How do you get into heaven?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>atheism these days has become just as much an 'easy-out' as any religion was at it's worst. It gives people a simple answer and allows them to avoid thinking about difficult issues.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What exatly are you implying here? I'm an atheist, and I don't claim to know a lot of things. What exactly are the simple answers you are talking about? Most atheists will agree with the principle of the scientific method, that nothing can ever be proven to the point of absolute certainty. Thus any theory is subject to change, there are no easy answers in science. The Big Bang and similar theories are just that, theories, thing that fit the information that was available over a decades ago, as new discoveries are made, new and more accurate theories can be made, I haven't heard of many religions changing their views as new evidence came out that contradicted their previous positions, at least not in a timely manner(with the exception of Budism). <P>Your statement is exactly like someone saying, "Christians are morons since they believe in the reliability of a book that says the world is flat, endorses animal sacrifice, propagates hate crimes against homosexuals, condones slavery and encourages brutality in war, all while ignoring the blatant errors and contradictions that fill the book to the point that three of the authors can't even agree on Jesus' last words". Statements like this and yours are inflammatory and incorrect, and thus have no place in rational discussion.<P>- Il-Mari<p>[This message has been edited by Il-Mari (edited 01-08-2002).]
-
PyroFox
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Hell, Wyoming(yes, I know it redundant), USA
My question is, why worry about heaven or hell at all?<P>If you live to get into hevean, your life is based on greed for paradice.<P>If you live to avoid hell, your life is based on fear of suffering.<P>This is, in my oppinion, many times worse then living as an atheist. All you're doing is basing your life on self-preservation. Any "selfless" act would in fact be the most selfish thing you could be doing. Other people, and your interactons with them, would be nothing more then means to an end.<P>But the point of religion(as I understand it) is to rise above such petty desires of self. It's not to make you think you're living better while becoming something far worse then you were before. It's not to make you hate, discriminate, or judge. It's a way to better ones self, and those around them.<P>The way I look at it, I'm an agnostic. I know precisely <I>fuck</I> about what the Creator is, or even <I>if</I> there's a creator, let alone her/his/it's idea of who would be worthy of their presence. I don't know about any afterlife or lack thereof.<P>And I don't care. I'll learn all about that stuff when I die, and that's something I'm in no hurry to do.<P>Untill then, what I <I>do</I> know is this: I can live my life to the best of my ability, and I can, even if only in the smallest of ways, help some of those around me. And I will.<P>There is no carrot. There is no stick. There is no spoon...<P> <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/confused.gif"><P>Umm, scratch that last one.<P>Back to the point though, from my experience, it's not something you should worry about. All that effort can be spent in many more constructive ways then greed and fear.<P>Just my (worthless thanks to inflation!) 2
Woah - hangon.<P>Il-Mari - it isn't actually.. need to touch on things here. In response to Surtur's post, you posted...<P>/quote on
What exatly are you implying here? I'm an atheist, and I don't claim to know a lot of things. What exactly are the simple answers you are talking about? Most atheists will agree with the principle of the scientific method, that nothing can ever be proven to the point of absolute certainty.
/quote off<P>True. I don't disagree, and a true philosophical athiest has /examined/ his faith and spiritual side, and /chosen/ to follow a path that does not allow for the existance of God. However, I think Surtur isn't addressing the philosophical athiest - he's talking more to the athiests that discuss religion by saying 'I'm an athiest, so your beliefs don't matter/don't have impact/don't make sense." That's a real easy answer in a religious/spiritual discussion, and the philosophical equivalent of sticking your head in a box and saying only the box exists. *shrug*<P>Science shares a lot in common with spirituality as a whole as well - and there are questions it can't answer that religion does: Ghosts, parapsychological phenominon, certiain processes, or the ultimate 'why's'. And, as an armchair theologian, it /does/ get old to talk to athiests who's fundamental response to inquiry is 'because'. *shrug* But I don't think Surtur was directing a flame at anyone - I think, instead, that he was pointing out that a claim of 'spirituality' making answers easy 'because God said so' is as much a cop out as 'because'.<P>/quote on
Thus any theory is subject to change, there are no easy answers in science. The Big Bang and similar theories are just that, theories, thing that fit the information that was available over a decades ago, as new discoveries are made, new and more accurate theories can be made, I haven't heard of many religions changing their views as new evidence came out that contradicted their previous positions, at least not in a timely manner(with the exception of Budism).
/quote off<P>Ah. Don't confuse religion with denominational theory. You see - religion is a thing that deals not with the creation of the universe or the ultimate nature of God - no, it deals with the relationships between man and his fellows, and the divine mandate (if one believes in such things) and the code of actions that defines morality and ethics.<P>Denominations deal in secular exclusion, cultist behavior, economics, politics, and all the other nonsense that supports an unchanging read on Faith. <P>You see, Christianity /has/ changed over the years - as recently as the last decade, the Catholic Church finally altered its stance on birth control; the southern Baptist conference allowed female deacons. The Episcopalian church took up the debate on homosexual unions (they're still debating, but it's interesting to watch) while removing all strictures on sexual orientation in their priests.<P>Just a few examples.<P>The essential Dogma of a faith never changes. It /mustn't/ change - the core of christianity is simple, in fact - 1) We believe in god the father. 2) We believe in Christ, his only son who (showed us the pathway to redemption/goodness/light/whatever you want to call it). 3) We believe in the contiuation of the soul and the ressurection [of man in some form] or [the continuation of life in some manner past the physical state known as 'death']. All else is denominational - ranging from the snake handlers to the Catholics. Pick one. But /never/ assume a nondogmatic statement is characteristic of /all/ christians.<P>Same with bhuddism, confucionism, shintoism, zoroastrianism... religions that do not change to the needs of the people /die/. Simple enough.<P>Even athism. Most athiests aren't - they're agnostics that won't admit it. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>/quote on
Your statement is exactly like someone saying, "Christians are morons since they believe in the reliability of a book that says the world is flat, endorses animal sacrifice, propagates hate crimes against homosexuals, condones slavery and encourages brutality in war, all while ignoring the blatant errors and contradictions that fill the book to the point that three of the authors can't even agree on Jesus' last words". Statements like this and yours are inflammatory and incorrect, and thus have no place in rational discussion.
/quote off<P>Er. Not exactly - not only were his words /not/ a personal assault, they were nowhere near as inflamitory. I know you were proving a point - but by the same token, two lines in a post does not a flame make. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>He /didn't/ call athism an 'easy cop-out reserved for those to whom God is a frightening concept, one that if they must face, they stand to see their own moral and ethical failures in the light of other relationships and ultimate responsibility, instead of gadding through the world free of any overreaching responsibility to their fellow man, raping and pillaging at will..'<P>Don't be silly sir - anyone touching at the heart of a pet theory isn't deserving of the vague vitriol you offered Surtur - no matter /what/ he may have said, or you may have percieved him as saying. Take a closer look. <P>*shrug*<P>I enjoy discussing things with athiests - it's often when my beliefs are challenged the most, and I appreciate that, for they are either strenthened by it or I am forced to alter my perceptions, and reevaluate my faith.<P>By the same token, I'd expect no less of any other person taking part in the same discussion - athiest or not. A challenge to a belief system isn't a flame - it's just a challenge. Take it for what it is.<P>Ishmael
"Anything will burn with enough gasoline and dynamite." - Robert A. Heinlein<P>"A life is just a crazyquilt of stories.
A story is just a crazyquilt of lives."
- Crazyquilt online, the blue coyote.<P>------------------
"The meek shall inherit
the earth -- the rest of
us will go to the stars."
- Robert A. Heinlein
What exatly are you implying here? I'm an atheist, and I don't claim to know a lot of things. What exactly are the simple answers you are talking about? Most atheists will agree with the principle of the scientific method, that nothing can ever be proven to the point of absolute certainty.
/quote off<P>True. I don't disagree, and a true philosophical athiest has /examined/ his faith and spiritual side, and /chosen/ to follow a path that does not allow for the existance of God. However, I think Surtur isn't addressing the philosophical athiest - he's talking more to the athiests that discuss religion by saying 'I'm an athiest, so your beliefs don't matter/don't have impact/don't make sense." That's a real easy answer in a religious/spiritual discussion, and the philosophical equivalent of sticking your head in a box and saying only the box exists. *shrug*<P>Science shares a lot in common with spirituality as a whole as well - and there are questions it can't answer that religion does: Ghosts, parapsychological phenominon, certiain processes, or the ultimate 'why's'. And, as an armchair theologian, it /does/ get old to talk to athiests who's fundamental response to inquiry is 'because'. *shrug* But I don't think Surtur was directing a flame at anyone - I think, instead, that he was pointing out that a claim of 'spirituality' making answers easy 'because God said so' is as much a cop out as 'because'.<P>/quote on
Thus any theory is subject to change, there are no easy answers in science. The Big Bang and similar theories are just that, theories, thing that fit the information that was available over a decades ago, as new discoveries are made, new and more accurate theories can be made, I haven't heard of many religions changing their views as new evidence came out that contradicted their previous positions, at least not in a timely manner(with the exception of Budism).
/quote off<P>Ah. Don't confuse religion with denominational theory. You see - religion is a thing that deals not with the creation of the universe or the ultimate nature of God - no, it deals with the relationships between man and his fellows, and the divine mandate (if one believes in such things) and the code of actions that defines morality and ethics.<P>Denominations deal in secular exclusion, cultist behavior, economics, politics, and all the other nonsense that supports an unchanging read on Faith. <P>You see, Christianity /has/ changed over the years - as recently as the last decade, the Catholic Church finally altered its stance on birth control; the southern Baptist conference allowed female deacons. The Episcopalian church took up the debate on homosexual unions (they're still debating, but it's interesting to watch) while removing all strictures on sexual orientation in their priests.<P>Just a few examples.<P>The essential Dogma of a faith never changes. It /mustn't/ change - the core of christianity is simple, in fact - 1) We believe in god the father. 2) We believe in Christ, his only son who (showed us the pathway to redemption/goodness/light/whatever you want to call it). 3) We believe in the contiuation of the soul and the ressurection [of man in some form] or [the continuation of life in some manner past the physical state known as 'death']. All else is denominational - ranging from the snake handlers to the Catholics. Pick one. But /never/ assume a nondogmatic statement is characteristic of /all/ christians.<P>Same with bhuddism, confucionism, shintoism, zoroastrianism... religions that do not change to the needs of the people /die/. Simple enough.<P>Even athism. Most athiests aren't - they're agnostics that won't admit it. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>/quote on
Your statement is exactly like someone saying, "Christians are morons since they believe in the reliability of a book that says the world is flat, endorses animal sacrifice, propagates hate crimes against homosexuals, condones slavery and encourages brutality in war, all while ignoring the blatant errors and contradictions that fill the book to the point that three of the authors can't even agree on Jesus' last words". Statements like this and yours are inflammatory and incorrect, and thus have no place in rational discussion.
