not meant to shatter people's faith, they are simply meant to show that if the bible is truly God's word as Christians believe and that all scripture is inspired by God, why don't things match up?
...
I feel like it's pointless to discuss the merits of a lecture he gave without direct quotes.
I feel like I'm trying to defend him, so if it comes off like that then my bad, just trying to give some possible context to the **** you get if you question basic pretty extreme views, like the earth is 7,000 years old, Adam and Eve etc etc
... neither an earthquake or an eclipse there would be noticed in Jerusalem.
...
Unfortunately, the frequency and claims of miracles seems to have drastically gone down in recent times. What with everyone having a camera in their pocket along with (usually) basic understanding of scientific and medical phenomena, the ability for us skeptics to collectively experience a miracle of any sort to immediately convert us into believers is not looking too good.
...
You can also take a look at the site below (I don't know how to imbed links yet :( ) where you have a truly massive info-graphic comprising over 60,000 cross references in the bible that consists of contradictions and other things.
http://bibviz.com/
So if a secular source is quoted it is still suspect because the author is a Christian? That's a bit like saying that if someone believes what they experience they can't be trusted.
In a day of PC and ultra-sensitivity to other people groups, this seems like profiling to a extreme degree. I don't mind it. Information may be correct, but the reliability of its accuracy is only as good as its source.
I guess it's fair to question sources you deem unreliable. I just wonder if there is any news the messenger can deliver, that won't just be scrutinized but immediately rejected.
...
They're not meant to shatter people's faith, they are simply meant to show that if the bible is truly God's word as Christians believe and that all scripture is inspired by God, why don't things match up?
...
First off, "inspired by God" is not the same as "God wrote every line with his own hand". God uses people, He works through people and He allows their character and personality to influence the work. The result has the signature of both God and the person through whom it is done.
...BUT... It doesn't really matter. All the Gospels are written by different people who either experienced the events first hand, gathered the information from those who experienced it, or gathered it from the various extant written accounts. Inevitably there will be differences in the telling as there are from any group of people who witness an event, and the further from the even they are, the more scattered the account. This speaks to me more about the truth of the matters than their falsehood. If it were all a conspiracy, there'd be effort made to make them all align. As it is, they come across as honest. Each is written in a different character, by very different people and they will naturally put more focus (and try to be more accurate) on different parts, the parts they consider most profound or important. In any case, the most important parts align and the core message remains the same in all of them.
They're not meant to shatter people's faith, they are simply meant to show that if the bible is truly God's word as Christians believe and that all scripture is inspired by God, why don't things match up?
...
...If you're looking for accuracy (and the account most satisfying to a scientific mind) then Luke is the one to look at, particularly in the King James Version since most modern versions were translated using Westcott and Hort's Greek text and they based it on less reliable (in my opinion) manuscripts. He gathered much of his information through interviews, rather like a detective piecing together what really happened from each individual interviewed. This tends to filter out the differences and can lead to the most accurate picture. He was a physician and wrote in such a manner as to make things testable. In fact, he mentions hundreds of "important" people, places and events to place the events he describes accurately in time and location.
They're not meant to shatter people's faith, they are simply meant to show that if the bible is truly God's word as Christians believe and that all scripture is inspired by God, why don't things match up?
...
For the emotional and deeper, meaningful version choose John. Some amazing stuff right at the beginning. The first chapters of John and Genesis are my favourites.
Matthew comes across as rather excitable and passionate, perhaps with a little less attention to detail.
Mark is a bit of a hotch-potch. It's gathered from a variety of sources and more "compiled" than the others. All the core components are there as they should be, though, but it's not my favourite, revealing little of the personality of the author / compiler and thus I find it rather "dry".
Is there actually any definition of science that states it exists to prove or disprove the existence of a good?
...
You can also take a look at the site below (I don't know how to imbed links yet :( ) where you have a truly massive info-graphic comprising over 60,000 cross references in the bible that consists of contradictions and other things.
http://bibviz.com/
Nice anti-theist site. They make absolutely no effort in trying to understand or make clear the context of what they quote.
...
You can also take a look at the site below (I don't know how to imbed links yet :( ) where you have a truly massive info-graphic comprising over 60,000 cross references in the bible that consists of contradictions and other things.
http://bibviz.com/
As an example I watched the Sam Harris video. It's from a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig on morality.
In debates, atheists are most often the first to throw reason to the wind and resort to "name-calling", emotional appeals and cliches, just as Sam did there. Listen to the whole debate to get context. Craig stuck to the topic, presented well-reasoned arguments and absolutely demolished Sam's arguments. The point is not "What is the character of God?" which should be another whole debate, but the origins of morality, and on that point Harris failed miserably.
Harris did propose some points worth considering, but he threw them out as red herrings to take things in a different direction, while appealing to emotions, adding cliches and name-calling at the same time. He was clearly losing, so he threw a red herring and tried to escape. He sets up a straw man.
His claim that God is evil because He doesn't intervene when there is suffering (if He has the power to do so) is an emotional appeal without reason. Allow me to reverse the question to gain a perspective on the absurdity of his statement. What would happen if God did intervene in every situation where there is suffering? And should He? What would the world be like if he did perform "miracles" in every case? Would that leave space for people to exercise their own free will and morality? In the majority of cases, people suffer and die through situations created by other people. Is God to blame for those people's actions? Or the lack of action on behalf of others that should be intervening? People should be doing what they can to alleviate the suffering. Why? Because we have an objective morality that has its origins in a good God. Not only that, but God chooses to work through people. We are the "body of Christ", his agents in the world. It's our own immorality and inaction that should be taking the blame here, not an "evil" God.
Moving on to natural disasters. That's a difficult one, but you could (if you didn't want to expend effort) say it's the result of man's disobedience. The world itself became "broken" with the fall of man. But that's a bit of a cop-out. So I'll add some "meat" to the discussion. It's very relevant to the concept of intelligibility of the universe and the reliability of the natural laws. If someone someone jumps off a cliff and expects God to save Him, is that rational? If someone build their house on a fault line, knowing there are regular quakes that happen there every year, is God to blame when the house falls down? Natural disasters are the consequence of the laws of nature functioning unimpeded. It's very likely that God has in fact prevented many such disasters from happening through direct influence, but then there's no way of knowing this, is there? And where do you draw the line of "interacting"? You want the laws of nature to be consistent so you can understand and make sense of the universe (and do SCIENCE!), then you want God to jump in and intervene whenever it's convenient to you?
