8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
Today I was visited three times by Jehovahs Witnesses. Different ones, too! The first - this old fella with a neat hat, and the last, a woman who brings large plastic bags full of little magazines, were known to me, but the other visit was a fifteen year old and his dad. It was creepy.
I'm not bothered chatting on Saturdays if they haven't gotten me out of bed, so the last woman I had to ask...
"You guys are pretty insistent on the end times. Three visits in one day; what, are you guys expecting something soon?"
Reply: "Oh, I hope not!"
...
...
That's odd. I thought their end time was special and magical. She was obviously some sort of heretic.
The first guy told me very matter-of-factly that many people use prayer beads, prayer wheels and ouija boards IN THEIR HOMES!
The second lot, after being told that, 'I've already got that', thankfully excused themselves.
Incidentally, I don't mind taking their little magazines. They're fun-packed - better than the comics page IMO. There's even a magical story about a train with no wheels that flies around Hong Kong because God is so good.
241
Post by: Ahtman
It's like when Jerry Falwell said he needed people to "donate" money or God was going to "call him home".
Let me get this right, you love Jesus and God, and he offered you a chance to come hang out in Heaven and you said no? That don't make no kind of sense.
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
A few years ago I was reading one of these anotated bibbles that somehow made its way home and I solved why the JWs are so insistent. In that Bibble the writer made somehow the connection that only 12k persons for each of the 12 tribes of Israel were going to make it at the end. So you make the math, Paradise will be fill up at the 144k mark you they are in a hurry to win god points or whatever to be in that number. They are not going to Heaven but to a exclusive club
I´m glad I´m Catholic, our Paradise gets bigger with each cathedral we build. Now you now why Europe is overfilled with churches.
M.
4977
Post by: jp400
Careful folks! Talk of religion tends to bring out all the crazies on the forums here!
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
Well.... my POV is that they have the right to say whatever they want as long as I have the right to call them nuts.
M.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I'm glad I'm agnostic and that I get to enjoy my time here on earth as much as possible, without some Deity punishing me for it!
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
I tired to have a discussion with a Witness the other day...it wasn't as fun as I hoped it would be
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
There's no reason to torment witnesses.
When I was a kid I'd sneak around the back of my property and let some of the air out of their back tyres... But now I live in town and they come on foot.
Either way, my work involves talking to random people at their homes every day, so I can 'small talk' with any kind of nut. Growing up half in a dairy farming town and half in the middle of the biggest city in Australia helped... I think. You see, I now live in this area where there's kind of a big marijuana industry, and the introduction of tourists and other drugs means some of the places I go to are just totally suss. You just have to bend your outward personality a bit. I got on a bit when I was a teenager so I usually don't have to pretend much.
...So what impresses me about the Johos is that they go to random houses with the exact same line every week, and the same expression, and they'll comfortably get doors closed in their faces. For a lark. They don't get paid, right? It's priceless.
The only thing that upsets me is that paper wastage. There isn't really a nice way to ask them to stop...
Actually, that's it!
HOW TO POLITELY REMOVE WITNESSES
"I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I do take exception to the resources that go into producing these magazines and frankly wouldn't care to endorse your distribution of them. Since I'm not interested in the magazines, you probably aren't interested in calling here. Yes?"
I'm not likely to try this. I like the comix.
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
We used to hide from them and pretend not to be home.
I havn't had one at my door for years and years now.
Much worse are the cold calling 'surveys' or 'deals' the telemarketers ring with. Now I answer with a 'hello?', count to 3 and if no answer they will be in India and I hang up.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
A few years ago I was reading one of these anotated bibbles that somehow made its way home and I solved why the JWs are so insistent. In that Bibble the writer made somehow the connection that only 12k persons for each of the 12 tribes of Israel were going to make it at the end. So you make the math, Paradise will be fill up at the 144k mark you they are in a hurry to win god points or whatever to be in that number. They are not going to Heaven but to a exclusive club
Wouldn't it than be a bad idea to get more people on board?
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
It´s your average pyramid scheme. The more people you bring in, the higher you get. That´s the reason they are so insistent.
M.
217
Post by: Phoenix
Really guys, just like door to door sales people, you can have a lot of fun with people pandering religion.
