a question about religion + belief

[shecky]

i ask this question with the utmost respect, sincerity and genuine curiosity. and i apologize in advance if anything i say sounds derogatory or berating, its really not intended to be so.

i never understood how people can base their lives on an arguably fictitious book and irrational beliefs about supreme beings and so on. I guess the part that i just cannot seem to understand, as an example, is how people say "homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so," and act on these beliefs to the point of denying gays rights of marriage, etc.

i really genuinely thought it was mostly limited to people too stupid to think for themselves who would rather just be led. i now realize that intelligence is irrelevant and an equally moronic assumption on my part; plenty of highly intelligent people live and die by the church/mosque/temple/wiccan hut(?)/whatever

i figure you can believe in anything, ANYTHING you want so long as it hurts no one else. but religious beliefs hurt a LOT of people.

why? really. am i missing something that could be just amazing? am i the one who is misguided here with my lack of beliefs?

[Queso]

It's nothing to do with intelligence, but IMO humanity is so successful because essentially we are lazy creatures. This laziness has its advantages, because it has resulted in us creating advanced societies so it isn't necessary for everybody to know every basic skill. This gives certain amongst us more time to advance their particular speciality for the benefit of all, thereby meaning we no longer need to know another skill etc. etc.

However, the downside of this laziness is that we can in the main be quite gullible creatures. We're genetically programmed to look for the easy path, whether that means driving to the shop rather than walking, or just accepting what we're told rather than thinking through our own answers.

IMO there was once a time for religion, maybe even today there is still a need for the majority, but a lesser one than before. You couldn't expect ancient societies to know about plate tectonics or the mechanisms of a thunderstorm, so attributing them to a god or gods was a valid response. But as the gaps in human knowledge have decreased there is less and less requirement for a deity. Most of the questions can be answered at least partially, and for those that can't you just have to remember that we don't yet know everything. I fully believe that one day the answers to how the universe was created will be answered as other scientific mysteries have been. Religion will from that point on be seen for what it is, an attempt to fill the cracks in what we know with tales of the supernatural.

Some will argue we will still need to know "why?" but for me "How?" pretty much sums up everything we need to ask. As Richard Dawkins asks "When you think about it, is there actually such a thing as a why? question?"

[adrianblaine]

You ask some good questions, which deserve good, detailed answers, however that would take a really long time to get down into the "heart" of the matter, so I will try to give my brief point of view...

I grew up in a Christian household, so I've been exposed to "religion" my entire life. That does not mean I've believed in that religion my entire life. For many years I don't think I would have been able to tell you what I believed.

First off, I think there is a big difference between religion and spirituality. Religion refers to practices and traditions, but doesn't really get into the depth of what spirituality can be. This means that someone can be religious, but not spiritual.

Many people follow a particular belief, but have not studied for themselves why they believe a certain way, and the Bible is often misquoted or references are given out of context. Like I mentioned in another thread:
"The Bible is against sexual immorality, which means sex outside of marriage. The Bible clearly states that the sex was meant to be shared between 2 people and to never leave the confines of those 2 people. Therefore, a heterosexual person with multiple partners is committing the same sin as a homosexual person with multiple partners."

Christians "follow" the example set by Christ, however many have not read what that really means. How often have you heard this text quoted?

Luke 6:37
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

I personally came to the conclusion that I should not let hypocrites get in the way of such good advice. I understand hesitation in accepting things based on faith. I've been there. But when I pray, I feel that I'm listened too. When I look at the complexity of humanity and nature, I can't help but feel it was created and not came about by chance.

Reading the Bible is a big key, even if you aren't a Christian. If more Christians read the Bible, it would be a different place...

[atszyman]

It's all about trying to find some way of coping with the seemingly random events that life likes to throw at you and somehow put meaning to the chaos of the universe.

I have no problem with the overall message of most religions (love and help one another). However, people seem to get hung up on details in the rules that were written thousands of years ago and try to apply them to modern life, even to the point of ignoring the rules in the same passage that they themselves don't follow.

I'm recently finding the discrepancy in the whole "God's plan" and free will. When something bad happens in peoples lives they take comfort that it is all a part of God's plan. However when a bad person does bad things he's exercising free will. This is an impossibility. The drunk drivers who killed my cousin and dad, were they exercising free will? or doing God's work? If it was their free will to go drinking and driving then those deaths weren't part of God's plan, if the deaths were part of the plan, the driver's weren't exercising free will, which is it?

Most religions try to sell the personal relationship with God and that God loves us all individually, and that He has a plan for us as individuals. If the plan is by individual then we don't have free will and if someone kills me they were executing God's plan, not exercising free will.

If the plan is bigger than the individual and guided loosely that means most deaths are not a part of the "master plan" and the random chaotic nature of humankind and the universe is still dictating 99% of my life and praying/not praying offers me no protections against the dangers in life.

Most people simply use their faith as somewhere to draw strength from. They do good works and don't try to convert everyone who does not share their faith. However the vocal minority have given religion a bad name by using it as a foundation to justify their dislike of certain people/groups. This vocal minority is managing to give most religions a bad name in the eyes of non-believers. What those who have issues with religion need to realize is that this vocal minority represents religious people about as well as KKK members represent all caucasians.

[adrianblaine]

I'm recently finding the discrepancy in the whole "God's plan" and free will. When something bad happens in peoples lives they take comfort that it is all a part of God's plan. However when a bad person does bad things he's exercising free will. This is an impossibility. The drunk drivers who killed my cousin and dad, were they exercising free will? or doing God's work?

I was confused about this for a long time as well. I think the idea of "God's plan" is a little more broad than being a specific action/reaction series of events. God's "plan" is to "save" as many of us as possible while we exercise our free will.

I'm not here to preach or debate theology. I believe that should only be done by those who believe in relatively the same thing, I'm only sharing my point of view.

[atszyman]

I was confused about this for a long time as well. I think the idea of "God's plan" is a little more broad than being a specific action/reaction series of events. God's "plan" is to "save" as many of us as possible while we exercise our free will.

I'm not here to preach or debate theology. I believe that should only be done by those who believe in relatively the same thing, I'm only sharing my point of view.

I can accept the idea that the "plan" is bigger than the individual (much like a military campaign) but that also means that using God's "plan" as a comforting thought in times of sorrow or stress is erroneous, as comforting as that thought may be.

[adrianblaine]

I can accept the idea that the "plan" is bigger than the individual (much like a military campaign) but that also means that using God's "plan" as a comforting thought in times of sorrow or stress is erroneous, as comforting as that thought may be.

I don't know if I would call it erroneous, but comfort should be a deeper feeling than "it's all ok, I'm taken care of." Comfort is a complicated feeling, and can almost create selfishness and complacency if someone is too comfortable.

[Macky-Mac]

.....i never understood how people can base their lives on an arguably fictitious book and irrational beliefs about supreme beings and so on.......

obviously because they DON'T believe that their religious texts and beliefs are "arguably fictious and irrational beliefs...." Perhaps identifying other peoples beliefs in such a manner says more about your own prejudices than anything else?

[SMM]

Some individuals go through life, thoughtful of the world around them. They may not blindly accept anything which requires it being just 'taken on faith'. These people may be religious, but it is usually a personal spirituality they feel.

Other people have little interest in contemplating things beyond their immediate sphere. They find a comfort zone and defend it. These people are easily led by those 'with the answers'. They are subject to 'group think'. Many will set aside the moral teachings of Jesus (as written and taught in Sunday school), for whatever their shaman tells them to think, or how to behave. Watch some of these televangelists sometime (as close as I would get to one). They are preaching love, but their body language is obviously saying the exact opposite. Anyway, that is why you can have a moral based religion engaged in hate.

[invasian]

Your question is a bit too broad in terms of religion. Each religion is going to give you slight variation. And I would say that if you were truly interested in an answer, perhaps you should direct your question to a group more focused on religion, rather than a Mac/tech based site.

A complete answer to your question is almost impossible because it is too broad. It would be easier and more manageable to take one aspect of religion that you don't understand and then go on from there. Discussions will branch out, raising more questions, at which point, a separate thread can then be devoted to that particular question. But like I said, Macrumors is not a place to do that.

You ask this question to satisfy your curiosity, but I believe you won't really find what you're really looking for.

I will give you my opinion on the matter, nonetheless. I'm a practicing Catholic and try to be devout. I believe that God revealed himself to us in the form of Jesus Christ and showed us the way to heaven through the Bible and Church. Why do I believe? The answer is a simple one for me. I want to be in heaven and in all the research that I have done, I believe being Catholic gives me the best chance at it. At some point though, you have to take a leap to believe, and that is why it is called faith. Do some of the teachings of the Church seem to be harmful, etc. to society as you put it? I can understand some of the arguments put forth by secular society, but many also fail to properly understand what the actual teachings say (and instead, only believe what they think it says) and why it is taught.

There is just so much more to say, but I'll end there. I'll reiterate, that if you really want answers from a religious perspective, there are more appropriate forums for this, although it's not a bad idea to get different viewpoints (ie., here) as well.

Good luck in your search.

[mduser63]

Some individuals go through life, thoughtful of the world around them. They may not blindly accept anything which requires it being just 'taken on faith'. These people may be religious, but it is usually a personal spirituality they feel.

Other people have little interest in contemplating things beyond their immediate sphere. They find a comfort zone and defend it. These people are easily led by those 'with the answers'. They are subject to 'group think'. Many will set aside the moral teachings of Jesus (as written and taught in Sunday school), for whatever their shaman tells them to think, or how to behave. Watch some of these televangelists sometime (as close as I would get to one). They are preaching love, but their body language is obviously saying the exact opposite. Anyway, that is why you can have a moral based religion engaged in hate.

I think this is right on. I'm a religious person, but I am definitely not someone who blindly accepts things or takes things solely on faith. That said, there are many people I know who share my religion but make a radically different (and I think wrong) interpretation of it in they way they live their lives and treat others. My own religious beliefs are precisely what lead me to believe that I should be tolerant and understanding of others beliefs and behavior. I may not agree with their beliefs or behavior from a religious/moral point of view, but it would be very wrong for me to force my view on them. I'm responsible for myself, no one else.

[Macaddicttt]

I thought this would be an interesting topic to reply to, and I hope I can add another angle to an answer to this question.

For me, religion is a lot about finding what is right. I think most people can agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Murder is bad. Saving a life is good. Etc. But how do you know what is right and what is wrong?

Religion fills that role. It helps you find what is right and what is wrong. A lot of people use this to bad ends, but it can help tell you what is right.

A lot of people would throw out religion in favor of some sort of moral relativism, but I think it's equally plausible that there is an absolute right and wrong. If there was no such thing as an absolute right and wrong, than society could never change, it's morals would never change. In moral relativism, a society's morals are relative to that society, and so as long as that society exists, it's morals are by default right. This is silly in my opinion. A good example is slavery. There must have been some sort of absolute to appeal to in argument against slavery, otherwise, there would be no reason to deem it immoral when it had been accepted by society for so long. Also, without any universal ideals, documents such as the Declaration of Independence are meaningless because they appeal to such absolutes as freedom and equality that are dependent on some sort of higher power, whether it be a god or otherwise.

And you can say, "Do whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone," but that is too vague a statement for me. A very good example of this is the abortion debate. Here we don't have a consensus over what is "anyone." If your moral philosophy is to not hurt or harm anyone else, you don't know whether a fetus is "anyone else." There's a gap here that can't really be filled by such a philosophy.

So religion is an attempt to find out what the absolute is and to live our lives according to that absolute. And that absolute is greater than anything on Earth, greater than any individual, greater than any society, that could possibly set morals.

(I hope this is clear, but it's a terribly difficult thing to explain in a forum...)