That's just one of the items on the site, the one that drew my attention most clearly. I certainly don't have the time to go through all of them.
. If you can validate the information from someone that is not a part of your religious group, especially for things related to the resurrection of your savior, it makes that information much stronger to others.
I'm interested in what way turning from belief in God has enriched your lives and if there has been any negative results for it..
The "heart and soul" of Christianity as it pertains to Genesis 3 (the fall of man) is not obedience, but the simple truth that, given the choice, man will always put his own interests before God's. Even the manner in which we choose to employ our intelligence will always be selfish, or at least man-centered. This is the core lesson of the Mosaic law--it provided a way for man to once again walk with God, although temporarily and by means of atonement via the sacrificial system. But it also provided proof that we are incapable of God's holiness and unworthy of his presence. The law itself recognized the shortcomings of the sacrificial system and promised a better atonement, in the form of the Messiah.
I'm interested in what way turning from belief in God has enriched your lives and if there has been any negative results for it..
I was not planning to participate in this conversation any more, but I will speak to this.
Going back to the original "morality story" (which stories pro-religionists probably consider the heart and soul of religion, anyway) the Garden of Eden, where the opposing deities were persuading the human players about the "tree of knowledge" the bible presents the "good" one as saying "don't eat" and the "bad" one as saying "do eat" and that the moral of the story is: obedience. But in my opinion, the respective deities are presented precisely backwards. Why would God give man intelligence and then order him not to use it?
When you think about this parable, you recognize that it is about obedience, pure and simple. Why? Who are you obeying? Once the God-concept is factored out, this is a powerful mechanism to train people to obey: but to obey whom?
The authors of this system of thought, of course, who have an agenda of their own.
Just as climate-denying today is merely a smoke screen fabricated by the fossil-fuel industry to conceal their selfish desires, so these fables are designed to create an environment of fear and subjugation. And it continues in other forms: just as today, ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend") so as long as the ultra-wealthy can induce the ignorant to vote for their lackeys, Republican politicians, with bogus non-related issues like immigration, abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc, they can ensure that their real goal is accomplished: no taxes on wealth.
What were the ancient Hebrews seeking with this religious law system? They achieved absolute power over their subjects, the real goal of the process.
Over time, they developed a system of how every aspect of life was to be lived. The "Jewish ideal" pretty much did away with free will.
The old joke Q:"What is the duty of the laity to the clergy?" A:"To pay, pray, and obey."
When I recognized the bizarre and ugly society that had grown from a system of obeying rather than thinking, I was appalled and terrified.
"Turning from belief in God has enriched" my life beyond measure and was the most liberating thing (spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally) that has ever happened to me.
There have been negative results from it: my search for truth has caused me great pain in many human interactions, because non-believers are shunned and scorned by a significant portion of Western (and particularly US) society. My Christian upbringing taught me to "stand strong for what is right and don't let the evil ones wear you down" which I continue to do, but now I am able to recognize that the lines have shifted and I can see that many of the people in this country pushing "Christian values" in politics are some of the most evil members of our society.
man will always put his own interests before God's
man will always put his own interests before God's
Why would the Creator and Sovereign of the universe have interests at all?
Arguments like these make me think of an ant farm and a cruel child who delights in torturing his subjects.
The traditional Abrahamic God is too cruel and mean-spirited for me to worship, even if I did believe in Him.
The strident insistence of the Jews/Christians/Mohammedans in general and ISIS in particular that man's universal duty is "submission" to their particular deity is perhaps the most horrifying concept that the human race has ever dreamed up.
Just one more question. Do you think that if the people who call themselves followers of Christ really did walk their talk, that is, if they really were changed inside and then lived out their beliefs, would you have had a different perspective? Again, I'm not trying to set anyone up. I just am trying to more clearly understand your perspective.
the people who call themselves followers of Christ
. If you can validate the information from someone that is not a part of your religious group, especially for things related to the resurrection of your savior, it makes that information much stronger to others.On another subject, I'm interested in what way turning from belief in God has enriched your lives and if there has been any negative results for it.. This question is directed to Waateva and neverused, primarily but is open to anyone. This is not a trick question. I believe you've both have commented sincerely about your experiences and I want to understand your perspectives more fully.
I would like to thank fohat.digs for coming out of his "Religion Therapy" retirement to respond to my question. We may disagree about several things but nobody can question a person's personal experiences.
Just one more question. Do you think that if the people who call themselves followers of Christ really did walk their talk, that is, if they really were changed inside and then lived out their beliefs, would you have had a different perspective? Again, I'm not trying to set anyone up. I just am trying to more clearly understand your perspective.
On another subject, I'm interested in what way turning from belief in God has enriched your lives and if there has been any negative results for it.. This question is directed to Waateva and neverused, primarily but is open to anyone. This is not a trick question. I believe you've both have commented sincerely about your experiences and I want to understand your perspectives more fully.
I would like to thank fohat.digs for coming out of his "Religion Therapy" retirement to respond to my question. We may disagree about several things but nobody can question a person's personal experiences.
Just one more question. Do you think that if the people who call themselves followers of Christ really did walk their talk, that is, if they really were changed inside and then lived out their beliefs, would you have had a different perspective? Again, I'm not trying to set anyone up. I just am trying to more clearly understand your perspective.
...
And you are presenting this as something above and beyond coincidence, speculation, and story-telling?
Sorry, there is zero there that interests me.
It's evidence. How you interpret it is entirely up to you.
So if a secular source is quoted it is still suspect because the author is a Christian? That's a bit like saying that if someone believes what they experience they can't be trusted.
In a day of PC and ultra-sensitivity to other people groups, this seems like profiling to a extreme degree. I don't mind it. Information may be correct, but the reliability of its accuracy is only as good as its source.
I guess it's fair to question sources you deem unreliable. I just wonder if there is any news the messenger can deliver, that won't just be scrutinized but immediately rejected.
So if a secular source is quoted it is still suspect because the author is a Christian? That's a bit like saying that if someone believes what they experience they can't be trusted.
In a day of PC and ultra-sensitivity to other people groups, this seems like profiling to a extreme degree. I don't mind it. Information may be correct, but the reliability of its accuracy is only as good as its source.
