Category: Let's talk
This subject interest me much.
I am opening this board for you that want to discuss it.
I put it on let’s talk, because I’d like people to be unrestricted in what they say, not on Safe Haven.
The discussion has started over on U.S politics board.
To get started, I liked to post there, so refer to them.
Post163, and 166.
I don’t want to start with my thoughts, opinions, because I don’t wish to set a tone.
With the holidays coming, and all the major religions celebrating about the same time next month, this year having 5 Sunday months, super moons, and even being an even numbered year, lots can be discussed from that point too.
Okay, let us see how this goes.
hi forereel,
this is a discussion that also fascinates me. let's all try to be kind and considerate. opinions of the subject not personal attacks or flaming shouldn't be necessary or important.
all my life I've known there was a god. when reading about orhaving mountains, the ocean, the beautiful sky, and so many more things that were created had to be strted by a god thatis bigger, mightier, and mow powerful than li'l ol' me. jesus is my savior. also this is strongly evident to me. however, as has been said on the other board, in many ways, I part with the Christian right. I guess I could say thati am a moral conservative but an economic liberal. having young adult children who are struggling to make it in this difficult world, has dramatically shown me that there are many many things to be changed in our nation. also, the god I believe in condones committed loving relationships. it doesn't make a darned bit of difference between whom these occur. I could go on and on. I hope this answers your question. enjoy your day.
I'm the sort of atheist who believes that not everything has an answer we understand yet. I'm an atheist, though, because I absolutely cannot do the "because God" logic. I can't condone it, can't support it, can't shut my brain off. In my case - I am speaking for myself here, and no one else - it requires a leap that I'm simply not able to make.
When we learn to trust people, it is because people ultimately prove that they're worth trusting. Sometimes they validate that trust, sometimes they don't. And sometimes when they don't but we decide to give them another chance, there's an element of irrationality in that. But I can get behind it when people do that, and that's because a person can walk up to you and hug you, can call you on the phone to ask how your day was, can argue with you about whether pumpkin pie sucks...can, in other words, put their indelible stamp upon your life. They can do this in a measurable way that others can recognize. This is not true for any of the big religions, so I can't accept them, and I won't try.
This doesn't mean I hate Christians, Muslims, Jews or anyone else. I don't. It doesn't mean I hate religion. I don't. It at worst means that I believe most religion has absolutely zero basis in hard evidence, and as such, if it's not provable, it's not real.
This doesn't mean that I think there's absolutely no chance of some sort of force beyond our knowledge. I'm just a hundred percent convinced that it has nothing whatsoever to do with our little preconceived notions of religion. For me at least, slapping a "therefore God" label on the stuff we don't understand is intellectually lazy, and presuming that our religion - which, you'll remember, lacks empirical data - is superior in any fashion is downright arrogant.
If you want to believe in stuff that can't be proven, that's fine. If you're not hurting anyone with it, then go right ahead. I don't have to agree with you, and I certainly won't be looking down my nose at you either. Just don't get off telling me that your view supersedes mine; we're all human, we're all imperfect, and we're all subject to being wrong, even about the big stuff, sometimes.
Interesting how in recent years, certain events and people are causing many of us nonreligious people to see the variety within Christendom and other religions. So I admit my biases, I was raised in the evangelical arena during the time when most held the Bible in one hand and the Wall Street Jouranl in the other. We're godly, commies are evil, and all the rest of it. Not the stereotype of some country bumpkin, these were bankers and other so-called higher thinking conservatives, although I think most humans do quite a bit of higher thinking personally.
I admit I have very much taken it personally when people of faith say they're different from the lockstep we all grew up with. Take it personally in a good way. I'm trying to listen more, and I have realized there is an awful lot I don't know.
I guess what I really don't want is to become a "fundamentalist atheist". I'm married to a Christian, after all, and have a daughter who is exploring her own spirituality among other things.
I find it interesting that Sam Harris once said spirituality is a state of being, and religion is at best an imitation. Which is probably why when people of faith speak of their experiences, I tend to give a bit of respectful deference. I try to be careful not to out and out dismiss things, something not only we atheists are often guilty of but anyone who perhaps has a list of responses for certain types of questions.
I am not a Christian, nor do I have a title, or think of myself as something.
If I have to be labeled, I’d say I’m a strong believer in God, and God’s love, rightness.
The God I believe in need not be found inside of a building on a specific day, but I like the teachings of the Bible, and other books, documents based in religion.
I don’t see them as the word, but a guiding or examples of things.
I couldn’t be called a Christian, because I have beliefs that are not going to be agreed with by some groups.
I’m not liberal, because I don’t think it is required.
I think science and religion should be one in the same and I believe both can benefit from the other if the sword could be laid aside.
Humans are forever seeking answers to all things, reasons, why’s, and I don’t believe we’ll ever know them all.
I see Atheism and Christianity, religious, and non-religious problems. Both have reasons, and claim reasoning, but neither seem to have understanding.
This won’t ever work.
all of you have been rational and clear thinking and expressing your opoinions clearly and well. geesh that was a run on sentence and I'm not fixing it. anyway, the word religion makes me tired. all that mumbo jumbo, big words, and so forth can sometimes cloud the communication between god and me. right now in sunday school we're studying thenature of god. our teacher just graduated from seminary. he's forever using words like epistological. as soon as I hear those terms, up goes my ornery hand and I say "say that in English please. we don'twant magical thinking in church." on another subject, my sister in law is a latter day saint, a.k.a Mormon. in the family Christian book store here there is a whole section on the evils of the Mormon church and another one on islam. how are we showing god's love by putting out drek like this? like the guy earlier here who said he has to see something to believe it, I'd never go for the golden plates in the field that joseph smith was shown by god. put them in my hands and i'll believe it. however, my sister in law gets a great deal of support and comfort from her church. who am I to do god's job and judge her? I'd not have the nerve to do so.
Atheism is nothing more or less than the disbelief in a god or gods. It doesn't have answers in and of itself because it doesn't seek them. Atheism can't explain things with a lack of god because that's not part of its definition. Atheists - not the stance, the people who embody that stance - try and explain things with rationality, science and the like. Those things are not inherently part of atheism. Let's be clear on that.
I would agree with the last statement provided people claiming to be such did not hold that their lack of belief was the best, and most rational, reasonable, and provable way to think.
If a group does not believe in a God, or Gods, why is it so important to that group to prove the lack of existents of God?
Said group wishes to remove God for everything, even the hearts of men kind.
Lots of time, money, and such is spent on this project, and it gets just as bad as the Christian trying to prove to others that they should follow God, or God’s.
If each group put out their sign, so to speak, and allowed people to come to them freely, or with free will, I’d have less of an issue with this practice, but they don’t.
If you should let your light so shine, that the world can see it and come to it, is that not enough?
I tend to argue from the Christians side of the fence only because Atheist seem to be hell bent on crushing it.
Prayer means many things to many people. Prayer can help in many ways when people believe strongly in it.
If I pray, this does not harm anyone, nor infringe on anyone’s space.
So why does the Atheist need to prove I’m wasting my time?
If I pray in the mornings, and that act brings me much peace and centers me for my day’s task, has not prayer been worth something?
The whole soul/spirit thing is mumbo-jumbo to me, this idea that something non-physical can experience pain or pleasure. It's utter nonsense.
I can answer that, but you're probably not going to like it.
First of all, a lot of atheists are of the live-and-let-live mentality. I am, most of the time.
Second of all, the main reason you've got a loud group who is definitely not that way is because they are able to see, from an outside but rather clear perspective, the harm that religion can do when it is mismanaged. They can't necessarily attack or debunk every single adherent of the religion, so they attempt to debunk the religion itself.
I'm going to say something here that's probably going to ruffle feathers just a bit. I don't intend to be rude, but I feel like I need to make this point, and there's no other way for me to make it, so here goes.
Atheists and religious people are not equal in a logical sense. They just aren't. In a purely logical sense, atheists are the only entity. Religion is not logical.
This means that in essence, there's no point in even arguing back and forth. It's not like side A has a valid point, and side B has a valid point. Side A has a point you can prove with facts; side B has suppositions. That is simply not a fair comparison. Side A will try and prove things with rationalism, while side B will make statements and expect them to stand simply because they've been made.
In a logical forum, this simply doesn't work. I am being very careful here to talk about logic/rationalism here, because I'm not trying to call religious folks lesser people or anything.
In general though, Wayne, I agree with you. I think people of any persuasion, religious or nonreligious, should leave others the hell alone, until or unless their belief (or lack of it) is doing provable harm to themselves or to others. Otherwise, like I said before, live and let live.
I have seen often presented around here that logic and faith or religion and science are mutually exclusive. Before I state the following, I tell you I am not a person of faith.
Many great scientists from Newton to modern scientists do not believe science precludes God. Finding out, and figuring out, how the universe works does not, in itself, refute religion. Now, the bible, if read litterally, is not consistent with known science, so no true scientists believe the bible to be litteral. In this regard, Creation Science is a misnomer. It is not science as defined by the scientific method. Just calling it science doesn't make it science.
Philosophy, which has throughout time been closely aligned with science, does allow for the fact that an understanding of something can be enhanced by faith. In other words without faith, it may be impossible to even grasp certain concepts. Faith is not, as some here often say, an unreasoning belief. Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive. However, reason, by itself, has limitations; the inability to resolve a problem without certain knowledge. Faith can help address this dilemma. Do not confuse reasoning with the ability to lab test a hypothesis. Though the scientific method is a great tool towards gaining knowledge, knowledge is also gained through reasoning even in areas which are not testable. Capernicus predicted the Sun and not the Earth at the center of the solar system well before it was testable. He used mathematics to reason. Hawking does this now as he is a theoretical physicist, not an experimental physicist. Capernacus said that faith in God gave him the insight to reason a certain way. Hawking is an Atheist. Both are brilliant reasoners.