/quote off<P>Er. Not exactly - not only were his words /not/ a personal assault, they were nowhere near as inflamitory. I know you were proving a point - but by the same token, two lines in a post does not a flame make. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>He /didn't/ call athism an 'easy cop-out reserved for those to whom God is a frightening concept, one that if they must face, they stand to see their own moral and ethical failures in the light of other relationships and ultimate responsibility, instead of gadding through the world free of any overreaching responsibility to their fellow man, raping and pillaging at will..'<P>Don't be silly sir - anyone touching at the heart of a pet theory isn't deserving of the vague vitriol you offered Surtur - no matter /what/ he may have said, or you may have percieved him as saying. Take a closer look. <P>*shrug*<P>I enjoy discussing things with athiests - it's often when my beliefs are challenged the most, and I appreciate that, for they are either strenthened by it or I am forced to alter my perceptions, and reevaluate my faith.<P>By the same token, I'd expect no less of any other person taking part in the same discussion - athiest or not. A challenge to a belief system isn't a flame - it's just a challenge. Take it for what it is.<P>Ishmael
"Anything will burn with enough gasoline and dynamite." - Robert A. Heinlein<P>"A life is just a crazyquilt of stories.
A story is just a crazyquilt of lives."
- Crazyquilt online, the blue coyote.<P>------------------
"The meek shall inherit
the earth -- the rest of
us will go to the stars."
- Robert A. Heinlein
Woah - hangon.<P>Il-Mari - it isn't actually.. need to touch on things here. In response to Surtur's post, you posted...<P>/quote on
What exatly are you implying here? I'm an atheist, and I don't claim to know a lot of things. What exactly are the simple answers you are talking about? Most atheists will agree with the principle of the scientific method, that nothing can ever be proven to the point of absolute certainty.
/quote off<P>True. I don't disagree, and a true philosophical athiest has /examined/ his faith and spiritual side, and /chosen/ to follow a path that does not allow for the existance of God. However, I think Surtur isn't addressing the philosophical athiest - he's talking more to the athiests that discuss religion by saying 'I'm an athiest, so your beliefs don't matter/don't have impact/don't make sense." That's a real easy answer in a religious/spiritual discussion, and the philosophical equivalent of sticking your head in a box and saying only the box exists. *shrug*<P>Science shares a lot in common with spirituality as a whole as well - and there are questions it can't answer that religion does: Ghosts, parapsychological phenominon, certiain processes, or the ultimate 'why's'. And, as an armchair theologian, it /does/ get old to talk to athiests who's fundamental response to inquiry is 'because'. *shrug* But I don't think Surtur was directing a flame at anyone - I think, instead, that he was pointing out that a claim of 'spirituality' making answers easy 'because God said so' is as much a cop out as 'because'.<P>/quote on
Thus any theory is subject to change, there are no easy answers in science. The Big Bang and similar theories are just that, theories, thing that fit the information that was available over a decades ago, as new discoveries are made, new and more accurate theories can be made, I haven't heard of many religions changing their views as new evidence came out that contradicted their previous positions, at least not in a timely manner(with the exception of Budism).
/quote off<P>Ah. Don't confuse religion with denominational theory. You see - religion is a thing that deals not with the creation of the universe or the ultimate nature of God - no, it deals with the relationships between man and his fellows, and the divine mandate (if one believes in such things) and the code of actions that defines morality and ethics.<P>Denominations deal in secular exclusion, cultist behavior, economics, politics, and all the other nonsense that supports an unchanging read on Faith. <P>You see, Christianity /has/ changed over the years - as recently as the last decade, the Catholic Church finally altered its stance on birth control; the southern Baptist conference allowed female deacons. The Episcopalian church took up the debate on homosexual unions (they're still debating, but it's interesting to watch) while removing all strictures on sexual orientation in their priests.<P>Just a few examples.<P>The essential Dogma of a faith never changes. It /mustn't/ change - the core of christianity is simple, in fact - 1) We believe in god the father. 2) We believe in Christ, his only son who (showed us the pathway to redemption/goodness/light/whatever you want to call it). 3) We believe in the contiuation of the soul and the ressurection [of man in some form] or [the continuation of life in some manner past the physical state known as 'death']. All else is denominational - ranging from the snake handlers to the Catholics. Pick one. But /never/ assume a nondogmatic statement is characteristic of /all/ christians.<P>Same with bhuddism, confucionism, shintoism, zoroastrianism... religions that do not change to the needs of the people /die/. Simple enough.<P>Even athism. Most athiests aren't - they're agnostics that won't admit it. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>/quote on
Your statement is exactly like someone saying, "Christians are morons since they believe in the reliability of a book that says the world is flat, endorses animal sacrifice, propagates hate crimes against homosexuals, condones slavery and encourages brutality in war, all while ignoring the blatant errors and contradictions that fill the book to the point that three of the authors can't even agree on Jesus' last words". Statements like this and yours are inflammatory and incorrect, and thus have no place in rational discussion.
/quote off<P>Er. Not exactly - not only were his words /not/ a personal assault, they were nowhere near as inflamitory. I know you were proving a point - but by the same token, two lines in a post does not a flame make. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>He /didn't/ call athism an 'easy cop-out reserved for those to whom God is a frightening concept, one that if they must face, they stand to see their own moral and ethical failures in the light of other relationships and ultimate responsibility, instead of gadding through the world free of any overreaching responsibility to their fellow man, raping and pillaging at will..'<P>Don't be silly sir - anyone touching at the heart of a pet theory isn't deserving of the vague vitriol you offered Surtur - no matter /what/ he may have said, or you may have percieved him as saying. Take a closer look. <P>*shrug*<P>I enjoy discussing things with athiests - it's often when my beliefs are challenged the most, and I appreciate that, for they are either strenthened by it or I am forced to alter my perceptions, and reevaluate my faith.<P>By the same token, I'd expect no less of any other person taking part in the same discussion - athiest or not. A challenge to a belief system isn't a flame - it's just a challenge. Take it for what it is.<P>Ishmael
"Anything will burn with enough gasoline and dynamite." - Robert A. Heinlein<P>"A life is just a crazyquilt of stories.
A story is just a crazyquilt of lives."
- Crazyquilt online, the blue coyote.<P>------------------
"The meek shall inherit
the earth -- the rest of
us will go to the stars."
- Robert A. Heinlein
What exatly are you implying here? I'm an atheist, and I don't claim to know a lot of things. What exactly are the simple answers you are talking about? Most atheists will agree with the principle of the scientific method, that nothing can ever be proven to the point of absolute certainty.
/quote off<P>True. I don't disagree, and a true philosophical athiest has /examined/ his faith and spiritual side, and /chosen/ to follow a path that does not allow for the existance of God. However, I think Surtur isn't addressing the philosophical athiest - he's talking more to the athiests that discuss religion by saying 'I'm an athiest, so your beliefs don't matter/don't have impact/don't make sense." That's a real easy answer in a religious/spiritual discussion, and the philosophical equivalent of sticking your head in a box and saying only the box exists. *shrug*<P>Science shares a lot in common with spirituality as a whole as well - and there are questions it can't answer that religion does: Ghosts, parapsychological phenominon, certiain processes, or the ultimate 'why's'. And, as an armchair theologian, it /does/ get old to talk to athiests who's fundamental response to inquiry is 'because'. *shrug* But I don't think Surtur was directing a flame at anyone - I think, instead, that he was pointing out that a claim of 'spirituality' making answers easy 'because God said so' is as much a cop out as 'because'.<P>/quote on
Thus any theory is subject to change, there are no easy answers in science. The Big Bang and similar theories are just that, theories, thing that fit the information that was available over a decades ago, as new discoveries are made, new and more accurate theories can be made, I haven't heard of many religions changing their views as new evidence came out that contradicted their previous positions, at least not in a timely manner(with the exception of Budism).
/quote off<P>Ah. Don't confuse religion with denominational theory. You see - religion is a thing that deals not with the creation of the universe or the ultimate nature of God - no, it deals with the relationships between man and his fellows, and the divine mandate (if one believes in such things) and the code of actions that defines morality and ethics.<P>Denominations deal in secular exclusion, cultist behavior, economics, politics, and all the other nonsense that supports an unchanging read on Faith. <P>You see, Christianity /has/ changed over the years - as recently as the last decade, the Catholic Church finally altered its stance on birth control; the southern Baptist conference allowed female deacons. The Episcopalian church took up the debate on homosexual unions (they're still debating, but it's interesting to watch) while removing all strictures on sexual orientation in their priests.<P>Just a few examples.<P>The essential Dogma of a faith never changes. It /mustn't/ change - the core of christianity is simple, in fact - 1) We believe in god the father. 2) We believe in Christ, his only son who (showed us the pathway to redemption/goodness/light/whatever you want to call it). 3) We believe in the contiuation of the soul and the ressurection [of man in some form] or [the continuation of life in some manner past the physical state known as 'death']. All else is denominational - ranging from the snake handlers to the Catholics. Pick one. But /never/ assume a nondogmatic statement is characteristic of /all/ christians.<P>Same with bhuddism, confucionism, shintoism, zoroastrianism... religions that do not change to the needs of the people /die/. Simple enough.<P>Even athism. Most athiests aren't - they're agnostics that won't admit it. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>/quote on
Your statement is exactly like someone saying, "Christians are morons since they believe in the reliability of a book that says the world is flat, endorses animal sacrifice, propagates hate crimes against homosexuals, condones slavery and encourages brutality in war, all while ignoring the blatant errors and contradictions that fill the book to the point that three of the authors can't even agree on Jesus' last words". Statements like this and yours are inflammatory and incorrect, and thus have no place in rational discussion.
/quote off<P>Er. Not exactly - not only were his words /not/ a personal assault, they were nowhere near as inflamitory. I know you were proving a point - but by the same token, two lines in a post does not a flame make. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>He /didn't/ call athism an 'easy cop-out reserved for those to whom God is a frightening concept, one that if they must face, they stand to see their own moral and ethical failures in the light of other relationships and ultimate responsibility, instead of gadding through the world free of any overreaching responsibility to their fellow man, raping and pillaging at will..'<P>Don't be silly sir - anyone touching at the heart of a pet theory isn't deserving of the vague vitriol you offered Surtur - no matter /what/ he may have said, or you may have percieved him as saying. Take a closer look. <P>*shrug*<P>I enjoy discussing things with athiests - it's often when my beliefs are challenged the most, and I appreciate that, for they are either strenthened by it or I am forced to alter my perceptions, and reevaluate my faith.<P>By the same token, I'd expect no less of any other person taking part in the same discussion - athiest or not. A challenge to a belief system isn't a flame - it's just a challenge. Take it for what it is.<P>Ishmael
"Anything will burn with enough gasoline and dynamite." - Robert A. Heinlein<P>"A life is just a crazyquilt of stories.
A story is just a crazyquilt of lives."
- Crazyquilt online, the blue coyote.<P>------------------
"The meek shall inherit
the earth -- the rest of
us will go to the stars."
- Robert A. Heinlein
I think a positive afterlife is dying knowing that you had a good life with a good purpose. I don't have to live in an afterlife as long as I know I've made a difference in someone's life.<P>And I am in no position to debate with any one of you guys (or girls) on religion... I'm 14, how much could/should I know about it anyway? <P>I'm glad I gave you all an interesting topic to express yourselves with <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>By the way I'm still considering nihilism...<P>------------------
<I>They want my heart right
but then I look down
and it beats left 2 3 4</I><P>-Rammstein,"Links 2 3 4"<P>
<I>They want my heart right
but then I look down
and it beats left 2 3 4</I><P>-Rammstein,"Links 2 3 4"<P>
Il-Mari
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Your statement is exactly like someone saying, "Christians are morons since they believe in the reliability of a book that says the world is flat, endorses animal sacrifice, propagates hate crimes against homosexuals, condones slavery and encourages brutality in war, all while ignoring the blatant errors and contradictions that fill the book to the point that three of the authors can't even agree on Jesus' last words". Statements like this and yours are inflammatory and incorrect, and thus have no place in rational discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Quite simply, you misinterpret my statement. Atheism is something i take very seriously. Intellectually, it is a brutally honest belief. It is also, in many ways a tragic and beautiful belief. It raises issues and suggests answers that are very difficult for most people to deal with and, as a result, most people don't.<P>Atheism has become a much more popular and accepted view in recent decades, and as something becomes more standard, fewer people ponder it as deeply as it once was thought about. I see this happening to atheism and it upsets me.<P>What bothers me even more is the hypocrisy of many atheists who accuse theists and religious people of ignorance, of taking 'the easy way out' emotionally or psychologically, when they don't examine or question their own beliefs.<P>Atheism provides answers to many of the same questions that religions try to answer, for example (i'm not necessarily suggesting that these are the answers that you believe):
Q:why are we here?