I guess it's fair to question sources you deem unreliable. I just wonder if there is any news the messenger can deliver, that won't just be scrutinized but immediately rejected.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Jewish Talmud, the Christian Bible and the Islamic Koran all make extraordinary claims and provide no evidence. Religions throughout time have done this. Odin sacrificed an eye for the knowledge of the runes (he learnt to read). This can be proven as the Eddas say he had lost an eye, though I am not sure if any Jews, Christians or Muslims would accept that as evidence.
Making judgements about groups of individuals or individuals in groups has its dangers as well.
Waateva,
I enjoyed your summary of your journey through and from faith. I've been to a few of those "speaking in tongues" meetings and I found them a bit unsettling too. I honestly don't know what to think of them. I also am concerned about the absolute statements made about things that may be a bit grayer than a quick glance may suggest. Your writing makes it apparent that you are very insightful. I'm curious about your age.
Something important to remember is that not all people have the depth that you seem to have both intellectually and in your awareness of things. Combined with that, you seem like a nice guy. I've had the privilege of being at a Church that is very close to an Evangelical Seminary and as a result we have several professors at my Church that help keep the standard of intellectual honesty high. Along with that, while we have our share of bad apples, overall I've been impressed with the integrity and love displayed by our members. I guess that's why I'm so interested in how other Christians behavior has affected your perspective.
I wouldn't be comfortable with the overt public praying and laying on of hands either. Not that I necessarily am against it but I'm more reserve and assume others wouldn't want the spectacle either. Also I've heard on good authority that you get good results by "going into a closet and praying in secret".
I would be dishonest if I said I'm not concerned that you left the faith but I do believe your honest contemplations will take you to the right place. Belief is a funny thing. Do you believe because you want to or do you believe because you're convinced in the veracity of the claims first? Who knows?
I agree, but here's a little flaw for your Odin comparision. There is no corroboration for the historical existence of Odin and all writings that include him are in the style of poetic or prose Eddas, not in the style of sagas, their historical stories. There are also colossal differences between versions of the Eddas.
There is historical corroboration for the existence of Jesus and the writings detailing His life and ministry are in factual style, with Luke especially noting particular places, people, events and times.
I agree, but here's a little flaw for your Odin comparision. There is no corroboration for the historical existence of Odin and all writings that include him are in the style of poetic or prose Eddas, not in the style of sagas, their historical stories. There are also colossal differences between versions of the Eddas.
There is historical corroboration for the existence of Jesus and the writings detailing His life and ministry are in factual style, with Luke especially noting particular places, people, events and times.
Odin was perhaps not the most apt comparison in this particular case, but since we're on the trend of historical corroboration... There are plenty of other religions that have their founder prominent in their respective holy books, with at least some supporting secular evidence for their basic existence. I'm curious what your opinion is on them also performing miracles of various sort (which is generally not supported by secular sources), and whether you would draw any parallels to historical support for Jesus and his miracles in particular. So, here's a bit of a list:
Zoroaster (another interesting religion to add to Jainism and Sikhism that I mentioned earlier, but I digress)
Buddha
Muhammad
Joseph Smith
Of course, the million dollar question that this leads up to is being that claims of miracles and historical evidence are quite common in various religions, why would one of them be more or exclusively true?
Making judgements about groups of individuals or individuals in groups has its dangers as well.
I agree.
My point, directly and succinctly, is that anybody who voted for Bush Jr and his cronies has the blood of thousands of Iraqis on his hands and that was such a monumental crime against humanity that I cannot respect them until they take responsibility for that fact in some tangible way - for example - never again voting for a warmonger, even if he does promise to lower their tax rate by a few percentage points.'
I just logged on for the first time in, I dunno, a year(?), and it looks like drama has stayed alive and well since I was last here.
I just logged on for the first time in, I dunno, a year(?), and it looks like drama has stayed alive and well since I was last here.This is an actual discussion. :thumb:
I agree, but here's a little flaw for your Odin comparision. There is no corroboration for the historical existence of Odin and all writings that include him are in the style of poetic or prose Eddas, not in the style of sagas, their historical stories. There are also colossal differences between versions of the Eddas.
There is historical corroboration for the existence of Jesus and the writings detailing His life and ministry are in factual style, with Luke especially noting particular places, people, events and times.
Odin was perhaps not the most apt comparison in this particular case, but since we're on the trend of historical corroboration... There are plenty of other religions that have their founder prominent in their respective holy books, with at least some supporting secular evidence for their basic existence. I'm curious what your opinion is on them also performing miracles of various sort (which is generally not supported by secular sources), and whether you would draw any parallels to historical support for Jesus and his miracles in particular. So, here's a bit of a list:
Zoroaster (another interesting religion to add to Jainism and Sikhism that I mentioned earlier, but I digress)
Buddha
Muhammad
Joseph Smith
Of course, the million dollar question that this leads up to is being that claims of miracles and historical evidence are quite common in various religions, why would one of them be more or exclusively true?
I am only making the claim that I believe the Christian expression of God and the way He works is accurate from my own personal testing of it's basic hypotheses and the positive results I experienced.
It remains a personal thing and is up to each individual to investigate, test and make their own decisions of what to believe or not. The "burden of proof" always lies with the individual. I can merely let you know some of the reasons I believe, I cannot"prove" to you something that you can only gain full "proof" of through your own personal experience.
Regarding the whole science and faith theme:
The big issue, IMO, is that the commonly accepted ages and timescale for cosmological and geological events do not match a literal interpretation of the creation record in Genesis. This is a problem if you think the creation record should be interpreted that way, as it creates a clash between two very strong components of a Christian scientist's worldview.
Looking purely at the Genesis account in terms of clear translation and interpretations from the original Hebrew it seems to quite obviously indicate that the "days" used to separate and group the creation events are set as a lightness / darkness cyle. " And there was evening and there was morning, one day." or "the first day". Each period of creation has a statement like this at the end.
Looking purely at the cosmological evidence for the calculated age of the universe (calculated Hubble constant, stellar distances, the microwave background radiation, etc) it's pretty convincing that they've made some good estimates, or at least set the minimum age reasonably accurately. Then you also have radiometric dating and other geological methods of age estimation for the earth, which also seem reasonably reliable (although there are anomalies and some rather odd natural occurences that make them less reliable than the cosmological data).
