View Full Version : religion
JosephTheLibertarian
10-25-2007, 06:43 AM
How should one approach religion? I'm a very big skeptic in regards to religion. I never really cared much about religion, I have always thought of theology as just wrong and unproven lol. But is it wise to choose a religion as "insurance" in case I'm wrong? ha. Or would that just be a dumb reason to adopt a faith? My religion right now is....nothing. I'm kind of agnostic if you were to toss labels around. I sometimes will read bible passages or bible related books.
tfelice
10-25-2007, 06:47 AM
Joseph,
I am serving as an associate pastor of a new church in my area. Feel free to contact me directly and I am sure I can answer any questions you may have.
constituent
10-25-2007, 06:59 AM
study all religions. let God do the talking.
Wendi
10-25-2007, 07:23 AM
Well, speaking for myself only, I don't see how my faith could be "insurance." I either believe in God and accept Christ as my savior, or I don't. I can't say, I don't really believe it but I'll say I will just in case it turns out I'm wrong.
But on the other hand (and again this is just my opinion), if a person believes in "nothing" but lives a good life, etc. and when they die it turns out they were wrong and there is a God, they stand to lose a lot. But if they decide to believe in God even though they don't understand and still live a good life, etc. and when they die it turns out they were wrong and there is "nothing," well, they haven't really lost anything have they?
Keith
10-25-2007, 08:00 AM
Joseph,
Based on your posts that I have seen over time I think that you are a thinker. I think that a good introduction to Christianity for thinkers is the book Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.
micahnelson
10-25-2007, 08:12 AM
Ditto on Mere Christianity.
If you read anything with purpose driven, spirit-filled, grace bathed, sunshine-infused, or other type words in the title, you might as well be a taoist.
micahnelson
10-25-2007, 08:13 AM
Ditto on Mere Christianity.
If you read anything with purpose driven, spirit-filled, grace bathed, sunshine-infused, or other type words in the title, you might as well be a taoist.
A little asbestos here, no offense to the taoists.
pcosmar
10-25-2007, 08:15 AM
Please don't confuse "religion" with Faith, it is a common mistake.
One can be religious, but have no faith. Also One can have a strong Faith and not be religious.
Seek truth.
Sergeant Brother
10-25-2007, 08:22 AM
But on the other hand (and again this is just my opinion), if a person believes in "nothing" but lives a good life, etc. and when they die it turns out they were wrong and there is a God, they stand to lose a lot. But if they decide to believe in God even though they don't understand and still live a good life, etc. and when they die it turns out they were wrong and there is "nothing," well, they haven't really lost anything have they?
Can somebody really decide what to believe though? I mean, somebody either thinks that God exists or not, if you don't believe it then you can't suddenly chose to.
DJ RP
10-25-2007, 08:22 AM
Seek truth. Reject 'holy books' which claim to have all the answers.
All the books were written by men, usually a long time ago. Use your common sense and natural sense of empathy and good nature to guide you.
BuddyRey
10-25-2007, 08:25 AM
Please don't confuse "religion" with Faith, it is a common mistake.
One can be religious, but have no faith. Also One can have a strong Faith and not be religious.
Seek truth.
Ditto!
Religion is merely the physical and communal manifestation of faith. Faith and the seeking of knowledge is the ultimate goal to shoot for if you really want to get to the essence of God, humanity, and anything else of value. Everything else is window-dressing.
tfelice
10-25-2007, 08:29 AM
Can somebody really decide what to believe though? I mean, somebody either thinks that God exists or not, if you don't believe it then you can't suddenly chose to.
That's a good question. Scripture speaks volumes on the sinful nature of man, and how none can do good, none can choose God. It's is only by God's grace, that he comes into the sinners life enabling him to repent of his sins, and profess a saving faith in Christ. Now God uses His Word and the preaching of it to accomplish it, but ultimately our faith is a gift from God, not something we decide to do on our own because it feels right at the time, or because we see some perceived benefit (insurance as used in the first post) from it.
To boil it down - salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. I could go on for an hour on this, but that's the Cliff's Notes version for you.
constituent
10-25-2007, 08:29 AM
Joseph,
Based on your posts that I have seen over time I think that you are a thinker. I think that a good introduction to Christianity for thinkers is the book Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.
yes, and The Screwtape Letters
Wendi
10-25-2007, 08:31 AM
Can somebody really decide what to believe though? I mean, somebody either thinks that God exists or not, if you don't believe it then you can't suddenly chose to.For a long time, I didn't believe that the Income Tax was unconstitutional. I thought tax protesters were a little "crazy" or "out there," and wasn't willing to look at the abundance of evidence that they had on their side. Then I saw Freedom to Fascism, and started to open my mind and do some research on my own... So yes, personally, I do believe that one can choose to believe something or not based on whether or not they are willing to approach it with an open mind. :)
Kregener
10-25-2007, 08:44 AM
I am wary of organized "religions".
Going to church does not make you a Christian, any more than going to a hospital makes you a doctor.
drain
10-25-2007, 08:53 AM
read God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and then be glad that you are ahead of the curve.
adrian
tfelice
10-25-2007, 09:01 AM
I am wary of organized "religions".
Disorganized ones haven't done so well though. :D
In truth, most heresies develop out of groups that divert from historic Christian creeds & confessions.
Kregener
10-25-2007, 09:02 AM
Christopher Hitchens is a blithering idiot.
But...read away!
drain
10-25-2007, 09:06 AM
now now, i didn't go calling your apostles idiots did i?
adrian
JosephTheLibertarian
10-25-2007, 09:20 AM
I AM a truth seeker. I figured it would just be "good insurance" to bet on a religion just in case I'm wrong, but maybe not. The only things I really do believe in are ghosts / spirits. I wouldn't call that FAITH, they're just something I have witnessed first hand so that's what I believe exists. That's about it. Yeah, I know of Christopher Hitchens, I'll check out that book. Belief in ghosts is not equal to a belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. I want to get involved in evps
micahnelson
10-25-2007, 09:24 AM
Hitchens is forcing Christians to respond with some depth. He is the market reaction to Rick Warren.
JosephTheLibertarian
10-25-2007, 09:25 AM
Hitchens is pro Iraqi war. He's also a Trotskyist. However, I do like his stance on religion. Why only attack Christianity, though? There's so many religions out there.
Keith
10-25-2007, 09:32 AM
I have actually heard the religion insurance question you are asking before as an argument in favor of belief.
The thought goes something like this, "What if God exists and I don't believe in him? What if God does not exist but I do believe in him? Which is the worse error?" The thought is that if you reject God and he is real you have made a huge mistake. On the other hand if accept God and he turns out not to be real then you have not really lost anything because you would never find out.
I think this line of questioning is based on what statisticians call Type I and Type II errors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors
drain
10-25-2007, 09:51 AM
that single question gets down to the base reason of why religions exist. if you know there is nothing after death you don't need insurance. people who hope for something else after death will believe (a better life after this one, a reason for living etc). if would seem pretty silly to believe in a god if you had to suffer your whole life just to end up dead.
and Hitchens attacks all religions and even spirituality as well. but as always use your brain to decide. Some god did give it to you for a reason. :)
-adrian
TooConservative
10-25-2007, 09:58 AM
Can somebody really decide what to believe though? I mean, somebody either thinks that God exists or not, if you don't believe it then you can't suddenly chose to.
Old-time Protestants would disagree.
They would point to the sudden and absolute conversion of Saul of Tarsus (later known as the Apostle Paul) as an example of someone who was granted a complete faith in Christ, having been an unbeliever and persecutor of early Christians. There are many such instances throughout history.
The slave-trader ship captain who wrote "Amazing Grace" was just such a convert. Not looking for faith, didn't believe in it. He suddenly became a Christian, repudiated his degrading life and business and celebrated his salvation all the rest of his life.
Not to thump anyone with a Bible but faith is often misrepresented as though it is something like some 12-step self-improvement program. Well, that's not how the ancient churches viewed nor did the leaders of the Reformation like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” - Ephesians 2:8,9
There is a considerable faction of RP's Christian supporters who are what are known as Calvinists. Gary North would be an example. You should study up on their history. It's generally considered that they are the real Founders of this nation. Our history books call them Puritans but deliberately neglect telling us much about them, their history, their thought, their absolute break from the monarchical model. Without them, there could have been no American Revolution or a constitutional republic.
Dr. Paul, however, has no theonomist sympathies. He is not interested in a theocratic state or a federal government with such tendencies. He is truly at one with the Founders on liberty and the First Amendment.
tfelice
10-25-2007, 10:06 AM
that single question gets down to the base reason of why religions exist. if you know there is nothing after death you don't need insurance. people who hope for something else after death will believe (a better life after this one, a reason for living etc). if would seem pretty silly to believe in a god if you had to suffer your whole life just to end up dead.
and Hitchens attacks all religions and even spirituality as well. but as always use your brain to decide. Some god did give it to you for a reason. :)
-adrian
The issue of why religion exists has been hammered out by academics for the last 100 years or so. They have spoke on nature-worship, spirt-worship, etc. The problem with their conclusions is that they never really come up with a reason why man became religious, they all start with a man who is already religious.
However, if you look to Scripture you can find the origin of religion. It informs us of the existance of God, the only object worthy of worship. Scripture also speaks of God's revelation to man through His creation and His Word. And since God creeated man, man was endowed with the capacity to respond to this revelation, and has a natural urge to seek communion with Him.
Now because of sin, man has rebelled against God. The natural desire to worship is present, but it is misguided, so man worships things other than God, unless of course God reveals Himself to them through His Word, and gives man the grace enabling him to worship the true God.
Thats the Protestant position on that question in a nutshell.
tfelice
10-25-2007, 10:07 AM
There is a considerable faction of RP's Christian supporters who are what are known as Calvinists.
All of my fellow Calvinist friends who are political savvy are Paul supporters.
axiomata
10-25-2007, 10:35 AM
But is it wise to choose a religion as "insurance" in case I'm wrong? ha. Or would that just be a dumb reason to adopt a faith?