A:random chance
Q:what happens after I die?
A:nothing, conciousness simply ends
etc.<P>You are also mistaken in likening my statement to your example. I spoke of a concept that has been abused, you spoke of a group of people.<P>also:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Don't try to push your definition of religion on me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ishmael was not trying to push his definition of religion on you, he was seperating the concept of religion itself from individual religions and the 'denominational theories' that each one may expound upon.<P>Oh well. As Hume said, "Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Your statement is exactly like someone saying, "Christians are morons since they believe in the reliability of a book that says the world is flat, endorses animal sacrifice, propagates hate crimes against homosexuals, condones slavery and encourages brutality in war, all while ignoring the blatant errors and contradictions that fill the book to the point that three of the authors can't even agree on Jesus' last words". Statements like this and yours are inflammatory and incorrect, and thus have no place in rational discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Quite simply, you misinterpret my statement. Atheism is something i take very seriously. Intellectually, it is a brutally honest belief. It is also, in many ways a tragic and beautiful belief. It raises issues and suggests answers that are very difficult for most people to deal with and, as a result, most people don't.<P>Atheism has become a much more popular and accepted view in recent decades, and as something becomes more standard, fewer people ponder it as deeply as it once was thought about. I see this happening to atheism and it upsets me.<P>What bothers me even more is the hypocrisy of many atheists who accuse theists and religious people of ignorance, of taking 'the easy way out' emotionally or psychologically, when they don't examine or question their own beliefs.<P>Atheism provides answers to many of the same questions that religions try to answer, for example (i'm not necessarily suggesting that these are the answers that you believe):
Q:why are we here?
A:random chance
Q:what happens after I die?
A:nothing, conciousness simply ends
etc.<P>You are also mistaken in likening my statement to your example. I spoke of a concept that has been abused, you spoke of a group of people.<P>also:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Don't try to push your definition of religion on me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ishmael was not trying to push his definition of religion on you, he was seperating the concept of religion itself from individual religions and the 'denominational theories' that each one may expound upon.<P>Oh well. As Hume said, "Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
To Ishmael:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Science shares a lot in common with spirituality as a whole as well - and there are questions it can't answer that religion does<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Unfortunately, no religion provides concrete evidence and most of them don't agree with each other. Science can't explain them yet, so I'd rather take a wait and see approach as opposed to trying to pick the right one out of millions of contradicting guesses provided by religions.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Ah. Don't confuse religion with denominational theory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Don't try to push your definition of religion on me. The Bible is the defining document of Christianity, the Torah is the defining document of Judaism. These books are the bases of the religions and contain most of the dogma that is used today. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Denominations deal in secular exclusion, cultist behavior, economics, politics, and all the other nonsense that supports an unchanging read on Faith. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The Bible deals with all of those things too, it is the foundation of the Christian religion, it in a way IS the Christian religion, this is not "denomenational theory" as you call it, this is a fact of the Christian religion. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You see, Christianity /has/ changed over the years - as recently as the last decade, the Catholic Church finally altered its stance on birth control; the southern Baptist conference allowed female deacons. The Episcopalian church took up the debate on homosexual unions<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I didn't say that these religions don't change at all, I said they don't do it in a timely manner. I don't considet hundreds or thousands of years to be "timely", if you do, then we should just agree to disagree on this point. Just think who were the most vocal supporters of slavery up to 1865? Christians, with their Biblical support, there remain people who believe in it to this day, basing it on scripture written over a millenia ago. Who is it that remains the greatest road block to social development? Fundamentalist Christians with their Bibles quoting on the evils of homosexuality and their classification of women as second class citizens and their attempts to stop evolution from being taught. I'm not saying that there aren't Christians who faciliate change, but the people I mentioned above definately are more vocal and tend to be very successful in their conservative views, slowing down the rest of society along with them.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The essential Dogma of a faith never changes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, but people's reactions to it do. The Bible is the essential Dogma of Christianity, it hasn't changed significantly in the last millenia or so, yet Christians behave completely differently because people change. Every generation has picked new things to emphasize and others to ignore, making it seem like the Dogma does change, simply because people focus on different things.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Same with bhuddism, confucionism, shintoism, zoroastrianism... religions that do not change to the needs of the people /die/. Simple enough<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not really simple at all, as I said above, the religions don't really change, God hasn't dictated any more books or anything. It's the people who change to adapt to new conditions, they do this by changing their views on their religion on an individual basis, with everyone interpreting the main source of that religion somewhat differently, ignoring parts they don't like and empshasizing the importance of those they do.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Even athism. Most athiests aren't - they're agnostics that won't admit it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>How exactly has atheism changed? There's no sign up sheet, no special place to go, and no definitive literary work. Everyone in history who does not believe in God is by definition an atheist. Further, I don't like what you're insinuating with your comment, it's like saying, "Most Christians arent - they're deists or agnostics that won't admit it". It's an insulting statement that implies that atheists can't or won't express themselves and don't even know what they believe. It's hard to think of a more bitter insult than to imply that one does not think well, and adding a smily face after it will neither add levity nor remove the inherent implications within the statement.<P>To Alfador: Just out of curiosity, do you believe that God created the universe and is letting it work without interference, or that he takes an active participation in worldly events?<P>To PyroFox: You're absolutely right, in my opinion, the main message behind every religion should be that being a good person is enough to avoid a negative afterlife, and that those who do good only for the express purpose of achieving paradise are guilty of greed and pride. This is why I like religions like Buddhism that teach that you don't have to be a believer in all kinds of paranormal phenomena in order to achive a positive "afterlife". The concept of purgatory is also a pretty good one, since it allows for people who are basicly good but did one or two bad things, or good people who didn't have faith to achieve a positive afterlife after hanging around in limbo for a while.<P>The main flaw with many religions in my opinion is that they acknowledge only two kinds of people, those who aren't believers and those who are. This is a pretty disturbing view to have, since it means that a majority of the people on earth will have a negative afterlife, since no tow religions are very similar. I also don't like the concept of eternal damnation, it's implying that it doesn't matter whether you're a petty thief or Hitler, you go to Hell either way to spend the rest of eternity. Of course, it seems to me that a loving God wouldn't have created a hell at all, and would do something else with people who are inherently bad, like simply make them cease to exist.<P>- Il-Mari
<p>[This message has been edited by Il-Mari (edited 01-09-2002).]
<p>[This message has been edited by Il-Mari (edited 01-09-2002).]
Personally , I see no reason to believe in heaven , hell , god or gods , and so on.<P>Christianity was made by people with far less understanding of the world than we have access to now , after all (and I say 'have access' , because a lot of people choose not to examine the evidence and judge for themselves what's true or not based on evidence. Most people have the opportunity to do so if they wish , though).<P>What it boils down to is that "God exists because the bible says so , the bible is true because it is the word of God,". In other words , circular logic.<P>
Plus , I think the whole concept of needing a god sells people short. Humans are a lot stronger and smarter than most people give them credit for.
Plus , I think the whole concept of needing a god sells people short. Humans are a lot stronger and smarter than most people give them credit for.
Seife-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I think a positive afterlife is dying knowing that you had a good life with a good purpose. I don't have to live in an afterlife as long as I know I've made a difference in someone's life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>ummm... jeez, sounds like you've got a better handle on this thing than anyone else here <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">
Seriously, what you just said is a central theme, if not the heart, of nearly every religion i like. Whatever (if anything) comes next, that will stand you in good stead.<P>There was a movie i saw a few years ago (i think it was japanese) about an interesting vision of the afterlife. It follows an old woman who, after death, has a week or so to review her life and pick one memory to experience for all eternity. And before anyone complains that one memory would get boring pretty quickly, two things:
- article the first: It was just a movie! lighten up!
- article the second: Supposedly, she would not experience time, but live eternally 'in the moment' of the memory.<P>Nihilism, eh? nihilism is fun untill you actually start believing in it, and we all know what comes next. Pretty soon you're dressing in black, composing german industrial music, and throwing badgers in other people's bath tubs.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I think a positive afterlife is dying knowing that you had a good life with a good purpose. I don't have to live in an afterlife as long as I know I've made a difference in someone's life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>ummm... jeez, sounds like you've got a better handle on this thing than anyone else here <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">
Seriously, what you just said is a central theme, if not the heart, of nearly every religion i like. Whatever (if anything) comes next, that will stand you in good stead.<P>There was a movie i saw a few years ago (i think it was japanese) about an interesting vision of the afterlife. It follows an old woman who, after death, has a week or so to review her life and pick one memory to experience for all eternity. And before anyone complains that one memory would get boring pretty quickly, two things:
- article the first: It was just a movie! lighten up!
- article the second: Supposedly, she would not experience time, but live eternally 'in the moment' of the memory.<P>Nihilism, eh? nihilism is fun untill you actually start believing in it, and we all know what comes next. Pretty soon you're dressing in black, composing german industrial music, and throwing badgers in other people's bath tubs.
For Il-Mari.<P>Again, I'll try to address things one step at a time - bear with. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> (and /somebody's/ going to have to tell me how to do that nifty quote thing. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> )<P>
/quote on
Unfortunately, no religion provides concrete evidence and most of them don't agree with each other. Science can't explain them yet, so I'd rather take a wait and see approach as opposed to trying to pick the right one out of millions of contradicting guesses provided by religions.
/quote off<P>*nods* I'd like to add something else I didn't before. The ultimate purpose of religion is /not/ to explain the workings of the universe - it's to try to explain how man should get along with his fellow man.<P>Bear with me.<P>Religion came into existance in the human psyche somewhere before the earliest human history. It is theorized that the first relgions consisted of man's attempt to explain those phenomena to which he had no ready understanding - lightning, rain, floods, fire, getting pregnant, dying, being born.. well, really, just about anything beyond the basic action of 'I do this, and this results' (I hit you, you fall down. I hit steel, sparks fly. Whatever.)<P>Religion eventually became a powerful force in the early psyche of man, and attempted to explain a great many things that may or may not have fallen in its purview. Yet, out of religious stricture humanity gained its first instances of common law, at least in mideast/western history - I'm no scholar of the east beyond a certain philosophical study. My history's sketchy.<P>Eventually, religions of all stripes became codified methodologies of man interacting with man; the 'science' was dropped in favor of what actually became more important in light of human advancement and understanding - becoming the best whole individual one can be. Spirituality and philosophy sought to answer the great questions behind existance - 'why are we here?' 'What happens when we die?' 'How should we be /while/ we're here?" <P>At some point in the history of every good religious idea, the good idea was hijacked in favor of increased societal control. The Catholic church, of course, was the best example - there are others - but even today the Church, which was admittedly repressive, dangerous, cultish, and filled with powermongering third sons during its worst years, holds a /great/ deal of power over people, in general.<P>Sadly, most modern denominations are the same way; one of the troubles with any religious text is its capacity for misinterpretation or /forced/ misinterpretation by the leaders in an effort to manipulate the followers.