Of course. There are many brilliant religious minds. When I talk about faith and reason and all that, I'm referring specifically to the religion itself.
At the end of the day, a "therefore God" argument is not reasonable. It relies on an unprovable statement for its ability to stand up. Take away that prop, and it falls over.
Well-reasoned scientific argument does not do this.
What's more, a "therefore God" argument, if it uses that prop to hold itself up, can never be defeated, because its very existence attempts to pass the baton to others to disprove a god, and that can't be done. This, in itself, is irrational, since usually, when attempting to determine the validity of something, we are proving it, not disproving it.
Science and reason, by their nature, should be able to admit that they are wrong. When early scientists claimed the sun revolved around the earth, or that the earth was flat, they eventually had to change their thinking because hard evidence disproved the facts. Anything scientific comes with the caveat that current understanding, while it may look solid, might also have holes in it.
It should also be said here that I tend to agree with you. There are a lot of things we can't explain, and we can't utterly and completely prove that there isn't some sort of god or gods out there. I feel like the onus is on those who have faith to prove the existence of said gods, rather than on us to disprove them.
Let me put this another way. I've never had a problem saying "I don't know, and right now I can't know" to something, and then pursuing more study on whatever that thing is if I'm interested enough. Science attempts this. Religion usually doesn't, and resorts to a "therefore God" leap at the end of its rhetoric. My question - and I've asked this dozens of times in my life, never having gotten a satisfactory and truthful answer - is this: why can't people be satisfied with admitting that they don't have an answer for everything?
I think where there's a rub is when religious people claim that faith can be reasoned, or that atheists claim that a religious person's experience can be disproven.
On the one side, there are religious minds who will tell you that claiming you can reason faith actually cheapens faith. This comes from the faith community itself, although perhaps not the more fundamentalist sects.
Now as an atheist, I can no more disprove your experience than you could disprove my liking pizza. I have seen different religious people have similar experiences and attribute them to entirely different entities, or versions of the same entity.
I wouldn't go so far as to say faith or spirituality is irrational. But it is nonrational. That just means it's not rational discourse, just as an athlete may also participate in nonathletic pursuits like the arts.
The reason you see some groups of atheists be politically vocal is a defensive one. Prayer in schools, for example, or public prayer at a state-sponsored meeting.
Now let's look at this from your religion's perspective, if you're a variant of protestant:
How would you feel if in public school, everyone had to do the Rosary? Or kneel and face Mecca?
How about a public meeting with some statues that many evangelicals have historically called idols?
Many evangelicals would historically have taken something like this very personally.
So protecting against a state-sponsored religious act is protecting your own religion. The only time you wouldn't notice this is when the state happens to be sponsoring your particular version of the religion you practice.
When Rick Perry in Texas had public political demonstrations with prophecies and speaking in tongues and all the rest of the Pentecostal gala, his detractors were other Christians, ironically siding with atheists. Because
I love the statement we simply just don't know and should be able to say so.
I also would hope that religion changes, or evolves as things are disproven, like science is made to.
This can be seen directly in Gay marriages. In some places, it is now law that Gay persons can marry, and the world hasn’t stopped turning, nor has the sun stopped rising.
It has done nothing to change base society accept, allow a few more people to be happier, or live freer.
Prayer in a meeting is voluntary, or should be. No one says you have to participate.
All meetings are not started with a prayer as well, only in some places and most of the people are religious.
Faith is important. Without faith we couldn’t send ships across the ocean and lots of other things we figured would work, but weren’t exactly sure.
Faith is what makes humanity continue to strive, grow, learn.
My thoughts on why science and religion are equal and should be seen in that light.
I hear it often, we don’t need religion, we have science. With science we can explain most things, and the things we can’t explain, we’re working on.
The other things we’ve tried and failed to explain are just nature, or natural caused.
What? Nature?
Science feeds the mind, curiosity, but doesn’t feed the soul, emotion. The human experience is made up of both elements if it is to be whole, so both are required to make this happen and important.
Science teaches about why’s, but religion teaches values, decency even if you aren’t religious.
We build a coal mine. We have learned that this stuff can be dug from the earth, and we know how to build the tunnels, the tools.
We know all aspects of coal.
Now we need this work done. How do we get it dug up, refined and in to our homes to heat, our factories and other places it is useful?
We need people.
We scientific society have the no how, and are more educated, so we’ll just round up some bodies and dig a hole and send them after the coal.
Sure, we know the hole is liable to cave in, but we’ve got all these bodies, so we’ll just keep digging or reopening them and send more bodies to get the coal.
We’ll work them until they drop.
We know we’ll have by products, so we’ll just send all the crap that comes from the work of the mine down the river away from us.
Add religion to that mine project, and you have people thinking about should they maybe think about other people?
Why do we even need to care about our brothers, and sisters? Religion.
Why do the non-educated deserve a life just like we do?
When our miners are hurt working, or killed, what makes us care for the left behind families?
If a body is born by natural causes, disabled, or becomes disabled, why we don’t just discard them. They are not of full working value, so a drain.
I logically see the flaws with both side, and the wrong both science and religion have caused, but if you strip life down to basics, humanity needs an equal measure of both to continue.
Too much religion, we stop trying to learn, because, God provides, or decides.
Too much science, and we stop caring about how other might feel, be harmed, what effect this mining project might have on them.
By no means is this complete. This is just a general idea, thought about why both are equally important.
They can, and should balance each other if applied evenly.
Both have been with us sense we’ve been, and will continue I hope.
Why do you think religion is a requirement for doing good?
I hate that line of thinking. It's what happens when you get mixed up in superstition.
In the sciences, particularly the medical sciences, at least in the modern world, there are methods to help people factor the risk vs reward of the actions they take. You see this all the time in everything from drug trials, to mining. In many a mining accident the science has shown that going that extra 1000 Feet down would be exponentially dangerous, but maybe the company really needs that extra mineral resource to make its money back on the mine. So, they take a calculated risk.
Just as the catholic church took a calculated risk in choosing to hide their officials who had provably raped little boys and girls.
You could argue based on an example like that, that both humans are the problem, except for the fact that one system actually dictates that the law of the country where the crime happened decide the punishment, and the other well... hides the criminals away.
Yes, religion has changed for the better in most respects, but only because those on the fringe have dragged it kicking and screaming into the future. Women's rights, rights of people who aren't white/the chosen race in a particular country, gay rights, trans rights, disabled rights, are all generally argued with the same bigoted bullshit. The only difference is the religion is picking a new group to hate. Its the same story every single time. I don't understand how people who look back at history can't see this.
Religion in and of itself isn't this perfect piece of moral values so many people seem to think it is...
OR maybe it is, after they pick and delete and omit and twist and turn and conflate the facts of what their religion actually is.
But to the logical mind, none of that stands up. When someones values aren't firm on anything they effectively stand for nothing.
We aren’t born moral, or with a set of values.
We can be taught anything at all if we are in the right group.
Religion teaches values.
I’m not speaking of the type that uses hell fire and damnation, I’m speaking of the core reason religion is.
I can see how that concept is difficult to grasp if you’ve been in a religious group that taught hate unless you were, X and Y, but that isn’t the type I mean.
Medical science don’t always cure to be good, they do it to be able.
These same medical science have harmed in the name of science too.
Going that extra 1000 feet down is not a calculated risk in my example, it is a lack of humanity.
We’ll send these people, because they don’t matter.
Sure, we understand going down that deep will be or might be hazardous, but it is only the…
We’ll drop them in the hole, and if they come out, fine, we’ll have good labor, if not, we’ll replace them with others.
Religion can teach values, yes, but it is not the only source of values, nor the greatest one.
Wayne, what do you think humans did eight thousand years ago, when religion as we know it today didn't really exist? Do you think they routinely killed each other, raped each other, stole from each other and generally had no moral compass?
The truth is that humans are intelligent social creatures. Many of our values are, believe it or not, common sense.
"I shouldn't kill that person because I wouldn't want him to kill me."
"How would I feel if he stole my stuff? No, I won't steal from him."
"Rape? No no no. If I'm going to have sex, it should be enjoyable."
And so on and so on. Of course there are people who break these precepts, but by and large we recognize that several things are generally a bad idea. We don't do so because some god or other said so. We do so because of a wonderful trait called empathy. Religion didn't give us empathy. Social awareness did.
Ah but humankind needed a way to control each other. Enter religion.
8,000 years ago there were religions. they may not be like ours but they did exist. read history for heaven sake.
forereel, i love your messages. youdescribe things eloquently and movingly.
if god is so bad, how come every society has believed in some kind of higher being. greeks, Chinese, native americans, Egyptians, Japanese, south asian cultures, even cave paintings mostly show belief in something that is greater than are we. in my experience, if we don't acknowledge a god, then we put self in its stead. many atheists, and I've known quite a few are some of the most self centered people I've encountered. not always is this true, but far too many fall in to this description. my mom used to say that every human is a millisecond away from savagery. whatever it takes to keep us upright, kind, and caring, is fine with me. and I'm sick and tired of all the blah blah about all the horrible things religion has done. yes, there were horrible things done in the name of god. there still are today. isl is a good example. in every group, whether it is Christian fundamentalism or atheism there is a lunatic fringe. these people would be nut cases and perpetrate evil no matter what their belief system. in my naivete, I hope that the majority of any group is looking for and wanting to practice good.
finally, and I promise I will for sure shut up after this, you guys have explained atheism in a rational clearly understood way. although I don't accept it in my life, I undaerstand why you do and how you could.
with this political b.s. going on, Christianity is losing an opportunity to win and keep young people. why should they go to a church that they feel espouses Donald trumpism? many do not, but the media et.al portray it so.