The old Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager) aye...
kaleidoscope eyes
10-25-2007, 10:39 AM
study all religions. let God do the talking.
yep, no one person or group has "the whole Truth" imo, we each carry just a tiny piece with us (yes even athiests, Im married to one!). Keep your ears and eyes, heart and spirit open, absorb what is useful and true to you and leave behind the rest, (although, be respectful of those you may disagree with) we each have our own path to walk, there are as many different ways as personalities out there I feel, to each his own ya know?
well, that's just my experience with things down here on earth this time around. Good luck soul searching tho!
TooConservative
10-25-2007, 10:49 AM
All of my fellow Calvinist friends who are political savvy are Paul supporters.
Who else would you support if you know the Republic's history and have a proper understanding of the Reformation and why the Puritans came here to found the colonies?
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to try to assemble a brief overview to post on one or more of the religious websites like ChristiansForRonPaul.com (http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/). It would be good to give a brief overview of Calvin's Geneva, the role of the Geneva Bible and related Bibles in the Reformation, the seditious and antimonarchical footnotes in the Geneva which caused King James to produce the KJV to try (too late) to prevent revolution, how Jefferson plagiarized a circuit letter by Presbyterian elders to write the Declaration of Independence and how it relied upon the inalienable rights of man to overthrow the rule of a tyrant (George III), the virtually exclusive role of Puritan-descended Presbyterians in the leadership of the Continental Army, the role of Baptist persecution and how they inspired the Founders to reject the establishment of the proposed four state churches that Congress intended to grant exclusive franchise to and how narrowly we escaped having state-sponsored franchised churches like Europe had.
And, of course, emphasis should be made of how the Founders also held church services in our Capitol during the early decades of our republic, often with our president leading them personally. And how only a few decades after our founding, the most absolutely Protestant nation in history was inviting Roman Catholics to hold Mass in the Capitol as well.
It's a truly unique American history of religion in public life and its great inclusiveness. So many people have no idea of our real history and the great role of religion in establishing our country and the great and radical distinctives of the Republic and its public life. It is a vital part of recognizing the sheer genius of our Founders and the great design of the Republic.
And Ron Paul is the perfect candidate for all who love that true history of America, the one that is so carefully buried in public school textbooks. No candidate in generations can match his appeal in these matters.
tfelice
10-25-2007, 11:31 AM
Amen brother. Well stated.
DrNoZone
10-25-2007, 12:12 PM
Can somebody really decide what to believe though? I mean, somebody either thinks that God exists or not, if you don't believe it then you can't suddenly chose to.
Umm, yeah, we ALL decide what we believe and what we don't, no matter the subject. Your question confuses me.
nexalacer
10-25-2007, 12:21 PM
****DISCLAIMER: This post will not please the devout. Please, drive on by unless you have thick-skin or are intellectually honest. You have been warned.****
First, on Pascal's Wager (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#pascal):
Pascal's Wager (God is a safe bet)
"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing--but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."
This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.
Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.
Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?
Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong God--the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.
Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely--or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.
Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.
Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:
1. One does not know whether God exists.
2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.
3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.
There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.
The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which states the Christian position, and only a Christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is in your interests to believe in God"--a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.
Also, if we don't even know that God exists, why should we take Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that God would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal gain? If God is omniscient, he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in him.
Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.
In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.
Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshiping.
Second, as for the question of how did religiosity begin:
I think the origins of belief in the divine were based in an inability to understand the world that our senses saw because our minds were just beginning to gain the higher levels of thought that are unique to our species and had not yet figured out the basics of the scientific method. This is known as the "god of the gaps."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)
(This is related to my thoughts that consciousness, like all biological functions, is in a constant state of change. Throughout human history, our consciousness and ability to understand the world has constantly grown through expansion of brain size (talking from **** habilis through **** sapiens sapiens) as well as the ability to transmit knowledge from one generation to the next, allowing for a constant expansion upon those who came before us.)
Anyway, people who chose to take the political method of acquiring wealth (stealing), noticed that people were pretty much moral beings overall, thus would usually do something they thought was moral, even if it was against their best interests. So, in order to get the funds they needed to live without actually having to work, they created belief systems and wrote books that exalted the gods of these belief systems. Of course, the books talked about the absolute necessity to give money to the clerics of these belief systems, for the good of the gods. Thus, in every belief system, we have some sort of sacrifice. Initially, it was some sort of animal sacrifice- the times were more simple... the clerics didn't have needs for money or it wasn't invented yet.... they just wanted to eat.
Because people had already believed in the divine because of a natural desire to understand the world around them, they were easily duped into these moral arguments for why they must give part of their lives to these gods.
After the development of the state, this was also enforced by the fact that religions often were an integral part of the coercive state system because if you could get people to believe in all-powerful gods that could control your life, it was easier for the leaders of the states to transfer that image onto themselves. That is, if you can believe that there is a morality that is higher than normal human beings, a morality that most human beings can't reach, then it is not such a stretch to believe that not all human beings are subject to the same morality.
This process was further accelerated by the development of monotheistic belief systems. If the power of the state was increased by a multitude of gods giving their blessing to its leaders, then the power of one, all-powerful god would be able to give rise to a completely unquestionable leader in the form of one man. This was seen quite clearly in the long-held belief in the "divine-right" of kings during Catholicism's stranglehold on Europe.
In the time before widespread literacy and the understanding of the world that has developed since the "discovery" of the scientific method, it is easy to understand how religious belief could be so constant throughout human cultures. As all humans have the same basic biological make-up, we all have the same basic desire to understand the world. Of course, our differences led to the differences seen in the makeup of the gods that exist around the world, but the basic underlying theme of "the unknown and the unknowable" has always existed.
There are two facts that really show that there is some weight to my theory, though of course I could be wrong. First, since the separation of church and state, most countries (except America) have seen drastic declines in religious people and increases in agnostics and atheists. This indicates that without the threat of death that is associated with disobeying a state-controlled religion, people are naturally inclined to not believe in gods. Gods are only believed in when they are beaten into us as children, in some means. It may not be beaten with the stick, but it can be beaten with a constant psychological attack that an undeveloped mind cannot handle.
Second, as science explains more and more of the world and the universe around us, there is less room for the "god of the gaps" to exist. Thus, religious people have to create "anti-science" such as Intelligent Design to try and fight the growing tide of scientific understanding, as it is a threat to the necessity of a god or gods. This is related to what Gandhi talked about:
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
The more science explains, the closer it is to "winning", though right now, we are definitely in the "fighting" period of time. It's lasted a long damn time though!
Really, I think one of the biggest obstacles to the triumph of rationality over irrational belief systems is the idea that we cannot be moral without gods. I think this is absolutely false. Morals can be developed from the principle of universally preferable behavior (http://www.lulu.com/content/1270751) that basically says there are behaviors that are universally preferable among all people in all times and places and these behaviors can be the basis of a rational, non-theistic moral system. A hurdle to get this idea across is the relativistic-subjectivist mish-mash of post-modern thought (if it can even be called that) that is so viral in today's society.
Anyway, that turned out to be way longer than I meant it to be, but I think I made my point. You don't need religion to be a good person, and honestly, I think you will be much happier when you use your own natural rationality to understand the world, rather than trying to attempt to use invisible sky-ghosts to help you decide how to live your life.
Original_Intent
10-25-2007, 12:29 PM
study all religions. let God do the talking.
This is my logic. Maybe you won't agree with my answers.
I believe that God is not scientifically provable, it is on an individual basis.
It does not make sense to me that if God exists that He would make it impossible to determine on an individual basis whether He exists.
The only way you can get an answer to your question is by direct revelation from the Source. That doesn't mean you can just casually ask, imo, but if it is something you are willing to study and then pray about, I believe that God is bound by spiritual laws to answer.
I think that a large part of religion has been hijacked by people that use it for their own ends, whether that be money or power. The only purpose religion should serve in my opinion is to help you establlish the personal relationship to God. You should not need to use a priest as an intermediary, only as a guide. You are a child of God.
Mere Chritianity is a great book, as is almost everything else by CS Lewis. He also wrote a book called "God in the Dock" (in Britain the dock is where a defendant in a trial sits) it explores many of the questions such as "If there is a God why does he allow so much misery in the world, etc. In fact another great CS Lewsi book on that is "The Problem of Pain".
Good luck!
I was an atheist the first half of my life, and was no slouch in the ridicule and mockery department. In my late 20s, during a difficult period in my life, I was struck out of the blue by a realization that good and evil are palpable forces, that goodness flows from God, and that belief in Jesus is the condition God has established for admittance into his kingdom. I accepted that proposition, things began to happen and life became more of a journey.
'Mere Christianity' is great and I'll 4th or 5th the recommendation. I also suggest a good Bible (New International Version is very readable) and a commentary to go with it. The New International commentary is great because it provides a lot of historical and cultural context and explanations of some tough passages. Feel free to disagree with it, though. I do in some places.
I am not very churchy, though will do it if I have time. One thing to keep in mind is that there is an earthly church, marked by denominations, dogma, building funds, pecking orders, pastor worship, etc. It is essentially a false institution. However, you will meet some great Christians in churches, and group prayer and worship can be very powerful no matter where it happens. The real, spiritual church is the community of believers, which has no boundaries.
noxagol
10-25-2007, 12:37 PM
My view on believing as an "insurance" policy is determined by thinking, what would I think if I were God? You have me, two people, completely the same. Both good lives and everything, one did not believe in me because he was not convinced by his fellow man that I, God, exist. The other bought the arguement that he should believe just in case. Now, if it were me looking at the two, I would have more respect for the one who did not believe in me versus the one who did because the one who did believe did it just to cover his own ass, and thus didn't really believe in me and thought he could fake it well enough.
Original_Intent
10-25-2007, 12:48 PM
My view on believing as an "insurance" policy is determined by thinking, what would I think if I were God? You have me, two people, completely the same. Both good lives and everything, one did not believe in me because he was not convinced by his fellow man that I, God, exist. The other bought the arguement that he should believe just in case. Now, if it were me looking at the two, I would have more respect for the one who did not believe in me versus the one who did because the one who did believe did it just to cover his own ass, and thus didn't really believe in me and thought he could fake it well enough.