My favorite tactic was to listen to what they had to say for ~10 min or so (depending on how long I could stand it) and then launch into a big spiel (borrowing some of their techniques if they used any good ones) trying to convert them to some other religion (Satanism, Wicca, and Voodoo being my favorites). For the most part, they don't like having the tables turned on them.
The other thing you can do, which is right up the same line is to try and sell products (or just random junk in your home) to the religious panderers or try to convert the sales people. This one works on telemarketers too. I once convinced a telemarketing lady to go out and buy a book on hypnotherapy after she called me trying to sell me insurance or something.
Ask them uncomfortable probing personal questions. Sooner or later they'll bail once you make them uneasy enough. Start easy with what they had for lunch and gradually work your way up to what color their underwear is or possibly their favorite sexual position. Seem really interested and don't take no for an answer.
666
Post by: Necros
I never, ever had a jehovas witness come to my door. I never understood why people would complain about it. But then my area is pretty hardcore roman catholic plus a few scattered jewish families in the philly burbs. tons if italians and irish folks all over the place. So, I guess they know they're wasting their time in my neighborhood
217
Post by: Phoenix
Necros wrote:I never understood why people would complain about it.
People complain because it's really annoying to be woken up early in the morning (you know, like before noon) on a weekend by people who are trying to slough their belief system on you. If I was looking for a new life philosophy, I wouldn't be asleep...or sitting around playing video games, or whatever else I've chosen to do with my weekend. Same goes for door to door sales people. If I want a product, I'll go to the store or order it online. The only exception to this is kids doing fund raisers for schools and the like.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
I find little kids a whole lot more annoying.
"I'm here for the helicopter money"
"..."
"..."
"What? Helicopter?"
4746
Post by: Flachzange
Arctik_Firangi wrote:I find little kids a whole lot more annoying.
"I'm here for the helicopter money"
"..."
"..."
"What? Helicopter?"
Grab him by the ankles, turn in big circles.
Take his money.
He got the helicopter, you got the dough. Simple.
Other than that, I have NO idea what youre talking about lol
5353
Post by: Skorpion
If someone wakes me up for a trivial reason, they'll get a glare and politely told to bugger off because I'm not interested.
And god help them if that causes my cat to escape, because he's a fiend for tripping people.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
Flachzange wrote:Arctik_Firangi wrote:I find little kids a whole lot more annoying.
"I'm here for the helicopter money"
"..."
"..."
"What? Helicopter?"
Grab him by the ankles, turn in big circles.
Take his money.
He got the helicopter, you got the dough. Simple.
Other than that, I have NO idea what youre talking about lol
The chumplet was collecting donations for the local emergency helicopter service. The kid just stared at me and looked like he was going to cry, wouldn't answer any questions, until his dad got out of a car down the road and explained what was going on. They didn't get any helicopter money, because I needed food.
And as far as I know I've never needed a helicopter.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Today I was visited three times by Jehovahs Witnesses. Different ones, too! The first - this old fella with a neat hat, and the last, a woman who brings large plastic bags full of little magazines, were known to me, but the other visit was a fifteen year old and his dad. It was creepy.
You're not fooling me.
That's the plot synopsis for "A Christmas Carol."
Eric
7098
Post by: Nightmare
what you do is you try to convert them to the worship of the GOD-EMPEROR OF MANKIND, citing the many GW publications as his bible. Substitute GORK and MORK if you like orks, or RAPTOR JESUS if you know what i mean.
1635
Post by: Savnock
Nightmare, wouldn't you feel terrible if you got them hooked on The Hobby? I mean, there's no time to paint a 10K point Eldar army if you're going to make it onto the limited-size Jeebus Boat. It's like sentencing them to be a cast member from Left Behind. They'll be rolling dice with us poor dorks while all their more dedicated buddies are strumming harps and, um singing and not having se...
...er, maybe counter-conversion would be a kindness, actually. Maybe next time I'll see if any of them want to come in for a Black Reach starter game.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Sometimes I feel sad I moved out of New Orleans, if only because they left me alone after agreeing to listen as long as they listen to MY conversion propaganda for Campus Crusader for Cthulhu.
Then I remember the cesspool that is New Orleans(before any hurricanes) and rejoice for leaving.
8762
Post by: Wraithwing
I had to laugh at the glarng inaccuracys in this thread as to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe
I'm a JW, and your all making me laugh, its most amusing. Please continue
9054
Post by: weemonster
Are JW's the one who let their kids die rather than give them blood transfusions or blood products?