[Aranince]

I'm recently finding the discrepancy in the whole "God's plan" and free will. When something bad happens in peoples lives they take comfort that it is all a part of God's plan. However when a bad person does bad things he's exercising free will. This is an impossibility. The drunk drivers who killed my cousin and dad, were they exercising free will? or doing God's work? If it was their free will to go drinking and driving then those deaths weren't part of God's plan, if the deaths were part of the plan, the driver's weren't exercising free will, which is it?


Thats because you misquoted what the Bible says.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to [His] purpose.

God did give us free will, we are either for Him or against Him. You can't explain God giving us free will and Him knowing the future because He is God. He is beyond anything we can fathom and more.

[solvs]

Your problem is thinking "God" has to come from some book.

[Shotglass]

The argument that Christians blindly believe what other people tell them and are therefore stupid is not really foolproof. I know loads of atheists that try to convince me by citing 'various studies' and 'scientific evidence' that they haven't even looked at themselves. They can't even prove their existence. Loads of people, religion or no religion, believe what people tell them without questioning it, simply because they grew up around this stuff. For example, if I told you the earth was a cube, you would tell me it wasn't without ever having looked at it from space or just without being totally sure that you weren't tricked into believing it is a globe. You just do it because for all your life, it was a fact that the earth is a globe.
I don't really like to look at religion as a means of finding comfort. Of course people find comfort in religion, but for me, that is a minor side effect. I don't believe in God because some people say he exists. I believe in God because I see and experience too many 'coincidences' every day. Little things. Personal things. Random stuff that just happens and when it's done, I know exactly why it happen and I'm certain that someone who knows me very well is responsible for that. It's like when a friend makes a joke about something the two of you were talking about the other day in front of a group of people and you're the only one who's laughing because you're the only one to understand.
A big problem with organized religion is that so many wicked people who do wicked things call themselves devout Christians. I mean sure, people are evil (free will and whatnot), and they do evil stuff, but for crying out loud, don't do it in public and then say the bible says it's right. That's just ruining the whole religion. By the way, the media isn't helping here, either.
Prejudice is also a big factor when you talk to atheists. There's so much misinterpreted scripture around, and then there's those wonderful examples of Christians like that pastor in the other thread, and so on and so forth. Basically, you probably can't convince other people because they think they've seen it all. Like with PC users who hate Macs because they tried them one time and couldn't find the task bar.
I could go on for a while about this topic, but I don't want to bore you. Tell me what you think about what I said, I'd like to know.

[Queso]

Basically, you probably can't convince other people because they think they've seen it all. Like with PC users who hate Macs because they tried them one time and couldn't find the task bar.
I could go on for a while about this topic, but I don't want to bore you. Tell me what you think about what I said, I'd like to know.
I think the Mac/Windows parallel is quite an interesting point. However, the way I see it having a particular religion is the default choice due to our upbringings, just as Windows is the default choice for computers because it's what we're told. It's only when you look beyond the default that other choices become available.

But just as in computers it isn't simply a case of the default Windows and one alternative (the Mac), it's the same in the way you view the world. There are a broad spread of possibilities in philosophy, atheism being just one. It's just takes a bit of thinking for yourself, even if you do end up deciding the default is the best for you anyway.

The point you make about the corruption of religion by the prejudiced is also a strong one, although personally that isn't the sole reason that I have rejected the concept of a deity. Using your own example, if the Earth were a cube there would be verifiable evidence for that to be the case. Having flown high enough to see the curvature of the surface, my own eyes tell me that some form of sphere is far more likely.

And that what it comes down to. Atheists accept some of what we're told providing there is evidence to back up the claim. I won't dispute there are some studies that are based on bad data, but against the massive void of any scientific proof for the existence of God (or any other gods) I'll take the option that appears to be likely until proven otherwise.

However, I'm glad your religion makes you happy. That after all is the most important thing.

[Shotglass]

I think the Mac/Windows parallel is quite an interesting point. However, the way I see it having a particular religion is the default choice due to our upbringings, just as Windows is the default choice for computers because it's what we're told.True, and one of the reasons why religion is so easily abused. I wouldn't generalize that, though. Despite having grown up in a Christian household, I needed some time to believe myself, and my parents weren't involved in any of this. Both of them are converts and had atheist parents, by the way.
[/quote]
There are a broad spread of possibilities in philosophy, atheism being just one. It's just takes a bit of thinking for yourself [...][/quote]And religion doesn't? The 'for yourself' part sounds like a hint to religion being used as a tool of manipulation.

The point you make about the corruption of religion by the prejudiced is also a strong one, although personally that isn't the sole reason that I have rejected the concept of a deity. Using your own example, if the Earth were a cube there would be verifiable evidence for that to be the case. Having flown high enough to see the curvature of the surface, my own eyes tell me that some form of sphere is far more likely.Then that's what seperates you from loads of other atheists. At least in this metaphor.

And that what it comes down to. Atheists accept some of what we're told providing there is evidence to back up the claim. True, but evidence can be a bit shaky if you haven't actually looked at it. Kinda frustrating to talk to atheists who actually have no idea what they're talking about.

However, I'm glad your religion makes you happy. That after all is the most important thing.Well, sure, but I'm not religious to be happy. I'm religious because I firmly believe it's the right way. Happyness is just a side-effect (not a very minor one though).

[Sdashiki]

The answer is a simple one for me. I want to be in heaven and in all the research that I have done, I believe being Catholic gives me the best chance at it.

Reading and just had to quote this in case someone missed it.

Let me ask people who think like this above:

If God is on our side, who's on theirs?

You sound like the coward guy from The Mummy, who, when confronted by the possibility of death, prays to every religion he can think of and pulls out ever artifact from his neck to prove his devotion. Just in case he finds solace in the wrong one before he dies.

Best chance? Are you serious? Like Heaven is a gate with only a Catholic key.

Wow, just wow.

[kainjow]

The point you make about the corruption of religion by the prejudiced is also a strong one, although personally that isn't the sole reason that I have rejected the concept of a deity.

I'd be curious to know then, what are the other reasons for your rejecting the concept of a deity?

[Swarmlord]

<snip>am i missing something that could be just amazing? am i the one who is misguided here with my lack of beliefs?

Yes.

[Queso]

I'd be curious to know then, what are the other reasons for your rejecting the concept of a deity?
It's a combination of things really. There doesn't appear to be a need for a deity once knowledge can explain how things work; Prayers don't gain results above and beyond natural statistical outcomes; The complete lack of evidence for God contrasted with both actual and empirical evidence backing scientific alternatives; The propensity of the human mind to mistranslate sensory input. All pieces that taken together lead me to conclude that the entire idea is created by humans and perpetuated by fear of our own deaths and as a method of organising society.

On a side note whilst I'm thinking about that, this eternal life thing sounds absolutely horrible. Think about what that means for a minute. No thanks!

[shecky]

Yes.

care to enlighten me?

[adrianblaine]

On a side note whilst I'm thinking about that, this eternal life thing sounds absolutely horrible. Think about what that means for a minute. No thanks!

This reminds me of something I've been thinking about these last few weeks. The idea of eternity and worshiping any sort of god does not appeal to a lot of people and will continue to think that way even if it turned out to be true.

Just to point out, Christ performed probably hundreds of miracles in front of countless people, but even some of those who witnessed first hand still didn't believe.

[jczubach]

I am "the reluctant atheist"(I just like the sound of that). No not an agnostic. Religion is what it is, to each and everyone of us. I fear those who use it as a shield/weapon for their prejudices. Too many in power doing just that. In the same breath i cannot begrudge those who take some genuine solace and insight from it. I go to a United church occasionally, which happens to be pastored by a wickedly funny and intelligent man who also happens to be openly gay, and the congregation has not a problem with it. I go with a friend who is a believer, and we often use the sermons as a springboard for after-church brunch(beer included) discussions. Still, i am an atheist. The real reason i attend, tho' not religiously, is that the experience somehow manages to reset my 'hard drive', as it where. Bigger perspective, re-evaluation of priorities, community, friendship, fellowship, compassion, belonging (even if i don't really think that i belong in this place specifically) and perhaps most importantly, gratitude. (sorry to get Oprah on you) Believer or not, this Life we live, in an otherwise uncaring universe, is precious, and as far as i can tell, most who practice this religion thing, are celebrating that fact and all that they cherish. For the profiteers and maimers, 'A Pox on the Lot of them'. My grade 12 english thesis was on the (un)necessity of religion, and that was some 1/4 century ago. So i've spent a bit of time with the subject. Heck, i quit believing in God before i quit believing in Santa Claus. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Religion is an expression of a value system that is millennia in the making. Those who would corrupt it, subvert it or rationalize with it, are not a justification for completely disregarding it. and i say this without sarcasm, Godspeed and good luck!

[Swarmlord]

care to enlighten me?

Yes, you are missing something about the origin of faith that has transcended thousands of years if you believe that it's based only on the book you called fictitious.

[shecky]

Yes, you are missing something about the origin of faith that has transcended thousands of years if you believe that it's based only on the book you called fictitious.

which is what? and where exactly did i say i belived it was based only on a book?

[leekohler]

Yes, you are missing something about the origin of faith that has transcended thousands of years if you believe that it's based only on the book you called fictitious.

You call that enlightening? Glad you're not a priest. ;)

[skunk]

You do not need religion, god's word, prescribed faith or dogma to formulate a set of ethics. The Stoics, Socrates, Zeno, Diogenes and Parmenides all arrived at a pretty enlightened humanitarian stance without needing the crutch of deity.

[adrianblaine]

You do not need religion, god's word, prescribed faith or dogma to formulate a set of ethics. The Stoics, Socrates, Zeno, Diogenes and Parmenides all arrived at a pretty enlightened humanitarian stance without needing the crutch of deity.

It is almost for these reasons that I believe there is a God, not because of a book. Evolving from single cell organisms does not even come close to explaining why we are such "moral" beings. We instinctively know what is wrong and what is right (at least most of the time) and the fact that multiple people over the course of history have come to almost the same (moral) conclusion says to me that there is something more than just the survival of the fittest.

[Queso]

It is almost for these reasons that I believe there is a God, not because of a book. Evolving from single cell organisms does not even come close to explaining why we are such "moral" beings. We instinctively know what is wrong and what is right (at least most of the time) and the fact that multiple people over the course of history have come to almost the same (moral) conclusion says to me that there is something more than just the survival of the fittest.
If the first conscious and intelligent homonids lacked ethics they would have been accidentally hurting and killing one another all the time. Eventually one of them must have developed an ethics mutation and their offspring, by reason of mutual support, were able to become dominant over the previous proto-human. It's a genetic advantage to know right from wrong because it creates a better and more stable environment in which to raise young.

Shame the gene doesn't yet appear to be universal across the species, but there you go.

[srf4real]

Why is homosexuality wrong? I dunno... if everybody was gay then none of us would even be here. I don't believe that it's any more wrong than lying to your parents or anything else, but in my mind it's just not what God intended for us. If you don't be4lieve in God yet then I couldn't think of a thing wrong with it... let your conscience be your guide. Please don't misconstrue my opinion as judgment against anyone who is gay, I have done far worse in my own life than to have sex with another male. Oops, I've sort of done that, too, as a boy. (Def not gay or bi, tho.) I believe there are people born with that persuasion and I also know that others are born with a propensity to have difficulty with alcohol and drugs, or commit violence... children inherit the sins of their fathers - that doesn't make it any less counter-productive or selfish. Jesus heals the sick, and that is why I believe. I have been saved from myself and my old nature which was self-destructive and lost. I did not do this, God did this. My question is contrary: why would anyone turn down a loving God who forgives and heals, with the promise of eternal life in paradise for all who believe in Christ?