If I were God I would look at it as - "both of these guys wondered if I might exist, and neither of them took the effort to find out"
drain
10-25-2007, 12:51 PM
Pete,
Just think how much more powerful you would feel if instead of giving a god all the credit of getting you through the tough times, you gave yourself all the credit and believed that much more in yourself after the fact. As it is you have relinquished some esteem in yourself and given it to a 3rd party (higher power). Do this enough times and you will have nothing to count on but god, and if he/she doesn't respond what will you do?
adrian
Original_Intent
10-25-2007, 12:59 PM
Pete,
Just think how much more powerful you would feel if instead of giving a god all the credit of getting you through the tough times, you gave yourself all the credit and believed that much more in yourself after the fact. As it is you have relinquished some esteem in yourself and given it to a 3rd party (higher power). Do this enough times and you will have nothing to count on but god, and if he/she doesn't respond what will you do?
adrian
Either God exists or not. How believing/not believing makes you feel is irrelevant. It's funny because agnostics/aetheists always accuse Christians of simply believing because it makes them "feel good". Now you are promoting not believing to feel better!
nexalacer
10-25-2007, 01:02 PM
Either God exists or not. How believing/not believing makes you feel is irrelevant. It's funny because agnostics/aetheists always accuse Christians of simply believing because it makes them "feel good". Now you are promoting not believing to feel better!
That's because as animals with an innate ability for rational thought, we are happier when we use our natural rationality to understand the world than we are when we believe in invisible sky gods that are completely against our rationality.
drain
10-25-2007, 01:06 PM
are you kidding? how many people do you hear every day thanking god when things go right and praying for help from him? I have relatives who thank god when they are able to pay their bills, as if god is interested in your finances! Or how about the super religious who do not give their children medical care because they don't want to interfere with god's work? I'm sure those kids feel differently than non-believers' kids!
adrian
Original_Intent
10-25-2007, 01:13 PM
That's because as animals with an innate ability for rational thought, we are happier when we use our natural rationality to understand the world than we are when we believe in invisible sky gods that are completely against our rationality.
In other words, it is better to live as a rational animal and live based on our animal instincts than to try to determine if there is a being who might be encouragin us to be better than our animal instincts.
I am neither promoting belief or disbelief in this thread. I am saying if a person is questioning then there are only two possibilities. God exists or not. Do not depend on organized religion or others to give you an answer because any source other than God himself may be lying, misguided, or just wrong.
Do the best to find your own answers, then when you have done the best you can on your own, ask the universe/God or whatever for confirmation. If you get no answer, that is an answer.
Why does Nexalacer feel so threatened by this that he has to make denegrating silly "invisible sky-god" remarks?
nexalacer
10-25-2007, 07:51 PM
In other words, it is better to live as a rational animal and live based on our animal instincts than to try to determine if there is a being who might be encouragin us to be better than our animal instincts.
I am neither promoting belief or disbelief in this thread. I am saying if a person is questioning then there are only two possibilities. God exists or not. Do not depend on organized religion or others to give you an answer because any source other than God himself may be lying, misguided, or just wrong.
Do the best to find your own answers, then when you have done the best you can on your own, ask the universe/God or whatever for confirmation. If you get no answer, that is an answer.
Why does Nexalacer feel so threatened by this that he has to make denegrating silly "invisible sky-god" remarks?
I'm not saying that being rational is living by instincts. I'm saying that rational thought is an ability that we humans have that allow us to be better than our instincts and it requires no invisible sky ghosts to help us do that.
I'm saying that until there is empirical evidence that you can rationally analyze, the logical conclusion must be that there are no gods. Your suggestion that you should not listen to anyone else on the existence of gods comes from an a priori assumption that there is a god. I say start from scratch, the null hypothesis, there is no god, and work from there.
I do agree, find out for yourself, as that is all a rational being can do. I'm showing you my way of thinking about this matter, use it how you will. That is how rational thought works... and that is why it is best able to make us happy: we, ourselves, can understand this world without the need of outside interference because we have rational thought and functional senses that, together, can find truth much better than any belief in gods, leprechauns, pink unicorns, or any other fictional beings.
Why am I threatened? Because the bible advocates the death of non-believers. I hope beyond hope that JosephtheLibertarian does not become another member of the bible cult that would happily see me murdered. Especially considering he is such a proponent of non-violence. This would be like a pacifist joining the KKK because it's a good social club... ask a black man if the KKK is just a good social club!
What would you rather me call non-existent the god that commands my murder? Mr. Smiley-pants? Yahweh? The worlds greatest child-abuser? I really don't care what you call a non-existent entity. I call it the invisible sky god because it is invisible, it's said to live in the sky, and since it doesn't exist, I use god.
OptionsTrader
10-25-2007, 08:25 PM
A philosophical question:
If a child were deserted on an island at an early age, and was forced to live on the island with zero human interaction until his eventual death, never having heard of organized religion and was never given the opportunity to read a special book, would his soul "go to hell" by default after he died?
A physics question:
If the big bang theory is more or less an accurate description of the beginning of the universe, where did the energy (and energy in the mass equivalent) exist prior to the bang since mass nor energy can neither be created nor destroyed? (and good luck if you attempt to describe string/Membrane M-theory, it makes my head hurt too)
An interventionist question:
If a super omnipotent being exists, that is capable of intervening in the smallest and biggest extent, or not intervening at all after the initial universe was set in motion billions of years ago, then to what extent do you think this omnipotent being would intervene? Would he intervene at all? Would he allow the little ants to do their thing with no intervention? Would he prevent disasters, prevent some rapes and murders but not all?
OptionsTrader
10-25-2007, 08:36 PM
I'll be perfectly honest and divulge I am agnostic yet my respect for Ron Paul's intelligence and logic has me second guessing myself lately. He is right about so damn many things, I question my own arrogance to assert he is wrong here.
nexalacer
10-25-2007, 08:41 PM
A philosophical question:
If a child were deserted on an island at an early age, and was forced to live on the island with zero human interaction until his eventual death, never having heard of organized religion and was never given the opportunity to read a special book, would his soul "go to hell" by default after he died?
A physics question:
If the big bang theory is more or less an accurate description of the beginning of the universe, where did the energy (and energy in the mass equivalent) exist prior to the bang since mass nor energy can neither be created nor destroyed? (and good luck if you attempt to describe string/Membrane M-theory, it makes my head hurt too)
An interventionist question:
If a super omnipotent being exists, that is capable of intervening in the smallest and biggest extent, or not intervening at all after the initial universe was set in motion billions of years ago, then to what extent do you think this omnipotent being would intervene? Would he intervene at all? Would he allow the little ants to do their thing with no intervention? Would he prevent disasters, prevent some rapes and murders but not all?
I think the philosophical situation begs another question, as well. If god really was a universal, then would this child, without the existence of religious teaching, ever come to the belief that there is a god?
The physics question is intense, I think quantum theory can explain it, but I have to agree, it's a lot to wrap your head around and I've not yet felt the need to devote time to such intense study.
The interventionist question is good, but contains one of the contradictions inherent in the existence of gods, especially the monotheistic type. If it is omnipotent, that means it is all-knowing. If it is capable of intervening in all events, large and small, then it is all-powerful. If it is all-knowing then it cannot be all-powerful because it already knows what will happen thus will not be able to change the outcomes. If it is all-powerful, then it cannot be all-knowing because changing the outcome of something would imply that the new outcome is unknown.
OptionsTrader
10-25-2007, 08:47 PM
If god really was a universal, then would this child, without the existence of religious teaching, ever come to the belief that there is a god?
I never would have even considered it. Perhaps I am way off to the extreme on the bell curve of what naturally occurs in the brains of average people, but I never would have even thought up something so bizarre and intangible without living in society. Not saying I would have been correct, but I would have died on the island quite oblivious to the "truth".
TooConservative
10-25-2007, 09:05 PM
Why am I threatened? Because the bible advocates the death of non-believers. I hope beyond hope that JosephtheLibertarian does not become another member of the bible cult that would happily see me murdered. Especially considering he is such a proponent of non-violence. This would be like a pacifist joining the KKK because it's a good social club... ask a black man if the KKK is just a good social club!
What would you rather me call non-existent the god that commands my murder? Mr. Smiley-pants? Yahweh? The worlds greatest child-abuser? I really don't care what you call a non-existent entity. I call it the invisible sky god because it is invisible, it's said to live in the sky, and since it doesn't exist, I use god.
This is way over the top. The New Testament contains no such injunctions to kill. A cult or some group like Westboro church might misuse the Old Testament to claim Christianity teaches the death penalty for a variety of sexual offenses but that is just ignorance or malice on their part, not something that has ever been a part of the recognized ancient church or legitimate orthodox churches in more modern times.
As for your remarks on reason and living with the invisible sky god, I'd point out that the bloodiest excesses of the French Revolution and the moral dissolution came about because the abusive Catholic church was overthrown. The results were so bad that the Church was shortly restored.
The Nazis also did their best to overthrow Christian teachings and culture, establishing their Reich Church and doing their best to eradicate genuine Christian faith and those who taught it. We know the result. By contrast, we should note that neither the Italian Fascisti nor Franco's Fascists in Spain were ever anti-Christian and therefore the extreme police state never developed and the extermination camps were never a part of their fascist ideology or practice.
The results of Soviet and Chinese communism embracing Marx and Darwin and pressing to exterminate the churches and traditional religion in those countries led to the deaths of tens of millions of their own citizens, possibly as many as 100 millions. Mostly it was deliberate neglect of portions of their population such as using food shortages to kill off undesired portions of their population.
In Christianity, there is no justification for such terrible practices. And the unalienable rights which are recognized first in our Declaration of Independence are understood to be those rights with which Man has been endowed by his Creator. These rights are not an invention or granted at the whim of the State. They are intrinsic to humanity and cannot legitimately be trifled with by the State. Any such State is tyrannical is deserving of overthrow by its citizens.