The ones who dont celebrate christmas so once a year rheir kids sit all sad and unhappy as their freinds play with their new toys and for them its just anoher day.
Cruel buggers.
8762
Post by: Wraithwing
weemonster wrote:Are JW's the one who let their kids die rather than give them blood transfusions or blood products?
The ones who dont celebrate christmas so once a year rheir kids sit all sad and unhappy as their freinds play with their new toys and for them its just anoher day.
Cruel buggers.
lol, keep going, this is priceless!
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Why is it that most Religions try to prevent their followers from having any fun whatsoever?
No Alcohol, no ciggies, no rumpy pumpy, no *cups of tea*.....
I just don't get it, especially when it all boils down to a single, and very daft (to my mind) point.
Preacher : You can't do that.
Me : Why not?
Preacher : God says so.
Me : Not to me he didn't.
Preacher : *tcoch* It's in the Bible.
Me : So?
Preacher : The Bible is the word of God.
Me : Says who? Looks more like a book to me.
Preacher : God does.
Me : And how did God tell us this?
Preacher : In the Bible.
Me : So, let me get this straight. This Book you call the Bible is the word of God, because it says it's the word of God, right?
Preacher : And he says so (points to relevant head of church.
Me : On whose authority?
Preacher : God and Jeebus' authority.
Me : Says who?
Preacher : The Bible.
Me : So, not only does the Bible tell us that is God's word, but this bloke over here gets to tell people what to do, because he reckon the Bible says he does, because the Bible tells us it's the word of God?
Preacher : Yes. PRAISE HIM!
Me : Right. Okay. You know, I'm not so sure I believe you. I mean, chances are, it's just a book. You know, something written by man.
Preacher : Yes, the word of God written by man.
Me : AHA! So, you are saying that the Bible is the word of God in written form because some bloke wrote it down and claimed it to be the word of God.
Preacher : Yes!
Me : Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Why is it that most Religions try to prevent their followers from having any fun whatsoever?
Think about it a while. The reason is is that many things that bring immediate pleasure will cause you or other people long term distress, or at least distract you from something higher than base desires. I mean, really, how many things have you done that give you true fulfillment have been immediately pleasurable. I'm not religious by any means, but this is a philosophy I try to apply every day, particularly in my professional endeavors. A good rule of thumb is that if you're doing something by means of the path of least resistance, you're probably doing it poorly. Of all the reasons I've had problems having faith in the past, this isn't one of them.
You mentioned Alcohol, tobacco, screwing, and tea. Three out of four of these can kill you, at least in excess or without discretion. Are there really religions that forbid tea or am I missing a pop culture reference here?
Painting miniatures....If you get instant gratification from this, then you're a lucky man. For me it takes focus and discipline. This, for me, is exemplary of the same principle.
Do you really enjoy being around obnoxious drunks? I don't. It is all about self control.
Note that I do not want to be a hypocrite. I'm a southern boy, God knows ( no pun intended ) that I've had my issues with dipping tobacco, in fact I'm still on and off with it. There is a reason though, to keep trying to stay away from stuff like that, even if you fail. Because if you shoot for staying away from bad habits, you'll probably at least moderate it. I'd probably be better off if I had some kind of religious motivation to quit.
The beliefs I'm comfortable with teach moderation. I really don't think most people can take a life of total self denial, those who can are, well, monks. It is trite, but probably moderation in all things is really the best policy.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Masturbation. Nature's 5 minute pick me up!
Eating a nice juicy steak.
Spending time with my friends in the pub.
And I believe certain religions do indeed prohibit the drinking of Tea because of the Caffeine it contains, which is technically a narcotic, seeing as it affects your brain....
Not sure if I mentioned it earlier in this thread or not, so I'll cover myself and say it now. I have *no* problem with anyone's personal Faith. However, what I do firmly object to is organised Religion. Soon as you organise it, someone is benefiting at the expense of others. Catholic Church recently listed 7 new Deadly Sins. One of them is obscene wealth.....lets just say it's lucky they didn't add covering up systematic paedophilia and hypocricy or they'd be the thrice damned by now.
7098
Post by: Nightmare
post moar about then JW
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Wraithwing wrote:weemonster wrote:Are JW's the one who let their kids die rather than give them blood transfusions or blood products?