(Hey, david! Full circle. Vince scares me just /because/ of that. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> )
I think it's a philosophical issue, really - in order to not blindly follow a philosophy, one has to do a great deal of work to come to an understanding and a self-actualization of the philosophy. The rather profound statement, for instance, "I think, therefore I am," stated so eloquently by Decartes is neither simple nor easy.. and yet most never bother to delve into the deeper meaning of what really is a modern Koan and intended as such. They rely on other experts to 'gell out' the meaning for 'em.. thus the profession of priest.<P>Now I'm with Heinelien on this one- "The profession of shaman is easy work, if you can stomach it." There /are/ good priests out there, but far more that enjoy the power trip and the sense of control gained from manipulating others or whipping people towards a cause. 8sigh* And they /can/, too - it's so deeply ingraned in human nature to /need/ to believe that those who do not examine what their told, who don't do more than simply blindly follow, well.. they commit the greatest evils of all.<P>The church condoned slavery in the 1880's and saught religious scripture that allowed their followers to contiute to practice it for two reasons. First? Slaveowners weren't exactly common.. but they had /money/. If your parishoners have money, your church has money. If your church has money, it has influence - and when you get to Europe and the slaves /there/.. you're talking a /lot/ of money and a /lot/ of influence. Secondly, the church (meddling in affairs as it did, at the time) had /financed/ several of the existing slavers and their expiditions, and enjoyed increased mobility and profit from their association with these disreputable men. *shrug* Christianity said otherwise, the /church/ twisted it to their ends. Still does today.<P>/quote on
Don't try to push your definition of religion on me. The Bible is the defining document of Christianity, the Torah is the defining document of Judaism. These books are the bases of the religions and contain most of the dogma that is used today.
/quote off<P>Ayup. However, the bible is a flawed document built by a Church that didn't want all of its religious writings in it. The New Testament has strictures that supercede jewish rabbinical law in the Old and basically toss Duteronomy, Judges, and Leviticicous out the window. (and no, I can't spell today. Sigh. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> ) See my other posts on that for the explination of the flaw - I'd like to keep this a readable length. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>Even so, claiming that the actions of any modern church directly follows the religious structure and dogma of Christianity makes me cringe, in most cases. "Judge not lest ye be judged." - new testament. "homosexuality is /wrong!/ and Hateful!" - modern fundamentalist argument. Huh?<P>Dogma and Practice /are/ two different things - and to be honest, I'm insulted that you seem to be lumping me in with those whose practices I find rather abhorrent. I'm not a slaver, or a kook, or a guy who thumps a bible on a streetcorner explaining how everyone's going to hell.<P>*sigh*<P>I don't say if you don't believe like me /you're/ going to hell, and I'm not pushing my own personal beliefs on /anyone/. I do, however, ask that we all respect each other, and that we keep an open mind.. that's the point.<P>By the by - I think my terms are a bit misleading. And I've used one incorrectly - so let me try to fix that here.<P>Dogma: A set of religious beliefs core and fundamental to the functioning of the religion or sect.<P>Christian Dogma: The set of core, underlying beliefs in christianity as laid out in the New Testament. NOT to be said the same as Catholic Dogma, Baptist Dogma, or Crazy Horse's Dogma.<P>
/quote on:
My words:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denominations deal in secular exclusion, cultist behavior, economics, politics, and all the other nonsense that supports an unchanging read on Faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your words:
The Bible deals with all of those things too, it is the foundation of the Christian religion, it in a way IS the Christian religion, this is not "denomenational theory" as you call it, this is a fact of the Christian religion.
/quote off<P>*sigh* Of course it does. It's also the collected religious laws of the Jewish faith as the Council of Worms decided were necessary for christians in the first definition of the bible. And then the four core books of Christian faith (the Gospels) come along and say that all the rest of the law is junk, and that god's law is a heck of a lot easier to sum up.<P>The trouble with faith is that most folks don't examine it and make it theirs - and instead look to leaders that push a fundamentally flawed collection of only perhaps a quarter of the religious texts that exist for the faith and use it for their own ends.<P>The bible is /not/ the religion. Period. The bible is a collection of writings /about/ the religion. To worship a bible is meaningless. It's a collection of words a bunch of guys that King James put together said were important. A bible isn't fundamentally holy, and it isn't anything more than a book.<P>And yet, the ideas contained in the four 'books' that make up the only philosophical basis of the Christian faith in the larger volume are the core of christianity. In that core, is a great deal I find that I choose to believe in.<P>Fine that I do and you don't - no issues there, and I'm not looking to convert you. You're entitled to believe as you like.. but before you imply that I worship a book? uh.. no.<P>/quote on
I didn't say that these religions don't change at all, I said they don't do it in a timely manner. I don't considet hundreds or thousands of years to be "timely", if you do, then we should just agree to disagree on this point. Just think who were the most vocal supporters of slavery up to 1865? Christians, with their Biblical support, there remain people who believe in it to this day, basing it on scripture written over a millenia ago. Who is it that remains the greatest road block to social development? Fundamentalist Christians with their Bibles quoting on the evils of homosexuality and their classification of women as second class citizens and their attempts to stop evolution from being taught. I'm not saying that there aren't Christians who faciliate change, but the people I mentioned above definately are more vocal and tend to be very successful in their conservative views, slowing down the rest of society along with them.
/quote off<P>Most of that I talked about before - so I'll avoid doing it again here. But I will say this:<P>The christian faith has /nothing/ to do with those items you've discussed. Sorry, it doesn't. It doesn't preach slavery or intolerance, reactionism or judgementalism, mysoganism, snake handling, speaking in tongues, shooting people with high-powered rifles, meddling in politics, gossiping about your neighbors, justifying homicide, or really anything that most modern folks attribute to certain Christian sects. <P>Denominations over the years /have/. The /Catholic/ church condoned slavery and sold indulgences so you could /buy/ your way into heaven. The fundamentalist right shot a doctor in an abortion clinic. (dunno which specifically, but his pastor certainly came on TV and praised him). It's like the Taliban and Islam - the Taliban claimes to be a sect of the Islamic faith, and yet are reactionary and vicious, and most mainstream Islamic folks think they're rather barbaric and evil and horrifically misguided. Yet the Taliban ruled a country. *shrug*<P>NEVER confuse faith and those who use it to their own advantage. It's... well.. rather narrowminded and somewhat saddening. Be glad, though, that most of the priests and preachers out there know the power they hold, and do their best to make sure it's used wisely and well - lord knows the few that don't cause enough problems.<P>quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The essential Dogma of a faith never changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>No, but people's reactions to it do. The Bible is the essential Dogma of Christianity, it hasn't changed significantly in the last millenia or so, yet Christians behave completely differently because people change. Every generation has picked new things to emphasize and others to ignore, making it seem like the Dogma does change, simply because people focus on different things.
/quote off<P>Yup. Plus the church emphasizes and deemphazises different aspects of the faith in an effort to push it's/their own political agenda. But again - it's not the faith - it's those that preach it. <P>*sigh*<P>Religion has power over the mind of those that follow it blindly. Those /blind/ followers are the ones that are dangerous and can somehow come to terms with the whole 'I'm not supposed to judge, but let's go stomp a homosexual tonight! Woo!" school of catch-22's. But that isn't the /Faith/ - it's the leaders of it pushing their own agenda or belief system.<P>
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same with bhuddism, confucionism, shintoism, zoroastrianism... religions that do not change to the needs of the people /die/. Simple enough
------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Not really simple at all, as I said above, the religions don't really change, God hasn't dictated any more books or anything. It's the people who change to adapt to new conditions, they do this by changing their views on their religion on an individual basis, with everyone interpreting the main source of that religion somewhat differently, ignoring parts they don't like and empshasizing the importance of those they do.
/quote off<P>Agreed. And very well put. But I'd say the individual is often not called on to do so - I'd say the various sects lead them into specific interpretations and bind them in rhetoric.<P>
/quote on
How exactly has atheism changed? There's no sign up sheet, no special place to go, and no definitive literary work. Everyone in history who does not believe in God is by definition an atheist. Further, I don't like what you're insinuating with your comment, it's like saying, "Most Christians arent - they're deists or agnostics that won't admit it". It's an insulting statement that implies that atheists can't or won't express themselves and don't even know what they believe. It's hard to think of a more bitter insult than to imply that one does not think well, and adding a smily face after it will neither add levity nor remove the inherent implications within the statement.
/quote off<P>And I do apologize for that - it wasn't intended as an insult, but rather as an illustration that I didn't explain well - but then, I'll also stand by the intention I had behind the statement. It's been my experience that most people I've talked to that /claim/ to be Athiests promptly turn around and say that they're just not sure what they choose to believe.<P>Being a true philosophical athiest isn't easy, or a cop out, or anything like that - it's an intellectual choice based on available evidence. It doesn't mean being close-minded or a blind follower - it means looking current society between the eyes and choosing your own path in the face of it. <P>I admire that.<P>I do /not/ admire folks who use the word 'athiest' as a way to avoid a philosophical discussion that doesn't go their way, or use 'athiest' for shock-value or think athisim is an excuse for them to treat others badly or do things that are dangerous or harm others. It's the same way I don't admire the so-called Christian that can't talk about his/her faith and uses 'because God Said So' as an excuse for everything and an explination for existance.<P>Feh to both.<P>/quote on
The main flaw with many religions in my opinion is that they acknowledge only two kinds of people, those who aren't believers and those who are. This is a pretty disturbing view to have, since it means that a majority of the people on earth will have a negative afterlife, since no tow religions are very similar. I also don't like the concept of eternal damnation, it's implying that it doesn't matter whether you're a petty thief or Hitler, you go to Hell either way to spend the rest of eternity. Of course, it seems to me that a loving God wouldn't have created a hell at all, and would do something else with people who are inherently bad, like simply make them cease to exist.
/quote off<P>Yup. And I agree with that. Did you know the original greek (or so I'm told - I don't read greek myself, though I'd like to learn) of the passage that reads 'None may enter the kingdom except through me' is more properly translated as 'None may stand in the presence of God save by what I teach?' *smiles* There's a difference there - it doesn't say you gotta be a rabid Jesus believer to get to heaven.. it says, instead, that /any/ fundamentally good human being will make it - and yet, the loverly Church in its lack of wisdom several thousand years ago decided to change that passage, and translate it differently.<P>*sigh* now, we're dealing with all sorts of nonsense that came out of that two-millenia-old decision. At least Lao-Tse never claimed to be hearing God - taoism is infinitely simpler to wade through. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>Anyway - it's just a thought. <P>Ishmael<P>------------------
"The meek shall inherit
the earth -- the rest of
us will go to the stars."
- Robert A. Heinlein
/quote on
Unfortunately, no religion provides concrete evidence and most of them don't agree with each other. Science can't explain them yet, so I'd rather take a wait and see approach as opposed to trying to pick the right one out of millions of contradicting guesses provided by religions.