Is there some substantial reason you have to believe that Christians are going to kill you or that they are teaching their membership to kill people like you?
nexalacer
10-26-2007, 12:20 AM
This is way over the top. The New Testament contains no such injunctions to kill. A cult or some group like Westboro church might misuse the Old Testament to claim Christianity teaches the death penalty for a variety of sexual offenses but that is just ignorance or malice on their part, not something that has ever been a part of the recognized ancient church or legitimate orthodox churches in more modern times.
As for your remarks on reason and living with the invisible sky god, I'd point out that the bloodiest excesses of the French Revolution and the moral dissolution came about because the abusive Catholic church was overthrown. The results were so bad that the Church was shortly restored.
The Nazis also did their best to overthrow Christian teachings and culture, establishing their Reich Church and doing their best to eradicate genuine Christian faith and those who taught it. We know the result. By contrast, we should note that neither the Italian Fascisti nor Franco's Fascists in Spain were ever anti-Christian and therefore the extreme police state never developed and the extermination camps were never a part of their fascist ideology or practice.
The results of Soviet and Chinese communism embracing Marx and Darwin and pressing to exterminate the churches and traditional religion in those countries led to the deaths of tens of millions of their own citizens, possibly as many as 100 millions. Mostly it was deliberate neglect of portions of their population such as using food shortages to kill off undesired portions of their population.
In Christianity, there is no justification for such terrible practices. And the unalienable rights which are recognized first in our Declaration of Independence are understood to be those rights with which Man has been endowed by his Creator. These rights are not an invention or granted at the whim of the State. They are intrinsic to humanity and cannot legitimately be trifled with by the State. Any such State is tyrannical is deserving of overthrow by its citizens.
Is there some substantial reason you have to believe that Christians are going to kill you or that they are teaching their membership to kill people like you?
The Old Testament clearly calls for the death of unbelievers. If you really want a page full of quotes, I will find them, but I think you could find the same with a simple search on google. If the Old Testament is not to be taken as the word of god, why is genesis taught as the "truth" of how humans came to exist?
As far as the New Testament, Acts 3:23, 2 Peter 2:1-3, 3:7, 1 John 2:22, 4:2-3, 5:12, 2 John 10, 1 Corinthians 2:15, 2 Corinthians 3:14-16, 2 Timothy 2:16, Hebrews 11:31, Jude 1:5.... this is a small sample of the number of passages in the bible talking about non-association with nonbelievers, god destroying non-believers, and how non-believers are "blind" because they cannot see the "truth." All of this sort of talk builds antipathy, which leads to acts of violence against non-believers. The history of the Catholic and many Protestant sects shows this very clearly. Recently, I read some preacher that wrote on the internet that yes, indeed, non-believers should be murdered so that America can once again be a strong country. I'll try to find the link when I have more time.
The question is, if the bible (both old and new testaments) is the word of god and absolute truth, yet you don't follow these passages that demand the murder of non-believers, then how can you be said to be following the morally "consistent" word of god? If you can pick and choose what you want to believe in the bible, why choose any of it?
The facts of past non-religious based atrocities does not logically lead to the conclusion that all non-religious people are immoral. Europe has seen a constant decrease in religious thought and along with it has come a decrease in crime rates, while America, the most religious of all 1st world nations has one of the highest crime rates.
The fact is, Christianity teaches that the bible is truth, the bible is the word of god, and the bible is infallible. If these are TRUE, then it is easy to see how believing these things can lead to one believing that all non-believers should be murdered. Whether it's said blatantly or not is not relevant. People in the KKK do not have to actively talk about killing black people if it's understood in their literature that it's right to kill black people. I look at Christians who don't want to kill me as a black person does at members of the KKK that don't want to kill them.... that's great that YOU don't want to kill me... but why are you part of a group that says it's ok to do so?
Wendi
10-26-2007, 07:46 AM
To the original poster - I'm sorry that this thread turned into a debate about who's faith is "right." I guess that doesn't do much to answer your question, does it?
TooConservative
10-26-2007, 08:13 AM
The Old Testament clearly calls for the death of unbelievers. If you really want a page full of quotes, I will find them, but I think you could find the same with a simple search on google. If the Old Testament is not to be taken as the word of god, why is genesis taught as the "truth" of how humans came to exist?
Christians are not Jews. The Old Testament is largely historical for Christians. The New Testament was originally the gospels, the "good news". And that good news was that the strictures of legalism and the restricted religious life of Jews had passed away, fulfilled by the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. The Genesis creation account remains as the account of human origins because it is the only explanation offered in scripture.
As far as the New Testament, Acts 3:23, 2 Peter 2:1-3, 3:7, 1 John 2:22, 4:2-3, 5:12, 2 John 10, 1 Corinthians 2:15, 2 Corinthians 3:14-16, 2 Timothy 2:16, Hebrews 11:31, Jude 1:5.... this is a small sample of the number of passages in the bible talking about non-association with nonbelievers, god destroying non-believers, and how non-believers are "blind" because they cannot see the "truth." All of this sort of talk builds antipathy, which leads to acts of violence against non-believers. The history of the Catholic and many Protestant sects shows this very clearly. Recently, I read some preacher that wrote on the internet that yes, indeed, non-believers should be murdered so that America can once again be a strong country. I'll try to find the link when I have more time.
You are mangling those passages entirely. In Acts 3, for instance, it warns of those who reject God's prophet which was a traditional warning to Jews. Christians read this as teaching that those who rejected Jesus as the prophet foretold will be punished by God. Sometimes, this is connected to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Only a very ignorant or malicious person could read this as suggesting that Christians are to punish unbelievers. Rabbis such as Aben Ezra explain those quotations of Jewish teachings as "death by the hand of heaven", clearly not an action that was to be performed by followers of Jesus.
2 Timothy is an epistle, a personal letter from an older preacher to a young one, to Timothy who Paul saw as his successor, as someone who would preserve his teachings and those of Jesus. He was giving advice against non-scriptural speculation and bad teachers in the church, how the errors of their teachings would inevitably lead them to corrupt even more of Christian teachings so they could not simply be ignored. Paul was giving advice on dealing with false teachers in the church, not discussing non-Christians in 2 Timothy 2:16.
In Jude 1:5 the description is how God saved the Jews and brought them out of Egyptian slavery but then He killed the unbelievers and disobedient. Notice again, it was not Christians (or Jews) who were commanded to deal with them. God was doing this, not giving out some license to kill.
Look at the passage in 1 John 2 that you cited.
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
1Jo 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1Jo 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
1Jo 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
In verses 18 and 19, the object of discussion were the antichrists with whom the local believers were dealing. The ones being denounced here were those who went from Judea to Antioch as missionaries and spread false doctrine that all Gentile Christians must be circumcised to be Christians. This was not true. Circumcision had passed away under the New Covenant in Christ. To return to circumcision was considered useless and spiritually destructive. There were many such attempts by various person to return to Judaism because almost the entire early church was composed of Jewish followers. It wasn't for many decades that any of them called themselves Christians. It didn't occur to them because they were Jews who were following their Messiah.
Verse 19 teaches that these straying teachers were no longer part of their own group which was faithful to the original doctrines they had received.
So now we see the context better. Look at verse 22. He is referring to those who deny any portion of the teachings about Jesus as the Messiah and as the son of the Father. Among the heresies of the time were teachings that Jesus was not the Messiah foretold by the prophets, or those who denied Jesus was fully God or who denied He was fully human or who taught he was only a man who was 'adopted' by the Father which was the teaching of a heretic named Marcion. Others, in keeping with contemporary Jewish mythology, denied that the Father created the world and that it was instead created by angels. You see, in ancient times there was a great deal of mythology and superstitious belief in angels and their actions and interventions. This has flared up from time to time, during the Middle Ages for instance. We've seen a revival of interest in angelic actions in the last 20 years as well, particularly among evangelicals. Yet, scripture is remarkably silent about angels for the most part. Proper Christians don't believe that obsessing or speculating about angels is useful and it quite often leads people to believe in false or unscriptural doctrines.
Anyway, 1 John 2 doesn't tell Christians to kill anyone. Not even false teachers of Christian doctrine.
You should understand that Christians are generally following teachings about turning the other cheek, blessing those who curse them, well, it's a lot more about being loving toward all others and not some easy path of just killing those who oppose you or don't believe what you believe.
Your other citations are equally inapt. They simply don't say what you think they're saying. Frankly, I can't understand how you even think they instruct Christians to murder non-believers.
These epistles and gospels were never written to be read a sentence or two at a time. The originals were written without whitespace or punctuation. These verse divisions in modern Bibles were introduced in the eleventh or twelfth century by some Catholic scholar to make referencing scripture during formal argument easier and more precise.
You need to read the whole book or at least the whole passage to understand it. In some of those you cited, you need to know more about the history of the time and the history of Judaism to understand what was being taught by the writer.
The question is, if the bible (both old and new testaments) is the word of god and absolute truth, yet you don't follow these passages that demand the murder of non-believers, then how can you be said to be following the morally "consistent" word of god? If you can pick and choose what you want to believe in the bible, why choose any of it?
But it does not, in fact, demand the murder of non-believers. Christianity simply does not contain such teachings. Whether certain churches misused these teachings when they sought to exercise secular power isn't the point. There is no doubt that they did. But that is not Christianity. That is a church leadership misusing scripture and abusing their adherents.
The facts of past non-religious based atrocities does not logically lead to the conclusion that all non-religious people are immoral. Europe has seen a constant decrease in religious thought and along with it has come a decrease in crime rates, while America, the most religious of all 1st world nations has one of the highest crime rates.
Europe is dying out. They've merely reached another sterile end than the murderous Nazis and communists. Their primary hope now is eastern Europe who is still fecund and may fill the demographic gap of western Europe. Eastern Europe remained very devout, you see. And through their children, they will inherit Europe. It's either them or the Muslims. I think I'd rather Europe return to Christianity than to see it go Muslim.
The fact is, Christianity teaches that the bible is truth, the bible is the word of god, and the bible is infallible. If these are TRUE, then it is easy to see how believing these things can lead to one believing that all non-believers should be murdered. Whether it's said blatantly or not is not relevant. People in the KKK do not have to actively talk about killing black people if it's understood in their literature that it's right to kill black people. I look at Christians who don't want to kill me as a black person does at members of the KKK that don't want to kill them.... that's great that YOU don't want to kill me... but why are you part of a group that says it's ok to do so?