They're both convincing and they're both claimed to be "the truth".
So what do you do?
What I did was to go back to the most important "evidences" for me, personally. For me, that's the unchangable internal base "truth" of the existence of the Creator and that the way to initiate contact with Him is through Christ. Since that is what happened to me and it's the most "real" event of my life. This is also the core message of the Bible, so those parts that explain these things that match my experience are solid, they're "true" for me. The rest of the Bible is supporting data that helps me understand more about God, can be encouraging, motivating, etc. Some parts are massively valuable as instruction on how to deal with specific situations, how to behave, etc. There's still a fair amount I don't fully understand, though.
In terms of the relative "ratings" of the commonly accepted scientific stance and the rest of the Bible, since my experience has shown the core theme and some further parts of the Bible to be true through experience, it has a good track record with me and it's natural to assume the truth of the rest of it. It doesn't change (will qualify this below). Theories in cosmology and other areas of science do. On the other hand, certain interpretations of the Bible do change when more evidence comes to light as it did after Galileo had his disputes with the church. By the way, he believed his theories to be entirely compatible with the Bible, it was just the currently held interpretation of the organised "church" that disagreed.
Then you have some very interesting verses like those found in Job (most likely the oldest written manuscript of the Bible from analysis of the language used), where God, speaking from the storm, says "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" (King James version). The names are translations from the originals of "chimah", the sign which appears in the heavens at the spring of the year, and "chesil", the sign which presents itself when the season is cold and severe. Early commentators talked about the seasons, etc, but they missed something of rather greater significance, since they didn't have the astronomic measurements of these particular clusters that we do now. The stars of the Pleiades are gravity bound to each other and moving as one, whereas "Orion's belt" is separating, the components (one is actually a multi-star) are moving in different directions.
The next verse says "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?". They still haven't figured out the Mazzaroth reference, but Arcturus was properly identified before the time of the King James translation ("ayith" in the Hebrew). It's moving, really fast, and not in a common direction with other stars of the Milky Way (except those I will mention next). It's got a group of at least 52 other stars traveling with it (the Arcturus Stream), cutting perpendicularly across the disc of the Milky Way.
These discoveries of the natures of the clusters and stars have occured recently, with the discovery of the Arcturus Stream in 1971.
This also helps highlight a reason I prefer the King James translation over most "modern" translations. In most of the modern versions, the people preparing the texts have made "best guesses" in a lot of cases to the meaning of things they don't understand, whereas the older transcribers / translaters tended to be more literal and preserved the meaning of the original documents more accurately.
There are also many other verses that mention facts about the universe that have since been confirmed by modern science, but didn't match ancient science. Here is a small list of some of these that I am currently aware of:
Deep ocean springs: Job 38:16
Earth is "hung on nothing": Job 26:7
Undersea mountains / trenches: Jonah 2:5-6
Beginning of universe - big bang theory: Genesis 1:1
The water cycle: Job 36:27-28
Expansion of the universe (stretching / stretches / stretched / spread out the heavens): many places
Air has mass: Job 28:25
So in that sense it's quite reasonable to expect the Bible to stand and the various theories of "common" science to eventually conform to it.
Unless the current commonly accepted interpretation needs correction, as it was in the time of Galileo.
It's also important to note that that the Heliocentric model of the solar system can still fit with a Geocentric view of the universe. In fact, the position of Earth in the universe is currently (supposedly) unknowable, since we (again, supposedly) cannot perceive the actual edges of the universe. So we are at the center of the "observable universe", simply because we are the observers and can only perceive out to a certain radius. I say "supposedly" since this is dependent on the concept of "proper distance".
I just logged on for the first time in, I dunno, a year(?), and it looks like drama has stayed alive and well since I was last here.
I wouldn't really call it drama, I think the discussions in this thread have been very cordial and amicable for the most part.
While doing my 2 year church mission probably one of the most important things I learned was from an atheist who wasn't interested in what we had to say. I don't have much familiarity with atheists and for some reason I had this misplaced idea that if you are atheist why not just go commit all sorts of crimes and just live a life based on carnal instincts, because if there is no god (or moral punishment then why does anything you do matter?). So this guy I came across told me that in his view if there is nothing after this life then that means that this life is super important. So everything you do needs to be to the best of your ability. So the reason you don't commit crime for example is to avoid jail and thus avoiding wasting part of your one life away.
I just logged on for the first time in, I dunno, a year(?), and it looks like drama has stayed alive and well since I was last here.This is an actual discussion. :thumb:
But sure there's still plenty of drama around in other threads. :D
While doing my 2 year church mission probably one of the most important things I learned was from an atheist who wasn't interested in what we had to say. I don't have much familiarity with atheists and for some reason I had this misplaced idea that if you are atheist why not just go commit all sorts of crimes and just live a life based on carnal instincts, because if there is no god (or moral punishment then why does anything you do matter?). So this guy I came across told me that in his view if there is nothing after this life then that means that this life is super important. So everything you do needs to be to the best of your ability. So the reason you don't commit crime for example is to avoid jail and thus avoiding wasting part of your one life away.
I like this quote from Penn Jillette in regards to morality without God:
"The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you."
...
Given this information, would you agree that your belief structure along with others is hugely influenced by your current location, upbringing, and birthplace? I know that there are probably millions and millions of people from all different religions all over the world who have "proven" to themselves through various means that their particular religion or even their particular branch of religion is the correct one, which as you said is up to them for what they decide is correct in their own life. Also, if this is true, would you entertain the thought that there could be a single common deity that encompasses the Abrahamic religions and that the differences between Catholics, Christians, Muslims, and Jews are small enough that they could enter one common afterlife?
....
Using your examples of things later proven by science, so many of them seem to be things that are proven by science than back-checked to the bible.
...