The ones who dont celebrate christmas so once a year rheir kids sit all sad and unhappy as their freinds play with their new toys and for them its just anoher day.
Cruel buggers.
lol, keep going, this is priceless! 
actually that part is true, though use of blood is now a matter of personal conscience. Add to that no birthdays because the only occasions birthdays are mentioned in the bible is when bad things happen to christians.
The "priceless" bit is the shunning of people who have been DF by their family and friends. My absolute favourite is a drug addict trying his best to recover and no-one will talk to him at the Kingdom Hall because he is DF'ed from his drug days. So he becomes depressed, the only people who speak to him are ex & current users. What a surprise - he falls back. So what do the JW's do - the elders tell him he has to start from scratch all over again. Yes, very Christian. I do believe the bible warns about not being a stumbling block. Never in my life have I meant such a group of supposedly Christians that are so judgmental (also against the bible) and so singularly lacking in compassion to those that stumble and need support instead of judgment. Never have I meet such a group of people who just don't understand what Jesus was about - and BTW, I am not a Christian - just a simple agnostic who has read the bible.
Yes, non JW here - just married into a family of them and dragged into many JW functions and gatherings.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Ahtman wrote:It's like when Jerry Falwell said he needed people to "donate" money or God was going to "call him home".
Let me get this right, you love Jesus and God, and he offered you a chance to come hang out in Heaven and you said no? That don't make no kind of sense.
I find TV preachers a blight on the church. ever seen the music video Genesis did on this, its rather good.
However I believe I know where I am going after death I am actually quite happy to remain where I am right now, so are many other people with similar faith. We still mourn if a loved one dies who beleives in Jesus, becasuse we miss them, even if we believe strongly they are in heaven.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Orlanth wrote:Ahtman wrote:It's like when Jerry Falwell said he needed people to "donate" money or God was going to "call him home".
Let me get this right, you love Jesus and God, and he offered you a chance to come hang out in Heaven and you said no? That don't make no kind of sense.
I find TV preachers a blight on the church. ever seen the music video Genesis did on this, its rather good.
However I believe I know where I am going after death I am actually quite happy to remain where I am right now, so are many other people with similar faith. We still mourn if a loved one dies who beleives in Jesus, becasuse we miss them, even if we believe strongly they are in heaven.
Is that the one with the cabbage patch looking puppets and the scene at the end, where IIRC Reagan reaches for the call nurse button, but hits "nuke" instead? That was kind of cool
4900
Post by: Nerf_IG
Grignard wrote:Orlanth wrote:Ahtman wrote:It's like when Jerry Falwell said he needed people to "donate" money or God was going to "call him home".
Let me get this right, you love Jesus and God, and he offered you a chance to come hang out in Heaven and you said no? That don't make no kind of sense.
I find TV preachers a blight on the church. ever seen the music video Genesis did on this, its rather good.
However I believe I know where I am going after death I am actually quite happy to remain where I am right now, so are many other people with similar faith. We still mourn if a loved one dies who beleives in Jesus, becasuse we miss them, even if we believe strongly they are in heaven.
Is that the one with the cabbage patch looking puppets and the scene at the end, where IIRC Reagan reaches for the call nurse button, but hits "nuke" instead? That was kind of cool
Not sure if it's the one Orlanth is talking about, but the video you're thinking of is "Land of Confusion".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MzShg7yXik
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
I can´t remeber the name of the other song either. I would say "Personal Jesus" but that´s a Depeche Mode song from Violator... I remebered "Jesus, he knows me" is the name.
BTW the puppets were a satire program called Spitting Image, gorgeous and funny as hell.
M.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
"Your Own Personal Jesus"...
There's an awesome cover by Johnny Cash, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcNiD0Z3MU
241
Post by: Ahtman
I never knew there was a video for this.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Ahtman wrote:
I never knew there was a video for this.
That's actually the video for his cover of 'Hurt' (Which is better than the original, go figure). Someone did some editing is all...but do watch the 'Hurt' video by Cash. Good stuff.
As to the JW, I consider them a death cult...of course I consider Muslims/Christians death cults too...