Just my view, not looking to argue.:cool:

[Queso]

Why is homosexuality wrong? I dunno... if everybody was gay then none of us would even be here.
Go on then, I'll bite. Is this a deliberate attempt to hijack the thread or are you trying to make a valid point? :confused:

[adrianblaine]

The OP does mention it...

I guess the part that i just cannot seem to understand, as an example, is how people say "homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so," and act on these beliefs to the point of denying gays rights of marriage, etc.

[skunk]

Why is homosexuality wrong? I dunnoYou don't have to add anything to this. Everybody isn't gay, lots of other species share such an orientation. What has "wrong" got to do with it? It is not a moral question, it's just how some individuals are.
Please don't misconstrue my opinion as judgment against anyone who is gay, I have done far worse in my own life than to have sex with another male. Oops, I've sort of done that, too, as a boy. (Def not gay or bi, tho.)Def not a credible disclaimer, and def a meaningless and arbitrary judgment.
I believe there are people born with that persuasion and I also know that others are born with a propensity to have difficulty with alcohol and drugs, or commit violence... children inherit the sins of their fathers - that doesn't make it any less counter-productive or selfish.Why do you equate it with alcoholism, drugs and violence if you are not making a judgment against homosexuality? In what way is homosexuality counter-productive or selfish?
My question is contrary: why would anyone turn down a loving God who forgives and heals, with the promise of eternal life in paradise for all who believe in Christ?Why would anybody believe such nonsense?

[Queso]

The OP does mention it...
OK. In that case srf4real, I apologise for my previous post. However, this oft-repeated extrapolation of "if everyone was gay" is playground logic IMO. Those that are gay will never be more than a minority, as we have been throughout history. It's also a very good example of what turns some off religion for you to equate love between two people of the same sex with violence or drug addiction. Love is never destructive.

[dswoodley]

Why would anybody believe such nonsense?

You'll have to ask the 2.1 billion Christians workd wide. I suggest you get cracking...

[Swarmlord]

which is what? and where exactly did i say i belived it was based only on a book?

It would be easier for you to explain why in light of thousands of books written on theology that you start your post stating as fact that The Book is fictitious.

Your post asks a question about belief and I stated that belief for believers doesn't revolve singularly around The Book itself.

[imac/cheese]

It would be easier for you to explain why in light of thousands of books written on theology that you start your post stating as fact that The Book is fictitious.

He didn't state as fact that The Book is fictitious. He said:

i never understood how people can base their lives on an arguably fictitious book

The key word is arguably. And I think everyone can agree that there is a lot of argument over whether or not the Bible is true.

[srf4real]

It's also a very good example of what turns some off religion for you to equate love between two people of the same sex with violence or drug addiction. Love is never destructive.Love between two people of the same sex is beautiful - I wish more 'straight' people could get the hang of that...

[Swarmlord]

He didn't state as fact that The Book is fictitious. He said:



The key word is arguably. And I think everyone can agree that there is a lot of argument over whether or not the Bible is true.

See, now I would say that there is a lot of argument whether passages in the book should be taken literally or figuratively, but that's just me.

[Swarmlord]

Love between two people of the same sex is beautiful - I wish more 'straight' people could get the hang of that...

That's the most creative attempt at putting frosting on sodomy that I've ever read. The day I find sodomy "beautiful" is the day I smear cow pats on my walls and call it art.

[leekohler]

That's the most creative attempt at putting frosting on sodomy that I've ever read. The day I find sodomy "beautiful" is the day I smear cow pats on my walls and call it art.

You guys sure have been on a frenzy about us the last few days. That was so ugly it was almost eloquent. Unbelievable again- even for you. You have a way with sinking to new lows I never thought possible in one human being.

And srf4real- I'm really confused by your position. I really don't get it at all. First it's counter-productive and selfish, then it's beautiful? can you help a guy out here?

[kainjow]

And srf4real- I'm really confused by your position. I really don't get it at all. First it's counter-productive and selfish, then it's beautiful? can you help a guy out here?

Hehe I agree. I read his second post and got very confused. It's as if he has multiple personalities.

[leekohler]

Hehe I agree. I read his second post and got very confused. It's as if he has multiple personalities.

Well, who knows? It did have my head spinning though. :)

[Ugg]

That's the most creative attempt at putting frosting on sodomy that I've ever read. The day I find sodomy "beautiful" is the day I smear cow pats on my walls and call it art.

Hmmm, down in your neck of the woods any attempt at procreation if the man isn't on top seems to get people put in jail. Perhaps you've chosen your own personal definition of sodomy as only anal sex between males? Unless I'm mistaken, the bible is pretty clear that any variation from the standard missionary position will land you in hell.

Do you have your seat assignment yet?

[skunk]

That's the most creative attempt at putting frosting on sodomy that I've ever read. The day I find sodomy "beautiful" is the day I smear cow pats on my walls and call it art.Don't worry, you're probably just scared you might be one, you know, underneath.

If you have any children, I hope they never have any doubts.

[Queso]

That's the most creative attempt at putting frosting on sodomy that I've ever read. The day I find sodomy "beautiful" is the day I smear cow pats on my walls and call it art.
So love is only ever about sex as far as you're concerned? No wonder you're always so bitter about everything.

Thanks for the insight into how your mind works though ;)

[solvs]

Love between two people of the same sex is beautiful - I wish more 'straight' people could get the hang of that...
Most of the gay people I know have better relationships than I have. Which makes me jealous. :( But I have horrible taste in women, so it's pretty much my problem. If I was gay, I'm sure I'd have bad taste in men too. :o

That's the most creative attempt at putting frosting on sodomy that I've ever read.
Then you're obviously doing it wrong.

The day I find sodomy "beautiful" is the day I smear cow pats on my walls and call it art.
You really think it's only about sex? And sodomy at that? What about those who don't do that? Or, ahem, those of us who are straight who have? :eek: You don't have to like it, but you aren't doing it, so it's none of your business what people do in their bedrooms. I'm sure you wouldn't want us to be in yours. :rolleyes:

I hope this post of yours doesn't get deleted, because I want people to see yet again what you're really like.

You have a way with sinking to new lows I never thought possible in one human being.
I'm sure it's only going to get worse.

And srf4real- I'm really confused by your position. I really don't get it at all. First it's counter-productive and selfish, then it's beautiful? can you help a guy out here?
Too many gay people = less procreation. Which is actually a good thing since we're overpopulating, but apparently some people don't see it that way. Plus, straight people think gay sex is icky. Don't know why, we just do. Unless it's 2 girls. For some reason, we're ok with that. Love of any kind is beautiful though. Er, when it's between 2 consensual adult humans of course (just in case someone wants to pervert what I meant).

I think I got that right.

Don't worry, you're probably just scared you might be one, you know, underneath.
That would explain a lot.

Probably not true, but that is the new thing we were going to do if anyone doth protest too much.

[Swarmlord]

Hmmm, down in your neck of the woods any attempt at procreation if the man isn't on top seems to get people put in jail. Perhaps you've chosen your own personal definition of sodomy as only anal sex between males? Unless I'm mistaken, the bible is pretty clear that any variation from the standard missionary position will land you in hell.

Do you have your seat assignment yet?

Nope. All sex between males qualifies.

When did I ever write that I deviated from Biblical teachings when it comes to my own life? I may be on the bus to hell with the rest of you, but it won't be for that.

[Swarmlord]

So love is only ever about sex as far as you're concerned? No wonder you're always so bitter about everything.

Thanks for the insight into how your mind works though ;)

No, I've always assumed that gay people get together and just hold hands. :rolleyes:

[Queso]

No, I've always assumed that gay people get together and just hold hands. :rolleyes:
You're projecting again. Maybe love and lust are the same thing to you, but for the rest of us they're actually different emotions.

Anyway, now that I've just wasted 30 seconds on this post it's best I get back to my 24/7 life of sex sex sex :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

No, I've always assumed that gay people get together and just hold hands. :rolleyes:

Wow- keep going buddy! You're getting really close to winning that Guinness Book World Record for Most Judgmental Person Alive.

[ghall]

I consider myself agnostic. At the same time, I find that religion can lead to ignorance. Because I define my own beliefs, I can be more accepting of others that may not be accepted under a religion. While I think homosexuality is a little weird, I have no problem with it, just don't get me involved.

My uncle is very religious, and last time we talked, he told me I should have gone to Sunday School so I can learn morals and values. I tried to be polite about it, because I respect peoples differences. Though I did not appreciate the fact he was suggesting I would be a better person if I practiced religion. (he also indirectly called me a tree-hugging liberal, but that's another story)

Religion in it's current form is antiquated. I think most religions are not open to new ideas, though there are a few exceptions (someone mentioned something about a gay priest earlier in this thread). It's scary that people will blindly follow a book, based on unverifiable information. In today's world, we need to let people follow their own beliefs. Organized religion is pointless and bloody, and it's corrupt, it always has been. I know there are good religious figures out there, but most are just sleazy, power-hungry lunatics, and use religion to spread their influence. People should define their own beliefs, and be accepting of others, but religion makes that much harder than it needs to be.

Someone once asked me if I believed in the bible, I told them that I believed that the bible exists. :)

Well, that's my rant for today. Flame away.

[skunk]

When did I ever write that I deviated from Biblical teachings when it comes to my own life? I may be on the bus to hell with the rest of you, but it won't be for that.God may be an old queen, in which case you're well buggered, if you'll pardon the expression.

[aquajet]

No, I've always assumed that gay people get together and just hold hands. :rolleyes:

You know, when my former boyfriend and I were together, we'd do exactly that. Cuddle up on the couch. Watch a movie. Go out. Take walks. Cook breakfast for each other. Talk about our days. Discuss current events and things we find interesting. And yes, do something extra every now and again.

Sorry if that doesn't sound weird enough to you, but not all of us gay people find anonymous sex in airport bathrooms to be a good time.

[arkitect]

You know, when my former boyfriend and I were together, we'd do exactly that. Cuddle up on the couch. Watch a movie. Go out. Take walks. Cook breakfast for each other. Talk about our days. Discuss current events and things we find interesting. And yes, do something extra every now and again.


And don't forget doing the dishes, vacuuming… changing the cats' litter tray… ah, yes, and paying bills and taxes… :D

[dswoodley]

Why do all of these threads on religion have to devolve into criticisms of the gay lifestyle? It makes it seems as if it's a core litmus test for being religious. "So you're religious? Then you have to be anti-gay!" I've been religious most of my life and seldom given a thought to others' sexuality. It's a personal choice that cannot possibly harm anyone who doesn't want to be a part of it.

[skunk]

And don't forget doing the dishes, vacuuming… changing the cats' litter tray… ah, yes, and paying bills and taxes… :DWhat did you think "something extra" was referring to? :confused:

[arkitect]

What did you think "something extra" was referring to? :confused:

Well at my age "something extra" really does amount to that! ;)

[leekohler]

Why do all of these threads on religion have to devolve into criticisms of the gay lifestyle? It makes it seems as if it's a core litmus test for being religious. "So you're religious? Then you have to be anti-gay!" I've been religious most of my life and seldom given a thought to others' sexuality. It's a personal choice that cannot possibly harm anyone who doesn't want to be a part of it.

Once "religious" people stop obsessing over being fascinated by what they seem to think we do, and how they want to deny us rights because of what they seem to think we do, the conversation will most likely take a different turn. It's really up to "religious" people, isn't it? And as long as people like you continue to let others pervert your religion and hijack it for their own political purposes, you will continue to see these types of conversations. If you're tired of hearing about it, how do you think we feel?

We can argue over your use of the words "choice" and "lifestyle" some other time.

[imac/cheese]

Religion in it's current form is antiquated. I think most religions are not open to new ideas, though there are a few exceptions (someone mentioned something about a gay priest earlier in this thread). It's scary that people will blindly follow a book, based on unverifiable information. In today's world, we need to let people follow their own beliefs. Organized religion is pointless and bloody, and it's corrupt, it always has been. I know there are good religious figures out there, but most are just sleazy, power-hungry lunatics, and use religion to spread their influence. People should define their own beliefs, and be accepting of others, but religion makes that much harder than it needs to be.