People like you sicken me. savagery? Plenty of that in your precious bible, especially the old testament, which is more than half the bible. All that you shall utterly destroy every man woman and child, camel and donkey, ox and sheep, blah blah blah. Then you make that lame argument of well, lots of people believe in a god, so he must exist.
Let's try and keep this civil, eh? Just putting my two cents' worth in on that.
Okay. Yes, there were other religions before Christianity. Of course there were. But tell me something: what came first, the man or the god?
The answer is man. Man only created god and godlike beings when he found things his evolving brain couldn't understand. What is lightning? Why do some people get sick and die while others do not? Does it mean anything when a feverish woman babbles? Why is the moon a different colour tonight? All sorts of questions, and rather than just figure that they didn't know, they made up stories about those things. The stories were then sort of hardened into so-called fact over the years.
None of this says a thing about morals and values.
And then came the mind control and the fear factor. Don't do this, that, and the other, or the bogeyman will get ya.
We should also be careful to distinguish between formal or organized religion, and individual religious or spiritual views. History has pretty conclusively shown that formal religion is a social control mechanism. Many people of the cloth even admit this. I personally have little use for formalized religion. Now, individual religious belief and or spiritualism should not be painted with the same brush. One doesn't have to agree with a spiritual interpretation, but one should not dismiss it out of hand just because it is spiritual.
To the last post? Why not?
If its not logical, if the belief doesn't stand up to the application of reason, why should we give it equal standing with things that can actually be validated?
Good good, wave your godly flag. Yeah, show us how superior you are. It makes me want to puke.
Both religion and science have books. The Bible and other publications happens to be the one studied from that side.
Both a Bible, and a scientific text book can be misinterpreted, and the information in them used for harm.
I'm speaking of the core religious system that is a guide post for humanity.
People actually did, and do kill, steal, and you name it from each other, even these claiming to be “God fearing” However, societies have some sort of belief system in place to guide us.
If we toss out religion, and science, because some of it is bad, were are we going to be?
If I say, well, science said this, but look at all the harm that caused when it was found to be false. Let’s get rid of it, it isn’t good.
This was actually preached in some circles, that science was dangerous, and people that studied were witches, or something.
Atheist make exactly the same claims about religion.
I have experienced, or scene some bad religion, so lets get rid of it.
You were not born Atheist, you come to that decision because of something in your life, or you are taught it.
Religion is exactly the same, and if taught wisely and from the core values, it is important.
I’ll go so far as to say even Atheist have some religious background as most of you seem to here.
That is not a general claim, I base it on some of the things you all have written about your bad religious experiences.
They were bad, but you still took away these basic values. You didn’t stop believing there was no God, so there for, I can do what I want, because accept for the law, I’ll not be punished for it.
You did not grow up in a non-religious society, so you have some religion.
Perhaps the title bothers you, because of how you associate it, but it is still religion, as science is still science.
We could change the titles and call it the R and S factor, but we need them both.
I'd like to add.
The claim organized religion is used to control people is valid.
Can not science be used in the same way?
Has not science been used to give some groups the upper hand, and the control?
Is it not used even now in that same light?
Would it not be best for humanity to toss out the hate factor and use both religion, and science to build a stronger society?
This is all being twisted in order to miss the point.
Science can be wrong. It's been wrong before. But it's based on hard evidence that can be duplicated for others. A science book, essay, published law, etc. is based on these precepts.
A religious book, though? I could write all kinds of silly things, call it a religious book, self-publish it or just give it out free on street corners, and found a religion off of it. It wouldn't matter what was said in that book, really. I could even make up a language consisting of seven imaginary letters and claim that it's the language of the god I purport to believe in and support within the book. This in no way, none whatsoever, makes it equal to a book of science, even if that scientific publication turns out to be wrong in the end.
Put bluntly, science is about facts. Religion is about opinions and beliefs. They don't belong in the same arena. They don't belong in the same arguments. They don't belong in the same classroom.
Made me laugh about the languages.
Okay, so even if a science book is flat out wrong, just because it has a label "science" makes it okay?
You publish your scientific facts, and hand it out or better yet, sell it.
Example, men that are between 5 feet tall, and around 130 will live longer than other men because they have the best BMI ratio.
You claim group studies, and you give a few doctors names in that book to make it valid.
This has actually happened in history.
Not my example, but false, or badly run studies.
It seems to me that when you attach religion to a book, that book is bad only because in an Atheist view, it is religious based, not because it might have some facts that make it worth study.
An example of that would be that many people find peace or feel at peace after they pray.
Is prayer not valid, helpful, even though by Atheist standards it was a waste of time?
Change of subject.
Anyone find anything interesting in the upcoming super moon?
Religious crack pots, interesting science, maybe some spiritual statements?
Wayne, that's an honest enough question (your first point, not the supermoon thing, I have no real opinion about light being reflected off of a rock), so I'll address it.
Eugenics claimed to be based on science too. So no, not all science is good. Ditto bad studies, falsified evidence, the whole nine yards. This is what I'm going to call "bad science". Bad science in large part still tries to follow the scientific method, even if it gets bungled in the process. But no, an atheist would not say that all things done in the name of science are okay. They patently aren't.
Unfortunately, religion does this by default. It bases all of its points on supposition and in leaps that do not in any way contain logic. It is essentially the opinions of powerful people and groups framed by spiritual terms meant to make being controlled easier to swallow. And in that way, it works all too well.
Speaking for myself, I'm not the sort of atheist who thinks that praying is a terrible thing. Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night if it's not hurting anyone is pretty much fine by me. If religion was individualized, nonjudgmental and noninfluential to those outside of it, I wouldn't give a damn. What my neighbour believes in, as far as the spiritual realm goes, is of little to no importance to me.
The issue, though, is that science books are simply publishing knowledge (well, except the aforementioned bad science, which is pretty slimy sometimes). Most religious books are either seeking converts, telling someone how to live their life, or rendering judgment in some fashion, and I'm just not okay with that. Add in the fact that religion, as a construct, controls (or purports to control) people who aren't religious, by influencing laws and processes outside of its jurisdiction, and you have a recipe for bad blood.
James, science is not as you say entirely based on what is provable. Much advanced science is specifically not provable at least for now. That is why the words theory and hypothesis exist. An example: Isaac Newton, considered by most the father of modern science, hypothesized that all matter was made up of tiny fundamental building blocks he call corpusals. Now, we would call these atoms. The thing was, he had no way to prove this belief. It was a theory, another name for a belief, and could not be proven by observation for another 200 years. So saying everything in science can be tested or proven is just not acurate. That's why, though I personally do not practice faith, I can say your argument is flawed.
For Reel, you keep saying religion, or religious up bringing is necessary for humans to have values and morality. This is simply not so, and is provably not so. Humans have an innate tendency towards sacrifice for the group, and kindness to others. Why this is can be debated, and is debated. Some philosophers think it is our mind, or soul. Some believe it has to do with survival of the species. There are other theories also. The point is though, this is not bestowed by religion. It may be reinforced by religion, or by society itself, but it is inborn and that has been scientifically tested and demonstrated.
This has been an interesting discussion.
Pasco, I’m a bit lost on your position.
Not that you don’t practice organized religion, but on your claims in post 11, and now what you say in the last post.
Do you, or do you not feel faith is essential?
I gave the scientific study some thought as to humans having innate tendency towards sacrifice for the group, and kindness to others.
That seems to be a difficult thing to prove that religion had nothing to do with it.
Because religion has been so engrained in humanity no matter where you go from the most remote tribes to the metro city, some form of religion, philosophical, spiritual thought exist.
Do we know how religion, or all the above started; when it started?
Was it some group of wise men or something that set down one day and figured out if they created religion they could control the tribe?
How did this concept get spread to all corners of the earth?
Anyone have some thoughts on that?
Perhaps if I stop calling this innate tendency towards sacrifice for the group, and kindness to others religion, the Atheist group would have less of an issue with my claims?
What would you call it?
Pascoe, as far as I understand it at least, Newton's theory was based on evidence. He couldn't prove it absolutely, but he didn't just say "therefore corpusals" when he hit a roadblock. The things he knew about matter, and how it behaved, led him to a theory he couldn't prove, which later turned out to be true. He didn't make a statement equivalent to "the sixth planet can influence personality when at the apogee of its orbit during the second quarter of the moon", or any such thing that ultimately can't be proven. He took what he knew (not guessed, but knew), and made an educated guess. Religion doesn't make educated guesses. It makes guesses, period. You cannot end an educated guess with "therefore god"; that sort of turns it into an unprovable statement.
I'll use something a little silly to prove my point.
I drank quite a lot of alcohol last night, and I woke up this morning with a bit of a hangover.
I've drunk more alcohol than that before, but avoided hangover during those times.
I got plenty of sleep, so I know that lack of sleep wasn't the issue.
Therefore, a pink-suited leprechaun speaking French must have hit me over the left ear with his onyx mallet to give me that hangover. Hitting me over the right ear would've resulted in no such problems, since everybody knows that the spot above your right ear is the healing spot.
Sounds utterly and completely nuts, right? Because the leprechaun, his mallet, and the so-called healing spot, not to mention the relationship with hangovers, is patently unprovable? That's what basically every religious argument does, to one degree or another. It takes something peculiar ("Why did I get a hangover this time?"), and turns it into something far-fetched. The fact that a believer won't think it's far-fetched doesn't matter. For all you know, I believe wholeheartedly in this leprechaun, and for you to actually claim my theory ridiculous would be insulting. Yet the impulse of most people is to dismiss the crazy-sounding stuff they aren't used to, while still patently accepting most religious arguments on a very loose "well, maybe they have a point" basis.