People who have any kind of KKK sympathies are simply not Christian. The ancient church was made up of many races and it was no cause of division.
You may have read that slavery was defended by Southern clergy scripturally. They did try to by misusing the Old Testament but they twisted even the allowance that is made in scripture for bonded labor. Ancient societies relied upon slave labor but it was more like bonded labor, not quite as bad as American slavery. Ancient Jews were allowed to own slaves but had to free them after seven years if they were Jewish. They also had to free them if they seriously injured them. Christianity always took a dim view of slavery but especially toward owning Christian slaves. Christians simply do not enslave other Christians. This practice of bonded labor from ancient times would be what we would call indentured servitude and which was also outlawed early in this country. While that is bad, it's nothing like the gross evils of hereditary slavery. For more on this, I suggest you look at this link: Slavery, the Bible, Infidelity: Pro-slavery Interpretations of the Bible: Productive of Infidelity (1846), by Rev. William W. Patton (http://medicolegal.tripod.com/patton1846.htm). For more on slavery and Christianity, try Christianity and slavery - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)
It's quite clear that true Christians always have opposed slavery, discrimination, the rise of the KKK and laws to intimidate or discriminate against blacks and other races that came about during the Reconstruction era and which later expanded to teach hatred of Catholic immigrants, German immigrants, Irish immigrants, Mediterranean immigrants, Jews and so on which was what the KKK taught.
Scripture is not a cudgel or a sword with which a Christian seeks to beat or kill those who don't agree with them. And, just as the ancient apostles warned their own followers in scripture, there are always unprincipled and unscrupulous persons who will teach false doctrines or deceive people into following sinful practices. They do this for their own power, for money, or because they were never Christians to begin with. These demagogues and deceivers are with us in modern times, just as they were in ancient times.
That was a long reply but I wanted to try to address your post as thoroughly as I could in my limited time this morning.
nexalacer
10-26-2007, 10:08 AM
Christians are not Jews. The Old Testament is largely historical for Christians. The New Testament was originally the gospels, the "good news". And that good news was that the strictures of legalism and the restricted religious life of Jews had passed away, fulfilled by the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. The Genesis creation account remains as the account of human origins because it is the only explanation offered in scripture.
I'm not quite clear on this... the Genesis account is part of scripture, yet it is in the Old Testament. At the same time, the Old Testament is "largely" historical. How do you, as a Christian, know which parts of the word of god in the form of the Old Testament to believe and which parts not to believe? That is, which part is known to be largely historical and how?
I did not re-quote your analysis of the passages I gave because I didn't want to make this post longer than necessary. However, I have a few questions on the "interpretations" argument:
1. How do you know when and when not to take things metaphorically?
2. How do you take verses "in context"?
3. How do you know what the context is?
But it does not, in fact, demand the murder of non-believers. Christianity simply does not contain such teachings. Whether certain churches misused these teachings when they sought to exercise secular power isn't the point. There is no doubt that they did. But that is not Christianity. That is a church leadership misusing scripture and abusing their adherents.
If the information is in the scripture to be abused, then it will always be abused. As long as the bible is used a moral guidebook, people will abuse the contradictions that lie within for their own gain. THAT is the biggest danger to me as an atheist because regardless of what is "really" Christianity according to you or what's "really" Christianity according to George W. Bush (who thinks atheists should not be allowed the right of citizenship), the fact is, people who believe the bible is the word of some "invisible friend" will continue to use it to commit atrocities. Today the atrocities might be simply supporting the state of Israel's constant murdering of Arab-Muslims for the sake of Armageddon, but tomorrow the atrocity could just as easily be the eradication of all "godless-heathens" in the good ol' U.S. of A.
The belief in an irrational, contradictory moral code allows this. Therefore, I will speak out against such moral codes as long as I have breath. It is all I can do to attempt to protect myself from the threat religious zealots.
Europe is dying out. They've merely reached another sterile end than the murderous Nazis and communists. Their primary hope now is eastern Europe who is still fecund and may fill the demographic gap of western Europe. Eastern Europe remained very devout, you see. And through their children, they will inherit Europe. It's either them or the Muslims. I think I'd rather Europe return to Christianity than to see it go Muslim.
Europe is dying out? Because it's got a low birth rate? I think this trend will shift once the destructive nature of socialist economies is no longer subsidized by America. Once America collapses in the next 10-20 years, Europe's socialist governments will soon follow. When people no longer unconsciously face the problems caused by large, welfare states, I suspect the birth rate will increase. However, we are both just dealing in speculation, which is quite worthless to the discussion at hand.
People who have any kind of KKK sympathies are simply not Christian. The ancient church was made up of many races and it was no cause of division.
You may have read that slavery was defended by Southern clergy scripturally. They did try to by misusing the Old Testament but they twisted even the allowance that is made in scripture for bonded labor. Ancient societies relied upon slave labor but it was more like bonded labor, not quite as bad as American slavery. Ancient Jews were allowed to own slaves but had to free them after seven years if they were Jewish. They also had to free them if they seriously injured them. Christianity always took a dim view of slavery but especially toward owning Christian slaves. Christians simply do not enslave other Christians. This practice of bonded labor from ancient times would be what we would call indentured servitude and which was also outlawed early in this country. While that is bad, it's nothing like the gross evils of hereditary slavery. For more on this, I suggest you look at this link: Slavery, the Bible, Infidelity: Pro-slavery Interpretations of the Bible: Productive of Infidelity (1846), by Rev. William W. Patton (http://medicolegal.tripod.com/patton1846.htm). For more on slavery and Christianity, try Christianity and slavery - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)
It's quite clear that true Christians always have opposed slavery, discrimination, the rise of the KKK and laws to intimidate or discriminate against blacks and other races that came about during the Reconstruction era and which later expanded to teach hatred of Catholic immigrants, German immigrants, Irish immigrants, Mediterranean immigrants, Jews and so on which was what the KKK taught.
You've misunderstood what I meant with the KKK analogy.
Christianity = social club = KKK
Atheists = target of said social club = black people.
I'm not saying Christians are equivalent to the KKK (though there were plenty of Christians in the KKK!), I'm saying that Christians who ignore the demands to kill atheists in the bible are as accountable for those demands as are the people who believe and follow them whole heartedly because the basis of Christianity IS the bible!
Just as the KKK members who ignore the demands to kill and harass black people in the KKK bylaws are as accountable for those demands as are the people who believe and follow them whole heartedly because the basis of the KKK IS their bylaws!
Scripture is not a cudgel or a sword with which a Christian seeks to beat or kill those who don't agree with them. And, just as the ancient apostles warned their own followers in scripture, there are always unprincipled and unscrupulous persons who will teach false doctrines or deceive people into following sinful practices. They do this for their own power, for money, or because they were never Christians to begin with. These demagogues and deceivers are with us in modern times, just as they were in ancient times.
That was a long reply but I wanted to try to address your post as thoroughly as I could in my limited time this morning.
Of course the demagogues and deceivers are with you. When a belief structure is based on irrationality and contradictions, it's impossible for people to decipher what is really good and what is really bad, thus you have people who are naturally moral living decent lives, while people who are naturally immoral or amoral using the references to the Jews primitive war-god to do evil, despicable acts.
The only SOLUTION is to stop believing in a book written by primitives, embrace your senses for empirical observation and your rationality for logical conclusions based on those observations. Through this process, you can find a secular moral code that is more universal and more consistent than anything you will find in the bible.
ThePieSwindler
10-26-2007, 10:28 AM
Oh god, we had politics on this board, but at least we all mostly agree about politics so there arent massive shouting matches. But then we bring the other Big Boy, religion in to the room, and here we go! BATTLE TIME.
american.swan
10-26-2007, 10:35 AM
yep, no one person or group has "the whole Truth" imo, we each carry just a tiny piece with us (yes even athiests, Im married to one!). Keep your ears and eyes, heart and spirit open, absorb what is useful and true to you and leave behind the rest, (although, be respectful of those you may disagree with) we each have our own path to walk, there are as many different ways as personalities out there I feel, to each his own ya know?
well, that's just my experience with things down here on earth this time around. Good luck soul searching tho!
PM me if you like. I know my church has the whole truth but sadly my church is mostly full of lazy pew warmers. No one is willing to get out and tell the world the gospel anymore.
I do agree with the idea of reading the Bible looking for what God wants you to do attitude. Very open minded. So many groups read the Bible and look for it to do what they want.
Anyways I am sure if you search with diligence you'll find God right there beside you where he has always been.
Pistis
10-26-2007, 10:49 AM
Joseph, I like the way you put it 'cos I shared your outlook on religion for a period in my past. It is sobering for me to know that we all partake in a little-known, but powerful idea called Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager) whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not. And I think this realization was a good motivation for trying to find out about things of a religious nature.
But of course, before you can even start, questions immediately arise: Can we truly know anything about religion? Afterall we can't prove God's existence, or can we? How can we believe in something we can't see or we supposedly don't know exists? Sure, some people say they experience God, but everyone has experiences of their own God in one form or the other: Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Moslems, Christians, even Satanists -- so where do you even start? And the biggie: how do heck do you even know which religion is the right one?
I believe these questions can be answered. For me (and for most philosophers/theologians who study this), if there is a God who created humans and created the world we inhabit; then the way we live in this world, the experiences we have (whether good or bad) and the way we discover the world to be through our experiences has got to be consistent with how that God has revealed himself/herself/itself to be.
And when it comes to religion, I also include atheism, agnoticism, materialism, naturalism, scientism, e.t.c, in the mix because ultimately, religion entails ideas about how the world works and answers to the questions that matter: Where do we come from, what's the purpose for living, where do we go to (if anywhere), what's the problem with the world, how do we solve the problem?, and so on.
So it's all about a worldview (how you view the world to be) and everyone who subscribes to any of the beliefs i've listed has a view about the world and tries to justify that view. Some make sense and some don't and if there is a God, he must have revealed coherent answers to all of these questions for our benefit.