On the subject of church splits and unsavory leadership but not related to much else, I also have the "privilege" of having a somewhat niche specialty at my job. I work at an accounting firm but I personally deal more with tax preparation, health insurance, and unofficial IT capacities but during tax season I am one of only two people in the office who deals with pastoral tax returns. Pastors have some funky rules in regards to their compensation while also having the housing allowance, which I could certainly rant against for hours but won't for the sake of staying on topic, and therefore you need to know these rules before you can prepare one of their returns properly. In the almost 5 years that I have been doing them, both myself and the other person (a devoted Christian) who prepares returns for clergy members have grown to almost have a disdain for ministers when it comes to taxes.When the tax code gives preference to somebody for fitting into one of the numerous tax breaks available I can't blame them for taking advantage of them. The IRS has set itself up in an adversarial roles against the tax payer and there is a difference between tax avoidance and evasion. Therefore I see nothing legally wrong with trying to minimize your tax liability by inquiring whether certain deductions are allowed. I agree that some of these preferential deductions should be eliminated. We should take away corporate box seats at baseball stadiums and business deductions for recreational boats as well.The tax code is so excessively bloated that any page added to it should require the deletion of 20.
You see, the housing allowance that they receive is an amount of their income that is designated at the beginning of the year to go towards housing which encompasses mortgage payments, property taxes, housing additions, cable TV and/or internet, cleaning supplies, windows, furniture, appliances, and even pools and their maintenance but the great part for them is that it is income tax free, and if you decide to file the nifty IRS form 4361 you receive that compensation self-employment tax free as well! This basically results in anywhere from $10,000 to $45,000, the amounts my personal clients are paid but those amounts have no ceiling established by the IRS, being completely tax free to pay for pretty much anything besides vehicles and food and because of this, these clergy members try and wiggle any expenses that they can into the housing allowance. I never thought I would see the day that pastors of prominent churches of hundreds and even thousands of members would try and slip their car payments or dinners at TGI Fridays under their housing allowance, but this happens with over 60-70% of my pastoral clients. These are people who are teaching their members every Sunday to be honest, to be devout, to give your tithe as God instructed only to turn around and try to abuse a perk specific to their occupation to save a couple hundred bucks in tax on a yearly basis. If this was something that happened once and then stopped I wouldn't care so much or be as salty about it, but seeing the same people come in year after year trying to get away with the same thing while claiming to be men of God I would be lying if I said this didn't lower my opinion of the clergy.
Of course, a person's entire worldview is based primarily on their experience and partially on "common sense", or their chosen thought processes about the evidence they have gathered. It doesn't rule out the possibility of God making Himself known to individuals and revealing the way for them to open dialogue with Him, though. However, it's usually a person that brings this information to light, as I said before, God chooses to use us for His work.
I entertain the thought that there is a single Deity, certainly :) Christianity, Judaism and Catholicism are essentially the same religion, with either an incomplete view (Judaism) or a misfocused one (Catholicism) and there are undoubtedly "saved" people in each group (although Jews who are "saved" would recognise Jesus and the Messiah and are then essentially Christians). Islam is different, since it's based around the writings and acts of a further prophet (Mohammed) who lived around 600 years after Christ and who created a new religion placing himself as a focal point, above the status of Christ. Although it includes biblical books in it's "scripture", it attempts to supercede them with the works of a single man (the Qu'ran). There are many devout practitioners, and it's possible some have taken the right way in approaching God, but usually that will mean He reveals to them the fact of Jesus' deity and most would then call themselves Christians.
Regardless, everyone has their own path to follow, but if they want to enter the Kingdom of God, they need to come to Him "through Christ" (accepting God's path for reconciliation, not their own), they need to acknowledge their need of something more than their own ability and place themselves "on His mercy", recognising both their guilt and inability to remove it from themselves. It's not for us to decide if a person is "saved" or not, that's entirely up to God, and completely personal / individual, but there is only one "way".
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6
Ultimately it's all about if you know and are known by God. Relationship.
While it's important for people to realise their need for "salvation", when people focus on Heaven and Hell as places of pleasure and torment respectively and the need to be "saved" from Hell into Heaven, their focus is shifted from the personal to the legal, from the spirit of the law to the letter, from the purposes of God in the personal sense, to the laws and actions in a practical, impersonal sense. It's also a rather selfish way of looking at things and gives an ulterior motive in wanting to be "saved", so instead of suffering you have pleasure, using fear of suffering as a persuasion to "turn". It shouldn't be about wanting to please ourselves as much as wanting to please God. After all, the reason we need His mercy is that we have displeased Him in the first place. The core message of scripture is this: He created us, loves us and made the ultimate sacrifice for us in order to be able to have a (healthy) relationship with us. The summary Jesus made of the "greatest commandment" is to "love God". In order to do this, we need to know God. God loves you already, has made a way for you to make contact with him and experience His love and mercy, then love Him back.
The reason I say it's a healthy relationship is that those who make contact through the process of "salvation" have both the desire to be in a relationship with Him and the right understanding of who He is, what He's done and where they each fit in the relationship.
The King James translation was completed in 1611 and states: "canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?". The "waywardness" of Arcturus was discovered in 1718 by Sir Edmond Halley. The "sons" were discovered in 1971. IMHO there is nothing wrong with going "back" to the Bible to see if new scientific discoveries have already been mentioned there. Is there any other way to check for "scientific accuracy" in the Bible? You need things that are clear and testable and I believe this matches the criteria well, along with the Pleiades and Orion references in the previous verse.
The Bible states that there was a beginning. That the universe had a start at some particular event. Before the proposal of the Big Bang, the common scientific belief was that the universe either had a uniform or cyclical history.
And you skipped the expansion of the universe. There are many verses that mention God "stretching out the heavens", here are a few:
Isaiah 42:5
Isaiah 44:24
Isaiah 45:12
Isaiah 48:13
Isaiah 51:13
Jeremiah 10:12
Jeremiah 51:15
Job 9:8
Psalms 104:2
Zechariah 12:1
I'm not asking for much here, but why can't the bible as an infallible and inerrant word of God do better in this regard and have had plain language that obviously predates and predicts modern science in every possible way without the need for subjectivity and interpretation?
Because it'sallpartially bollocks and partially murky history made up by uneducated and ignorant mentals and people with agendashundredsthousands of years ago...
The bible was put together what like 500ad or something? Making it less than two thousand years old, thus it can't be thousands of years old.
I struggle a lot with religion, because as a radical socialist/communist there's really just no room for organized religion in my idea of a perfect world, but at the same time the highest philosophy I subscribe to is being able to accept all people and their beliefs/ideas. I am also able to recognize the positive things that religion has helped to create in the realistic world that we live in. Anyway, hearing others' stories really helps me be more accepting, so I look forward to hearing what others have to say. :thumb:
like Josef Stalin for instance who was responsible for as many as 50 million deaths.Is this some sort of weird backhanded comment on me being a communist?