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
When I was an angry young man, I would respond to religious nuts at my door with my R. Lee Ermy impression. Good times. However, I mellowed some in the following years. The last time one of them accosted me, I was at the low point right before I decided to stop drinking and my response was to throw up all over this meek old lady in a cheap flowered dress. Not on purpose, but a hangover does what it will. Now, the only people who come to my door are little kids selling candy bars, which I cannot resist and a local teenager who cuts my lawn, because I'm lazy. My official stance on religion is that I don't know what's out there and nobody is going to get me in their camp. When I die, which will probably be after a long stay in a really horrible nursing home or next week on the toilet, then I'll deal with what's next, if anything without their help.
6176
Post by: thesuperiorninja
Wraithwing wrote:I had to laugh at the glarng inaccuracys in this thread as to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe
I'm a JW, and your all making me laugh, its most amusing. Please continue
I am a former JW and I do agree with you. Most of what people are saying here are either flat out wrong or taken out of context and to get into a drawn out debate would be pointless. Although I do find it interesting that you are on this site. I'm pretty sure that if you are a JW, you believe it, you are working to become baptized and live on the paradise earth that you would not be involved in a game that contains the following:
1. Killing
2. Blasphemes (God-Emperor and whatnot)
3. The Chaos (Daemons)
4. Slavery
If you are a true JW then you would have nothing to do with this game or this site...so tell us...what brings you here?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Well, the Pope has now officially abolished Purgatory...so how long until they decide the game is up and admit all this God stuff is just made up?
It is one thing to offer hope to those in need, it is quite another to use your views in an attempt to gather wealth and control peoples lives.....
7413
Post by: Squig_herder
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:We used to hide from them and pretend not to be home.
I havn't had one at my door for years and years now.
Much worse are the cold calling 'surveys' or 'deals' the telemarketers ring with. Now I answer with a 'hello?', count to 3 and if no answer they will be in India and I hang up.
I love telemarketers, you try and waste as much time as possible, just says things like, oh my dog is out hold on and stuff, i've kept one wait fr 40 minutes and at the end said, mate i only counted 9 meows so bye, to confuse him so bad lol
514
Post by: Orlanth
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, the Pope has now officially abolished Purgatory...so how long until they decide the game is up and admit all this God stuff is just made up?
Admit? A bit loaded that isn't it. Perhaps they beleive God is real, I do.
For that matter I met a man who came back from the morgue after being 8 hours dead, he knows what he saw is real. So faith is not so hard for me anymore.
Besides Popes do not have an authority to 'abolish Purgatory' they cane decide not to preach it anymore, but if it is real it hasnt suddenly disappeared, which is what you are implying. Purgatory is unscriptural though and is a medieval add on. There is just a heaven and a hell, or to be really picky three 'heavens' and two 'hells'.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I believe one of the central tenats of Roman Catholocism is that what we hold true on Earth will also be True in Heaven.
Ergo, Pope says there is no Purgatory, then thats that.
6176
Post by: thesuperiorninja
I think that God exists only to those who believe he does.
"Reality is the illusion. It's what's in your mind that's real." I can't remember who said this
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I just struggle with the concept of a perfect, omnipotent, omniprescent being somehow creating not only all things, but all things so inherently flawed.
How can a perfect being conceive of imperfection without prior reference to it?
And if a God is not ominpotent, perfect and omniprescent, then by definition, it is not a God.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Orlanth wrote:
For that matter I met a man who came back from the morgue after being 8 hours dead, he knows what he saw is real. So faith is not so hard for me anymore.
'Near-death' experiences are no evidence of God. When someone reads such stories they can make two assumptions;
1. God decided of all the thousands that die every day, out of all of the misery occuring in the world; This one individual is going to see Grandma and come back.
Or
2. As their brain is suffering hypoxia and ischemia, it begins to fire erratically and they do their best to make sense of the misfires. This is in addition to countless other biological changes, for example;
"The light was so incredibly bright, it must have been *Insert religous preference of paradise*!"
Or
His pupils were dilated due to oxygen starvation and allowed 100 more times light to enter his eyes than normal.
This is no different than the wise men who went into the desert, starved and dehydrates their bodies..then mysteriously had 'visions'. Might as well pop an Ecstasy...at least it will feel good while God talks to you  .
As to your friend, dead in the morgue for 8 hours eh? You have a link?