You state that it is scary that religious people blindly follow a book yet you state in the very next sentence we need to let people follow their own beliefs. Most of the people in my church believe that the Bible is the Word of God. They are not blindly following the Book, they are studying it, reading it, testing it, applying it, and trying to live what it says. My church, which is part of what you call organized religion, is not pointless at all. The people their help teach others who want to know more about the Word of God. They encourage and support each other. They provide numerous public services. They help those who are less fortunate. It is a learning center for those wishing to learn more about God and and focal point for those who wish to dedicte their lives to serving God. My church is a place that is filled with debate, discussion, and analysis. People there are not blindly following anything. My church is not bloody nor is it corrupt. I do not know a single person in my church (or from any church in my town) that would be considered "sleazy, power-hungry lunatics, and use religion to spread their influence." For you to state that most religious figures are that way is completely false. That opinion is as negatively stereotypical as the stereotype of of homosexuals that have anonymous airport bathroom escipades.

[Queso]

Why do all of these threads on religion have to devolve into criticisms of the gay lifestyle? It makes it seems as if it's a core litmus test for being religious. "So you're religious? Then you have to be anti-gay!" I've been religious most of my life and seldom given a thought to others' sexuality. It's a personal choice that cannot possibly harm anyone who doesn't want to be a part of it.
It was mentioned in the original post on this one, but you have a point. It's like a Godwin's Law when discussing religion. The longer the thread goes on, the more likely it'll derail into derogatory comments about man-on-man action (because that's all we do blah blah blah....).

Though strangely, it never seems to derail into a discussion of woman-on-woman. I suppose it's because words such as sodomy can't be thrown in at random when discussing the ladies.

(BTW, it's not a lifestyle nor a choice ;))

[arkitect]

I suppose it's because words such as sodomy can't be thrown in at random when discussing the ladies.


Oh, I think you'd be surprised! ;)

[aquajet]

It's a personal choice that cannot possibly harm anyone who doesn't want to be a part of it.

Well, I have to ask because I suspect there are subtleties in your post which haven't been addressed:

I assume you mean a homosexual doesn't choose to be attracted to the same sex, but only chooses to act by seeking companionship, partnership, sex, etc., much like a straight person. If this is true, are you suggesting there are inherent dangers to those who choose to be involved in the "gay lifestyle"? And as long as we're discussing it, what exactly is the "gay lifestyle"?

[dswoodley]

Well, I have to ask because I suspect there are subtleties in your post which haven't been addressed:

I assume you mean a homosexual doesn't choose to be attracted to the same sex, but only chooses to act by seeking companionship, partnership, sex, etc., much like a straight person. If this is true, are you suggesting there are inherent dangers to those who choose to be involved in the "gay lifestyle"? And as long as we're discussing it, what exactly is the "gay lifestyle"?

I think any relationship comes with risks (emotional), but I apologize if it seemed I was implying those involved in a same-sex relationship have a likelhihood of being harmed.

Whether you are gay or straight, you can make a choice or not make a choice to enter a lifestyle characterized by companionship. Nothing or nobody forces you to enter a relationship. That's a choice.

[dswoodley]

Once "religious" people stop obsessing over being fascinated by what they seem to think we do, and how they want to deny us rights because of what they seem to think we do, the conversation will most likely take a different turn.

Agree, but by generalizing as to what "religious" people are obsessed with doesn't help.

It's really up to "religious" people, isn't it?

Perhaps in an ideal world of total tolerance and acceptance that would be the case. But that world doesn't exist. As long as one group of people feel they are being persecuted, denied, or maligned that group will have to be vocal in their desire to be accepted.

And as long as people like you continue to let others pervert your religion and hijack it for their own political purposes, you will continue to see these types of conversations.

I don't own my religion; neither in school of belief nor in organization. I don't let people do anything with it because it's not mine to let them do anything with. Like any social group opinions vary and there can be many disagreements. Those people who have the will to effect change, will usually succeed in the end. I'm one voice and try to be heard. But I also many other things I want to be heard on. What more do you want me to do? Force "my" religion at gunpoint to be more tolerant? People have to make the journey in a very personal way. And it make take a bit of time.

[leekohler]

Agree, but by generalizing as to what "religious" people are obsessed with doesn't help.



Perhaps in an ideal world of total tolerance and acceptance that would be the case. But that world doesn't exist. As long as one group of people feel they are being persecuted, denied, or maligned that group will have to be vocal in their desire to be accepted.



I don't own my religion; neither in school of belief nor in organization. I don't let people do anything with it because it's not mine to let them do anything with. Like any social group opinions vary and there can be many disagreements. Those people who have the will to effect change, will usually succeed in the end. I'm one voice and try to be heard. But I also many other things I want to be heard on. What more do you want me to do? Force "my" religion at gunpoint to be more tolerant? People have to make the journey in a very personal way. And it make take a bit of time.

You are right of course. But the reason I use the term "religious" in quotes is that I don't think people like that believe in their respective religions at all. They use it as a means to gain power and control. Case in point- George Bush. I don't think for one second that man really believes or follows one word of the Bible. His actions speak for him. But the guy says God "told him to" and half the country jumps. I do think it's our duty to stop that kind of abuse of religion.

[dswoodley]

Case in point- George Bush. I don't think for one second that man really believes or follows one word of the Bible. His actions speak for him. But the guy says God "told him to" and half the country jumps. I do think it's our duty to stop that kind of abuse of religion.

Yeah, I agree no one should have that kind of influence, proclaim moral imperatives - also my biggest issue with the Catholic Church. I could never accept the doctrine of papal infallibility.

[ghall]

You state that it is scary that religious people blindly follow a book yet you state in the very next sentence we need to let people follow their own beliefs. Most of the people in my church believe that the Bible is the Word of God. They are not blindly following the Book, they are studying it, reading it, testing it, applying it, and trying to live what it says. My church, which is part of what you call organized religion, is not pointless at all. The people their help teach others who want to know more about the Word of God. They encourage and support each other. They provide numerous public services. They help those who are less fortunate. It is a learning center for those wishing to learn more about God and and focal point for those who wish to dedicte their lives to serving God. My church is a place that is filled with debate, discussion, and analysis. People there are not blindly following anything. My church is not bloody nor is it corrupt. I do not know a single person in my church (or from any church in my town) that would be considered "sleazy, power-hungry lunatics, and use religion to spread their influence." For you to state that most religious figures are that way is completely false. That opinion is as negatively stereotypical as the stereotype of of homosexuals that have anonymous airport bathroom escipades.

And that is exactly what is scary. People should take multiple points of view to decide what they think is right. And there are other ways to do charity besides being a part of a church. If you believe in the bible religiously because you've analyzed all other points of view, and came to the conclusion that you think it's right, then I can respect your opinion. The problem is most people are too lazy, and just accept what they're taught. Of course, it doesn't help that kids get brainwashed at a young age to believe whatever they're religion tells them to believe. That is just sick. I feel lucky that I was not exposed to any of that when I was younger.

Okay, so your church, like many, is an exception, I'm not trying to say EVERYONE who holds religious precedent is a sleazy, power-hungry lunatic. But from my experience, that's the side I mostly see. But does every black person live in the ghetto? No.

And as for your church not being bloody, I never said it was. I am talking about religion in general. If we didn't have religion, we'd have 1 less thing to fight a war over.

And please don't take this as an attack on your religion specifically, I'm talking about every religion on the planet.

[imac/cheese]

And that is exactly what is scary. People should take multiple points of view to decide what they think is right.

What is scary about what I wrote? People studying a religion? These people are in church to learn about what that religion is all about. There are no shortages of choices when it comes to churches or religions in today's society. Many of the members do look at various other points of view. I know that I personally went through an athiest period, an agnostic period, a secular period... I looked into eastern philosophy and various other points of view. Christianity is the one that I have come to see as true. I would recommend all Christians do a serious appraisal of other points of view.


And there are other ways to do charity besides being a part of a church.

There are other ways to do charity besides meals on wheels, but meals on wheels is still a valid and valuable service to many people just like my church. I never claimed that my church is the only way people can do charity, but it is one way and it does a lot more for the community than most local charities do.

The problem is most people are too lazy, and just accept what they're taught.

Actually, the people that are most active in my church and in most churches that I have attended are very knowledgable of many religions and different view points. They are not lazy people. Of course there are lazy people in all aspects of life. Lazy athiests, lazy Christians, lazy PC users, lazy Mac users, lazy democrats, lazy republicans, etc who do not spend the time to do any research but still try to make arguments about things they really don't know much about. I will admit that I have shared my uneducated opinion on numerous topics in my time.

Of course, it doesn't help that kids get brainwashed at a young age to believe whatever they're religion tells them to believe. That is just sick. I feel lucky that I was not exposed to any of that when I was younger.

If one is a Christian and believes that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven, it is only natural to teach your children the path to eternal life in heaven. Religious people do not simply think religion is a life philosophy. It is critically important to our lives after death and would be a crime not to share that with the ones we love.

Okay, so your church, like many, is an exception, I'm not trying to say EVERYONE who holds religious precedent is a sleazy, power-hungry lunatic. But from my experience, that's the side I mostly see. But does every black person live in the ghetto? No.

I would say that my church, like many, is not an exception. My church, like many, simply goes about its business of providing opportunities for learning about God to anyone who wants to learn. There are a few churches that are extreme and the media does a good job of reporting on those. I think my church would probably make a rather boring story. If you want to see a different side of religion, I would recommend you attend several churches or other places of worship. Talk to the leaders there and see what they believe and think and that they are not crazy, sleazy, power-hungry, lunatics.

And as for your church not being bloody, I never said it was. I am talking about religion in general. If we didn't have religion, we'd have 1 less thing to fight a war over.

Religion itself, in general, is not something that promotes war. Most religions promote peace and love. It is the corrupt nature of humanity that brings about war.

And please don't take this as an attack on your religion specifically, I'm talking about every religion on the planet.

I know you are not trying to attack my religion. This is the PRSI forum and the perfect place for such discussions. :)

[skunk]

Religion itself, in general, is not something that promotes war. Most religions promote peace and love. It is the corrupt nature of humanity that brings about war.However, many religions and churches have allowed themselves to be coopted into supporting wars, even if they have been less often the instigators. Politicians would not be able to claim that "their" god was on their side unless priests allowed it in abrogation of their responsibilities.

[imac/cheese]

However, many religions and churches have allowed themselves to be coopted into supporting wars, even if they have been less often the instigators. Politicians would not be able to claim that "their" god was on their side unless priests allowed it in abrogation of their responsibilities.

There is no doubt that religion has been used as justification for many evils, war being just one of them. However, the doctrines of many a religion (Christianity is the one I am most familiar with) are against war.

(I would like to thank you for you posts Skunk. I learn new words nearly every day.)

[ghall]

I would say that my church, like many, is not an exception. My church, like many, simply goes about its business of providing opportunities for learning about God to anyone who wants to learn. There are a few churches that are extreme and the media does a good job of reporting on those. I think my church would probably make a rather boring story. If you want to see a different side of religion, I would recommend you attend several churches or other places of worship. Talk to the leaders there and see what they believe and think and that they are not crazy, sleazy, power-hungry, lunatics.


As I openly admitted, I was simply basing my opinion on the knowledge I have collected. I don't claim to be right, I could be dead wrong, but that's just what I believe based on what I have observed. I knew that not every religious person fell under that stereotype. While I do not agree with you, I can respect your opinions, and I thank you for giving me a little more information on which to base my own.