/quote off<P>*nods* I'd like to add something else I didn't before. The ultimate purpose of religion is /not/ to explain the workings of the universe - it's to try to explain how man should get along with his fellow man.<P>Bear with me.<P>Religion came into existance in the human psyche somewhere before the earliest human history. It is theorized that the first relgions consisted of man's attempt to explain those phenomena to which he had no ready understanding - lightning, rain, floods, fire, getting pregnant, dying, being born.. well, really, just about anything beyond the basic action of 'I do this, and this results' (I hit you, you fall down. I hit steel, sparks fly. Whatever.)<P>Religion eventually became a powerful force in the early psyche of man, and attempted to explain a great many things that may or may not have fallen in its purview. Yet, out of religious stricture humanity gained its first instances of common law, at least in mideast/western history - I'm no scholar of the east beyond a certain philosophical study. My history's sketchy.<P>Eventually, religions of all stripes became codified methodologies of man interacting with man; the 'science' was dropped in favor of what actually became more important in light of human advancement and understanding - becoming the best whole individual one can be. Spirituality and philosophy sought to answer the great questions behind existance - 'why are we here?' 'What happens when we die?' 'How should we be /while/ we're here?" <P>At some point in the history of every good religious idea, the good idea was hijacked in favor of increased societal control. The Catholic church, of course, was the best example - there are others - but even today the Church, which was admittedly repressive, dangerous, cultish, and filled with powermongering third sons during its worst years, holds a /great/ deal of power over people, in general.<P>Sadly, most modern denominations are the same way; one of the troubles with any religious text is its capacity for misinterpretation or /forced/ misinterpretation by the leaders in an effort to manipulate the followers.
(Hey, david! Full circle. Vince scares me just /because/ of that. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> )
I think it's a philosophical issue, really - in order to not blindly follow a philosophy, one has to do a great deal of work to come to an understanding and a self-actualization of the philosophy. The rather profound statement, for instance, "I think, therefore I am," stated so eloquently by Decartes is neither simple nor easy.. and yet most never bother to delve into the deeper meaning of what really is a modern Koan and intended as such. They rely on other experts to 'gell out' the meaning for 'em.. thus the profession of priest.<P>Now I'm with Heinelien on this one- "The profession of shaman is easy work, if you can stomach it." There /are/ good priests out there, but far more that enjoy the power trip and the sense of control gained from manipulating others or whipping people towards a cause. 8sigh* And they /can/, too - it's so deeply ingraned in human nature to /need/ to believe that those who do not examine what their told, who don't do more than simply blindly follow, well.. they commit the greatest evils of all.<P>The church condoned slavery in the 1880's and saught religious scripture that allowed their followers to contiute to practice it for two reasons. First? Slaveowners weren't exactly common.. but they had /money/. If your parishoners have money, your church has money. If your church has money, it has influence - and when you get to Europe and the slaves /there/.. you're talking a /lot/ of money and a /lot/ of influence. Secondly, the church (meddling in affairs as it did, at the time) had /financed/ several of the existing slavers and their expiditions, and enjoyed increased mobility and profit from their association with these disreputable men. *shrug* Christianity said otherwise, the /church/ twisted it to their ends. Still does today.<P>/quote on
Don't try to push your definition of religion on me. The Bible is the defining document of Christianity, the Torah is the defining document of Judaism. These books are the bases of the religions and contain most of the dogma that is used today.
/quote off<P>Ayup. However, the bible is a flawed document built by a Church that didn't want all of its religious writings in it. The New Testament has strictures that supercede jewish rabbinical law in the Old and basically toss Duteronomy, Judges, and Leviticicous out the window. (and no, I can't spell today. Sigh. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> ) See my other posts on that for the explination of the flaw - I'd like to keep this a readable length. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>Even so, claiming that the actions of any modern church directly follows the religious structure and dogma of Christianity makes me cringe, in most cases. "Judge not lest ye be judged." - new testament. "homosexuality is /wrong!/ and Hateful!" - modern fundamentalist argument. Huh?<P>Dogma and Practice /are/ two different things - and to be honest, I'm insulted that you seem to be lumping me in with those whose practices I find rather abhorrent. I'm not a slaver, or a kook, or a guy who thumps a bible on a streetcorner explaining how everyone's going to hell.<P>*sigh*<P>I don't say if you don't believe like me /you're/ going to hell, and I'm not pushing my own personal beliefs on /anyone/. I do, however, ask that we all respect each other, and that we keep an open mind.. that's the point.<P>By the by - I think my terms are a bit misleading. And I've used one incorrectly - so let me try to fix that here.<P>Dogma: A set of religious beliefs core and fundamental to the functioning of the religion or sect.<P>Christian Dogma: The set of core, underlying beliefs in christianity as laid out in the New Testament. NOT to be said the same as Catholic Dogma, Baptist Dogma, or Crazy Horse's Dogma.<P>
/quote on:
My words:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denominations deal in secular exclusion, cultist behavior, economics, politics, and all the other nonsense that supports an unchanging read on Faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your words:
The Bible deals with all of those things too, it is the foundation of the Christian religion, it in a way IS the Christian religion, this is not "denomenational theory" as you call it, this is a fact of the Christian religion.
/quote off<P>*sigh* Of course it does. It's also the collected religious laws of the Jewish faith as the Council of Worms decided were necessary for christians in the first definition of the bible. And then the four core books of Christian faith (the Gospels) come along and say that all the rest of the law is junk, and that god's law is a heck of a lot easier to sum up.<P>The trouble with faith is that most folks don't examine it and make it theirs - and instead look to leaders that push a fundamentally flawed collection of only perhaps a quarter of the religious texts that exist for the faith and use it for their own ends.<P>The bible is /not/ the religion. Period. The bible is a collection of writings /about/ the religion. To worship a bible is meaningless. It's a collection of words a bunch of guys that King James put together said were important. A bible isn't fundamentally holy, and it isn't anything more than a book.<P>And yet, the ideas contained in the four 'books' that make up the only philosophical basis of the Christian faith in the larger volume are the core of christianity. In that core, is a great deal I find that I choose to believe in.<P>Fine that I do and you don't - no issues there, and I'm not looking to convert you. You're entitled to believe as you like.. but before you imply that I worship a book? uh.. no.<P>/quote on
I didn't say that these religions don't change at all, I said they don't do it in a timely manner. I don't considet hundreds or thousands of years to be "timely", if you do, then we should just agree to disagree on this point. Just think who were the most vocal supporters of slavery up to 1865? Christians, with their Biblical support, there remain people who believe in it to this day, basing it on scripture written over a millenia ago. Who is it that remains the greatest road block to social development? Fundamentalist Christians with their Bibles quoting on the evils of homosexuality and their classification of women as second class citizens and their attempts to stop evolution from being taught. I'm not saying that there aren't Christians who faciliate change, but the people I mentioned above definately are more vocal and tend to be very successful in their conservative views, slowing down the rest of society along with them.
/quote off<P>Most of that I talked about before - so I'll avoid doing it again here. But I will say this:<P>The christian faith has /nothing/ to do with those items you've discussed. Sorry, it doesn't. It doesn't preach slavery or intolerance, reactionism or judgementalism, mysoganism, snake handling, speaking in tongues, shooting people with high-powered rifles, meddling in politics, gossiping about your neighbors, justifying homicide, or really anything that most modern folks attribute to certain Christian sects. <P>Denominations over the years /have/. The /Catholic/ church condoned slavery and sold indulgences so you could /buy/ your way into heaven. The fundamentalist right shot a doctor in an abortion clinic. (dunno which specifically, but his pastor certainly came on TV and praised him). It's like the Taliban and Islam - the Taliban claimes to be a sect of the Islamic faith, and yet are reactionary and vicious, and most mainstream Islamic folks think they're rather barbaric and evil and horrifically misguided. Yet the Taliban ruled a country. *shrug*<P>NEVER confuse faith and those who use it to their own advantage. It's... well.. rather narrowminded and somewhat saddening. Be glad, though, that most of the priests and preachers out there know the power they hold, and do their best to make sure it's used wisely and well - lord knows the few that don't cause enough problems.<P>quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The essential Dogma of a faith never changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>No, but people's reactions to it do. The Bible is the essential Dogma of Christianity, it hasn't changed significantly in the last millenia or so, yet Christians behave completely differently because people change. Every generation has picked new things to emphasize and others to ignore, making it seem like the Dogma does change, simply because people focus on different things.
/quote off<P>Yup. Plus the church emphasizes and deemphazises different aspects of the faith in an effort to push it's/their own political agenda. But again - it's not the faith - it's those that preach it. <P>*sigh*<P>Religion has power over the mind of those that follow it blindly. Those /blind/ followers are the ones that are dangerous and can somehow come to terms with the whole 'I'm not supposed to judge, but let's go stomp a homosexual tonight! Woo!" school of catch-22's. But that isn't the /Faith/ - it's the leaders of it pushing their own agenda or belief system.<P>
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same with bhuddism, confucionism, shintoism, zoroastrianism... religions that do not change to the needs of the people /die/. Simple enough
------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Not really simple at all, as I said above, the religions don't really change, God hasn't dictated any more books or anything. It's the people who change to adapt to new conditions, they do this by changing their views on their religion on an individual basis, with everyone interpreting the main source of that religion somewhat differently, ignoring parts they don't like and empshasizing the importance of those they do.
/quote off<P>Agreed. And very well put. But I'd say the individual is often not called on to do so - I'd say the various sects lead them into specific interpretations and bind them in rhetoric.<P>
/quote on
How exactly has atheism changed? There's no sign up sheet, no special place to go, and no definitive literary work. Everyone in history who does not believe in God is by definition an atheist. Further, I don't like what you're insinuating with your comment, it's like saying, "Most Christians arent - they're deists or agnostics that won't admit it". It's an insulting statement that implies that atheists can't or won't express themselves and don't even know what they believe. It's hard to think of a more bitter insult than to imply that one does not think well, and adding a smily face after it will neither add levity nor remove the inherent implications within the statement.
/quote off<P>And I do apologize for that - it wasn't intended as an insult, but rather as an illustration that I didn't explain well - but then, I'll also stand by the intention I had behind the statement. It's been my experience that most people I've talked to that /claim/ to be Athiests promptly turn around and say that they're just not sure what they choose to believe.<P>Being a true philosophical athiest isn't easy, or a cop out, or anything like that - it's an intellectual choice based on available evidence. It doesn't mean being close-minded or a blind follower - it means looking current society between the eyes and choosing your own path in the face of it. <P>I admire that.<P>I do /not/ admire folks who use the word 'athiest' as a way to avoid a philosophical discussion that doesn't go their way, or use 'athiest' for shock-value or think athisim is an excuse for them to treat others badly or do things that are dangerous or harm others. It's the same way I don't admire the so-called Christian that can't talk about his/her faith and uses 'because God Said So' as an excuse for everything and an explination for existance.<P>Feh to both.<P>/quote on
The main flaw with many religions in my opinion is that they acknowledge only two kinds of people, those who aren't believers and those who are. This is a pretty disturbing view to have, since it means that a majority of the people on earth will have a negative afterlife, since no tow religions are very similar. I also don't like the concept of eternal damnation, it's implying that it doesn't matter whether you're a petty thief or Hitler, you go to Hell either way to spend the rest of eternity. Of course, it seems to me that a loving God wouldn't have created a hell at all, and would do something else with people who are inherently bad, like simply make them cease to exist.