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
thesuperiorninja wrote:Wraithwing wrote:I had to laugh at the glarng inaccuracys in this thread as to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe
I'm a JW, and your all making me laugh, its most amusing. Please continue
I am a former JW and I do agree with you. Most of what people are saying here are either flat out wrong or taken out of context and to get into a drawn out debate would be pointless. Although I do find it interesting that you are on this site. I'm pretty sure that if you are a JW, you believe it, you are working to become baptized and live on the paradise earth that you would not be involved in a game that contains the following:
1. Killing
2. Blasphemes (God-Emperor and whatnot)
3. The Chaos (Daemons)
4. Slavery
If you are a true JW then you would have nothing to do with this game or this site...so tell us...what brings you here?
I was about to ask them same thing seeing as something as harmless as Tai-bo is not allowed and they are actively discouraged from war-based games. I would also like to point out that the latest edicts (about 3 months or so ago) also discouraged the use of non-JW on-line forum type thing. My brother in law had and many others shut down their myspace account.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
"Reality is the illusion. It's what's in your mind that's real." I can't remember who said this
Morpheus, maybe....
I just struggle with the concept of a perfect, omnipotent, omniprescent being somehow creating not only all things, but all things so inherently flawed.
How can a perfect being conceive of imperfection without prior reference to it?
And if a God is not ominpotent, perfect and omniprescent, then by definition, it is not a God.
I. SECOND. THAT.
Besides, if there really was omnipotent...etc. and he would be one of the good guys he would've shut down this world centuries ago....
6176
Post by: thesuperiorninja
Another complaint I have with the whole God debate is that if the first humans, Adam and Eve, were by all rights "perfect" then even with free will they would have been able to reason that believing the talking snake about the tree was a bad idea. Also on that same note, Lucifer, while still in heaven, would have known that if he tried to challenge God's rule he would in the end lose. The bible is full of accounts where "perfect" individuals are extemely flawed. Contradiction cake anyone? Courtesy of the bible
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
On the subject of Adam and Eve, Freewill and that...
One of the other tenets of most Christian Religions is that of hell.
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression God gave me free will. Therefore, who is he to punish me for exercising said free will? And if this God is so benevolent and loving, can you kindly explain why His word has, traditionally, been spread at the end of a sword or gun? Not a very impressive omnipresent etc deity if he only spoke to one tiny corner of the world now, is he?
And, at the end of the day, since Evolution proves that the Earth was not made by God, the rest of the Bible, surely, must be equally bobbins? And in calling the Christian faith to account, it is only fair to call shenanigans on all other Religions and Faiths as man made structures.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And, at the end of the day, since Evolution proves that the Earth was not made by God, the rest of the Bible, surely, must be equally bobbins? And in calling the Christian faith to account, it is only fair to call shenanigans on all other Religions and Faiths as man made structures.
Not getting into the religious debate, but evolution ( that is what I beileve you mean by that) says nothing about how the Earth, or life for that matter, came into being. Evolution explains all sorts of things about how organisms originate and change over time, but does not have anything to do with the origin of Earth ( has nothing to do with biology) or even the origin of life. That is a common misconception.
6176
Post by: thesuperiorninja
Agreed and even if it did, it's just a theory. Don't get me wrong I believe that evolution is the most likely process of how the current species got to where they were but it's still just a theory. Doesn't really prove anything one way or the other...neither does religion.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Grignard wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And, at the end of the day, since Evolution proves that the Earth was not made by God, the rest of the Bible, surely, must be equally bobbins? And in calling the Christian faith to account, it is only fair to call shenanigans on all other Religions and Faiths as man made structures.
Not getting into the religious debate, but evolution ( that is what I beileve you mean by that) says nothing about how the Earth, or life for that matter, came into being. Evolution explains all sorts of things about how organisms originate and change over time, but does not have anything to do with the origin of Earth ( has nothing to do with biology) or even the origin of life. That is a common misconception.
I almost agree with you, if it wasn't for the absolutism. Molecular evolution might very well explain abiogenesis and in my opinion, is the best theory of how life started on earth. This will boil down to how one defines life...
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
thesuperiorninja wrote:Agreed and even if it did, it's just a theory. Don't get me wrong I believe that evolution is the most likely process of how the current species got to where they were but it's still just a theory. Doesn't really prove anything one way or the other...neither does religion.
Evolution is just at theory in the same manner that gravity is just a theory. Evolution and religion are polar opposites; One is based on evidence, the other is not.
I do agree that evolution fails to disprove God, then again it's not evolutions job to prove a negative. It's up to the religious to prove God  .