However, many religions and churches have allowed themselves to be coopted into supporting wars, even if they have been less often the instigators. Politicians would not be able to claim that "their" god was on their side unless priests allowed it in abrogation of their responsibilities.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[imac/cheese]

However, many religions and churches have allowed themselves to be coopted into supporting wars, even if they have been less often the instigators. Politicians would not be able to claim that "their" god was on their side unless priests allowed it in abrogation of their responsibilities.

I would guess that more wars have been fought for money, territory, power, self-preservation, and resources than religion. Even most holy wars have an underlying reason other than religion. People have just used religion for centuries to rally the troops to their own cause and get people passionate about their war.

[skunk]

I would guess that more wars have been fought for money, territory, power, self-preservation, and resources than religion. Even most holy wars have an underlying reason other than religion. People have just used religion for centuries to rally the troops to their own cause and get people passionate about their war.Yes, but my point is that without the collusion of priests who seem all too often to be willing to betray the principles of their religion, politicians and dictators would have their ulterior motives exposed to public scrutiny. Without the tacit approval of the priesthood, it would be considerably harder to persuade the people to support many conflicts. Of course, in so-called "communist" regimes, the politicians are the priesthood, so it's less of a problem...

[jaydub]

You state that it is scary that religious people blindly follow a book yet you state in the very next sentence we need to let people follow their own beliefs. Most of the people in my church believe that the Bible is the Word of God. They are not blindly following the Book, they are studying it, reading it, testing it, applying it, and trying to live what it says. My church, which is part of what you call organized religion, is not pointless at all. The people their help teach others who want to know more about the Word of God. They encourage and support each other. They provide numerous public services. They help those who are less fortunate. It is a learning center for those wishing to learn more about God and and focal point for those who wish to dedicte their lives to serving God. My church is a place that is filled with debate, discussion, and analysis. People there are not blindly following anything. My church is not bloody nor is it corrupt. I do not know a single person in my church (or from any church in my town) that would be considered "sleazy, power-hungry lunatics, and use religion to spread their influence." For you to state that most religious figures are that way is completely false. That opinion is as negatively stereotypical as the stereotype of of homosexuals that have anonymous airport bathroom escipades.

My church is very much the same way. There's an obvious organization to the process, as well as a strong belief within the congregation, that encouraging, supporting, and praying for one another is the priority. I have never gotten the impression that anyone is "following" the Book blindly in my own church - if anything I feel like it's being interpreted so that we might apply it to our own lives today. Even if some portions of organized religion seem antiquated, and the idea of applying thousands-of-years-old theories to modern life might be a stretch, I always feel like I've gained some insight to my own life when I go to church.

[.Andy]

I always feel like I've gained some insight to my own life when I go to church.

Same here.

What insight is that? And does it have anything to do with religion at all?

[solvs]

No, I've always assumed that gay people get together and just hold hands. :rolleyes:
I'm still amazed that you haven't been banned yet, but I guess you're adept at walking that fine line.

If you're tired of hearing about it, how do you think we feel?
I'm gonna guess oppressed.

They are not blindly following the Book, they are studying it, reading it, testing it, applying it, and trying to live what it says.
They encourage and support each other. They provide numerous public services. They help those who are less fortunate.
My church is a place that is filled with debate, discussion, and analysis. People there are not blindly following anything. My church is not bloody nor is it corrupt. I do not know a single person in my church (or from any church in my town) that would be considered "sleazy, power-hungry lunatics, and use religion to spread their influence."
As I've said in the past when we've had this discussion, he wasn't talking about them then. I see he's made his own response, and I don't speak for him, but I think that's what he meant and I know that's what I did. Our problem is with those who aren't. Who hide behind religion to justify these things while ignoring other, more important parts. Or worse, don't even believe, but just twist parts of religious text to gain power over others and twist their beliefs in kind.

If more churches were like yours, we wouldn't have a problem, and I'd still be going to mine.

Though strangely, it never seems to derail into a discussion of woman-on-woman.
As I mentioned above, that's because we're ok with that for some strange reason. :p

Plus if it did, the thread would be locked down and most of us would get banned. ;)

[adrianblaine]

What insight is that? And does it have anything to do with religion at all?

Most religions have insight into life, and whether you are "religious" or not, it is good advice.

I'll give some Christian "insight" since it is what I'm most familiar with:

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.

And one of my personal favorites, and one of the most forgotten...

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

There is much more of course. Some even more contrary to today's culture than these.

[Shotglass]

What insight is that? And does it have anything to do with religion at all?Tomorrow, after church, I'll post here again and you'll get an up-to-date answer, okay?

[skunk]

My church is very much the same way. There's an obvious organization to the process, as well as a strong belief within the congregation, that encouraging, supporting, and praying for one another is the priority.Unfortunately, another "strong belief" must be that all those who believe differently are damnable.

[adrianblaine]

Unfortunately, another "strong belief" must be that all those who believe differently are damnable.

Depends who you are talking about. Not for me (see my post above) and not for a great number of people.

[.Andy]

Most religions have insight into life, and whether you are "religious" or not, it is good advice.

I'll give some Christian "insight" since it is what I'm most familiar with:

And one of my personal favorites, and one of the most forgotten...

There is much more of course. Some even more contrary to today's culture than these.
I don't mean to be argumentative adrianblaine but the point was made that church was valid as it gave jaydub and shotglass some insight into their own lives. Those quotes you've posted are purely an extrinsic be cool to each other which is something that you don't (and shouldn't) need religion to arrive at. They are beautiful quotes, although the concepts are not unique to christianity. I'm more interested in exploring what the intrinsic insight is that the church provides, and if it is something unique about the religious experience that can't be achieved by other means.

Tomorrow, after church, I'll post here again and you'll get an up-to-date answer, okay?
Thanks shotglass :).

[jaydub]

Depends who you are talking about. Not for me (see my post above) and not for a great number of people.

Precisely. My own church spends their time promoting the camaraderie and assistance within the parish, rather than the condemnation of those outside of it (or of those who may believe differently than we do).

[jaydub]

I don't mean to be argumentative adrianblaine but the point was made that church was valid as it gave jaydub and shotglass some insight into their own lives. Those quotes you've posted are purely an extrinsic be cool to each other which is something that you don't (and shouldn't) need religion to arrive at. They are beautiful quotes, although the concepts are not unique to christianity. I'm more interested in exploring what the intrinsic insight is that the church provides, and if it is something unique about the religious experience that can't be achieved by other means.

Obviously some of the lessons seem like they would be common sense, and they are. "Be cool to each other" is a simple interpretation of the golden rule, which itself is something people often forget. I wouldn't argue that some of the lessons and teachings couldn't be learned without a religious element - they can likely be learned elsewhere with similar importance and application. However, the way it is presented by my church is what appeals to me. It's never forced or required.

For me; however, it goes beyond the fact that I can learn some of these things just anywhere. It appeals to my own sense of faith in a way that cannot be easily explained. A year ago, I'd have considered myself devoid of any faith in anything. I endured a lot of bad experiences in a very short amount of time, and I attribute much of my "getting over it" to the things I learned in church. Would I have gotten through it otherwise? Sure, but I don't know that I'd be in the place I am now with it otherwise. It has also given me the ability to be OK with the things in my life which have no apparent explanation.

[adrianblaine]

I don't mean to be argumentative adrianblaine but the point was made that church was valid as it gave jaydub and shotglass some insight into their own lives. Those quotes you've posted are purely an extrinsic be cool to each other which is something that you don't (and shouldn't) need religion to arrive at. They are beautiful quotes, although the concepts are not unique to christianity. I'm more interested in exploring what the intrinsic insight is that the church provides, and if it is something unique about the religious experience that can't be achieved by other means.

I understand where you are coming from, but even though it would seem logical to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, things like putting someone's well being over your own is not something I've found other people naturally arrive at. Even Christian's have a hard time with that one and it is something I've only ever heard taught in Church and nowhere else.

Like this for example, is not something you would find outside of Religion. To others, this may seem very foreign, but for me it is a way of life. It may seem like being walked on, but when I've tried to follow this example, things always turn out better than I could possibly imagine.

If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

The only way for someone to experience if it is "true", you must walk in their shoes. When I stop reading the Bible, life truly looses meaning and value. I would imagine there are a lot of other insights, I'm just really tired at the moment.

[skunk]

I understand where you are coming from, but even though it would seem logical to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, things like putting someone's well being over your own is not something I've found other people naturally arrive at. Even Christian's have a hard time with that one and it is something I've only ever heard taught in Church and nowhere else. I agree with this aspect of Jesus' teaching, too, but you do not have to be a member of a Christian church to find this expressed. Maternal, indeed parental, instinct leads naturally to selfless behaviour, and many people have died for their friends, comrades or families without being Christian. Christianity hardly has a monopoly on selflessness. You should read Plato's Crito, where Socrates, shortly before his death, says: “One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.” The same sentiment is expressed in, of all places, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, too. The Pharisee Hillel the Elder described the Golden Rule as an effective summation of the Torah, and said: "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" (Pirkei Avot 1:14). Non-violence and non-resistance are hardly exclusive to Christian teaching either.

[adrianblaine]

I agree with this aspect of Jesus' teaching, too, but you do not have to be a member of a Christian church to find this expressed. Maternal, indeed parental, instinct leads naturally to selfless behaviour, and many people have died for their friends, comrades or families without being Christian. Christianity hardly has a monopoly on selflessness. You should read Plato's Crito, where Socrates, shortly before his death, says: “One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.” The same sentiment is expressed in, of all places, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, too. The Pharisee Hillel the Elder described the Golden Rule as an effective summation of the Torah, and said: "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" (Pirkei Avot 1:14). Non-violence and non-resistance are hardly exclusive to Christian teaching either.

And I totally agree with you, but I hardly see this being practiced by people. In everyday life I find most people to be pretty selfish (don't know if it's because I'm in LA...) and someone else's success being put over your own is not thought about, ever (so it seems). I'm sure there are many more places where selflessness is taught, but I don't see anyone listening. My point only being that (at least the church I attend) this is placed as a pretty high priority and talked about regularly.

[Shotglass]

Today's message, titled "A Divine Economy" was about the oft-quoted verse "what a man sows, shall he reap" (Galater 6:7). The pastor was basically talking about how we always expect God to give but in the process tend to forget that, figuratively speaking, we have to actually put a seed into the ground to see a tree growing. While not being new to me, this message reminded me of the simple things that make up what our lives are all about. I hope that gives you a little insight into what I would call Christian insight.

Also, watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE
4:50 and onwards is a brilliant testament to modern atheism as proposed by the likes of Richard Dawkins. All you atheists out there, please don't follow this example and try to make a difference.

[Queso]

Today's message, titled "A Divine Economy" was about the oft-quoted verse "what a man sows, shall he reap" (Galater 6:7). The pastor was basically talking about how we always expect God to give but in the process tend to forget that, figuratively speaking, we have to actually put a seed into the ground to see a tree growing. While not being new to me, this message reminded me of the simple things that make up what our lives are all about. I hope that gives you a little insight into what I would call Christian insight.
Once again, this is not dependent on Christianity nor any other religion. Agriculture, both actual and metaphoric, does not belong to god. This insight is simply a truth discovered by the generations of humans who didn't prepare for the future and suffered as a result. It's useful knowledge, and as with all knowledge, it's been passed onto the descendants of those that originally discovered it.

[skunk]

Today's message, titled "A Divine Economy" was about the oft-quoted verse "what a man sows, shall he reap" (Galater 6:7).As dynamicv says, agriculture predates Christianity by at least several decades.
Also, watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE
4:50 and onwards is a brilliant testament to modern atheism as proposed by the likes of Richard Dawkins. All you atheists out there, please don't follow this example and try to make a difference.I entirely agree with Bill Maher. What is your point?