Just think about that the next time something random happens, or when something occurs that you can't explain. You can either analyze what you know and come to an assumption (in my case, I was drinking a lot of seven-up and southern comfort, and the excess of sugar might've done it), or you can conjure a convenient leprechaun to take the blame or ease the burden. Your call.
I love that example. Smile.
But, you are still putting religion as a whole, not a part or the other half I believe we need.
If you take religion as also science, sure it fails.
Some religious people do try to explain things with religion, but I believe the core or base wasn't to explain, but to teach, or help humanity survive in some peace.
Another silly example.
I believe God that word again, is in everything. I believe in a high power.
Now if I go and grow a flower and that flower fails to grow as large as the directions say it should, I can’t blame it on God.
Maybe God didn’t want that flower to be so big.
No, maybe it needed more sun, water, the soil wasn’t the best, but it wasn’t God’s doing.
We have lots and lots of planets, other solar systems, and you name it. This all just didn’t go bang, and was there? Some power, or powers created it, and that power, or powers created science too go along with religion.
Why over all the animals and such were we chosen to have a soul, spirit.
We know we are living, and can contemplate all this.
Why out of all the animals did we get the nod to be supreme?
I don’t know this, because I can’t, but, I don’t think any other animal worries about science, religion, God, or a higher power, or how, why, the world exist.
They just go about business as nature dictates they do.
An odd thought, but for me, being Atheist puts me on that same level, accept for some reason I have the power to know it or think about it.
For some reason I can decide right from wrong, or decide if I’m going to be humane, or not.
If I’m hungry, and I see a Deer, I can decide to not eat that Deer, but if I’m say a Wolf, or other, I’ve got no choice, that decision is already made.
I don’t need to worry about conservation, extinction, and all that goes with this.
Even tribes that lived off the land understood they had to move on and not deplete resources.
Think about the story of Buffalo.
Others cared less for the religion that was based on moving on and not killing all the Buffalo in one area. Awhile group of people suffered for that lack of caring, and I believe the people that didn’t care suffered for it too.
Now we’re running about trying to preserve the Buffalo.
Oh, but wait, that was science, right?
If the tribes hadn’t called it part of religion, or a religious aspect would that have saved the Buffalo?
Just because it was called religion didn’t make it any less valid did it?
You mentioned wolves Which actually help prove our point. Wolves will protect one another from harm. They also migrate around, following their food.
Studies show that some monkeys, chimps and gorillas have a sense of right and wrong, and a social structure that punishes those who are wrong, again, just as wolves do.
Are they exactly using human values? Not really.
But they do have a social system that promotes good behavior which helps others.
These traits are not exclusively human.
With that in mind, considering the limitations of these animals to think in ways we do, Its extremely unlikely they have gods or a god.
So now, lets look at what makes humans and these other animals similar.
Both realized they could be stronger working in packs.
Both realized that packs/social groups require some structure.
Both realized that you probably shouldn't do things you don't want others to do to you.
Their are exceptions, like Hitler to this rule, of course, Sometimes both humans and animals pick a leader that isn't the most adventagious for them.
On a side note, Yes, monkeys can recognize those with higher social status based on facial features, and they tend to have the same kinds of reactions to them that we humans tend to have to people much more attractive/influential than us.
someone way back in this thread said something that I found profoundly simple that solves this argument. science believes that man was here first and then invaented god. Christians and other religions believe that god came first. it's that simple and that profound. either we believe that we are supreme and invented a deity or the deity is huger stronger and better than are we. in my world view god loved us enough to give us freedom to choose. we could and can deacide to believe in him and give him credit, or we can take all the honors for science and ourselves. a good earthly parent does not control his child. he or she lets tthis person he loves more than life itself have the freedom to fail and to grow. so it is with god. if god had been punative he'd have made us just like my Labrador guide dog who is lying here on my feet. I'd have a pat mapped out for me by genetics. I'd react in a prescribed way to any given situation. thank goodness I have the freedom and ability to go beyond that. now, this is my last word. you big heads are way beyond my ability to comprehend. enjoy your day.
A good earthly parent doesn't throw their child into a fiery furnace either.
I keep hearing, "God doesn't send us to hell; we send ourselves there." Where does this come from? Is there scripture to back it up?
I have heard of the studies on animals, but when I read them I always wonder how do they figure this?
Sure, some have right or wrong traits, but we can't possibly know what an animal thinks, can we?
We can learn what makes them worry, or what we perceive as worry, and we can know what they fear, but what they think?
The wolves didn't figure out it was better to run in a pack, this would be the natural calling, or order of things I'd say.
If animalsh have these traits, how did they get put there?
Could it be that animals were the test beds for building, creating humans?
Some animal groups have society as well and the young learn from the older.
Leaning on science so heavily believing it knows all, is much like leaning totally on religion for all the answers. Both are dead wrong, and often.
Would nature be God, and so religion?
There are scriptures that state we make our own hell, or we send ourselves to hell.
I don't keep all that scripture stuff ready to hand as many Christians do, so I'll try and look it up for you.
The concept of hell is different as well from religion to religion.
Science does not know all. Not yet, at any rate. The difference is not in what it knows, but in how it seeks.
Science is willing to adapt to changes in its base of knowledge. Generally speaking, religion isn't.
Science is shaped by reason, largely speaking. Religion is a contrast to this, drawing on what amounts to superstition and various fears to weave itself together.
No, we can't know what animals actually think, but we can observe their behaviour and can make reasonable deductions.
Bonobos are well-known for altruism, for instance. Put two of them in a situation where they must cooperate to get food, and not only will they learn/teach each other, but they will then tend to share that food more often than not.
Is it literally possible that some sort of god or spiritual force taught them this? Technically it is, but where is the proof, evidence or suggestion that this is the case?
However, it would make more rational sense to suggest that bonobos understand, at least on some level, what it means to be part of a social group in which an individual member may need help from the others. In other words, their sheer intelligence lets them understand that sometimes they will need help, and sometimes must render help to others who need it. Alongside this understanding is the knowledge that if you don't want someone to be a jerk to you, you shouldn't be a jerk to them.
I will make one pro-religious argument here though, concerning hell/punishment and all that.
Okay, so I don't believe in hell. I think the concept of hell is a human one, used primarily to instill fear in religious adherents.
However, I don't think that a parent who punishes, on some level, is a bad parent. Even a parent who purports to give their child free will would not be considered bad if that child did something wrong and the parent scolded them for it. This is a matter of accepting consequences.
So no, Imp, I don't think a responsible parent will throw his kid in a furnce for all eternity. That's pretty freaking stupid. But I do think a responsible parent will punish, or at least negatively reinforce, certain bad behaviours. The question of whether or not that punishment is bad, or appropriate, or what have you, comes down to its severity vs. the infraction.
Wayne, I'll finish up quickly with you here, with a point you made in your last post.
You essentially say that following science and religion are equal. They're not.
The thing is, you don't "follow" science. If science doesn't have an answer for something, you don't still say "therefore science" if you're being intellectuallly honest. You admit the gap in your understanding and move on. Science doesn't care and won't threaten you if you don't know how to explain something. Science is not something you "believe in", it's something you agree or disagree with based on repeatable criteria and logic.
Religion, by its nature, can't be proven. You must believe, else it has no power to explain. Most religions have some sort of self-serving doctrine which negatively stigmatizes a lack of belief somehow, in a way that science never, ever does. You follow religion because religion tells you what to believe without telling you why. Gaps in knowledge are filled by a deity rather than by any true attempt at the acquisition of more knowledge.
Put another way, science is what you use when you want answers. Religion is what you use when you want tough questions to go away.
No, I don't mean you follow science, I'm saying it is a mistake to follow just like it would be a mistake to blindly follow some religious teaching.
I'm religious, but I'll not follow say a Jim Jones figure.
I believe in science, but I will not blindly follow the notion that black people have smaller brains.
That was my point I was trying to convey.
Wayne, the reason you cannot suss out my position is I haven't expressed one. I have been debating on both sides depending on the merits of the argument. I do have a position, but frankly, I not sure I'm willing to expose it to all of you.
Sheperd Wolfe: saying all religion answers unknowns by saying then God, is not accurate for all religious people. Yes Newton suspected atoms, but he could not really defend the theory by anything testable or repeatable. He reasoned. There have been some great minds in the religious world too. People like Augustine, or Acquainnus. They didn't say then God. They reasoned out a belief system explaining some unanswerable questions. They were not the ones who killed scientists, they embraced science. So these generalizations are not productive.
Wayne, there are many religions that do not teach behavior. You are lumping philosophical religions in with those which do not function that way. Some religions do not teach behavior at all.
Ah, okay on the sides.
I wasn't sure.
Tell me what religion doesn't teach behavior, or some form of it?
Now, when I ask that question, I don't necessarily mean right from wrong, good, bad.
Perhaps, they teach inner peace, or peace with the world?
That makes people behave in a specific mannter.
I still need to dig up the hell stuff.
Got busy. I've read it before, just need to find it. so I'll get to it
Bear in mind that I am criticizing religion as a construct, not every single religious person as individuals.
Some religiously-oriented minds have been brilliant, I've never doubted that. I am speaking more about the tendency of the doctrine rather than the tendencies of all people who embrace it. After all, there are religiously-inclined people of all kinds, everything from the evangelicals who believe in the absolute inviolate word of their chosen holy book, to people like Wayne here who are about as liberally religious as it's possible to get.
I’d not call myself liberal, because I think I’m the way God, or whatever you call the higher power intended people that follow to be.
Do you think I’m going to hell for it?
Smile.
Sorry, couldn’t resist that one.
I can’t fine one scripture that describes why God doesn’t toss us in to hell, but we do it to ourselves.
This is about as close as I can get to how we are punished, and why.