Not at all. I mentioned his name because he may have been the worst offender. I could also add Hitler, Mao, and others to the list.
Sorry of you took it that way.
radical socialist/communistChrist. I thought you guys were extinct.
Christ. I thought you guys were extinct.:p
Out of curiosity what lead you to become a radical socialist/communist? Do you truly believe that it can ever become a reality?Well first off, I believe your political "ideals" should be the most ideal situation possible, that's why their called ideals, not actions :thumb: To me an ideal is different from a tangible goal.
In light of the SB shootings.
I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.
In light of the SB shootings.
I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.
PRAY FOR PARIS. I CHANGED MY FACEBOOK PICTURE DOES THAT MEAN I MADE A DIFFERENCE.
In all seriousness, I'm not a religious person, so I can't really speak on this, but I feel like if I was religious I would be a bit offended by people throwing around "praying" so much without it meaning anything.
In light of the SB shootings.
I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.
In light of the SB shootings.
I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.
Don't worry, I'm sure God has a reason for wanting thousands of Americans killed by mentally unstable people who have ready and easy access to weapons. Praying is actually the best solution to the problem.
Well first off, I believe your political "ideals" should be the most ideal situation possible, that's why their called ideals, not actions :thumb: To me an ideal is different from a tangible goal.Ah, so those are just your ideals. That's fair enough. My ideals are similarly extreme, but also probably close to the polar opposite of socialism/communism. I say close because I would really love it if the US and Europe would just focus on themselves and stop committing crimes under the guise of being the world police, which seems to be the only thing me and socialists can agree on.
And secondly, I do believe that socialism is possible, perhaps not communism (I am happy to explain the difference, it's not what you might think). There are actually very good examples of successful socialist communities throughout history, although they are usually rather small scale (because you need enough people who are interested to participate). Is it likely? maybe not, but I think socialism is certainly a possibility.Oh, I'd absolutely agree that socialism is possible. There are some countries that could probably be classified as socialist right now, at least to a fairly large degree - at the start of the socialist spectrum. I'm just not so sure the other end of the spectrum (or communism) could ever work.
offended by people throwing around "praying" so much without it meaning anything.
In all seriousness, I'm not a religious person, so I can't really speak on this, but I feel like if I was religious I would be a bit offended by people throwing around "praying" so much without it meaning anything.
offended by people throwing around "praying" so much without it meaning anything.
Does anyone else get creeped out by the whole "praying / preying" kind of homonym thing?
In light of the SB shootings.
I'm so sick of this "I'm praying for you" crap. Your praying for me isn't doing a ****ing thing other than showing how thoughtful you are to the world.
Don't worry, I'm sure God has a reason for wanting thousands of Americans killed by mentally unstable people who have ready and easy access to weapons. Praying is actually the best solution to the problem.
or at least, it's the easiest. don't have to do much other than say you're doing it.
and this is california. "easy access" is hardly a thing.
To be honest I'm getting really sick of this Christmas hate ****. I'm not even christian but I celebrate the holiday because let's be honest. At this point it has little to do with Christ. Hell in Japan it has more to do with KFC than baby Jesus. This whole PC thing about having to say happy holidays or be sued is just ridiculous. I didn't look this year, but last year I recall Christmas trees were holiday trees at Target. I mean who cares it's just another day off from work (unless you work retail I guess) to be with your family, or playing fallout 4.
To be honest I'm getting really sick of this Christmas hate ****. I'm not even christian but I celebrate the holiday because let's be honest. At this point it has little to do with Christ. Hell in Japan it has more to do with KFC than baby Jesus. This whole PC thing about having to say happy holidays or be sued is just ridiculous. I didn't look this year, but last year I recall Christmas trees were holiday trees at Target. I mean who cares it's just another day off from work (unless you work retail I guess) to be with your family, or playing fallout 4.
I'm glad that you recognize the irony in the PC of it. Many real believers in Christ point it out, but aren't too bothered by it. The true Church, not a particular denomination, has generally thrived through history when it has been persecuted. It's that resistance that strengthens the true believer, like a muscle. It tends to weed out those who give their faith mere lip service.
To be honest I'm getting really sick of this Christmas hate ****. I'm not even christian but I celebrate the holiday because let's be honest. At this point it has little to do with Christ. Hell in Japan it has more to do with KFC than baby Jesus. This whole PC thing about having to say happy holidays or be sued is just ridiculous. I didn't look this year, but last year I recall Christmas trees were holiday trees at Target. I mean who cares it's just another day off from work (unless you work retail I guess) to be with your family, or playing fallout 4.
A favorite pastime of ours is desperately searching for something to complain about and turning it into a cause.
A favorite pastime of ours is desperately searching for something to complain about and turning it into a cause.
Curious: For those who've grown up with faith (doesn't matter the background) and are now in disbelief of any deity, what made you change your mind?
I'd particularly like to hear from those, if any, who've struggled with the possibility that there is no god but very much would like to believe in one.
...
Given this information, would you agree that your belief structure along with others is hugely influenced by your current location, upbringing, and birthplace? I know that there are probably millions and millions of people from all different religions all over the world who have "proven" to themselves through various means that their particular religion or even their particular branch of religion is the correct one, which as you said is up to them for what they decide is correct in their own life. Also, if this is true, would you entertain the thought that there could be a single common deity that encompasses the Abrahamic religions and that the differences between Catholics, Christians, Muslims, and Jews are small enough that they could enter one common afterlife?
Of course, a person's entire worldview is based primarily on their experience and partially on "common sense", or their chosen thought processes about the evidence they have gathered. It doesn't rule out the possibility of God making Himself known to individuals and revealing the way for them to open dialogue with Him, though. However, it's usually a person that brings this information to light, as I said before, God chooses to use us for His work.
I entertain the thought that there is a single Deity, certainly :) Christianity, Judaism and Catholicism are essentially the same religion, with either an incomplete view (Judaism) or a misfocused one (Catholicism) and there are undoubtedly "saved" people in each group (although Jews who are "saved" would recognise Jesus and the Messiah and are then essentially Christians). Islam is different, since it's based around the writings and acts of a further prophet (Mohammed) who lived around 600 years after Christ and who created a new religion placing himself as a focal point, above the status of Christ. Although it includes biblical books in it's "scripture", it attempts to supercede them with the works of a single man (the Qu'ran). There are many devout practitioners, and it's possible some have taken the right way in approaching God, but usually that will mean He reveals to them the fact of Jesus' deity and most would then call themselves Christians.