[adrianblaine]

Once again, this is not dependent on Christianity nor any other religion. Agriculture, both actual and metaphoric, does not belong to god. This insight is simply a truth discovered by the generations of humans who didn't prepare for the future and suffered as a result. It's useful knowledge, and as with all knowledge, it's been passed onto the descendants of those that originally discovered it.

As dynamicv says, agriculture predates Christianity by at least several decades.

Just to point out, I don't think there was a call to show insights specific to Christianity. Insight into one's own life can be found in an infinite variety of places with different ways of looking at the same philosophical point. Essentially, Christianity is a very humanistic way of life with the belief in a deity added on top, so most of its views will be overlapped with other humanistic teachings. Are you wishing to see insights into God's role in the life of a Christian?

[.Andy]

Are you wishing to see insights into God's role in the life of a Christian? As I asked above I was more interested in what insights church gave people into their own lives, and I'll extend that to christianity as that's what the lion's share of religionists are here. Why construct a supernatural deity to help you get an insight into your own life when there are far more rational ways to accomplish exactly the same ends that don't require leaps of faith. Like humanism without a superfluous deity. On anecdote from the above replies the answer seems that a significant attraction is the packaging the message comes in. Especially those quotes that are simple in their message but use emotive analogies.

Is there anything novel that christianity can provide?


Also, watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE
4:50 and onwards is a brilliant testament to modern atheism as proposed by the likes of Richard Dawkins. All you atheists out there, please don't follow this example and try to make a difference.
I'm not sure what you're trying to point out here. The lady got caught out that she felt superior as a christian and was condescending towards Bill Maher. I don't think this is something that christian's even realise they're doing. Take adrianblaine's post above for example;
And I totally agree with you, but I hardly see this being practiced by people. In everyday life I find most people to be pretty selfish (don't know if it's because I'm in LA...) and someone else's success being put over your own is not thought about, ever (so it seems). I'm sure there are many more places where selflessness is taught, but I don't see anyone listening. My point only being that (at least the church I attend) this is placed as a pretty high priority and talked about regularly. That really couldn't be more insulting and elitist to infer that most people are selfish and care naught for their fellow man, besides those of his church because they listen to the message whereas most people ignore it. It's insanely stereotypical and judgmental, especially considering the lip-service paid to not judging your fellow man in the quotes above. There's no way that these claims can be backed up, as they're not arrived at though any deduction. They're ingrained through the repetition that christian's are somehow special in comparison to non-christians because you've accepted something they perceive as virtuous.

[solvs]

Unfortunately, another "strong belief" must be that all those who believe differently are damnable.

Not always. If you're an otherwise good person, you go to Purgatory. It's not that bad. It's not that great either, but it's not that bad. ;)

[adrianblaine]

That really couldn't be more insulting and elitist to infer that most people are selfish and care naught for their fellow man, besides those of his church because they listen to the message whereas most people ignore it. It's insanely stereotypical and judgmental, especially considering the lip-service paid to not judging your fellow man in the quotes above. There's no way that these claims can be backed up, as they're not arrived at though any deduction. They're ingrained through the repetition that christian's are somehow special in comparison to non-christians because you've accepted something they perceive as virtuous.

I do apologize, that was not my intention and I did not mean to infer that somehow Christian's were special. On the contrary I would argue that Christian's have just as hard of a time with being selfish (which is probably why it is talked about so much). I will freely admit that I'm not perfect and am guilty of (among other things) judging when I shouldn't. Christianity is based on the fact that even though we are imperfect, we are unconditionally loved.

Is there anything novel that christianity can provide?

Like it was mentioned earlier, the novel part of Christianity is the belief in a loving deity. If that is written off as a hoax from the get-go, there is not much point in pursuing that subject further as it might just lead to a bitter conclusion. However, I (and others) would be glad to discuss this in further detail if anyone would like.

[skunk]

Like it was mentioned earlier, the novel part of Christianity is the belief in a loving deity.A loving deity who can just as easily condemn whole races of people to hell. All those who lived before this deity had a makeover and changed his character from "jealous" to "loving", all those who have never heard of the story, all those who die unbaptised. You do not seem to get any more unconditional or reliable love from this deity than from the average parent.

[.Andy]

I do apologize, that was not my intention and I did not mean to infer that somehow Christian's were special. On the contrary I would argue that Christian's have just as hard of a time with being selfish (which is probably why it is talked about so much). I will freely admit that I'm not perfect and am guilty of (among other things) judging when I shouldn't. I apologise but I'm going to labour this a little. In your posts above you talked about 'most other people' being selfish, and lauded your church as the only place you know where selflessness is taught and talked about as 'pretty high priority and talked about regularly'. You even went on to say that if selflessness is taught elsewhere in the community 'you don't see anyone listening'. That's unambiguously placing people from your church in higher regard than the general public on the topic of selflessness. The way you're spinning it now is that the christian virtue is in paying lip-service to the idea of selflessness, not actually changing one's behaviour. You'll excuse me if I don't find that an attractive philosophy to live one's life by.

[Shotglass]

Agriculture predates Christianity by at least several decades.Who's talking about agriculture?I entirely agree with Bill Maher. What is your point?My point is the way he was talking to someone trying to explain their religion. Christianity is by no means condescending, and Bill Maher (at least I hope so) knows that. He's simply trying to get his point through, no matter if it's true or not. And the only thing condescending here is how he acts.

Also, .Andy:
As adrianblaine says, Christians aren't perfect. We're just humans. One of the reason why normally I don't really like to discuss my religion is because I don't want people to associate my flaws with it. Because that's exactly what people do.

[skunk]

Who's talking about agriculture?Jesus, when he talks of reaping and sowing, I guess.
My point is the way he was talking to someone trying to explain their religion. Christianity is by no means condescending, and Bill Maher (at least I hope so) knows that. He's simply trying to get his point through, no matter if it's true or not. And the only thing condescending here is how he acts.I entirely disagree. She was being obnoxious and presumptuous in equal measure, and, what's worse, both she and you were completely unaware of it. Such blinkered points of view are insulting to both atheists and those of other religions. The fact that she can equate not believing in her particular brand of Tooth Fairy with being "confused" says it all.

[adrianblaine]

A loving deity who can just as easily condemn whole races of people to hell. All those who lived before this deity had a makeover and changed his character from "jealous" to "loving", all those who have never heard of the story, all those who die unbaptised. You do not seem to get any more unconditional or reliable love from this deity than from the average parent.

I don't claim to know why there is such a big difference between the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament, but I do know that the only people condemned are those that know Him, but turn away anyway. He'd rather have you "cold" or "hot" than luke-warm.

I apologise but I'm going to labour this a little. In your posts above you talked about 'most other people' being selfish, and lauded your church as the only place you know where selflessness is taught and talked about as 'pretty high priority and talked about regularly'. You even went on to say that if selflessness is taught elsewhere in the community 'you don't see anyone listening'. That's unambiguously placing people from your church in higher regard than the general public on the topic of selflessness. The way you're spinning it now is that the christian virtue is in paying lip-service to the idea of selflessness, not actually changing one's behaviour. You'll excuse me if I don't find that an attractive philosophy to live one's life by.

I'm honestly not trying to put a spin on anything. I wrote that at 1 in the morning after coughing painfully for 3 hours straight (I'm getting over tonsillitis...) and I may not have gathered my thoughts enough before writing.

As Shotglass mentioned earlier, just because someone is a Christian doesn't change the fact they are still a human being and that all human beings struggle. To some people it may just be lip-service, but we shouldn't judge them. After contemplating what I said earlier (and thank you for bringing it to my attention) about "not anyone listening", I came to the conclusion that idea was based more on things like what you see on TV and in film. I've been watching a lot of movies and television shows while I've been sick, and it seriously put me in a sour mood over our "culture". Then this morning I realized that I hadn't really been out in the real world for a few weeks, so when I stopped and thought about it, I remember that when you meet people and watch the news, from all walks of life, there are good, honest, selfless people everywhere.

[skunk]

I don't claim to know why there is such a big difference between the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament, but I do know that the only people condemned are those that know Him, but turn away anyway. He'd rather have you "cold" or "hot" than luke-warm.How can you maintain that they are one and the same, or to know anything about him/them if you can't explain the complete personality change? How can you profess to know what he/they would rather have you be from one day to the next? Is the Old Testament "God's Word"?

[adrianblaine]

How can you maintain that they are one and the same, or to know anything about him/them if you can't explain the complete personality change? How can you profess to know what he/they would rather have you be from one day to the next? Is the Old Testament "God's Word"?

I am wary to engage in a theological debate because there has to be some sort of shared ground (i.e. debate should only happen between two Christians, two Muslims, two Atheists etc. about their beliefs) but I will share my view from what I've read.

God only has 2 laws. Love Him and love others. The price of breaking these laws is death. He is unable to deviate from his own laws and must carry out the consequences of breaking the law even to those He loves, otherwise Satan would have is proof that God is unjust and unfair. God creates a plan to send His only Son to be sacrificed in place of us so that we might be spared death, the only requirement is to acknowledge that Christ did that for us. It's the very abridged version but it sums up how I understand it.

[skunk]

I am wary to engage in a theological debate because there has to be some sort of shared ground (i.e. debate should only happen between two Christians, two Muslims, two Atheists etc. about their beliefs) but I will share my view from what I've read.The shared ground will have to be that we are both human, both Anglophone, both apparently reared in the "Western" Judaeo-Christian-Hellenistic tradition. If competing religions or philosophies cannot share a debate, of what use is theology?

God only has 2 laws. Love Him and love others. The price of breaking these laws is death.Have you got a link or reference for these assertions? It sounds like you have to fear him, not love him, if the consequence of not doing so is death. And how can it possibly make sense that love is required by law, and that failure to love is punishable by death?
He is unable to deviate from his own laws and must carry out the consequences of breaking the law even to those He loves, otherwise Satan would have is proof that God is unjust and unfair.Oh dear, we're getting into very deep water here: how can god be bound by his own fiat? And how can he be "just and fair" if he has ordered the slaughter of men, women and children, and does not accept those who have not had a chance to know him? The whole edifice you have constructed is like a house of cards, only very much less stable.
God creates a plan to send His only Son to be sacrificed in place of us so that we might be spared death, the only requirement is to acknowledge that Christ did that for us. It's the very abridged version but it sums up how I understand it.So the mark of a loving god is to have his own son killed (and then eaten every Sunday)? Something here does not add up.

[Queso]

He is unable to deviate from his own laws....
Not all-powerful after all then?

[skunk]

Not all-powerful after all then?Just overpoweringly neurotic: he just can't bring himself to deviate.

[Shotglass]

Jesus, when he talks of reaping and sowing, I guess.Not really. Many Atheists seem to believe that Christians believe God will help them in any situation, so they don't need to worry. Jesus is saying that such a mentality simply doesn't work, and he's using the parallel of agriculture because, as mentioned earlier, agriculture had been around for ages.

She was being obnoxious and presumptuous in equal measure, and, what's worse, both she and you were completely unaware of it. Such blinkered points of view are insulting to both atheists and those of other religions.Not really, no.
The fact that she can equate not believing in her particular brand of Tooth Fairy with being "confused" says it all.True, an unfortunate choice of words, but that doesn't prove that Christians are condescending.

[skunk]

It's got nothing whatever to do with atheists. My point was that the causal relationship between sowing and reaping is hardly a Christian revelation.True, an unfortunate choice of words, but that doesn't prove that Christians are condescending.It certainly proves that she is condescending, and it unfortunately indicates that any of her coreligionists who share such a view are also. It's a lot more than "unfortunate". It indicates the inherent danger of competing religions. "I am right, you must be wrong. You are less than I."