(Exodus 34:5-7 NIV) Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. {6} and he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, {7} maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”
Okay, so we are punished, but it is a natural punishment.
I’ll go back to the story of the Buffalo. The fathers killed them all, or just about sinning on the earth in a word.
Because of that action for years after, it caused problems.
Think of the damage a large oil spill causes, and how long it last because of basic breed. We just can’t mop up the oil, and tomorrow all is well again.
It takes years of the effects of that to heal, and these effects matter for generations, not just the one that spilt the oil.
You could apply this to lots of things.
Let us say you abused your body with drugs. You have a baby, and that baby is a drug baby.
God forgives you, because you aren’t struck down right there, however, now you have that drug baby.
If that baby is able to grow up and have kids, maybe some will have some sort of birth defects too.
You make it difficult for the drug baby to earn a proper living, because of his or her birth defects, and you can go on yourself.
God isn’t stopping you from doing anything you want, but it will bite you on the ass if it is the wrong thing to be doing.
One thing I will say: I don't think we choose to believe. You either believe something or you don't. I've heard Christians say there's no way they could choose to not be Christian. I believe they're right, at least at this point in time. The best you can be is convinced one way or the other. The challenge is when you have a faith whose currency demands belief in a certain deity in a certain way.
My daughter talks in some ways like Wayne re: spirituality.
When I discovered I was atheist, I found out. I didn't decide. Like Greg, I respect that people pray. I'm not offended if someone says they are praying. I don't get all bent out of shape and fundamentalist about people's religious expression.
I know this is hard for religions where you believe or you're doomed: But I just don't think it's very likely we choose to believe. If I want my daughter to trust me, I prove myself trustworthy beyond a shadow of a doubt. Or at least strive to do so. And perhaps more importantly, apologize when I'm wrong.
I do find the belief gene hypothesis interesting, that there may be people who have a greater or lesser genetic disposition towards belief in higher powers. It will be hard to prove on account of fundamentalism and other factors, but I am interested to see how that works out. In largely atheist countries, there are people who have a form of spirituality that is pretty personal and non-dogmatic, and doesn't compete with the natural sciences. I understand there are Christians who don't either, namely Francis Collins, for one.
But belief is just something I don't think we choose. One can choose to give ideas a chance, to look into something, to really dig into it or not. But although many atheists have read the Christian Bible backwards and forwards, they don't find with the Christians. I'm a bit loath to make the popular claim that atheists know the Bible better than Christians. I've even heard that by some Christians, and I, the atheist, would say I'm not sure that's the case. Even though I have read through it a number of times.
If you think that belief is a choice, you think that you could decide that Christianity wasn't right and stop believing. That doesn't really work, though, does it? I mean, you have what they call backslidden Christians; Christians who basically believe the Christian teachings but have sort of set it aside for awhile, or aren't living up to them. But that doesn't mean they don't actually believe it.
If you're Christian, you can't just decide to believe that Thor and Odin are real gods who govern the affairs of European peoples.
I'm just not convinced we can choose belief or lack thereof.
Heavy.
If God gives us free will, I wonder why people feel they can’t choose to believe or not to believe.
I, myself, choose to believe after much thought.
It might be I feel this way because of how I was brought up.
My mother’s a Christian. She’s not a Bible totting, you’ll burn in hell type, but she goes to church every Sunday she’s not sick, or traveling, and she gives much to help others, in time, money.
She talks in terms of God, Christian way.
My dad was probably closer to how I am, accept I spent much time in the church, he never went.
He felt we had too many churches, and they were a drain on the black society.
You have a million dollar building that is maybe half full on Sundays, and closed all week unless they have some sort of meeting.
He felt we needed fewer of them, and they needed to be full, and open 24 7 much like the Catholics do.
Now both taught just because someone has a Bible in hand, and calls themselves a preacher, or has gone to school for it, or whatever, they were to be respected, but examined.
What came out of the mouth, and what they did was how they earned that respect, because they were just people.
That lesson was supported, because my dad would talk to absolutely anybody as an equal, so he had preachers stop by the house to play pool.
They’d have a whiskey some of them too.
If you see a preacher being a person, you lose the mystery aspect some try to build.
My dad would joke about all the Rolls Royce’s one guy had, reverend Ike and say if they were the churches, he should loan them to members that needed to get to work and such who didn’t have cars.
Laughing.
So, I was never made to experience bad religion. If it was bad, it was called bad in my house, and my parents guarded us from it, or brought it to are attenchen.
So, we chose, it wasn’t press on us.
An interesting concept. I’d simply not heard of it.
forereel, I think it also helps if a pastor had a real jobe before he went to seminary. ours was a software engineer. one I had back in Maryland was an air force pilot and worked his way through seminary as a warehouse worker. they are grounded in reality. I think this really helps them make things sensible. I can't stand the ones who scream and yell. my husband and I have been in churches where the preacher starts spitting and screaming and jim walks out. if a person believes in something strongly enough he doesn't have to yell. as my kids used to say mom when you raise your voice all I hear is the yell. oh and one more thing,your dad and mine would have gotten along great. it's too bad what you say about black churches. your father had the right idea. the congregation where our son attends in Jacksonville, florida, is about 50 50 black and white people. they are open all the time. the members work on community projects like fixing up houses where elderly citizens live. they have a homeless program where they give food and there are no string attached. they do all kinds of after school stuff like tutoring and have an open gym where the kids can go. in the summer they are a feeding station where students who get free lunches can still be fed. as his pastor says "jesus didn't just run his mouth." in my ignorance I thought many African American churches operated in this manner. how very sad that they don't.
Not the larger churches.
Many black neighborhoods have what is called hole in the wall churches.
It will be a store front with one of these screaming, spitting, and yelling preachers.
Smile.
If you have 20 of them, plus the large churches, well you understand how the tibes are stretched.
The large churches don't have enough congregation to remain open all the time.
For Reel: The Hindu religion doesn't coach behavior. You just pick the god you want who represents your interests, and pray to him or her to intercede for you.
I would argue the Greek pantheon of gods don't care about human behavior either. You fear them, and hope they just leave you alone.
Ah, but the greek Gods were always doing things, so the people could follow the examples.
I love mythology for good reading.
To me, these stories are much like Bible stories.
Sure, some of them said you should fear, but not all the Gods were fearsome.
Smile.
It will be interesting to read to morrows news.
The super moon is today, and hospitals and such are busy during these times it is said.
This moon, I've read has special meanings, so for these that believe in them, I wonder how it will affect them.
Anyone here in to this sort of thing?
No, but my friend who owns some acres in the middle of nowhere wants to go see it, so I get to go camping.
Cool. I hope you enjoyed the trip.
As to the super moon thing, we need to get some pagans / Wiccans to weigh in on that. We used to have pagans on this site, don't know if they've been run off.
Turricain, what we mean when we say we invented God is that we created the concept to both explain how we came to be and to keep people in line. It doesn't mean we worship ourselves.
That is a funny one, the religious claim that atheists are their own god, or worship themselves as a god. That seems unlikely; who but ourselves know the most about the faults within ourselves? In order for us to see ourselves as a god, or worship ourselves as a god, first, we'd have to look up to ourselves, perhaps fear ourselves, have uestions about how we could be omnipotent, omibenevolent and omnipresent at all times, properties monotheists have given us for what a god is. Unless the definition of god has changed, it just seems extremely unlikely that a person could conceive of themselves as a god. And then what? The lesser part of yourself is supposed to look up to and fear / respect the greater part of yourself? That claim just seems a little bit weird.
It's like the slur they say "anything goes," again, technically not possible. I know it's all supposed to be emotional to either other us or guilt us into proper response. But have you ever met someone for whom "anything goes?" I mean, that person would have to say everything Donald Trump wants and everything the Black Lives Matter people want should equally be able to happen. Everything the Taliban want and everything the female supremacists want should equally be seen as viable. It's a real stretch, and frankly pretty obtuse.
Now, if someone is upset by some changes, that could be explained.
But anyone putting these arguments about us out here frankly would need to explain just how one would do either.
I've seen it. Call it the king syndrome.
They don't see themselves as a God, they are God, or King.
You have to talk to them a specific way. You can't touch them.
Lots of stuff.
I've met the same kind of people who believed in a god. They said "God is the only one who can judge me, or tell me what to do, not you.
So, I think its really a matter of ego, and not one of religion.
Right. I totally agree on that.
I've met people claim that God died. Crazy bastards.
This is going to most likely be an ongoing thing with everyone thinking they are right, and no one person ever really knowing for sure, but thinking they do.
Yes. Old as time. Smile.
Interesting idea about being as old as time.
So I wonder how many atheists or agnostics there have always been? In some more ancient pagan traditions, you didn't have to believe a certain way. You went along with the rituals, social festivities and the like. It wasn't until the notion of universal religions came along that right thinking or right belief became a central issue.
After all, if religion is just part of your culture, you do it the same way you do a great many things. Yet where religions have become universl, the way to know who's in and who's out has, at least in Christianity's case, become one of right belief. I've heard from people who left Islam that you can hide in there a bit longer, only because you're not constantly questioned about your right belief on issues.
So, presumably, there have been people forever who simply couldn't believe that the ritual in question actually appeased any gods or fought off any devils, perhaps wondered if these gods and devils were really out there. But this wouldn't have turned into anything, because they went along, the social customs and religion being one, and right thinking wasn't central to who's in and who's out.
There are even writings from some Greeks who found out that the tricks pulled to make the gods cry were just that, tricks. But they still went along with the program for community reasons. You didn't have to actually believe in these gods, you weren't constantly haggled and questioned to death about your evolving mental shift, you just went along. So perhaps the modern self-declared atheist can only really be a construct where right thinking is at issue, e.g. sects of Christianity where your "in" or "out" status depends solely on your belief in certain things.