/quote off<P>Yup. And I agree with that. Did you know the original greek (or so I'm told - I don't read greek myself, though I'd like to learn) of the passage that reads 'None may enter the kingdom except through me' is more properly translated as 'None may stand in the presence of God save by what I teach?' *smiles* There's a difference there - it doesn't say you gotta be a rabid Jesus believer to get to heaven.. it says, instead, that /any/ fundamentally good human being will make it - and yet, the loverly Church in its lack of wisdom several thousand years ago decided to change that passage, and translate it differently.<P>*sigh* now, we're dealing with all sorts of nonsense that came out of that two-millenia-old decision. At least Lao-Tse never claimed to be hearing God - taoism is infinitely simpler to wade through. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"><P>Anyway - it's just a thought. <P>Ishmael<P>------------------
"The meek shall inherit
the earth -- the rest of
us will go to the stars."
- Robert A. Heinlein
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The ultimate purpose of religion is /not/ to explain the workings of the universe - it's to try to explain how man should get along with his fellow man.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Doesn't that really depend on the people in that religion though? Some religions only focus on self improvement, some on how to achieve personal happiness. Not only this, but the purpose of religion is really defined on an individual level, some may take up religion out of fear for a negative afterlife, some because they feel it is correct. There is no real purpose in religion other than what people make of it, relations between people is a concept that is in many religions, but it's not always the most important concept, nor is it the only one.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yet, out of religious stricture humanity gained its first instances of common law, at least in mideast/western history - I'm no scholar of the east beyond a certain philosophical study. My history's sketchy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is hard to say really, since we don't have many records from ancient times. However, I would theorate that the earliest laws came into place thus:
1. There have always been leaders among groups of people, usually being the most strong or charismatic within that particular group.
2. These people will often be religious leaders or claim that they can communicate with a God/Gods, or are divinely appointed representatives of Gods.
3. These people will form laws to follow, often emphasizing that they have the right to deal out punishment and maintain rule due to divine mandate. <P>The earlies laws that we know about historically date from about 2350 BC, laid down by Mesopotamian kings. This code confirmed that "king was appointed by the gods". Thus you could argue that laws don't originate from religion, but rather from rulers using religion to allow them to make laws to govern others and maintain his position. (For those of you interested, the laws in the Old Testament are from about 1000-300 BC, depending on the book, the Ten Commandments were written in about 1300 BC.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Eventually, religions of all stripes became codified methodologies of man interacting with man<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Not all of them, expecially older religions tended to focus on man's relationship with God or Gods. Again, many did and continue to focus mainly on self improvement or a personal relationship with God as opposed to being mainly about human interaction.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>At some point in the history of every good religious idea, the good idea was hijacked in favor of increased societal control.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, this isn't really true of EVERY religion, but most, yes. I'd also like to point out that this is the case with many ideas that were originally good and noble, after all, Karl Marx certainly didn't imagine the horrors of the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China when he wrote his works on communism (another good idea, but flawed due to the flaws in humanity that Marx didn't believe in).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The church condoned slavery in the 1880's and saught religious scripture that allowed their followers to contiute to practice it for two reasons.... and when you get to Europe and the slaves /there/.. you're talking a /lot/ of money and a /lot/ of influence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Just a minor correction - there weren't that many slaves in Europe at any time. Slavery was really only a concept that flourished in North and South America, Portugal and Spain. Most other nations didn't have the need for slaves, many even had an excess of potential labor, so no slaves were imported there. The Americas' relative newness and lack of labor, combined with extremely profitable cash crops was the thing that really drove slavery on.<P>Also, surely you meant something like the 1780's, slavery was already officialy made illegal in North America by the Thirteenth Amendemnt in 1865, and there wasn't that much overt arguments over that issue. During that time, the leading issue dealing with African-Americans were voting rights and Jim Crow laws.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>the church (meddling in affairs as it did, at the time) had /financed/ several of the existing slavers and their expiditions, and enjoyed increased mobility and profit from their association with these disreputable men. *shrug* Christianity said otherwise, the /church/ twisted it to their ends. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, whether that was Christian or not is highly debatable and completely unresolvable. If a person believes that the Bible is the 100% authentic, unchanging word of God, then slavery is indeed an allowable practice. However, these people tend to pick up the parts that allow them to justify slavery while ignoring some of the more unpleasent laws next to them, or ignore the passages about being a decent human. There's really no right or wrong answer when interpreting the Bible, it all depends of which parts the individual accepts and which he doesn't.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Ayup. However, the bible is a flawed document built by a Church that didn't want all of its religious writings in it. The New Testament has strictures that supercede jewish rabbinical law in the Old and basically toss Duteronomy, Judges, and Leviticicous out the window. (and no, I can't spell today. Sigh. )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Again, this is really something that's not agreed on. I'd say that at least a quarter of all churches within the United States would say that the Bible contains no errors and is in fact the inerrant word of God. This is why there's constant attempts by government officials to stop the teaching of evolution and the rights of homosexuals and other minorities. They woudln't get voted in if many didn't believe in what they are doing, and they obvious believe that the Bible is not flawed, since they are fond of quoting passages from some of the books you mentioned.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Dogma and Practice /are/ two different things - and to be honest, I'm insulted that you seem to be lumping me in with those whose practices I find rather abhorrent. I'm not a slaver, or a kook, or a guy who thumps a bible on a streetcorner explaining how everyone's going to hell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Sorry, it was not my intent to imply that people like you were in that group. Please accept my apologies. Rest assured that if I though you to be one of those people, I wouldn't be talking to you, since not much good tends to come out of conversations with those kinds of people. However, while Dogma and Practice are two different things, of course, the two intersect often enough to be dangerous in many cases.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I don't say if you don't believe like me /you're/ going to hell, and I'm not pushing my own personal beliefs on /anyone/. I do, however, ask that we all respect each other, and that we keep an open mind.. that's the point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I completely agree, I promise to try to be more careful with my wording in the future.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The bible is /not/ the religion. Period. The bible is a collection of writings /about/ the religion. To worship a bible is meaningless. It's a collection of words a bunch of guys that King James put together said were important. A bible isn't fundamentally holy, and it isn't anything more than a book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Perhaps, I should clarify, it is not the relgion, but it's the defining work, the most important part of the relgion, one without which Christianity wouldn't exist today (at least in the form we see). Many Christians do believe that the inerrant words of God are within the Bible, thus for them, it is the sole basis of their religion, and thus it practically is their relgion. Obviously this does not apply to everyone, but a a large enough portion that they tend to get there voice heard loud and clear in all matters.<P>Also, the Bible wasn't compiled by King James or his men, it was compiled a lot earlier by early church fathers. Consider that the King James translation was made in 1611, while we in Finland have had the same translation of the Bible from 1552, (yes, it's the same compilation of books), a new Finnish translation was made about a decade ago, which is good since it's really awful to try to read old Finnish, especially if they use the original font.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The christian faith has /nothing/ to do with those items you've discussed. Sorry, it doesn't. It doesn't preach slavery or intolerance, reactionism or judgementalism, mysoganism, snake handling, speaking in tongues, shooting people with high-powered rifles, meddling in politics, gossiping about your neighbors, justifying homicide, or really anything that most modern folks attribute to certain Christian sects. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Alright, it doesn't, but the Bible does, and by extension, many people do as well, since, as I've mentioned, the Bible is the founding and basing document of Christianity.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I'll also stand by the intention I had behind the statement. It's been my experience that most people I've talked to that /claim/ to be Athiests promptly turn around and say that they're just not sure what they choose to believe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Fair enough, I can't say I know any people like that, but I assume that some do exist.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Being a true philosophical athiest isn't easy, or a cop out, or anything like that - it's an intellectual choice based on available evidence. It doesn't mean being close-minded or a blind follower - it means looking current society between the eyes and choosing your own path in the face of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Heh, I like the phrase "philosophical atheist". In my case, it would really be the other way around, I'm the type of person that doubts and argues against anything that can't be proven to a reasonable degree of accuracy - you could call it my inherent philosophy I suppose.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I do /not/ admire folks who use the word 'athiest' as a way to avoid a philosophical discussion that doesn't go their way, or use 'athiest' for shock-value or think athisim is an excuse for them to treat others badly or do things that are dangerous or harm others. It's the same way I don't admire the so-called Christian that can't talk about his/her faith and uses 'because God Said So' as an excuse for everything and an explination for existance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I agree, those people can't be rationally debated with, since they're not likely to accept reason. The classic "it just is" or "I know it" or "God works in mysterious ways" doesn't really cut it with me.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Did you know the original greek (or so I'm told - I don't read greek myself, though I'd like to learn) of the passage that reads 'None may enter the kingdom except through me' is more properly translated as 'None may stand in the presence of God save by what I teach?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I didn't know that. What I do know is that since Jesus is likely to have spoken Armaic, some variant of Hebrew, or Koine Greek (or all three) it's hard to say what's accurate and what's not. I don't think there are any documents that date back to his time, so there's no real way to know what he said, or even if he said it (after all, it was pretty common at that time to attribute quotes to other people or embellish existing ones, not to mention that this was written from memory, probably not immediately after the event). What passage exactly is this? I'd like to see how it's been translated in different ways.<P>Finally, you can put these "quote" things and make certain words bold by using UBB code. For instructions, click on that litte underlined phrase "UBB Code" at the bottom of the "post reply" screen (the one where you write the actual message).<P>- Il-Mari<P>p.s. To quote Sam Pascoe,<P>"Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise." I kind of like this quote, it's simple and summarizes the history of the different shapes that Christianity has thrived in in various cultures where it has been introduced.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Doesn't that really depend on the people in that religion though? Some religions only focus on self improvement, some on how to achieve personal happiness. Not only this, but the purpose of religion is really defined on an individual level, some may take up religion out of fear for a negative afterlife, some because they feel it is correct. There is no real purpose in religion other than what people make of it, relations between people is a concept that is in many religions, but it's not always the most important concept, nor is it the only one.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yet, out of religious stricture humanity gained its first instances of common law, at least in mideast/western history - I'm no scholar of the east beyond a certain philosophical study. My history's sketchy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is hard to say really, since we don't have many records from ancient times. However, I would theorate that the earliest laws came into place thus:
1. There have always been leaders among groups of people, usually being the most strong or charismatic within that particular group.
2. These people will often be religious leaders or claim that they can communicate with a God/Gods, or are divinely appointed representatives of Gods.