I am a Christian so I believe there is a God who has has revealed Himself in enough of a way for me to know that He is who he says He is; that He has provided answers to all the big questions; and that the answers He provides actually do make sense. So you'll be correct to infer that I think it is completely rational to believe in the idea of a Christian God.
Now, I'm happy to concede that all worldviews including Christianity have some problems and difficult questions, but I think that Christianity answers the big questions very, very, well indeed, and people who reject Christianity because of some unanswered questions (most of which are trivial and can be answered coherently, btw), have to contend with a different set of problems that are even more damaging and problematic than the problems they think they are avoiding by rejecting the Christian worldview.
Pistis
10-26-2007, 10:54 AM
Pascal's Wager:
* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
* You live as though God does not exist.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
But of course it is more complicated than this b'cos there are more questions of which God and how do you know? I think it's definitely worth spending time to investigate these questions further.
.
TooConservative
10-26-2007, 11:29 AM
Oh god, we had politics on this board, but at least we all mostly agree about politics so there arent massive shouting matches. But then we bring the other Big Boy, religion in to the room, and here we go! BATTLE TIME.
Actually, this forum might benefit from having a subforum that is restricted to religious topics. You could have daily prayer threads for Ron Paul, posts on some of the great early history of the country and the great role played by religion, posts on how Christians played a key role in ending slavery, and so on.
I've seen this done on other forums before. A religion forum takes a bit of work but it could help make ronpaulforums.com an online home for the religious folk who might find some of the political threads here a bit racy.
Ron Paul has had a lot of very devout Christian supporters for decades. As well as a lot of non-devout Libertarian types. He attracts truly diverse support. No reason not to use that.
Recently, we had some folks requesting a gun forum. That would be good too. We already have a Truther forum. Why not a religion forum, one that focuses on appealing to religious conservatives?
TooConservative
10-26-2007, 12:31 PM
However, I have a few questions on the "interpretations" argument:
1. How do you know when and when not to take things metaphorically?
2. How do you take verses "in context"?
3. How do you know what the context is?
Generally, the New Testament is not big on metaphors. You do see a lot of use of parables to illustrate teaching. These are conjectural teachings, not a description of actual events.
When you read scripture, you need to read the verses before it and after it as well. By plucking verses and using them out of context, you can make the Bible say almost anything. But the Bible is not so loose and haphazard. The Gospels are pretty straightforward in describing the key events and message of Jesus and they corroborate one another. The epistles are more thorny because they are letters from an apostle to advise a church on how to conduct its spiritual life or they are personal letters, like the ones to Timothy. As with any piece of writing, you have to ask who/what/when/where/why or you'll never get close to the actual meaning of scripture.
Knowing context is important. For instance, many portions of scripture make no sense unless you understand exactly the problems the apostles and early churches were facing. You see this in the passages where I discussed how some missionaries tried to force Gentile Christians to be circumcised and how scripture spoke of this as wrong. You have to know the context of these things, often recorded in other writings by early church fathers, to understand the context of these.
Even sound churches generally do not go through each and every one of these things in all their historical detail but their clergy is taught scripture in detail and you may hear some of it expounded in church or, more often, in Sunday school or bible study. Another good source for anyone is a sound commentary. Personally, I like the old hardcore stuff, likeCalvin's Commentaries (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html) or the one written by the great Baptist, John Gill, as his life work of fifty years. (John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (http://www.freegrace.net/gill/)). Gill in particular was an expert at unraveling these obscure phrases and researching the contemporary rabbis of the ancient world to know what some of the references to daily Jewish life and Gentile customs during the Roman empire. It really changes the way you understand these scriptures when you understand the daily life of Jews, the early Christians, the challenges they faced under the Roman fist. People somehow picture the everyone in the early church converted and spent the rest of their lives wandering around with little halos on their heads. Well, that's not quite true. They were very fallible flesh and blood, just like the rest of us. They had very complex lives and lived in a world empire of astonishing diversity and with terrible public immorality.
It does pay to check the teachings of the local preacher against the established scholarship on the Bible and the history of the ancient church. Some preachers are more than a little loose on the proper teaching of doctrine and how to read scripture. Sometimes I think one of the best reasons to go to church is to keep an eye on the local preacher. :) A little church humor there.
If the information is in the scripture to be abused, then it will always be abused. As long as the bible is used a moral guidebook, people will abuse the contradictions that lie within for their own gain. THAT is the biggest danger to me as an atheist because regardless of what is "really" Christianity according to you or what's "really" Christianity according to George W. Bush (who thinks atheists should not be allowed the right of citizenship), the fact is, people who believe the bible is the word of some "invisible friend" will continue to use it to commit atrocities. Today the atrocities might be simply supporting the state of Israel's constant murdering of Arab-Muslims for the sake of Armageddon, but tomorrow the atrocity could just as easily be the eradication of all "godless-heathens" in the good ol' U.S. of A.
To me, a lack of moral and spiritual fiber is more dangerous. Religion has a very practical value to a society. And religion is most often the wellspring of politics. Most every political idea you've ever heard of came out of religious organizations. Ancient Christians even practiced socialism. Some would even call it communism. It didn't work out but the history of it is undeniable. Some early Christians owned everything communally. When condemned or taunted by their pagan neighbors or the Roman magistrates, they would say "We hold everything in common but our wives but you hold nothing in common but your wives." And it was quite literally true. Look at the sheer level of political conflict in that, the absolute rejection of materialism, the freedom from possessions, the devotion to monogamous marriage. Indeed, the early Christians were quite radical. Their influence was far broader too. They proselytized the slaves and made it clear that the most humble slave of the Roman empire was as worthy (or more worthy) to enter heaven than the Roman emperor and the Roman nobility. Again, very radical stuff. And they would accept death sentences rather than to bow to the emperor's image or make a meaningless token sacrifice to him as everyone else, regardless of their religion, did. Radical indeed in an era where state-sponsored religion was absolutely uniform and would remain so until the time of the Reformation.
The belief in an irrational, contradictory moral code allows this. Therefore, I will speak out against such moral codes as long as I have breath. It is all I can do to attempt to protect myself from the threat religious zealots.
Oh, I think you have a moral code, no different than anyone else. You just don't want to admit it to yourself. Well, unless you're an utterly immoral sociopath. No, you have a moral code all right.
Europe is dying out? Because it's got a low birth rate? I think this trend will shift once the destructive nature of socialist economies is no longer subsidized by America. Once America collapses in the next 10-20 years, Europe's socialist governments will soon follow. When people no longer unconsciously face the problems caused by large, welfare states, I suspect the birth rate will increase. However, we are both just dealing in speculation, which is quite worthless to the discussion at hand.
We'll see. History and demographics favor my argument but the future is known only to God.
You've misunderstood what I meant with the KKK analogy.
Christianity = social club = KKK
Atheists = target of said social club = black people.
I'm not saying Christians are equivalent to the KKK (though there were plenty of Christians in the KKK!), I'm saying that Christians who ignore the demands to kill atheists in the bible are as accountable for those demands as are the people who believe and follow them whole heartedly because the basis of Christianity IS the bible!
Hmm....Since atheists are 5% or less of the population, I'm not sure that Christians lay awake worrying about you quite so much.
And the Bible never commands us to kill atheists. You can find Old Testament scripture that tells Jews to kill unbelievers, namely those who would not obey God or enemy tribes that God wanted them to conquer, but there is no such injunction to Christians nor are they granted authority to conquer anyone. Christianity teaches to win souls to Christ and that the values of His spiritual kingdom are the task of the Christian. Christians are forbidden anything more than self-defense and a number of passages tell us to accept persecution for Christ's sake. Instead of killing unbelievers, the New Testament has many commands to care for the sick and elderly and minister to those in prison and to be loving to our neighbors for the sake of Christ and to build His kingdom. Not really all that much killing involved.
I find it difficult to believe that you actually feel threatened by Christians in real life anywhere in America. I notice you haven't been able to cite any threats against you, any beatings you've received from us icky Christians, any assassination attempts by us bloodthirsty Christians, and so on.
Maybe Christians just aren't out to kill you after all. Maybe you're just being paranoid.
kylejack
10-26-2007, 12:35 PM
Pascal's Wager:
* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
I probably lose at least 3 hours of sleep every Sunday morning. ;)
Corydoras
10-26-2007, 05:36 PM
Joseph, it may be worth your while to investigate Buddhism, an atheist religion. I'm not Buddhist but have tremendous respect for it. You might start with the Wikipedia articles on the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths. I strongly think it might give you insight into what religion is about without the negative baggage of theism.
In regard to Christianity, I think Stott's "Basic Christianity" is a lot easier to read and grasp than any C.S. Lewis.
Edward
10-26-2007, 06:26 PM
But is it wise to choose a religion as "insurance" in case I'm wrong?Pascal's Wager, anyone?
nexalacer
10-26-2007, 09:22 PM
Generally, the New Testament is not big on metaphors. You do see a lot of use of parables to illustrate teaching. These are conjectural teachings, not a description of actual events.
When you read scripture, you need to read the verses before it and after it as well. By plucking verses and using them out of context, you can make the Bible say almost anything. But the Bible is not so loose and haphazard. The Gospels are pretty straightforward in describing the key events and message of Jesus and they corroborate one another. The epistles are more thorny because they are letters from an apostle to advise a church on how to conduct its spiritual life or they are personal letters, like the ones to Timothy. As with any piece of writing, you have to ask who/what/when/where/why or you'll never get close to the actual meaning of scripture.
Knowing context is important. For instance, many portions of scripture make no sense unless you understand exactly the problems the apostles and early churches were facing. You see this in the passages where I discussed how some missionaries tried to force Gentile Christians to be circumcised and how scripture spoke of this as wrong. You have to know the context of these things, often recorded in other writings by early church fathers, to understand the context of these.