Religions been a part of society forever Leo.
Depending on the community you lived in was a factor in what you practiced.
Some communities would even jail you, kill you, or whatever if you didn't go along with the system.
In all, some did, some did not.
Look at all the wars over simple belief.
Christians, statues, the things that happen naturally in nature, like the sun?
Greek mythology?
So, old as time.
The more I think about it over the years, the more I realize I would probably call myself an Agnostic Deist if I were to put any label to myself at all. I don't deny that there could have been a creative force that set everything in motion leading to us, but I don't know for certain one way or the other. The one thing I'm certain of is that I don't believe in constant divine intervention.
I say the universe is all there is. Everything has always been here, only changed forms.
I am an evangelical fundamentalist christian I guess you can call it, and yet i am
a bit strange. I go more of the seminary route most of the time. I believe
Christianity is a religious philosophy, a faith, and reality. I also believe that it's
about a relationship with God and living under his existence rather than a faith
that no one can prove or reason with. Blindly believing is not what i want to do.
Dogma isn't all what it is about. I dislike Dogma. I believe religion I take it
seriously for that reason. I use to be an atheist a year and a half ago. I was a
very outspoken one too. I am a skeptic but I did it as a challenge really half
believing that religion would fail and logic would win. I came to being a Christian
because of a religious debate. My former friends James and Timothy was always
talking about Jesus and God. I was fascinated about what the obsession was
over, because I thought, surely they didn't have to keep bringing it up! I asked
them, how is Christianity relevant to today, to me? We get the new testament
and the old. I understand the new testament is a newer document; Yet, it
seemed really trivial. None of it seemed to be able to apply to me. It just simply
didn't seem pragmatic. I told them one of the requirements was to try to give
me good reasons. I am not going to take faith or because as the answer. I've
been told that too many times. No one was really able to convince me before,
I'd asked around. They pulled stuff from revelations and by the grace of God
won the debate. I told them if they could win I'd think about it, maybe. So, I
did. I tried it. I was expecting nothing, and yet I saw things that made me
believe. I felt in a sense and deduced God's very presence. I've tried everything
from Messianic, baptist, a christianity that is close to catholicism, and eventually
came to this. This makes the most sense. Because I am so pragmatic and
logical the truth is I have issues with reading the bible, but I try and I mostly do
bible readings with others and in a sense have a very in-depth bible study. I
usually learn from more traditional christians the bible belt sorts and sort of
come up with my own thoughts.
God is essentially with his universe that he has created which we live in because
he made us too is a foundation, a metaphysics. Sending Jesus and most of what
the facts are are basic truths. We build the system from there. we have values
such as righteousness, wholesomeness, humbleness, having humility, etc...
etc... We know what we do because we can see these values in practice and
when things do they fall in to place. From these values we can have ethics and
guidelines. Our standards which there is much and many ethical advice even if
it's not literally listed. The Ethics and values also makes sense and is really self-
explanatory and when you apply them they are practical and you can see the
logic and reasonability.
May I humbly suggest:
http://www.kyroot.com/?page_id=1340
Not questioning your faith, or your right to have one, but I do want to point out that morality, ethics, wisdom, and all the rest exists even among non believers. It also exists in virtually every faith Christian or no. I find a more interesting question to be, what exactly is God. Now that can lead to some deep discussion.
Hello all,
This is indeed a very interesting topic, and I really want to thank all those who expressed a point of view here, reading this has been a real delight.
I strongly defend the right of everybody to believe or not, I also think it's great that the world is so diverse. However, my very subjective and personal opinion is that religion is the most dangerous human invention, and we would all be so much happier without it.
Being good and helpful, being kind to others, being compassionate and sensitive to people's feelings, all these are human values (religion only appropriated these values and pretended they were its own), everything else is superstition and the need of some to control the others. Religion has a big advantage: it prouds itself of not needing to be proven. In other words, we can invent any kind of rule, any kind of beautiful or not that beautiful story, and people will believe it because we say it. Let's be honest: did anyone ever talked directly to God? Does he have an email or a phone number? This way I can also have a direct conversation with this mysterious character. I'm half joking of course, but not entirely. The favourite game of those power hungry ones who use religion to their own advantage, is to talk about things that they are totally unable to prove: life after death, heaven and hell, etc. This is playing with our deepest fears, and it's a cruel and unfair game.
A character called Jesus existed somewhere in Israel 2000 years ago, certainly a nice guy, a socialist who tried to convince people to turn towards human values. So he definitely had a fan club. But since people used to be illitarate and superstitious, today we have all this nonsense about him being the son of God and performing miracles. This is called folklore, and exists in every culture. Where there's no education, there's superstition.
That's how I see it. I do not intend to be either rude or disrespectful, I'm only expressing a feeling that's mine, only mine, and do not try to tell anyone else how to be and what to believe. In my very own experience, religious people are much more selfish and less tolerant than those who, like me, prefer to believe in people, not in fictitious gods. I'm nice to others because that's the right things to do, not because it's written in a book, or because I am afraid of burning in hell. Anyway, thanks for reading, it was a pleasure to take part in this discussion, given that I rarely feel I have something to say on these pages.
Warm greetings from France,
Vlad.
Welcome Vlad, interesting post with some good points. I don't think there is much doubt that organized religions have always existed, and still exist mostly to control the individual. People who think for themselves have always been a threat to the group, society, and those who would have us all be worker bees pushing the agenda forward of the powerful. Still, I think the question of what is god exactly is worth asking. Some believe that god is a single being in control. Some think that god is a trinity, though the idea of a trinity was specifically created by the Roman Catholic church in about the fourth century. Some think god is like the force in Star Wars. Others think we are all a part of a joint entity and that together we are god. Some think god is male, some think god is genderless. I could go on. I'd be curious what others think god actually is. Or if there is not anything there at all.
I never said that secular philosophy didn't have these things. I am stating that
Christianity does. However, that's correct bill, every system of philosophy
whether it be Christianity or other religious philosophy, confucianism, buddhism
which was actually not a religious philosophy in the first place, marxism, etc...
has all of those components. I was in to objectivism a few years ago, that has
all of these. I am merely saying so does Christianity, the ideas in this
philosophy, this faith is a bit different from all of those. Metaphysics is pretty
similar, albeit there is a God, Jesus, and Holy spirit in it too, which I think
secular philosophy misses. What's interesting though is some of the secular
philosophy sort of touches on it. They don't say what it is, but they call it
something else. Descartes has this thing about animal spirits or I forgot what it
was but it separated mind or soul from body. The ethics matches some, but
there are some ethics that are not similar.
vlad, you're not the only one who believes this, marx thinks that religion is the
opium of the masses. Think the song Imagine by John Lennon.
God is male because he is called the father. and Male is seen as the higher race
in the Kingdom not that woman isn't as powerful. The lead role because a male
is the leader even on earth of families, God is a father, someone in charge. God
made Adam, and then eve to help him out. We can conclude from this that the
top of the chain, the top of command above all then is Male. I don't necessarily
know if Gender roles are the same as on earth though.
I think popular culture does a lot to play God a certain way, we don't really
know. We have what it tells us in the bible which can help us understand
somewhat. I don't know if God has a humanly form really or not, he said he did
make us in his image, so perhaps. I don't think it's as we imagine either though.
We should know more of the concept rather then the more concrete, what does
he look like, and is he solid, and what is his gender. It's enough to see what he
has done, how he has done it, and why? I know this sounds interesting to say,
but just knowing the feeling alone is very important. I don't think we should
fixate on things that are not as important. It's besides the point.
@Pasco:
Thanks for the welcome! You ask what God is. Well, since God exists only in certain people's minds, Then God is anything you want it/him/her to be. If you are a bit familiar with programming concepts, God is simply the name of a variable, youcan put anything inside it. Therefore, as a well-known joke says, "Maybe she's black!"
To me, this question makes no sense; it's useless to ask what God is, since in my view, God is not. Believing in God is being weak, very weak, and unable to accept that not everything can be explained; there are things for which we shall never have answers. Religion makes the weak very happy, because it gives precise answers, so suddenly life becomes simple and easy: just obey and you'll be saved, no need to think for yourself anymore, we know what's better for you.
@Rachel:
You got me exactly. Lenon was a genius and said it perfectly. As for Marx, I wouldn't define myself as marxist, although I feel a lot of afinities with that conception. When one believes, one stops trying to understand, and that's like a drug. So there is wisdom in that quotation.
Now, I'll go and listen to "Imagine", you made me want to do that. Cheers!
Rachel, just one point on your explanation of gender. The male is in fact not the head of the family in all cultures. In some the female is the head of the family. So, saying it is the prototype is just not accurate except in the Judao Christian / Muslim faiths.
well, at first it was at least. even evolution. the hunter gather, weren't men in
charge? but even from the beginning of time according to the bible and other
histories that tell of these societies it is more or less male dominated.
Thanks for all the new discussion.
Some Christian believe that the female is head/mother.
Yes, God can and has been just about anything humans decide, but I don't see God as a thing, nor a concept.
God is the guiding force, spirit with in us.
God is nature, and all things created naturally.
Science wishes to prove and solve everything, but this is not possible for the simple reason things naturally change from time to time without a reason.
It is hard not to view God as some person sitting someplace due to upbringing and religious instruction, so once an adult, I changed the view.
Because a person has a strong belief system, I have witnessed this working for them in large ways. It is amazing sometimes, so I don't doubt God exist, just not in the form of a thing or person as we're taught.
I often hear that “religion is a dangerous thing” however, it has been historically proven that cult, or belief is a system can and will be a dangerous thing.
It isn’t religion, but people and their desire to be top that is dangerous.