666
Post by: Necros
Most of the bad stuff in the bible is there to scare people into trying to lead good lives. That's just the way people's minds worked back in the day. Everything bad or violent in religion comes from psycho people using it as an excuse to do psychotic things, if they didn't have religion, they'd just find another cause to kill people for. Angels wielding big swords was just an earlier man's way of saying "yeah these guys are super tough and they stab the devil all the time!" instead of "They'll cut your head off if you cheat on your wife"
In this day and age, it all translates to "don't be a dick"
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Necros wrote:...if they didn't have religion, they'd just find another cause to kill people for. Angels wielding big swords was just an earlier man's way of saying "yeah these guys are super tough and they stab the devil all the time!" instead of "They'll cut your head off if you cheat on your wife"
In this day and age, it all translates to "don't be a dick"
I don't agree with dismissing religion as an equal vent of dogmatism compared to other social constructs. In the past, tribalism/nationalism had some qualities of blind belief...but we've began to evolve our government beyond that point (Blind faith is not necessary for government). Religion on the other hand, 'relies' on dogmatism. You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who believes faith is a virtue.
I do agree with your great point on how religion is a reflection of culture (If anything, this cements thoughts on religion being man made). Look how religion has evolved over the years, due to the zeitgeist in which it found itself. We gradually shape religion, as due to the ignorance of the original scribes, it could be no other way.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I see where Religion stemmed from, I really do.
Once upon a time, Johnny Peasent is in the fields, whistling away merrily on a fine Tuesday morning. Suddenly, it starts to rain, and flashes light the sky. He heads for cover, and see's his hovel, with his wife and children inside, burning. He can here their screams.
Upset and confused, he goes to the Wiseman or Shaman and asks what it's all about. The answer he gets? 'Ah, well, you see. God doesn't like people whislting on a Tuesday. Never do that again, and he won't do that again. K?'
Religion starts out as a very, very basic form of science. Attempts at explaining the world around us.
Then, at some point, it becomes a way of controlling the populace and getting away with absolute murder....
514
Post by: Orlanth
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I believe one of the central tenats of Roman Catholocism is that what we hold true on Earth will also be True in Heaven.
Ergo, Pope says there is no Purgatory, then thats that.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
The Biblical quote from which you draw this doctrine has been taken out of context. IIRC the Roman Ctholic church itself does not interpret it the way you do.
The quote from Matthew 16:19 refers "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
It refers to the power of intercessory prayer. Binding and loosing are spiritual terms regarding to authority over spirits. It is not a 'wish spell'.
Now you might have had slightly more of a point if you quoted that Jesus does promise in John 14:14: "You may ask anything in my name, and I will do it".
But that what we ask in His name, powered by faith in Him is by definition done within living a life in conjunction with his agenda. So it doesn't translate as an unlimited 'wish spell' even if you had unlimited faith, more an opportunity to ask for what Jesus wants to do anyway. You cannot out-small print God.
514
Post by: Orlanth
thesuperiorninja wrote:I think that God exists only to those who believe he does.
"Reality is the illusion. It's what's in your mind that's real." I can't remember who said this
I can respect your paradigm. It comes down to interpretation, what one would call good luck another would call blessing. However it also comes down to experience and not all are honest with what they see, and this goes both ways.
One of the Biblical verses that puzzled me was how Jesus healed eleven blind people, and only one believed afterwards. Dont make the mistake of thinking our religious belifs in or against a God or Gods are rational. They are heart not mind issues, faith is a choice. This is why "religion vs science" is a problem, some say that science disproves reliogionm, or that the religious cannot be scientists. This is as blind a 'faith' as I have seen. Atheism is a religion, and it too has its share of gurus, martyrs and bloody fanatics.
I do not know your quote but I have a good one that says more or less the same thing. From Aldous Huxley, a noted atheist apologist:
(from memory) "I do not beleive in God, so it is easy to find reasons for my disbelief."
514
Post by: Orlanth
quote=Orlanth]
For that matter I met a man who came back from the morgue after being 8 hours dead, he knows what he saw is real. So faith is not so hard for me anymore.