[adrianblaine]

The shared ground will have to be that we are both human, both Anglophone, both apparently reared in the "Western" Judaeo-Christian-Hellenistic tradition. If competing religions or philosophies cannot share a debate, of what use is theology?


From my experience, debating theology when one person is arguing for a deity that the other does not believe exists, the discussion doesn't go very far because it difficult moving past just that one fact. But I agree, that if both parties are in agreement to thoughtfully listen to the other, that only good can come from learning from another person.

Have you got a link or reference for these assertions? It sounds like you have to fear him, not love him, if the consequence of not doing so is death. And how can it possibly make sense that love is required by law, and that failure to love is punishable by death?

Matt. 22:36-39
Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

If you love God, you wouldn't take His name in vain, worship other idols (money, fame, fortune...) etc. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you wouldn't kill them, sleep with their wife, steal from them etc.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."


Oh dear, we're getting into very deep water here: how can god be bound by his own fiat? And how can he be "just and fair" if he has ordered the slaughter of men, women and children, and does not accept those who have not had a chance to know him? The whole edifice you have constructed is like a house of cards, only very much less stable.


I don't recall the order to slaughter anyone. If you are referring to the Old Testament, I myself do not have an explanation. While I've read it, I base most my view of what I've read in the New Testament. I've never read anywhere that those who never had a chance will be condemned.

It makes sense to me that if a person had one rule to live by, and they constantly broke that rule, that they would be a hypocrite. Why would it be different for a deity?

So the mark of a loving god is to have his own son killed (and then eaten every Sunday)? Something here does not add up.

I'm not Catholic and nor do I subscribe to their interpretation of communion.

As I mentioned earlier, since we do not share the belief in a God, these kinds or conversations can be torn apart. All I can hope for is that some understanding go both directions.

[Shotglass]

It's got nothing whatever to do with atheists. My point was that the causal relationship between sowing and reaping is hardly a Christian revelation.It certainly proves that she is condescending, and it unfortunately indicates that any of her coreligionists who share such a view are also. It's a lot more than "unfortunate". It indicates the inherent danger of competing religions. "I am right, you must be wrong. You are less than I."I give up. Have fun, adrianblaine, and God bless all of you. I'm just not strong enough for this discussion.

[solvs]

I give up. Have fun, adrianblaine, and God bless all of you. I'm just not strong enough for this discussion.
Well, it looks like y'all scared off another one.

I don't get my idea of God from a book, so I'm afraid I don't really have any rules or dogma to argue. :o Sorry. Maybe I can make some up some time just to mess with you guys. :p

[skunk]

But I agree, that if both parties are in agreement to thoughtfully listen to the other, that only good can come from learning from another person.I'm all for thoughtful listening. :)

Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'Fair enough: I'd forgotten about the Two Commandments...
I'd certainly go with the second, but I think it makes the first redundant.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."I'd say that the wages of life is death.

I don't recall the order to slaughter anyone. If you are referring to the Old Testament, I myself do not have an explanation.Try this, for example (there are many more besides):Deut. 2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones of every city, we left none to remain. 2:35 Only the cattle we took for a prey to ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.
For some NT blood and gore, you only have to look at Revelation. Of course, it depends how selective your readings are.

As I mentioned earlier, since we do not share the belief in a God, these kinds or conversations can be torn apart. All I can hope for is that some understanding go both directions.Indeed.

[adrianblaine]

I don't get my idea of God from a book, so I'm afraid I don't really have any rules or dogma to argue. :o Sorry. Maybe I can make some up some time just to mess with you guys. :p

I'm not assuming that this is how you feel, but to many people nature itself is enough of a testament. I'm particularly fascinated with the human brain and can't begin to imagine it all happened by chance. I'll admit, if it weren't for the incredible complexity of nature, I don't know if I would believe in a book. Even when I didn't believe in God, I never found evolution compelling.

I'm all for thoughtful listening. :)

That makes two of us :)

Fair enough: I'd forgotten about the Two Commandments...
I'd certainly go with the second, but I think it makes the first redundant.


True, they are kind of interrelated. Especially when you read Matt. 25:40

"I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

I think there has been some demonstration that you can follow the first commandment and not the second, but that following the second includes the first.


I'd say that the wages of life is death.


That's one way to look at it. Just by living we commit sin constantly.

Romans 3:23-24 (emphasis added)
There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.


Try this, for example (there are many more besides):
For some NT blood and gore, you only have to look at Revelation. Of course, it depends how selective your readings are.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't know where I stand on the OT blood and gore. And if I recall correctly, most of the death and destruction in Revelation is not done by God.

[Queso]

I'm not assuming that this is how you feel, but to many people nature itself is enough of a testament. I'm particularly fascinated with the human brain and can't begin to imagine it all happened by chance. I'll admit, if it weren't for the incredible complexity of nature, I don't know if I would believe in a book. Even when I didn't believe in God, I never found evolution compelling.
Nature and its complexity are testament to the mechanism of evolution. I can't understand how someone could reject a theory that has enormous historical evidence for being correct and can predict observable effects in favour of "God did it". If you are rejecting evolution based on just how diverse nature is you either haven't understood the theory or have no grasp on the timescales involved.

[.Andy]

I'm not assuming that this is how you feel, but to many people nature itself is enough of a testament. I'm particularly fascinated with the human brain and can't begin to imagine it all happened by chance. I'll admit, if it weren't for the incredible complexity of nature, I don't know if I would believe in a book. Even when I didn't believe in God, I never found evolution compelling.
The fact that you "can't begin to imagine the brain all happened by chance" signals loud and clear that you've not got the slightest grasp of the basic tenant of evolutionary theory.

[skunk]

The fact that you "can't begin to imagine the brain all happened by chance" signals loud and clear that you've not got the slightest grasp of the basic tenant of evolutionary theory.Although I agree with your point, "tenant", being someone holding a property or position, is not the same as "tenet", which is an argument or belief held. Sorry, one of my pet peeves. :rolleyes:

[adrianblaine]

Nature and its complexity are testament to the mechanism of evolution. I can't understand how someone could reject a theory that has enormous historical evidence for being correct and can predict observable effects in favour of "God did it". If you are rejecting evolution based on just how diverse nature is you either haven't understood the theory or have no grasp on the timescales involved.

The fact that you "can't begin to imagine the brain all happened by chance" signals loud and clear that you've not got the slightest grasp of the basic tenant of evolutionary theory.

I am aware of what evolution entails and the time-scale involved. I wasn't pushing for an evolution vs. creation debate, but if that is where this is headed, I do not want it to turn out like they typically do.

I don't deny things like natural selection, genetic drift and mutation (among others) and the time needed for such things to occur. In fact, I believe most Christians need to be more open to a lot of these ideas instead of strictly adhering to the stance of "it never happened, doesn't happen and never will happen." If it were not for some ideas steeped in Evolution, I do not see how on every continent (before mass exploration+immigration), people looked so different yet are inherently the same. There are other reasons why I believe this way, but I don't have a lot of time right now.

I'm not denying you the right to believe what you want to believe and are convinced of. Please don't do it to me.

[.Andy]

I don't deny things like natural selection, genetic drift and mutation (among others) and the time needed for such things to occur. In fact, I believe most Christians need to be more open to a lot of these ideas instead of strictly adhering to the stance of "it never happened, doesn't happen and never will happen." All you've done here is post buzz words from reading wikipedia. The point is that evolution isn't all due to 'chance', and never has been. If you really understood evolution you were being purposefully dishonest in your previous post. It's the cliche evolution-denying party trick.

I'm not denying you the right to believe what you want to believe and are convinced of. Please don't do it to me. Don't do this, it's a really pathetic technique.

[adrianblaine]

All you've done here is post buzz words from reading wikipedia. The point is that evolution isn't all due to 'chance', and never has been. If you really understood evolution you were being purposefully dishonest in your previous post. It's the cliche evolution-denying party trick.


I've studied evolution in school, though my chosen area of study did not include a ton of science. It goes both ways with a lot of people not knowing what they are talking about and blindly following what they've been told. I respect people willing to look at a situation from all angles.

Don't do this, it's a really pathetic technique.

I'm not sure what you mean by technique. I only said that because that's where I've seen these discussions end up. Both sides unwilling to listen to each other because their "way" is the only "correct" way.

[skunk]

I'm not denying you the right to believe what you want to believe and are convinced of. Please don't do it to me.It's not about a "right to believe". It's not about faith. It's about geology, zoology, evidence, logic, extrapolation. Come up with a better hypothesis, with better evidence. Creationism and evolution do not belong at the same table.

Come to think of it, weren't you the one professing not to be familiar with the Old Testament? Yet here you are, apparently willing to throw in the rational towel in favour of some half-read mumbo jumbo.

[adrianblaine]

It's not about a "right to believe". It's not about faith. It's about geology, zoology, evidence, logic, extrapolation. Come up with a better hypothesis, with better evidence.

I've always been somewhat of a middle-ground person. From the evidence, I can see how evolution works given the time required. I also don't understand religions throwing all of it aside. When all is said and done, everyone still has a right to believe what they want, no matter how ludicrous. You may consider that person ignorant, stupid, or crazy, but it doesn't change anything.

Come to think of it, weren't you the one professing not to be familiar with the Old Testament? Yet here you are, apparently willing to throow in the rational towel in favour of some half-read mumbo jumbo.

I never claimed to be unfamiliar with the OT. I only said I had no explanation for the death and destruction found in it. And about the "half-read mumbo jumbo", am I wrong in thinking that there are holes in a purely creationist view point? Where did dinosaurs come from? What's wrong with merging faith and science? I don't believe them to be exclusive.

[skunk]

I've always been somewhat of a middle-ground person.Where is this "middle ground"? If you can see how evolution works, why is any supernatural explanation required? Do you believe the geological timescale accepted by the scientific world? If you do, can you reconcile the extreme age of the universe with the (relatively) extreme youth of mankind? Does it make sense that your Creator would create the universe, then wait fourteen billion years before getting to the point?When all is said and done, everyone still has a right to believe what they want, no matter how ludicrous.Surely you cannot believe something that you believe to be ludicrous?

[jczubach]

"If it were not for some ideas steeped in Evolution, I do not see how on every continent (before mass exploration+immigration), people looked so different yet are inherently the same"
I have read your posts and honestly must enquire how hard you have "studied" this idea: Where you studied, what exactly you've been reading, what your understanding of hominid migration patterns might be? I don't know exactly where I'd start coming at this?
One thing I know for sure is that Homo Sapiens is bug-spit on the timeline of geological history. And I won't even begin to get into cosmological scales.

[.Andy]

I've studied evolution in school, though my chosen area of study did not include a ton of science. It goes both ways with a lot of people not knowing what they are talking about and blindly following what they've been told. I respect people willing to look at a situation from all angles. This really isn't true. Religion at it's basis is about blindly accepting something, and it's even seen as a virtue and given it's own special name - faith. Science is all about not believing in things, testing them out, and trying to find new ways of looking at things constantly. Any scientist would love to come up with a theory that destroys evolution, heck I'd love to myself. We even know exactly what we'd need to find. It would mean unlimited grants and fame for the rest of my life (or until someone blows my theory out of the water). Fact is that evolution is, and has been rock solid so far, making watertight forward and reverse chronological predictions. Can the bible or concept of god be proven false?

I'm not sure what you mean by technique. I only said that because that's where I've seen these discussions end up. Both sides unwilling to listen to each other because their "way" is the only "correct" way. You know exactly what I mean by technique. The persecution card is the last bastion that gets pulled by the religious when their arguments have been pointed out as completely lacking in merit.

Here's an example - All Christians are paedophiles. I'll defend that outright with "don't you dare try and debate that and prove it's not true (even though it obviously isn't) because I have the right to believe anything I want". Your debating technique is to go even one further with this line of reasoning "OK. Perhaps not all christians aren't paedophiles, that's not what I really meant. I'll be reasonable and meet you at the middle ground and we'll call only half of them paedophiles."