I have a difficult time agreeing with all humans have a basic built in good system that guides them. If these were true, how was it a bunch of good people follow wrong ideas?
We need structure, and these stories are a way to get people to follow structure.
We must learn to be people people as posted here, I believe, and that comes from life experience.
However, even people people have been turned in to specific people people, if I’m making sense?
I’m a black man and I believe we should enslave all people with whiter skin then mine.
I am a German, and I believe all persons claiming to be Jews should be exterminated.
I am a Christian and all Eastern people and religions are flat out wrong, so lets remove them all from the earth.
Was I born with these ideas, or were they taught me?
Where’s my natural compassion?
Thanks again.
agreed to an extent wayne wasn't it? God is in us, but we call that the Holy
spirit. I don't think that's all that is God. Whatever he is, whatever form God
takes he's out there somewhere. Where is heaven, we don't know and isn't
privileged to know. I wonder sometimes too, but that's a dangerous thought. As
a deep thinker sometimes I can't help it. To this end Christianity isn't exactly
easy. I don't have the praying routines people have. I pray whenever I
remember.
historically proven? Could you please elaborate on that? We do need structure in our thoughts, but we don't need religion. Religion doesn't make one better, if they are good, they would be the same without all that nonsense about praying to an unexisting being. As for religious wisdom... hmm, I'll pass on that. Just a few examples off the top of my head:
1. Women! Do not question men's authority, they are the masters of the house/family because we say so.
2. If you love God, you must kill your children, see Abraham.
3. You want proof for what we say? Bad, very bad, very very bad, just obey and believe. Thomas is one of the few rational ones, at least for a while. Oh, and that's great to use in politics as well! Don't try to understand, sheep-like following is much better... for them!
Another thing that bothers me: we are excessively west-centred here. If religion is true, as many still pretend, then why there are so many of them? Is a japanese worse than a european/north-american because his/her belief system is different? What about highly secular societies. In the Czech Republic, only 10% of the population believes in God. What about the others? Are they all horrible and lack morals? Crime is much much less than in the United States by the way. Here in France only about 30% practise a religion; same questions: we're godless, then why aren't we all rapists, cheaters and criminals, given that one cannot possibly be moral and responsible if they refuse to accept legends as real?
Food for thought. A good weekend to everybody!
Rachel, to my knowledge, there is no evidence that prehistoric cultures all had male centered clans or families. You are making a statement based on one short passage in Genesis. That is hardly proof of your thinking on this.
Wayne: There were both good and not so good Germans during the jewish holocaust. Many stood up and worked directly against the Nazi purges. You are right, any group can be influenced by strong leaders, particularly those who reinforce fear of the other. That is what Hitler did, that is what Trump is trying to do. That said, humans do have a sense of right and wrong in my view. It can be suborned, but that does not mean it is not there. We can always point to negative aberations and say that condemn the whole society, or the whole human race. That is over generalizing though and not intellectually honest. For every negative you can bring up, I can bring up a corosponding positive. Humankind would not have progressed if the evil side generally outweighed the more community oriented and loving side of us.
I think you're depending on traditional more dogmatic religiosity, too much vlad!
How many society is woman centered there's only a few and they are small
groups. From what I've been told hunter gatherers were extremely male
centered. I am no scholar of this though and I have no interest in evolution.
I will tell you it doesn't go that way with your assertions, vlad. Not for all of us.
I believe in the more literal view but not as dogmatic as that.
I've been fighting the word duty lately I've seen it lots. In the dogmatic
traditionalist camp sure, duty to worship God is fine, but that's not my view. It's
more of a want a desire, a knowledge that this would be a good thing. Hopefully
if you're a Christian, something makes you want to be Christian. I don't like the
have to attitude much.
If you love God, you have to kill your children? I hope that's not the case. God
doesn't ask that of everyone. He doesn't ask of violence to other people. I think
you're confused. That was just to Abraham, I forgot why, it was testing how
willing to obey abraham was. I don't think God had any intentions even in the
beginning to kill Jacob , but if he was disobedient, maybe God would have done
away with abraham. That's why the last minute the killing of Jacob was called
off. Jacob is a major Patriarch.
That's traditional household both in secular and religious. I think back then it
was sort of the culture. I don't think that's even every Christian even if it's
evangelical. traditional leaning conservatives believe in that too. I certainly don't
believe in this, for a while it was sort of interesting but I've seen it in action.
really so every christian believes in dogma. What does that make me, I don't. I
don't believe in god because I was told to and blindly believe. I think I've seen
things not so much God exactly, and I have felt the feeling. I've also seen the
power of prayer, again, I did it to challenge the objections. What they said
seemed interesting but I was massively skeptical. I didn't think I would, I
believe I wouldn't I tried it out because my former friends won the argument. If
you told me two years ago I'd become religious I'd tell you, okay you're wrong
and I'd never get in to it. That stuff just doesn't make any sense! I was doing it
to kind of prove them wrong. I am too pragmatic for that type of stuff, like I
said religion is sort of Hard. I hope I don't forget it. It's kind of almost not for
me too rote, except I've seen some stuff. so, I don[t know. I have to keep
reading the bible to really get in to it, but then I don't understand it either. and
many times I kind of can't be bothered or whatever. I am not a big fan of
feelings. I like the notion of empathy, sometimes wish I had more, it's just not
me, not I don't want to be, I just never had the knack for it. Anyway, so the
entire you'll feel god, you'll know that your prayer has been answered just
seemed strange too, I remember clearly. I know what I was like before I came
to christ. I feared death, I am rather rational but death and Dogs got the better
of me, Dogs still do, death maybe not so much. No, I don't think of dying all the
time, but when the topic is brought up I don't exactly run the other way either
or feel really anxious. Questions like will I really go to hell then? or will I just be
in the ground? How sad is that. just skepticism of everything, just made it
worse. I thought about hell. I didn't like thinking about it when people said that
people who don't believe will go to hell. I was skeptical of that too, but hell just
didn't sound pleasant nor did just disappearing back in to dirt or everything
rotting or just life ends and that's it. was I being to rational and interested in it,
yeah, maybe, and yet I tried not to think on it.
back on topic about the dogma, that's why a lot of religious people don't like
me, and has never convinced me. I know a few evangelical fundamentalists who
doesn't mind me analyzing it. theres room for that too. I don't know what type
of Christianity that is but okay, I believe in that. I have found enough, a small
handful who don't mind the questions and are able to answer them, sort of at
least, I've done a lot more of the thinking. I've said what I think of it, and they
don't seem to think my thinking is out of line. Yet it's rational.
Rachel,
Let me start by saying that I'm not challenging your right to believe as you wish. That is an inviolate privilege every one of us possesses.
I would like to ask you something though, and I'm going to hit on one of your strong points as you've professed it. Logic and philosophy.
You said in a previous post that you have borne witness to things which made you believe in God. Not just a higher power at random, but the Christian version. You identify as a fundamentalist.
So my question is: why?
Religion is a system where, once you ask a certain question, the only answer is "because god". That is the very nature of the ideology.
You claim that you dig deep, want to ask yourself the hard questions, don't just take things on faith, yet this runs entirely counter to religion's mission objective. How do you manage it?
Why, in other words, is your god logical while someone else's isn't? Why is your god logical in the first place? Why is it that when something amazing or terrible happens, when an explanation occurs to you that involves your chosen god...well, why couldn't it just as easily involve Allah? Or an enormous purple bird? Or something so far outside your ability to understand that you have no concept of it at all? Or nothing?
I'm asking this from a philosophical angle to see what you come up with. I am not trying to insult you or attack you. I have asked this of many, many strong-minded religious people, and not a one of them has been able to give an answer that is logical. It always boils down to "because God" at the end. A leap is made.
And look. If you're into making such leaps, go for it. Again, not trying to badger. I just have an issue when people claim faith is logical. It's not, not yet anyway. I am all ears if someone (Rachel, or anyone else) can definiteively prove me wrong here.
I'll make a quick side-trip and then end this post though.
Mankind are animals. It's true that we're evolving quickly and are very intelligent compared to most other species, but we -are animals...mammals, to be precise. There are many, many female-dominated animal societies, and several human ones among them. The fact that male-dominated societies are more common in the mammalian world is nothing more or less than sexual dimorphism...which is to say that in many cases, it's a size and strength thing. It might make sense for the bigger, stronger members of a group to do the heavy fighting on a purely physical level, but human society is way more complex than that. Even if there is evidence suggesting that almost all societies and groups from way in the distant past were male-dominated, this has no bearing whatsoever on the present. Put simply, there is far more worth to a person than how big they are, or how well they can fight. Any false parallels being drawn between male-dominated societies being used as a model for the way humans should be absolutely need to be dropped in the dustbin where they belong. They are counterproductive and actively dangerous, socially speaking. Women have a rough enough time already without adding that sort of crud on top of everything else.
Pasco.
I would say religion is just like any other group or thought process, or society.
It is just a group.
Maybe you’re a Mason, Atheist, whatever, it is a group and that group has a set value system Kinde of.
A belief system.
Now, to say only 10% or the world population believes in God, is interesting? How did that figure get gotten?
I think Atheist are as guilty as the religious in depending on there books. Smile.
My parents, mom specially, are deeply religious.
However, we are always thought to think and not accept what was told or what we read.
So, religion and I have seen that too, can nurture independent thinking.
The Bible stories are teaching methods, and how one inturpits them makes a difference.
Love God, kill your children? If you think about that, if God is all powerful, why does he/he need to ask such a thing?
Thanks for your thoughts, post.
This is vary interesting and your thoughts are valuable.
Wayne, I take your point, but I don't entirely agree.
An atheist who isn't just swallowing dogma is going to rely on his or her senses, logic and other rational processes to make decisions and interact with the world. Religion is founded on faith, which is by its definition not logical.