Even sound churches generally do not go through each and every one of these things in all their historical detail but their clergy is taught scripture in detail and you may hear some of it expounded in church or, more often, in Sunday school or bible study. Another good source for anyone is a sound commentary. Personally, I like the old hardcore stuff, likeCalvin's Commentaries (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html) or the one written by the great Baptist, John Gill, as his life work of fifty years. (John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (http://www.freegrace.net/gill/)). Gill in particular was an expert at unraveling these obscure phrases and researching the contemporary rabbis of the ancient world to know what some of the references to daily Jewish life and Gentile customs during the Roman empire. It really changes the way you understand these scriptures when you understand the daily life of Jews, the early Christians, the challenges they faced under the Roman fist. People somehow picture the everyone in the early church converted and spent the rest of their lives wandering around with little halos on their heads. Well, that's not quite true. They were very fallible flesh and blood, just like the rest of us. They had very complex lives and lived in a world empire of astonishing diversity and with terrible public immorality.
It does pay to check the teachings of the local preacher against the established scholarship on the Bible and the history of the ancient church. Some preachers are more than a little loose on the proper teaching of doctrine and how to read scripture. Sometimes I think one of the best reasons to go to church is to keep an eye on the local preacher. :) A little church humor there.
Let me get to the heart of my meaning with these questions:
How do you determine truth from falsehood?
To me, a lack of moral and spiritual fiber is more dangerous. Religion has a very practical value to a society. And religion is most often the wellspring of politics. Most every political idea you've ever heard of came out of religious organizations. Ancient Christians even practiced socialism. Some would even call it communism. It didn't work out but the history of it is undeniable. Some early Christians owned everything communally. When condemned or taunted by their pagan neighbors or the Roman magistrates, they would say "We hold everything in common but our wives but you hold nothing in common but your wives." And it was quite literally true. Look at the sheer level of political conflict in that, the absolute rejection of materialism, the freedom from possessions, the devotion to monogamous marriage. Indeed, the early Christians were quite radical. Their influence was far broader too. They proselytized the slaves and made it clear that the most humble slave of the Roman empire was as worthy (or more worthy) to enter heaven than the Roman emperor and the Roman nobility. Again, very radical stuff. And they would accept death sentences rather than to bow to the emperor's image or make a meaningless token sacrifice to him as everyone else, regardless of their religion, did. Radical indeed in an era where state-sponsored religion was absolutely uniform and would remain so until the time of the Reformation.
Absolutely, a lack of moral fiber is dangerous, but I think a lack of a consistent moral fiber is more dangerous because then people can use the powerful nature of moral arguments to make people do bad things.
I think you're taking this approach from the wrong way if you're telling me I should respect religion because it's the wellspring of politics. I find politics in today's world to be MORE offensive than religion, so if religion is the source of politics, let's scrap them both and live in a better, less violent world.
The political ideology I subscribe to I am quite sure was never developed out of religion. Religion demands hierarchy, otherwise you would not submit yourself to your invisible friend. This becomes translated into hierarchical systems in all forms of politics in religious societies. I subscribe to a political ideology of no hierarchy... true freedom. And I see that there are three pillars of hierarchy keeping our current self-destructive cycle of leviathan-esque governments in place: religious belief is one of them.
Notice that the Christians of the Roman era managed to get rid of their Pagan emperors, yet they still ended up with nearly 1500 years of oppression by another group of thugs. This will ALWAYS happen when people believe in irrational, contradictory entities that do not follow the same moral code they teach.
Oh, I think you have a moral code, no different than anyone else. You just don't want to admit it to yourself. Well, unless you're an utterly immoral sociopath. No, you have a moral code all right.
Again, you misunderstood me. This is a common misunderstanding of religious people because religious people think that morals come from gods. I do not.
I have a very strong moral code, stronger than the moral codes of most Christians I've known because it is based on observable phenomenon in this world. It is arrived at through rational thought and as a result, it is universal, and (hopefully!) consistent.
Here's the code in it's simplest form, tell me what you think of it:
1. There are only individuals. All groups are concepts we create in our minds but they do not exist in reality. In reality, only individuals exist.
2. What is good for one individual is good for all individuals.
3. What is bad for one individual is bad for all individuals.
4. Good and bad things can be determined by observing universally preferable behaviors. (http://www.lulu.com/content/1270751)
Examples of bad things would be murder, theft, and slavery because we can see that it is universally preferable to not kill, steal, or enslave people.
We'll see. History and demographics favor my argument but the future is known only to God.
So you see god as all-knowing? Do you also see it as all-powerful?
Hmm....Since atheists are 5% or less of the population, I'm not sure that Christians lay awake worrying about you quite so much.
And the Bible never commands us to kill atheists. You can find Old Testament scripture that tells Jews to kill unbelievers, namely those who would not obey God or enemy tribes that God wanted them to conquer, but there is no such injunction to Christians nor are they granted authority to conquer anyone. Christianity teaches to win souls to Christ and that the values of His spiritual kingdom are the task of the Christian. Christians are forbidden anything more than self-defense and a number of passages tell us to accept persecution for Christ's sake. Instead of killing unbelievers, the New Testament has many commands to care for the sick and elderly and minister to those in prison and to be loving to our neighbors for the sake of Christ and to build His kingdom. Not really all that much killing involved.
I find it difficult to believe that you actually feel threatened by Christians in real life anywhere in America. I notice you haven't been able to cite any threats against you, any beatings you've received from us icky Christians, any assassination attempts by us bloodthirsty Christians, and so on.
Maybe Christians just aren't out to kill you after all. Maybe you're just being paranoid.
I'd like to see how Christians feel about atheists as their numbers rise. There are already Christian preachers in America talking about murdering atheists, or at least enslaving them in prison to "protect them from themselves."
You sound like a more moderate Christian, and I have some respect for that. But you have to see that the bible is considered the word of God, thus many people who call themselves Christians take every single word and command within as a teaching that Christians must take to heart to be good Christians. Are they followers of Christ? Not really, as there were lots of good things said by the character in the bible known as Jesus. But THEY call themselves Christians and that is a direct result of their belief in this book written by a primitive tribal-war culture.
It's not that I'm feeling threatened at the moment. I mean, at the moment I'm living in a country where nearly 80% of the population is atheist or agnostic. The threat is that know one knows what the future will bring, but as long as the bible is considered truth, people can use it as an excuse to kill unbelievers.
George W. Bush said atheists should not be citizens of the USA. How far is it from saying they don't deserve the rights of being American citizens to saying they don't deserve the right to live? Looking at the history of another fanatical Christian leader in Germany in the 30s, I don't think it's such a stretch. Jews weren't threatened at the beginning of Hitler's rise but they sure did feel it after the need to wear the Star of David in public. Then there was that whole mess with the gas chambers, right?
You can call me paranoid all you want, but I've studied history, I've seen the same things happen over and over and over when people believe irrational things. And those bad things always happen to the most rational thinkers. Thus, as a rational humanist, I am quite aware of how much of a threat my belief system is to irrational religious people. When the threat of atheism gets too large, will we still be able to have a civil discussion about religion such as this?
TooConservative
10-27-2007, 08:02 AM
The political ideology I subscribe to I am quite sure was never developed out of religion. Religion demands hierarchy, otherwise you would not submit yourself to your invisible friend. This becomes translated into hierarchical systems in all forms of politics in religious societies. I subscribe to a political ideology of no hierarchy... true freedom. And I see that there are three pillars of hierarchy keeping our current self-destructive cycle of leviathan-esque governments in place: religious belief is one of them.
I think you're re-inventing anarchism. There's a tendency toward that among some Libertarians. Won't work.
Notice that the Christians of the Roman era managed to get rid of their Pagan emperors, yet they still ended up with nearly 1500 years of oppression by another group of thugs. This will ALWAYS happen when people believe in irrational, contradictory entities that do not follow the same moral code they teach.
You hardly do justice to the history of it. You want to judge them by our standards and the wisdom of hindsight. That's easy enough and entertaining, makes us feel all self-righteous. But it's not fair or accurate to look at history this way. Not just the history of Christianity but the history of anything.
Here's the code in it's simplest form, tell me what you think of it:
1. There are only individuals. All groups are concepts we create in our minds but they do not exist in reality. In reality, only individuals exist.
2. What is good for one individual is good for all individuals.
3. What is bad for one individual is bad for all individuals.
4. Good and bad things can be determined by observing universally preferable behaviors. (http://www.lulu.com/content/1270751)
Funny how humanity never discovered how easy it is to solve all our problems. And you just make a list and, bam, utopia is born. It's amazing.
I'd like to see how Christians feel about atheists as their numbers rise. There are already Christian preachers in America talking about murdering atheists, or at least enslaving them in prison to "protect them from themselves."
Again, I don't know of any. Maybe a few Theonomist cranks that no one's ever heard of. You'd be more credible if you worried over the KKK resurging.
You sound like a more moderate Christian, and I have some respect for that. But you have to see that the bible is considered the word of God, thus many people who call themselves Christians take every single word and command within as a teaching that Christians must take to heart to be good Christians. Are they followers of Christ? Not really, as there were lots of good things said by the character in the bible known as Jesus. But THEY call themselves Christians and that is a direct result of their belief in this book written by a primitive tribal-war culture.
You speak of the Bible, and the New Testament in particular, as though it is somehow comparable to a Koran which does contain repeated and explicit instructions to murder unbelievers. The two are not remotely comparable. Even the Old Testament which does have historical accounts of Jews being commanded to kill to establish Israel or to slay religious deviants is not read by Jews as being applicable to modern Jews.
It's not that I'm feeling threatened at the moment. I mean, at the moment I'm living in a country where nearly 80% of the population is atheist or agnostic. The threat is that know one knows what the future will bring, but as long as the bible is considered truth, people can use it as an excuse to kill unbelievers.
If you don't live in the U.S., then why are you complaining? This is a board for the support of an American candidate for president. Not your little springboard for atheism and anarchism.
George W. Bush said atheists should not be citizens of the USA. How far is it from saying they don't deserve the rights of being American citizens to saying they don't deserve the right to live? Looking at the history of another fanatical Christian leader in Germany in the 30s, I don't think it's such a stretch. Jews weren't threatened at the beginning of Hitler's rise but they sure did feel it after the need to wear the Star of David in public. Then there was that whole mess with the gas chambers, right?
Hitler was, at best, a very bad Catholic. Most of them would deny he was Catholic at all.