Regardless, everyone has their own path to follow, but if they want to enter the Kingdom of God, they need to come to Him "through Christ" (accepting God's path for reconciliation, not their own), they need to acknowledge their need of something more than their own ability and place themselves "on His mercy", recognising both their guilt and inability to remove it from themselves. It's not for us to decide if a person is "saved" or not, that's entirely up to God, and completely personal / individual, but there is only one "way".
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6
Ultimately it's all about if you know and are known by God. Relationship.
While it's important for people to realise their need for "salvation", when people focus on Heaven and Hell as places of pleasure and torment respectively and the need to be "saved" from Hell into Heaven, their focus is shifted from the personal to the legal, from the spirit of the law to the letter, from the purposes of God in the personal sense, to the laws and actions in a practical, impersonal sense. It's also a rather selfish way of looking at things and gives an ulterior motive in wanting to be "saved", so instead of suffering you have pleasure, using fear of suffering as a persuasion to "turn". It shouldn't be about wanting to please ourselves as much as wanting to please God. After all, the reason we need His mercy is that we have displeased Him in the first place. The core message of scripture is this: He created us, loves us and made the ultimate sacrifice for us in order to be able to have a (healthy) relationship with us. The summary Jesus made of the "greatest commandment" is to "love God". In order to do this, we need to know God. God loves you already, has made a way for you to make contact with him and experience His love and mercy, then love Him back.
The reason I say it's a healthy relationship is that those who make contact through the process of "salvation" have both the desire to be in a relationship with Him and the right understanding of who He is, what He's done and where they each fit in the relationship.
Quote....
Using your examples of things later proven by science, so many of them seem to be things that are proven by science than back-checked to the bible.
...
The King James translation was completed in 1611 and states: "canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?". The "waywardness" of Arcturus was discovered in 1718 by Sir Edmond Halley. The "sons" were discovered in 1971. IMHO there is nothing wrong with going "back" to the Bible to see if new scientific discoveries have already been mentioned there. Is there any other way to check for "scientific accuracy" in the Bible? You need things that are clear and testable and I believe this matches the criteria well, along with the Pleiades and Orion references in the previous verse.
The Bible states that there was a beginning. That the universe had a start at some particular event. Before the proposal of the Big Bang, the common scientific belief was that the universe either had a uniform or cyclical history.
And you skipped the expansion of the universe. There are many verses that mention God "stretching out the heavens", here are a few:
Isaiah 42:5
Isaiah 44:24
Isaiah 45:12
Isaiah 48:13
Isaiah 51:13
Jeremiah 10:12
Jeremiah 51:15
Job 9:8
Psalms 104:2
Zechariah 12:1
On the subject of church splits and unsavory leadership but not related to much else, I also have the "privilege" of having a somewhat niche specialty at my job. I work at an accounting firm but I personally deal more with tax preparation, health insurance, and unofficial IT capacities but during tax season I am one of only two people in the office who deals with pastoral tax returns. Pastors have some funky rules in regards to their compensation while also having the housing allowance, which I could certainly rant against for hours but won't for the sake of staying on topic, and therefore you need to know these rules before you can prepare one of their returns properly. In the almost 5 years that I have been doing them, both myself and the other person (a devoted Christian) who prepares returns for clergy members have grown to almost have a disdain for ministers when it comes to taxes.When the tax code gives preference to somebody for fitting into one of the numerous tax breaks available I can't blame them for taking advantage of them. The IRS has set itself up in an adversarial roles against the tax payer and there is a difference between tax avoidance and evasion. Therefore I see nothing legally wrong with trying to minimize your tax liability by inquiring whether certain deductions are allowed. I agree that some of these preferential deductions should be eliminated. We should take away corporate box seats at baseball stadiums and business deductions for recreational boats as well.The tax code is so excessively bloated that any page added to it should require the deletion of 20.
You see, the housing allowance that they receive is an amount of their income that is designated at the beginning of the year to go towards housing which encompasses mortgage payments, property taxes, housing additions, cable TV and/or internet, cleaning supplies, windows, furniture, appliances, and even pools and their maintenance but the great part for them is that it is income tax free, and if you decide to file the nifty IRS form 4361 you receive that compensation self-employment tax free as well! This basically results in anywhere from $10,000 to $45,000, the amounts my personal clients are paid but those amounts have no ceiling established by the IRS, being completely tax free to pay for pretty much anything besides vehicles and food and because of this, these clergy members try and wiggle any expenses that they can into the housing allowance. I never thought I would see the day that pastors of prominent churches of hundreds and even thousands of members would try and slip their car payments or dinners at TGI Fridays under their housing allowance, but this happens with over 60-70% of my pastoral clients. These are people who are teaching their members every Sunday to be honest, to be devout, to give your tithe as God instructed only to turn around and try to abuse a perk specific to their occupation to save a couple hundred bucks in tax on a yearly basis. If this was something that happened once and then stopped I wouldn't care so much or be as salty about it, but seeing the same people come in year after year trying to get away with the same thing while claiming to be men of God I would be lying if I said this didn't lower my opinion of the clergy.
I assume however, that these people are asking you to slip in things that they know don't rightly belong there as deductions thereby breaking the law. If so, I'd be equally disgusted by that behavior although I wonder if I'm guilty of similar offenses that I sometimes justify in my business. I've been known to bend the rules and not always get a required building permit every time I should. For example, a customer needs a garbage disposer replaced. I can change one out for about $100 but if I get a permit I'd have to charge another $200 for the permit fees and extra time pulling the permit and waiting for the inspection. I justify that but it still makes me a code breaker.
How do you deal with people who ask you to violate your professional ethics and falsify their returns? If you refused to "play the game" would your employer get on you for not pleasing the client?
In dealing with the IRS on a regular basis, I think that they get the short end of the stick in representation the same way cops do, especially since their state counterparts are much worse. Cops don't make the laws that they enforce and neither does the IRS, they both are handed the laws and obligated to enforce them so if we are going to call the IRS adversarial then we should do the same to any enforcement division of any city, State, or Federal entity. Most people ask for respect of our police officers and I will admit they are definitely putting themselves more in harms way, but that's because the laws they enforce bring that kind of risk whereas financial enforcement rarely does, so looking down on these public servants for that seems silly.