So yes, while I agree that it's quite possible to be an excellent person if you're religious, and equally possible to learn good lessons via religious conduits, I really don't think they're dead even.
On the one hand, we want to teach children that if they hurl a brick at a window, the window will break. That's logic. In the same breath, we want to teach them that if they're bad, an invisible man they can't interact with, who supposedly loves them, is going to consign them to eternal torment when they die? That's...not logic. Some people want kids to believe both of those things. One example exemplifies demonstrable proof of action, while the other does not.
Thus, my argument is that teaching religion, anywhere, anytime, to anyone, can have negative consequences by getting targets to potentially ignore their senses and reason in the face of doctrine, which, in itself, is often based around issues of control, anger, fear, shame and ostracism. Not good. Not ideal.
Faith is the selling point of a fraudulent product.
Thanks everyone for all comments. This will be my last contribution to this topic.
There's a lot to say about many points that have been made here, but honestly
I'm a bit lazy and don't feel like writing an essay. *smile*
By now you all know what I think about this, so I'd like to end by saying this:
The ultimate goal of any of us is happiness. So, as long as faith makes one happy,
and as long as they do not impose it on anyone including indoctrinating children,
that's perfectly fine with me. I won't be convinced by their nonsense about feeling
God and knowing that angels exist and not needing proof and so on, but in the
end, this doesn't hurt me at all. We should all be free to be strange, I am also
very strange in other ways. For instance, I like to spend a lot of time by myself;
socially oriented people would very quickly qualify me as odd, awkward, bizarre,
and I suppose I am. This is exactly the feeling I have when I meet someone who
takes religion, prayer and all other things seriously. It's a mixt feeling:
amusement, but also I feel sad to see that an intelligent person with such a
potential is being drawn back by those beliefs.
We have the right to be different, and in the end, maybe, just maybe, I am the
one who's unable to understand. Maybe they are right and I am not, who knows.
They cannot prove that God exists, but on the other hand, I have no proof either.
So let me quit with this last sentence: You may warship a stone if it makes you
happy, as long as you don't hit me with it.
Sincerely,
Vlad.
Vlad, you're talking about the good life, eudaemonia in greek. Yes, some say
that everyone is trying to achieve that and it's all different. I don't know if I
agree, but certainly everyone is trying to find it, Do, they that's another story.
did you not read previous posts? I disagree with that premise that just because
is the ultimate answer. I believe God has given us plenty of explanations
whether you wish to accept them or not or see them as a Christian. Sadly, many
Christians don't. and just because or faith is the final mission, It is not mine, I
don't even really know what to label me, I guess since I do hang around the
fundamentalists and evangelicals people class me as such and my message is
similar because the more fundamental sects seem more logical and literal. I am
not dogmatic though, and if I am just my own thing, that's okay. I've seen such
a belief before, but I don't think it's too many of us. I don't think it's the final
mission. Faith is important and it doesn't mean trust blindly close your eyes and
just fall for it and believe it. I think faith just means have a trust for and if you
have a logical, rational, and sophisticated faith it is still faith! It's not blindly and
dogmatically believing, no. Why should it run counter to philosophy and logic? If
it does, I'd never had believe. I've always been in to logic and philosophy and
that has seemed to dominate my world, the more pragmatic type that is. I am
not an armchair philosopher, by any means. Christianity is full of this, applied
logic.
This subject that you brought up is one of my favorites in Christian discussions.
Prophecy and fulfillment of those prophecies are one of the most substantial
ways that we know that the Christian God is indeed the true God. There's 66
books in the bible. 65 of them is theory and history. practical but impractical all
at the same time. Very interesting but really more the foundation. My favorite
and the most relevant book is the last book of the bible, the 66th. Revelations.
The first 65 happened before and when Christ was alive. It does and does not
directly apply to us. There's so much truth you can get from them and
standards and many things, advice, logic, reasoning, proof, etc..... However, you
can not surpass the relevancy of the 66th book. This is when most of the
prophecy of today occurs, granted Daniel I think has some I heard say. and
some other books. What other books beside the bible has accurate prophecy
that come true centuries even millenniums later? Many have prophecy, I get
that counter argument right, but prove that any of those are relevant or have
the power to come true and has. This book has been happening and in action
since Christ dies. It talks about both the end of times and the end times. which
is very different. we live in the end times, everyone has after Jesus died in 36
A.D. We've been in the book of revelations ever since. the bibles epilogue and
note to us really. No we have not reached the end of times yet. No anti-christ
has been officially declared and obviously prominent, even if people speculate.
The conditions actually isn't ripe yet even.
Let's look at Israel. don't ask me when it was taken from the jews and the Jews
disseminated I don't know, I think it was about 1400? Yes, feel free to correct
me on this. I do have a pretty good idea when our current reiteration of Israel
was back in place. I think it was 1946, or 1948 or somewhere around there on
December 6. I know that date because I was recently told or rather saw a
discussion of an anniversary of the establishment of Israel again. The bible talks
about such an event it was written long ago. I think this is revelations but it
says that ultimately for Jesus to come back the Jews would have to get their
land back. It would be given to them. It was. Isn't that interesting. The jews
had no need to fight for it, they may have, but at this point, it was given to
them. Freely. We have the country Israel again. It is contested but there is no
question. God did not say it wouldn't be contested either.
Look at the third temple plans and the current controversy and ongoing struggle
with the mosque on the dome. that roc. To the jews that spot is the holiest of
holies, too. There is currently an argument to build a third temple, like two
others before it was erected, one of them during the old testament the Levi's I
believe built that one, the earliest. The Jews I think mostly the messianics at
this point is pointing to plans given to the levis to build the temple, they're
using specks from that. Look up the issue if you're not already tuned in, it's
fascinating. It's an interesting one too. In the book of revelations we have the
facts that the third temple, precisely the thing that is in the works, something
that the jewish community is trying to establish, though, as I said I think it's
more of a messianic Jewish type of effort. Anyhow this has to be up when the
tribulation happens and the anti-christ even thinks of coming to power. He's
eventually going to take over that church and use it as his temple his religion.
That'll be the global religion.
There's probably other big prophecies I have missed but what about the smaller
details? Look at how tragic things has become, and no, I am not trying to be
insensitive. I am living in fact amidst all these fires. It's gotten worse over time.
The things that will really be happening in the tribulation is that much worse,
but as of now we're pretty bad and building up to it. the bible mentions this. Is
that not amazing? God knows. He knew our world would get messy naturally
and by human interactions E.G. shootings, bombings, terror activities, as well.
Ah, and Rachael. Love your post, but it is exactly the issues you talk about that make me not claim myself a Christian.
You see, Christians claim God. No one elses God, or belief is valid.
This even though most religious thinking is based in the same exact standing.
If there is only one God, you can't claim God as only yours if you believe as you do.
Do you know how many years we've been living in the last days, and how many people have claimed tomorrow's gonna be it?
This is so even though the Bible insist no man will know, nor can claim it.
Smile.
Thanks for all post.
I don't claim God all for myself. It's not just my God. Yes, he is my God, but it's
not Just for me. So if I said he's my father, that means he can't be anyone else's
father? that doesn't make sense. He may not be your father but if my dad has
other children and it so happens I have a sister, she could similarly say he's my
father. In English at least my doesn't signify sole possession, but it signifies
possession. If I said that God is my God and you're a Christian then I can say
our God. Even if you're not a Christian, whether you like it or not, he's still my
God to you. You just don't know it.
For sure there are many reiterations of Christianity, I think some are more
correct than others. As long as you know Jesus and it's not some ceremony and
you are convicted about who died for you and why you're going to heaven fine
you're saved. You can't lose your place in heaven. it's nice to practice your faith
and act as if you know God, As christians we have standards the moral ethics I
am talking about. God expects you to not do sinful things excess of drink,
ruining your body, not keeping clean (I don't mean physically), but I guess I
can't ultimately control you if you do. I am not a big fan of christians cursing
especially not like a sailor! don't use the Lord's name in vain. I tend to think a
gay or transgendered lifestyle is against God. You can find the rest, they're not
hard to find. some basic ethics. We can tell who's truly a believer by how they
are and who they make themselves out to be.
We've been living in the end times for 1981 years. I agree with you, there will
be false signals but we're not to believe them. The true call to go will be very
apparent without someone directing it. We don't know when this date is. so I
generally ignore all the talk about world endings. But it doesn't mean all
Christians are this way. It also doesn't mean that all christians are about only
there sect of christianity unless there's a real dangerous consequence to a
particular sect and at that point it's a debate rather than you just need to stop
and then they're forced.
What other issues do you have? I am opened to answering questions on here
for anyone who wants to ask.
So I'm not Christian at all, but many Christian women point out that Jesus was mainly interested in women, e.g. interacted with them more than anyone else did in that culture.
It was only later during councils, etc., that Christianity became more male centered due to Roman influences.
I have no stake in this personally except to support my own Wife's pursuits in those spaces and elsewhere.
If you're European or African heritage, your ancestors had pretty egalitarian societies before the universal religions from the East came in.
Can't be right. Jesus hung out with a bunch of thieving men all the time.
Laughing.
I forgot this point. I would say since it was known about the last days, people have been saying we are living in the last days.
1200's maybe sooner?
We are impatient aren't we?
Smile.
I think we have to clear up end times and end of time. the end times has been
since Jesus died. Indeed, no we haven't had the end or the end of times. like
the world is ending right now! I think we can't predict this. I've been talking
about the end times it's kind of the last stage or era. It's a very long era but so
was pre-jesus old testament times.
well, maybe but I am not sure if that's true Leo. maybe more women just was
interested in him? He may have been around them, but I think the people who
had power was male. His disciples the 12 were all men though.