3. These people will form laws to follow, often emphasizing that they have the right to deal out punishment and maintain rule due to divine mandate. <P>The earlies laws that we know about historically date from about 2350 BC, laid down by Mesopotamian kings. This code confirmed that "king was appointed by the gods". Thus you could argue that laws don't originate from religion, but rather from rulers using religion to allow them to make laws to govern others and maintain his position. (For those of you interested, the laws in the Old Testament are from about 1000-300 BC, depending on the book, the Ten Commandments were written in about 1300 BC.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Eventually, religions of all stripes became codified methodologies of man interacting with man<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Not all of them, expecially older religions tended to focus on man's relationship with God or Gods. Again, many did and continue to focus mainly on self improvement or a personal relationship with God as opposed to being mainly about human interaction.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>At some point in the history of every good religious idea, the good idea was hijacked in favor of increased societal control.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, this isn't really true of EVERY religion, but most, yes. I'd also like to point out that this is the case with many ideas that were originally good and noble, after all, Karl Marx certainly didn't imagine the horrors of the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China when he wrote his works on communism (another good idea, but flawed due to the flaws in humanity that Marx didn't believe in).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The church condoned slavery in the 1880's and saught religious scripture that allowed their followers to contiute to practice it for two reasons.... and when you get to Europe and the slaves /there/.. you're talking a /lot/ of money and a /lot/ of influence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Just a minor correction - there weren't that many slaves in Europe at any time. Slavery was really only a concept that flourished in North and South America, Portugal and Spain. Most other nations didn't have the need for slaves, many even had an excess of potential labor, so no slaves were imported there. The Americas' relative newness and lack of labor, combined with extremely profitable cash crops was the thing that really drove slavery on.<P>Also, surely you meant something like the 1780's, slavery was already officialy made illegal in North America by the Thirteenth Amendemnt in 1865, and there wasn't that much overt arguments over that issue. During that time, the leading issue dealing with African-Americans were voting rights and Jim Crow laws.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>the church (meddling in affairs as it did, at the time) had /financed/ several of the existing slavers and their expiditions, and enjoyed increased mobility and profit from their association with these disreputable men. *shrug* Christianity said otherwise, the /church/ twisted it to their ends. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, whether that was Christian or not is highly debatable and completely unresolvable. If a person believes that the Bible is the 100% authentic, unchanging word of God, then slavery is indeed an allowable practice. However, these people tend to pick up the parts that allow them to justify slavery while ignoring some of the more unpleasent laws next to them, or ignore the passages about being a decent human. There's really no right or wrong answer when interpreting the Bible, it all depends of which parts the individual accepts and which he doesn't.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Ayup. However, the bible is a flawed document built by a Church that didn't want all of its religious writings in it. The New Testament has strictures that supercede jewish rabbinical law in the Old and basically toss Duteronomy, Judges, and Leviticicous out the window. (and no, I can't spell today. Sigh. )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Again, this is really something that's not agreed on. I'd say that at least a quarter of all churches within the United States would say that the Bible contains no errors and is in fact the inerrant word of God. This is why there's constant attempts by government officials to stop the teaching of evolution and the rights of homosexuals and other minorities. They woudln't get voted in if many didn't believe in what they are doing, and they obvious believe that the Bible is not flawed, since they are fond of quoting passages from some of the books you mentioned.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Dogma and Practice /are/ two different things - and to be honest, I'm insulted that you seem to be lumping me in with those whose practices I find rather abhorrent. I'm not a slaver, or a kook, or a guy who thumps a bible on a streetcorner explaining how everyone's going to hell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Sorry, it was not my intent to imply that people like you were in that group. Please accept my apologies. Rest assured that if I though you to be one of those people, I wouldn't be talking to you, since not much good tends to come out of conversations with those kinds of people. However, while Dogma and Practice are two different things, of course, the two intersect often enough to be dangerous in many cases.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I don't say if you don't believe like me /you're/ going to hell, and I'm not pushing my own personal beliefs on /anyone/. I do, however, ask that we all respect each other, and that we keep an open mind.. that's the point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I completely agree, I promise to try to be more careful with my wording in the future.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The bible is /not/ the religion. Period. The bible is a collection of writings /about/ the religion. To worship a bible is meaningless. It's a collection of words a bunch of guys that King James put together said were important. A bible isn't fundamentally holy, and it isn't anything more than a book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Perhaps, I should clarify, it is not the relgion, but it's the defining work, the most important part of the relgion, one without which Christianity wouldn't exist today (at least in the form we see). Many Christians do believe that the inerrant words of God are within the Bible, thus for them, it is the sole basis of their religion, and thus it practically is their relgion. Obviously this does not apply to everyone, but a a large enough portion that they tend to get there voice heard loud and clear in all matters.<P>Also, the Bible wasn't compiled by King James or his men, it was compiled a lot earlier by early church fathers. Consider that the King James translation was made in 1611, while we in Finland have had the same translation of the Bible from 1552, (yes, it's the same compilation of books), a new Finnish translation was made about a decade ago, which is good since it's really awful to try to read old Finnish, especially if they use the original font.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The christian faith has /nothing/ to do with those items you've discussed. Sorry, it doesn't. It doesn't preach slavery or intolerance, reactionism or judgementalism, mysoganism, snake handling, speaking in tongues, shooting people with high-powered rifles, meddling in politics, gossiping about your neighbors, justifying homicide, or really anything that most modern folks attribute to certain Christian sects. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Alright, it doesn't, but the Bible does, and by extension, many people do as well, since, as I've mentioned, the Bible is the founding and basing document of Christianity.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I'll also stand by the intention I had behind the statement. It's been my experience that most people I've talked to that /claim/ to be Athiests promptly turn around and say that they're just not sure what they choose to believe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Fair enough, I can't say I know any people like that, but I assume that some do exist.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Being a true philosophical athiest isn't easy, or a cop out, or anything like that - it's an intellectual choice based on available evidence. It doesn't mean being close-minded or a blind follower - it means looking current society between the eyes and choosing your own path in the face of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Heh, I like the phrase "philosophical atheist". In my case, it would really be the other way around, I'm the type of person that doubts and argues against anything that can't be proven to a reasonable degree of accuracy - you could call it my inherent philosophy I suppose.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I do /not/ admire folks who use the word 'athiest' as a way to avoid a philosophical discussion that doesn't go their way, or use 'athiest' for shock-value or think athisim is an excuse for them to treat others badly or do things that are dangerous or harm others. It's the same way I don't admire the so-called Christian that can't talk about his/her faith and uses 'because God Said So' as an excuse for everything and an explination for existance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I agree, those people can't be rationally debated with, since they're not likely to accept reason. The classic "it just is" or "I know it" or "God works in mysterious ways" doesn't really cut it with me.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Did you know the original greek (or so I'm told - I don't read greek myself, though I'd like to learn) of the passage that reads 'None may enter the kingdom except through me' is more properly translated as 'None may stand in the presence of God save by what I teach?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I didn't know that. What I do know is that since Jesus is likely to have spoken Armaic, some variant of Hebrew, or Koine Greek (or all three) it's hard to say what's accurate and what's not. I don't think there are any documents that date back to his time, so there's no real way to know what he said, or even if he said it (after all, it was pretty common at that time to attribute quotes to other people or embellish existing ones, not to mention that this was written from memory, probably not immediately after the event). What passage exactly is this? I'd like to see how it's been translated in different ways.<P>Finally, you can put these "quote" things and make certain words bold by using UBB code. For instructions, click on that litte underlined phrase "UBB Code" at the bottom of the "post reply" screen (the one where you write the actual message).<P>- Il-Mari<P>p.s. To quote Sam Pascoe,<P>"Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise." I kind of like this quote, it's simple and summarizes the history of the different shapes that Christianity has thrived in in various cultures where it has been introduced.
-
DJ Pirtu
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Viitasaari, Finland
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ishmael:
<B>and /somebody's/ going to have to tell me how to do that nifty quote thing. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, you mean the QUOTE tags (remember to use []) or the Reply w/ quote -button on the top of every post.<P>After I last posted in here, I haven't had time to read it untill now. But I realy have to say what I want to say.<P>Many of you have sayed that God can not exist because there is evil in world. We have to have evil to even understand what good is. And the consept of good and bad is very relative and depends such on the culture.
There being more evil than good in the world? We ARE responsible of that ourselves. Why can't we just take the responsibility of that ourselves in stead of demanding a superior power to interfere? God doesn't HAVE to guide us all the time.<P>Or that God can't be perfect and therefore he/she/it can't exist. Why so? What rule sayes that a god must be perfect to exist? Can't God be a god just because being incredibly superior to us?<P>To another matter. Hell is quite complicated thing to be created. It WOULD make more people belivers, but do they TRULY belive in it then? And if hell "kills" the true belief, what does that make heaven?
But in the other hand, does the hell realy have to exist? There is lots of talk about it and no proof for or against. Hell doesn't have to exist. It might only be talked about and the effect would be the same. Then again, what about Heaven?<P>Is it just me, or do I have more questions than I have answers? Makes me feel quite... something.
Well at least some of them were retoric.
<B>and /somebody's/ going to have to tell me how to do that nifty quote thing. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, you mean the QUOTE tags (remember to use []) or the Reply w/ quote -button on the top of every post.<P>After I last posted in here, I haven't had time to read it untill now. But I realy have to say what I want to say.<P>Many of you have sayed that God can not exist because there is evil in world. We have to have evil to even understand what good is. And the consept of good and bad is very relative and depends such on the culture.
There being more evil than good in the world? We ARE responsible of that ourselves. Why can't we just take the responsibility of that ourselves in stead of demanding a superior power to interfere? God doesn't HAVE to guide us all the time.<P>Or that God can't be perfect and therefore he/she/it can't exist. Why so? What rule sayes that a god must be perfect to exist? Can't God be a god just because being incredibly superior to us?<P>To another matter. Hell is quite complicated thing to be created. It WOULD make more people belivers, but do they TRULY belive in it then? And if hell "kills" the true belief, what does that make heaven?
But in the other hand, does the hell realy have to exist? There is lots of talk about it and no proof for or against. Hell doesn't have to exist. It might only be talked about and the effect would be the same. Then again, what about Heaven?<P>Is it just me, or do I have more questions than I have answers? Makes me feel quite... something.
Well at least some of them were retoric.
-
Alfador
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Washington, USA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Il-Mari:
<B>To Alfador: Just out of curiosity, do you believe that God created the universe and is letting it work without interference, or that he takes an active participation in worldly events?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Alls I know is that if He(or She) still does take an active part in the events of the world (almost certain God did at one time, at the very least during creation otherwise we wouldn't have such neat stuff, evolution is a great theory and true in many respects, but it's so improbable that it could be the cause of EVERYTHING that it's like a (very microscale) violation of thermodynamics (which are statistical laws).), only the tabloids hear anything about it. And you KNOW just how reliable THEY are.<P>Possibility: Humanity is God's scientific experiment. The miracles in the Bible were His/Her way of controlling the variables once the experiment started; now that it's running, He/She doesn't want to interfere but instead just watch us play out our lives.<P>Big Father is watching you...<P>------------------
Three-tailed fox, in the <A HREF="http://vcl.ctrl-c.liu.se/vcl/Artists/Alfador" TARGET=_blank>house</A>--<A HREF="http://www.alfador.8m.com" TARGET=_blank>Fox Den</A>, that is!<P><A HREF="http://umlauthouse.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Rick/Jake</A> Shipper #00017
<B>To Alfador: Just out of curiosity, do you believe that God created the universe and is letting it work without interference, or that he takes an active participation in worldly events?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Alls I know is that if He(or She) still does take an active part in the events of the world (almost certain God did at one time, at the very least during creation otherwise we wouldn't have such neat stuff, evolution is a great theory and true in many respects, but it's so improbable that it could be the cause of EVERYTHING that it's like a (very microscale) violation of thermodynamics (which are statistical laws).), only the tabloids hear anything about it. And you KNOW just how reliable THEY are.<P>Possibility: Humanity is God's scientific experiment. The miracles in the Bible were His/Her way of controlling the variables once the experiment started; now that it's running, He/She doesn't want to interfere but instead just watch us play out our lives.<P>Big Father is watching you...<P>------------------
Three-tailed fox, in the <A HREF="http://vcl.ctrl-c.liu.se/vcl/Artists/Alfador" TARGET=_blank>house</A>--<A HREF="http://www.alfador.8m.com" TARGET=_blank>Fox Den</A>, that is!<P><A HREF="http://umlauthouse.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Rick/Jake</A> Shipper #00017
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alfador:
<B> evolution is a great theory and true in many respects, but it's so improbable that it could be the cause of EVERYTHING that it's like a (very microscale) violation of thermodynamics (which are statistical laws).), </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Two things about evolution:<P>First , thermodynamics. Entropy only applies to a closed system , which the Earth , obviously isn't. It's a local energy increase , to be sure , but that energy comes from an outside source. Namely , Sol , our sun. Anyone who argues that Evolution doesn't work because of Thermodynamics and entropy , clearly knows next to nothing of thermodynamics and entropy.<P>Second. Evolution is an effect , not a cause. It's not an explination for what happens , it's not a 'force' that causes one animal to change into another. It's a way of saying 'animals change over time' , and nothing more. The actual causes are many , and include mutation from a variety of sources (radition , chemicals , eta.) , and competition for survival. It is <I>not</I> a cause. There is no probability of 'it being the cause of EVERYTHING' , because it , simply , is not a cause , and never has been. It's a process. To use a comparison , it is the course of a river. The cause of the course the water flows is gravity , obsticles , amount of rainfall , erosion , and so on. The effect is that the river takes the course it does. Likewise , evolution is the course life has taken , or rather , evolution is simply the fact that it has a course.