[adrianblaine]

Where is this "middle ground"? If you can see how evolution works, why is any supernatural explanation required? Do you believe the geological timescale accepted by the scientific world? If you do, can you reconcile the extreme age of the universe with the (relatively) extreme youth of mankind? Does it make sense that your Creator would create the universe, then wait fourteen billion years before getting to the point?

Those are good questions and really show why I'm struggling with what I believe when it comes to this. My "middle-ground" is my indecision about what to think about all of it with being fed Christian ideas all my life and the compelling evidence of science.

Surely you cannot believe something that you believe to be ludicrous?

Aside from twisting the meaning, my point was that one man's meat is another man's poison.

[mactastic]

Surely you cannot believe something that you believe to be ludicrous?
Why do you find him so hard to believe in?
http://www.daveyd.com/ludacris97.jpg

[skunk]

Aside from twisting the meaning, my point was that one man's meat is another man's poison.The choice simply isn't there. One is scientific, testable, and works. The other flies in the face of all reason.

[skunk]

Why do you find him so hard to believe in?
http://www.daveyd.com/ludacris97.jpgGame over. I believe!

[adrianblaine]

You know exactly what I mean by technique. The persecution card is the last bastion that gets pulled by the religious when their arguments have been pointed out as completely lacking in merit.

Here's an example - All Christians are paedophiles. I'll defend that outright with "don't you dare try and debate that and prove it's not true (even though it obviously isn't) because I have the right to believe anything I want". Your debating technique is to go even one further with this line of reasoning "OK. Perhaps not all christians aren't paedophiles, that's not what I really meant. I'll be reasonable and meet you at the middle ground and we'll call only half of them paedophiles."

I don't feel persecuted and I didn't mean it that way so I wasn't expecting to be jumped on for that one comment. I do see your point though and I apologize and will think twice when I or someone else says something like that.

The choice simply isn't there. One is scientific, testable, and works. The other flies in the face of all reason.

So you can understand my predicament when half of me knows beyond a doubt there is something more, and the other half that simply can't comprehend that possibility. I find this a serious decision that I'm not about to take lightly.

EDIT: I'm sorry if this causes further confusion. No one asked me what, nor did I state exactly where I stood, which looking back I maybe should have done.

[SMM]

<...snip...>
So you can understand my predicament when half of me knows beyond a doubt there is something more, and the other half that simply can't comprehend that possibility. I find this a serious decision that I'm not about to take lightly.

EDIT: I'm sorry if this causes further confusion. No one asked me what, nor did I state exactly where I stood, which looking back I maybe should have done.

You might consider doing what I do, or some reasonable facsimile. In a similar situation, years ago, I just decided to quit beating myself up over something I could not reconcile at the time. I quit thinking this was a thing I needed to solve immediately. I had a lifetime of experience and learning ahead of me. Perhaps, the answer is out there to be discovered, perhaps not. But, I always had one comforting thought. Any entity capable of creating the universe and bring forth life, is not going to resort to smoke and mirrors and conjures tricks to deceive me.

If I observe something, or science provides evidence in it being true, then there is no reason not to accept it. If it goes contrary to dogma, then I have to be able to accept the truth to be that which has supportive evidence. There is nothing wrong with evaluating things on their own merit. All evidence we have for faith based religion, originated from that written by men. That also includes the notion that it was inspired by God. That has been used far too often, and with unfortunate results.

The net result is that I have a place for everything, which can stand on its own merits.

[skunk]

So you can understand my predicament when half of me knows beyond a doubt there is something more, and the other half that simply can't comprehend that possibility. I find this a serious decision that I'm not about to take lightly.I do really appreciate your willingness to think freely. That "something more" may simply be an as-yet-unidentified unifying/unified field which you are misconstruing. There may well be "something out there", but to call it "god" - and, further, to presume it may be owned by a particular group, race, species or even planet - is not necessarily useful.

[adrianblaine]

If I observe something, or science provides evidence in it being true, then there is no reason not to accept it. If it goes contrary to dogma, then I have to be able to accept the truth to be that which has supportive evidence. There is nothing wrong with evaluating things on their own merit. All evidence we have for faith based religion, originated from that written by men. That also includes the notion that it was inspired by God. That has been used far too often, and with unfortunate results.

Good advice and I will take it to heart.

Since obviously creation cannot be proved by science, and since I'm not an expert in evolution, maybe someone can answer some questions I've had come up in my own thinking.

Going back to my fetish with the human brain... Have there been any estimates as to how long our brains have functioned at the levels they currently do? One of my greatest hurdles in understanding this, is that if we have had this intelligence for say, 200,000 years, why the sudden progress in the last 1&#37; of that time? Maybe I'm just being a smug homo-sapien, but I feel that we should/would have accomplished more sooner. What held us back for so long?

Anyway, I'm not being trying to be facetious in the slightest. It's an honest question in my own mind that I've never heard a good explanation for that is backed up by evidence instead of theories.

[SMM]

Good advice and I will take it to heart.

Since obviously creation cannot be proved by science, and since I'm not an expert in evolution, maybe someone can answer some questions I've had come up in my own thinking.

Going back to my fetish with the human brain... Have there been any estimates as to how long our brains have functioned at the levels they currently do? One of my greatest hurdles in understanding this, is that if we have had this intelligence for say, 200,000 years, why the sudden progress in the last 1% of that time? Maybe I'm just being a smug homo-sapien, but I feel that we should/would have accomplished more sooner. What held us back for so long?

Anyway, I'm not being trying to be facetious in the slightest. It's an honest question in my own mind that I've never heard a good explanation for that is backed up by evidence instead of theories.

Perhaps it is because you are judging progress too harshly? The first thing to realize about evolution is that it is a painfully slow process, and all evolutionary change is not successful. The second important realization about evolution, is that it is not just physical. There is social, economic and political evolution as well.

I suppose I would define evolution as 'change in time'. For mankind, a huge change (some argue the biggest) was when nomadic tribes were able to settle into permanent locations, and form societies. Think about all of the many issues they had to deal with over time. Take something basic, like money.

Early on, most commerce was done by bartering. I raise more corn than I need. But, I need utensils to cook with, containers to store it, a way to transport it and tools to grow/harvest it. Thus was born specialized craftsmen. We could just trade our goods, but that soon became burdensome. So, now there was a need to develop some monetary system. If we were just trading within our small town, agreeing on a monetary unit was not too hard. But, soon trading was done between small towns. That meant that both towns had to accept a common currency. Each time new towns entered the trading group, this was repeated again. It was centuries before monetary systems were developed.

This is just one single example of the issues our ancestors had to solve before the great societies could finally flourish.

There is an English historian/author named James Burke. He has devoted his career to the study of 'change'. He has many published works. The most notable are Connections (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B000NJVY3U/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_top/104-0580802-4433567?ie=UTF8&n=130&s=dvd#customerReviews) and The Day the Universe Changed (http://www.amazon.com/Day-Universe-Changed-Companion-Television/dp/0316116955). Both were extremely popular series on PBS. I watched the series and have read all his books. I would like to refer you to them.

They are brilliant! He is a fantastic lecturer and has that innate ability to tell a story, which is totally factual, and make it as interesting as fiction. It is also as good a source as I can think of to explain the historical events that led to change. I would also recommend it for the pure enjoyment of watching (reading) it. It really is that good.

[Queso]

Have there been any estimates as to how long our brains have functioned at the levels they currently do? One of my greatest hurdles in understanding this, is that if we have had this intelligence for say, 200,000 years, why the sudden progress in the last 1&#37; of that time?
The genetic mutation that allows advanced communication is estimated to only be some 16,000 years old and didn't become widespread amongst the species until about 5000BC. Prior to that basic cave paintings were pretty much all people could manage.

Which does raise a point to consider:- Imagine being the first human with that mutation. Having the ability to communicate, even to start creating marks to signify concepts rather than just pictures, yet knowing that nobody else can understand what you're doing. Pretty Twilight Zone isn't it?

[.Andy]

Which does raise a point to consider:- Imagine being the first human with that mutation. Having the ability to communicate, even to start creating marks to signify concepts rather than just pictures, yet knowing that nobody else can understand what you're doing. Pretty Twilight Zone isn't it?
You don't know the half of it dynamicv. It's a curse to be infinitely more intelligent than everyone else, sometimes I really struggle with it!

[takao]

I suppose I would define evolution as 'change in time'. For mankind, a huge change (some argue the biggest) was when nomadic tribes were able to settle into permanent locations, and form societies. Think about all of the many issues they had to deal with over time. Take something basic, like money.

that's why the neolithic revolution has revolution in it's name (oh and it happened 20k years ago or so ;) )

just think of something totally obvious like stirrups for riding horses: just a little detail for riding a horse and yet it influenced world politics substantial after the fall of western rome

[mactastic]

Good advice and I will take it to heart.

Since obviously creation cannot be proved by science, and since I'm not an expert in evolution, maybe someone can answer some questions I've had come up in my own thinking.

Going back to my fetish with the human brain... Have there been any estimates as to how long our brains have functioned at the levels they currently do? One of my greatest hurdles in understanding this, is that if we have had this intelligence for say, 200,000 years, why the sudden progress in the last 1% of that time? Maybe I'm just being a smug homo-sapien, but I feel that we should/would have accomplished more sooner. What held us back for so long?

Anyway, I'm not being trying to be facetious in the slightest. It's an honest question in my own mind that I've never heard a good explanation for that is backed up by evidence instead of theories.
Where does this 200,000 number come from? My understanding is that modern homos (homo sapiens, that is) have only been around for some 10,000 years. Which, of course, is merely a blip on the earth's 4 billion-ish year history.

Also factor in that as we learn more, it allows us to learn more faster. IOW, it's not a linear curve of knowlege versus time. It's very much exponential -- with obvious setbacks and delays that have occured throughout recorded history.

[skunk]

Homo sapiens sapiens, to give him his full title, arrived around 40,000 years ago, co-existing with homo sapiens neanderthalensis for several thousand years. The starting point for the present period of "progress", as it is loosely termed, is basically the end of the last Ice Age, which happened around 10,000 years ago.

[Don't panic]

i'll chime in and recommend reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond if you haven't already.
It's a fantastic book, and although it's not directly about the issues discussed here, it touches about some parts, in particular social evolution.
a must read.

[adrianblaine]

They are brilliant! He is a fantastic lecturer and has that innate ability to tell a story, which is totally factual, and make it as interesting as fiction. It is also as good a source as I can think of to explain the historical events that led to change. I would also recommend it for the pure enjoyment of watching (reading) it. It really is that good.

i'll chime in and recommend reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond if you haven't already.
It's a fantastic book, and although it's not directly about the issues discussed here, it touches about some parts, in particular social evolution.
a must read.

I am definitely interested in social evolution. Looks like I'm in for a trip to the library soon...

Where does this 200,000 number come from? My understanding is that modern homos (homo sapiens, that is) have only been around for some 10,000 years. Which, of course, is merely a blip on the earth's 4 billion-ish year history.

Also factor in that as we learn more, it allows us to learn more faster. IOW, it's not a linear curve of knowlege versus time. It's very much exponential -- with obvious setbacks and delays that have occured throughout recorded history.

From the Smithsonian Nation Museum of Natural History (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm) I found dates ranging from 90,000 to 130,000 to 200,000 years.

I understand that the pace of learning and progress accelerates exponentially. Like I said, there is quite a bit I haven't studied about in this area...

The genetic mutation that allows advanced communication is estimated to only be some 16,000 years old and didn't become widespread amongst the species until about 5000BC. Prior to that basic cave paintings were pretty much all people could manage.

Do you have a reference for this? How does this account for those living in the Americas 10,000 years ago?