As my profession is pretty service-oriented, you have to be careful when people try things like this. Usually we correct them and let them know that their deduction is not allowed, if they keep trying we politely remind them again and again that it's not allowed and my clients have never went beyond that, but we have definitely fired a good amount of clients as well for various reasons but constantly trying to cheat the system is definitely one of them. The business I work at has a few offices but we are still a small family-owned business so even though clients are treated very well, the management doesn't tolerate verbal abuse of their employees and thankfully protect us and have no problem with us telling a client to walk, even going as far as encouraging it. Clients will flip on you in a heartbeat if they are getting audited by the IRS or another agency, so we are always reminded that we personally need to be comfortable putting our names on the returns.
You're the second former LDS missionary to comment on this thread and while there are some distinct doctrinal differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity, I've had nothing but good encounters with every one I've had a pleasure to work for, with or just befriended.
I'm curious if you could make any generalizations about people of different faith backgrounds you've interacted with in the field?
You're the second former LDS missionary to comment on this thread and while there are some distinct doctrinal differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity, I've had nothing but good encounters with every one I've had a pleasure to work for, with or just befriended.
I'm curious if you could make any generalizations about people of different faith backgrounds you've interacted with in the field?
That's interesting that the Catholics seemed accepting. I wonder if it has to do with the lower level of training the average Catholic receives. I have found that their belief is based more on acceptance of authority of the Church than rational consideration. This is not a put down. In fact, it was the Catholic Church that traditionally produced more scholarly works in the last few centuries. It just wasn't as widely dispersed to the pews as Protestant doctrines. I think the shift began to occur in the 60's and 70's, when a trend toward Protestant scholarship began taking hold. Now majors in philosophy, apologetics, and comparative world views are quite popular at Protestant colleges and seminaries.
Thanks both of you for the insights into your experience. I did a major remodel for a very nice LDS family and we had a few talks about their missionary experiences. I think the most memorable thing the husband told me was when he asked an Elder if it was worth sending them out because he didn't feel that they were very effective. The Elder responded saying that a main reason they are sent out is to teach them humility. I found that very interesting.
Thanks both of you for the insights into your experience. I did a major remodel for a very nice LDS family and we had a few talks about their missionary experiences. I think the most memorable thing the husband told me was when he asked an Elder if it was worth sending them out because he didn't feel that they were very effective. The Elder responded saying that a main reason they are sent out is to teach them humility. I found that very interesting.
I've heard that the strong and tight communities built within the Mormon Church make it especially difficult to leave. Did your whole family leave?
Words like indoctrination are funny. It means accepting something without question. While it's a word that loaded with all kinds of negative suspicions, it is hard to completely avoid during the learning process. To question every thing we hear at a Cartesian level would drastically slow down the rate of discovery. An appeal to authority, that is, to assume the accuracy of the past canon of information, is a good first, if not final, step. At some point it does become not only appropriate but necessary to scrutinize past assumptions, especially as we mature intellectually. To intentionally avoid reanalyzing our beliefs or positions, is not a lack of faith, rather, it can be a dishonest attempt to avoid confronting our suspicion that we may be wrong.
When I think of having faith, I don't think it requires absolute certainty, only enough certainty to be willing to trust it in your decision making. To quote Peter, "To whom shall we go, you have words of eternal life".
Words like indoctrination are funny. It means accepting something without question. While it's a word that loaded with all kinds of negative suspicions, it is hard to completely avoid during the learning process. To question every thing we hear at a Cartesian level would drastically slow down the rate of discovery. An appeal to authority, that is, to assume the accuracy of the past canon of information, is a good first, if not final, step. At some point it does become not only appropriate but necessary to scrutinize past assumptions, especially as we mature intellectually. To intentionally avoid reanalyzing our beliefs or positions, is not a lack of faith, rather, it can be a dishonest attempt to avoid confronting our suspicion that we may be wrong.
The mission experience is intensely stressful and disorienting, and there's a very real sink or swim aspect to it. I think most missionaries rapidly become broken down and humble and earnestly seek help from God to make it through. Isolated from friends and family and not being allowed to do anything other than missionary work, you end up drinking deeply from the Kool-aid because there's no other way to survive. The alternative is to wash out and go home early to your disappointed family. Thoughtful ideas about epistemology dissolve pretty rapidly under these conditions. Also, the Kool-aid is ****ing fantastic, once you embrace it fully. You feel energized and fearless, guided by the spirit of God, and grateful to be his humble instrument.
Later, after you've been home for a few years and the immediate stress of being a missionary is gone, you become afraid to question orthodoxy because you've invested so much time and effort into it, not to mention your sense of identity and your family relationships. You're afraid that if you follow the rabbit down the hole, you won't be able to stay in the church, and so you ignore the rabbit. Often people are only semi-conscious of this dynamic, and it ends up producing self-deception and cognitive dissonance.
"I am confident in my faith as well as in the bible, so if your information doesn't line up with that I'm not interested in reading any of it." He quickly realized that anything he said would just go in one ear and out of the other ear, so he wrapped it up and moved onto a different topic.
My point of sharing this is that when people have invested years and years of their lives into believing something, religious or not, the consequences of changing even small parts of that belief can seem overwhelming.
I recently was talking to a friend of mine who, along with his wife, have told their very conservative Christian parents that they are atheists. His parents took it way better than I would have imagined, but there is obviously some stress on the relationship between them and even among his other family members like his brothers and sisters. Now, my friend seems to be able to carry on decent conversations about doctrine, the accuracy of the bible, faith, and things like this with his father but his mother had wanted to engage in some of those as well albeit over email. One of the topics his mother had picked to discuss was evolution, and my friend found out in the first response from his mother that she really was not going to be open to anything he might have to say, as she flatly responded to one of his questions with "I am confident in my faith as well as in the bible, so if your information doesn't line up with that I'm not interested in reading any of it." He quickly realized that anything he said would just go in one ear and out of the other ear, so he wrapped it up and moved onto a different topic.
My point of sharing this is that when people have invested years and years of their lives into believing something, religious or not, the consequences of changing even small parts of that belief can seem overwhelming.