<B> evolution is a great theory and true in many respects, but it's so improbable that it could be the cause of EVERYTHING that it's like a (very microscale) violation of thermodynamics (which are statistical laws).), </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Two things about evolution:<P>First , thermodynamics. Entropy only applies to a closed system , which the Earth , obviously isn't. It's a local energy increase , to be sure , but that energy comes from an outside source. Namely , Sol , our sun. Anyone who argues that Evolution doesn't work because of Thermodynamics and entropy , clearly knows next to nothing of thermodynamics and entropy.<P>Second. Evolution is an effect , not a cause. It's not an explination for what happens , it's not a 'force' that causes one animal to change into another. It's a way of saying 'animals change over time' , and nothing more. The actual causes are many , and include mutation from a variety of sources (radition , chemicals , eta.) , and competition for survival. It is <I>not</I> a cause. There is no probability of 'it being the cause of EVERYTHING' , because it , simply , is not a cause , and never has been. It's a process. To use a comparison , it is the course of a river. The cause of the course the water flows is gravity , obsticles , amount of rainfall , erosion , and so on. The effect is that the river takes the course it does. Likewise , evolution is the course life has taken , or rather , evolution is simply the fact that it has a course.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Surtur:
<B>Pretty soon you're dressing in black, composing german industrial music, and throwing badgers in other people's bath tubs.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I wasn't serious about nihilism, but: HAHAHAHAHA<P>Here is a little idea on law from my ROTC feild manual (or textbook, whatever you want to call it):<P>"Stop and think about thius. If you were alone on an island in the middle of the ocean, how many laws would you have? You would have no need for laws; you could do as you pleased. Then suppose one day you saw another person approach your island. You may be happy and excited to have company. But, very soon you would explain to the new arrival, "That is my bed, that is my food, those are my clothes". You begin to decide how you are going to share the means of survival found on your island. In other words, you would begin making rules or laws."<P>And here is another little anecdote, that doesn't necesarilly relate to this topic but I liked it:
"A Little Story About Responsibility:
This is a story about four people named <B>Everybody, Somebody, Anybody</B> and <B>Nobody</B>. There was an important job to be done, and <B>Everybody</B> was sure that <B>Somebody</B> would do it. <B>Somebody</B> got angry about that, because it was <B>Everybody</B>'s job. <B>Everybody</B> thought <B>Anybody</B> could do it, but <B>Nobody</B> realized that <B>Everybody</B> wouldn't do it. It ended up that <B>Everybody</B> blamed <B>Somebody</B>, when <B>Nobody</B> did what <B>Anybody</B> could have done!"<P>Whoo that was a bitch to type out.<P>One more quote to top it off, this is from The Patriot:<P>"I have long feared that my sins would return to visit me, and the cost is more than I can bear."
<B>Pretty soon you're dressing in black, composing german industrial music, and throwing badgers in other people's bath tubs.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I wasn't serious about nihilism, but: HAHAHAHAHA<P>Here is a little idea on law from my ROTC feild manual (or textbook, whatever you want to call it):<P>"Stop and think about thius. If you were alone on an island in the middle of the ocean, how many laws would you have? You would have no need for laws; you could do as you pleased. Then suppose one day you saw another person approach your island. You may be happy and excited to have company. But, very soon you would explain to the new arrival, "That is my bed, that is my food, those are my clothes". You begin to decide how you are going to share the means of survival found on your island. In other words, you would begin making rules or laws."<P>And here is another little anecdote, that doesn't necesarilly relate to this topic but I liked it:
"A Little Story About Responsibility:
This is a story about four people named <B>Everybody, Somebody, Anybody</B> and <B>Nobody</B>. There was an important job to be done, and <B>Everybody</B> was sure that <B>Somebody</B> would do it. <B>Somebody</B> got angry about that, because it was <B>Everybody</B>'s job. <B>Everybody</B> thought <B>Anybody</B> could do it, but <B>Nobody</B> realized that <B>Everybody</B> wouldn't do it. It ended up that <B>Everybody</B> blamed <B>Somebody</B>, when <B>Nobody</B> did what <B>Anybody</B> could have done!"<P>Whoo that was a bitch to type out.<P>One more quote to top it off, this is from The Patriot:<P>"I have long feared that my sins would return to visit me, and the cost is more than I can bear."
-
Cypress
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1153
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Canada, thats all youll get!
- Contact:
<IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/redface.gif"> I saw that little somebody/nobody thing at my school! how amusing <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">.
-
PyroFox
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Hell, Wyoming(yes, I know it redundant), USA
If god were all knowing, why bother with the experiment? He'd allready know everything that was going to happen, in details down well past the sub-atomic level, so then what's the point of doing something if you allready know <I>exactly</I> what is going to happen? If anything, this makes our existance even more pointless.<P>And if he isn't all knowing, benovolent or powerful then the definition of God needs to be revised. It dosen't mean necessarialy that some type of God(ess) dosen't exist, jut that <I>a perfect God doesn't exist</I>.<P>Something I just thought of... I once wondered if we were just the little people in some game of SimCity 4 billion or something... What if we're not even that? What if we're just the screen saver on Gods computer?<P>And since I've suddenly reached a complete loss for words...<P>{jumps around shouting loudly, and a little too happily}<P><I><B>I'm a bastard!!! I'M A BASTARD!!!!</I></B> <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/biggrin.gif"><P>------------------
<I>"Few things are harder to put up with than a good example."</I>
- Mark Twain<P><A HREF="http://www.ffiends.com/Portal/Preview.jsp" TARGET=_blank>The obligitory shamless plug.</A>
<I>"Few things are harder to put up with than a good example."</I>
- Mark Twain<P><A HREF="http://www.ffiends.com/Portal/Preview.jsp" TARGET=_blank>The obligitory shamless plug.</A>
yeah, the $1,000,000 question...<P>has anyone ever noticed how LITTLE the bible talks about eternal hell? there is death, there is punishment, and lots of other things, but none of these are really synonymous with what we think of as hell...<P>what does the bible say about hell?<P>a few paraphrases off the top of my head (normally not a good idea but i dont have a bible infront of me)<P>"when you go and preach the word, those who hear and believe will be saved, but those who do not believe are CONDEMNED ALREADY"<P>yeah, i dont see where you get salvation by belief in God from that... more like a litmus test, i.e. you'll know if the people your preaching to are heaven-bound or not by these conditions. of course, this was said to the 12 disciples themselves, who were indeed Special People(TM). despite what nearly every christian preacher will tell you, God never once in the Bible told US to spread the word the way the apostles did. so if you tell little Johnny all about how wonderful Jesus is and he gives you the finger, this does NOT mean that Johnny is going to hell. it just means that you tried to do something extremely difficult without any particular direction from God, and so it didnt work out so well...<P>"on the day of judgement, the sheep will be sent to heaven and the goats will be sent to hell"<P>its important to look deeply into the meanings of these analogies. "sheep" and "goat" are types of people, and being a sheep or a goat is just a fact of life, not something you change by some manner.<P>so what do we end up with? well not a pretty picture at first. lets say, a box with mice in it, and somebody takes half the mice and puts them in a snake aquarium, and takes the rest and puts them in a nice habitat with lots of food and exercise wheels and tube thingies to run around in.<P>but wait, lets say that half the mice are rabid from birth, and they are the ones fed to the snake, so they cant hurt the other mice...<P>i think you get the idea. not the most elegant presentation of my beliefs, but its the best i can come up with on short notice.<P>one last quote, and since i found a bible ill quote it straight off (if you want ill quote the others, too)
"Romans 8
37
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."<P>if some great tragedy occurs in your life, and you decide God couldn't allow this to happen, and decide that God doesnt exist, and then you die and go to hell, well then doesnt that just SLIGHTLY contradict those verses? hm? ive also heard people say that God loves the people in hell, but he has no choice but to send them there...<P>apparently SOME people have NO clue what hell is. the Bible clearly states that God hates those in hell, and that hell is a complete separation from God... so much for that theory.<P>im sure you have questions and criticisms, so feel free to hit me with them, but please clarify stuff with me before you go off on a rampage... remember, i have specific scriptures in mind for all of these points, please dont hesitate to ask me for them...<P>and if you dont believe that the Bible was divinely inspired, then there's obviously not just a ton we can agree on, now is there? someone said evolution is a result, not a cause... well sure, but the result definitely is not this. im thinking more something along the lines of big cats, bears, and such like ruling the earth, all just smart enough to track down things and kill them and eat them.<p>[This message has been edited by Adivs (edited 01-15-2002).]
"Romans 8
37
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."<P>if some great tragedy occurs in your life, and you decide God couldn't allow this to happen, and decide that God doesnt exist, and then you die and go to hell, well then doesnt that just SLIGHTLY contradict those verses? hm? ive also heard people say that God loves the people in hell, but he has no choice but to send them there...<P>apparently SOME people have NO clue what hell is. the Bible clearly states that God hates those in hell, and that hell is a complete separation from God... so much for that theory.<P>im sure you have questions and criticisms, so feel free to hit me with them, but please clarify stuff with me before you go off on a rampage... remember, i have specific scriptures in mind for all of these points, please dont hesitate to ask me for them...<P>and if you dont believe that the Bible was divinely inspired, then there's obviously not just a ton we can agree on, now is there? someone said evolution is a result, not a cause... well sure, but the result definitely is not this. im thinking more something along the lines of big cats, bears, and such like ruling the earth, all just smart enough to track down things and kill them and eat them.<p>[This message has been edited by Adivs (edited 01-15-2002).]
-
MercenaryX
- Newbie
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
I quote from CSI "I don't belive in religon, I belive in God, I just don't belive in religon because it's been perverted by man for so long. I think religon before was once right. But now it's chaged, and not for the better."<P>I think it's the right quote, correct me if I'm wrong.<P>I mean, I have God, Goddess, It in my heart.<P>God made man in his/her immage? Well, there's women, and who says God can't be a woman?<P>Anyway I also belive that Lezbian and Gays and bi's are all part of God's plan, and I think it's not a sin. Because look at how many people are on the plante now and in 10 years will double.<P>I think that this sexual prefice thing was God's way of curbing popualtion growth in the most humanin way possable.<P>Think about it, it's locial and it proves that God works in many differnt misterious ways.<P>------------------
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!!
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!!