You can call me paranoid all you want, but I've studied history, I've seen the same things happen over and over and over when people believe irrational things. And those bad things always happen to the most rational thinkers. Thus, as a rational humanist, I am quite aware of how much of a threat my belief system is to irrational religious people. When the threat of atheism gets too large, will we still be able to have a civil discussion about religion such as this?
Actually, history indicates that it is the devoutly atheist element which murders in the millions. The Nazis under Hitler, the Soviets under Stalin, Mao's cultural revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, various socialist African regimes, the list is pretty long. The atheist regimes have killed over a hundred million people in the last century. People would be wise to remember that.
So, are you even an American citizen? Can you even vote?
nexalacer
10-27-2007, 09:29 PM
I think you're re-inventing anarchism. There's a tendency toward that among some Libertarians. Won't work.
Re-inventing anarchism? It's never been implemented, how can we say it's a reinvention? And of course there is a tendency for libertarians to come to be anarchists. It's the logical conclusion of the principle that the initiation of violence is bad, which is the basic principle common among most libertarians.
You hardly do justice to the history of it. You want to judge them by our standards and the wisdom of hindsight. That's easy enough and entertaining, makes us feel all self-righteous. But it's not fair or accurate to look at history this way. Not just the history of Christianity but the history of anything.
I'm not "judging" them, I'm just pointing out the facts. What other way should I look at history? And I could use a number of other examples if I wanted to take the time. People that get rid of one group of thugs while believing in irrationality ALWAYS get another group of thugs.
Funny how humanity never discovered how easy it is to solve all our problems. And you just make a list and, bam, utopia is born. It's amazing.
Well, I'm not claiming that utopia will come out of having a moral code as I've stated here. There will always be sociopathic people and they will likely never follow any moral code. The only thing with this moral code, is if people who ARE naturally moral follow it, they will not have the moral justification for doing evil things that contradictory, holy book-based morality allows.
Also, I did not come up with this moral code, it was discovered by Stefan Molyneux (http://www.freedomainradio.com). But I have probed to question with my own rational ability and have found it to be the approach I've used to live my own life, while it's also along the lines of one of the only universals in world languages, the golden rule. The difference is there is a distinction between the good and the bad, which the golden rule fails to provide.
And philosophers have been trying to discover a better moral code since the enlightenment. Before that no one discovered it because no one was looking.... they were content with their contradictory invisible friends.
Again, I don't know of any. Maybe a few Theonomist cranks that no one's ever heard of. You'd be more credible if you worried over the KKK resurging.
If the KKK resurges, I guarantee Christians will be driving the movement. And I don't care if you KNOW of any. That doesn't mean they don't exist. And you didn't answer the important question here. What will happen when the numbers of atheists DO become a threat?
You speak of the Bible, and the New Testament in particular, as though it is somehow comparable to a Koran which does contain repeated and explicit instructions to murder unbelievers. The two are not remotely comparable. Even the Old Testament which does have historical accounts of Jews being commanded to kill to establish Israel or to slay religious deviants is not read by Jews as being applicable to modern Jews.
Just because it's NOT read that way doesn't mean it CAN'T be read that way. And the fact that it HAS been read that way in history (The Crusades) certainly indicates that there is a good possibility for history to repeat itself.
If you don't live in the U.S., then why are you complaining? This is a board for the support of an American candidate for president. Not your little springboard for atheism and anarchism.
I don't live in the US, but that doesn't mean I'm not an American citizen. I'm supporting Ron Paul because I'd like to see more Americans exposed to the ideas of rational libertarianism, which I think Ron Paul will do.
Furthermore, I'm not complaining, nor is this unprompted. I started in on this thread because JosephtheLibertarian was asking about religion and since I knew him as a rationalist, I wanted to discourage him from embracing the irrationality of religion.
The beauty of a forum like this is I can use it to talk about what ever I want. The admins have the right to ban me if they feel my additions are not useful, and you have the right to ignore me if you don't like what I'm saying. But I came to anarchism (completely.. I've always had leanings towards it) through following Ron Paul's campaign. I also, through the influence of Ron Paul's logical approach to the world, began to logically analyze my previous agnostic leanings, and I've come to the case that agnosticism is logically wishy-washy. Thus I'm now an atheist. If more people can follow the path I've taken through this board, I think we will be that much closer to a world where people think imaginary hierarchical structures are a moral good.
Hitler was, at best, a very bad Catholic. Most of them would deny he was Catholic at all.
I don't care what other people today think about his Catholicism. The fact is, he used Catholicism and God to encourage and convince his supporters that what the NAZIs were doing was moral and good. That is always a possible outcome of believing in irrational, contradictory moral codes, such as the bible.
Actually, history indicates that it is the devoutly atheist element which murders in the millions. The Nazis under Hitler, the Soviets under Stalin, Mao's cultural revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, various socialist African regimes, the list is pretty long. The atheist regimes have killed over a hundred million people in the last century. People would be wise to remember that.
I think people understand that all of these regimes were socialist. The threat is the socialism, not the atheism. It happens that socialist regimes are often atheist because of Marx's atheism, but that does not mean that atheists must be immoral.
Also, Hitler used god as part of his rhetoric and Stalin was raised in a religious household. Whether he still believed is irrelevant, the child abuse that occurs, sometimes physically but mostly psychologically, when religious teaching is forced into children leaves scars on the consciousness that typically last a lifetime. When looking at history, it's always important to look at the causes, and in these two cases, I can see the root cause as irrational religious belief.
The other cases are irrational belief in another hierarchy, the state, especially common in China, but spreading throughout the rest of the world quite rapidly since the World Wars of the 20th century, the greatest abuses of state power in human history.
So, are you even an American citizen? Can you even vote?
Yep and yep. But the more important question is what does this have to do with the logic of my arguments and the correctness of my conclusions? If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong but ad hominem attacks won't quiet me.
And you never answered the most important question:
How do you distinguish truth from falsehood?
Kregener
10-27-2007, 09:40 PM
If god really was a universal, then would this child, without the existence of religious teaching, ever come to the belief that there is a god?
Then just how do you explain the "first" person to do so?
Never mind, as God has been here from the beginning, He did no need to be "created" by a fertile mind.
Not to mention the GENIUS that a forgery as in depth and complete as the Bible would have to be.
Daveforliberty
10-27-2007, 09:42 PM
22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' 29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
—Acts 17:22-17:31, (NIV)
nexalacer
10-27-2007, 11:37 PM
Then just how do you explain the "first" person to do so?
Never mind, as God has been here from the beginning, He did no need to be "created" by a fertile mind.
Not to mention the GENIUS that a forgery as in depth and complete as the Bible would have to be.
The first person to do so was probably not an individual, but a primitive group of early hominids that had recently gotten a bit of what we would consider consciousness and began to try to explain the world around them. The things that couldn't be explained by the sense would have been attributed to gods, thus the "god of the gaps."
Why do you consider the Bible a work of genius? Would a genius have created a work full of inconsistencies and contradictions? If a genius did create such a work, what would be the purpose if the rest of us mere mortals are not capable of working out all of the problems within?
Kregener
10-27-2007, 11:40 PM
"Probably"?
As in: evolution is "probably" correct?
Check.
;)
nexalacer
10-27-2007, 11:49 PM
"Probably"?
As in: evolution is "probably" correct?
Check.
;)
Yeah, probably, as it's all speculation, even the assumption that a god has always been here. I build my speculation on anthropological and historical evidence, you build yours off of faith in a contradictory being. I like evidence more than faith.
And evolution is not "probably" correct. Evolution is a theory, the highest title of truth given in science, based on the evidence that we have up until this point. Is it possible that new evidence will be discovered that will blow evolution completely out of the water? Absolutely, that's why science is constantly changing.... the truth explained in the theories of science must be constantly validated with the newest, best evidence. Thus a theory that is proven to be false will be discarded and a new theory will be developed. However, at this point in time, there is no evidence that refutes evolution, there are just gaps in knowledge, as there is in many other sciences.
The problem with religion is there is no demand for evidence or reevaluation. Therefore, false "truths" are set to perpetuate until people decide to apply reason and logic to them.
I'll ask you the same question I asked TooConservative:
How do you separate truth from falsehood?
TooConservative
10-28-2007, 01:06 AM
But the more important question is what does this have to do with the logic of my arguments and the correctness of my conclusions? If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong but ad hominem attacks won't quiet me.
And you never answered the most important question:
How do you distinguish truth from falsehood?
I've concluded you're just twitting me and others here with a distraction. Personally, I don't care about your atheism that much.
Since Ron Paul is a Christian, albeit not a big churchgoer, you can support him or not support him. But he clearly isn't pushing secularism or atheism.
I think you're yet another case of the fringe using RP's campaign for their own agenda. I'm more interested in those policy issues that Ron Paul is campaigning for.
Nefertiti
10-28-2007, 05:22 AM
Actually, this forum might benefit from having a subforum that is restricted to religious topics. You could have daily prayer threads for Ron Paul, posts on some of the great early history of the country and the great role played by religion, posts on how Christians played a key role in ending slavery, and so on.
Why not a religion forum, one that focuses on appealing to religious conservatives?
What you describe is not a religion forum. What you describe is a Christian forum.
TooConservative
10-28-2007, 07:33 AM
What you describe is not a religion forum. What you describe is a Christian forum.
Probably a distraction. There's a lot of vulgar language here that wouldn't appeal to Christian conservative types anyway. They only like squeaky clean forums.
lucius
10-28-2007, 08:12 AM
501(3)(c) Religions are shamefully co-opted in our country. But in general, religion has been altered for societal control purposes since the dawn of time. Persevere and shift through the bs and find the aspects that resonate with you. The ‘death-cult from way-back when, always seeking world domination’ are masters at this—October 31 is a perfect example how the uninformed masses, celebrate one of their highest-days all unawares, plus shelling out their funds as well.
Not pimping Christianity, well maybe a little, but here is a good Shepard in action, ‘Conquering the Spirit of Debt’: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3051024550497129264&q=spirit+of+debt&total=66&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
I made a Dr. Paul dvd for Christians around it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.