'Near-death' experiences are no evidence of God. When someone reads such stories they can make two assumptions;
There is plenty of ancilliary evidence, and the journey of light is a linking factor. Not all were on their backs with hospital lights in their eyes when it happened. Now some might be lying, others might have tunnel of light because it is well known and dreamed it, but all? Your faith in no-God is quite strong you know to go that far.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
This is no different than the wise men who went into the desert, starved and dehydrates their bodies..then mysteriously had 'visions'. Might as well pop an Ecstasy...at least it will feel good while God talks to you  .
Perhaps, but Amerindians used the dream pipe to good effect, and they claim the visions were often prophetic and useful.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
As to your friend, dead in the morgue for 8 hours eh? You have a link?
Friendly, and I met him twice now, but he is not a friend per se. I met him first in '94, and very briefly about two years ago.
But yes I do have a link:
http://aglimpseofeternity.org/content.php?folder_id=1
I got the duration wrong, sorry about that. He was dead for 15 minutes ( IIRC it takes three to completely irrevocably cabbage the brain). Eight hours must have been someone else, there are quite a lot of resurrection stories about. In any event he had several times the lethal dose from Box Jellyfish venom.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:On the subject of Adam and Eve, Freewill and that...
One of the other tenets of most Christian Religions is that of hell.
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression God gave me free will.
Therefore, who is he to punish me for exercising said free will?
The Bible is very deep you know. You are trying to delve into the deep stuff and find problems when you have very little idea of the basics. It would be like saying you dont beleive in arithmetic because you dont understand quantum science.
Most theologicans see Adam and Eve as a parable, we can see they are collective identities because of where Cain got his wife - who would not exist if Adam and Eve and his sons were the only human inhabitants of planet earth.
Free will is a difficult subject to uderstand, it is existentialism and like most other existential theories and arguements secular and religious it is deep deep stuff. However put as simply as possible here are two clarifying statements: One semi-secular that can be taken with or without God, one religious and regarding to Hell:
Free Will is inherent in humans. Free will has consequences. These consequences can either help or hinder yourself and/or others. To remove the ability to make decisions that have consequences to harm is to remove free will. This can either happen pro-actively by controlling the individuals mind, or retro-actively by acting against wrongdoing, either to punish or to restore.
God gives humans free will. God made hell as a wastebin for evil. God runs a volunteer hell, it is up to you if you want to go there. A free escape pass is available to all, no fee, no charge.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And if this God is so benevolent and loving, can you kindly explain why His word has, traditionally, been spread at the end of a sword or gun? Not a very impressive omnipresent etc deity if he only spoke to one tiny corner of the world now, is he?
If you go to a football match, and some yobbos also do who beat up the other teams supporters and local grannies. Do they represent your team? No. Dont blame God for his fan club. In fact you will find that He will likely disown many of them.
Anyone who says "convert or die" at the point of a gun is by defination of action not a Christian. "You will know them by their fruit." In incidentally you can mix all I have written here together, so someone who butchers in the name of Jesus can himself repent and be considered holy.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And, at the end of the day, since Evolution proves that the Earth was not made by God,....
Ok. Nice bit of ignorance there. Atheism has hijacked evolution, as and of itself it says nothing about God. The concept of Intelligent Design has risen to say essentially 'Evolution is a tool of God', now we have a better idea how he does things. I do not consider this a necessaary defence. God is. If you study the Bible a lot is not as it appears.
Creation in seven days? Elsewhere (wont find quotes right now) it says to God "a thousand years is like a day and a day like a thousand years". The number thousand isnt even exact, it is refeed to also mean 'a lot'. Also God existing outside of spacetime need not do things in a chronological order, yes Genesis 1 is taken from His perspective (whos else is there?).
I believe in the literal truth of the Bible, but define literal? Literal does not mean face value.
After all a lot of the unthinking will say. 'I beleive in the seventh day advent.'
I say (un)to them; 'Then do you beleive in the literal word of God.'
Normally they say yes.
Therefore; 'Suffer not a witch to live.' (there are many equally harsh bits elsewhere, but this one is well known)
Should you go burn heretics?
They of course rightly say, no its not to be taken literally that way, this is a prophetic type*
So you beleive in interpretation?
Good. Now interpret Genesis in a non literal way, it is not heresy to do so.
* A discussion ofr another time.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
God created all mankind, and yet only revealed himself to one small group of people.
Not benevolent or caring in the least. According to Christian Beliefs, non-believers go to Hell, correct?
So what of those Humans who died, and allegedly wound up in hell, through no fault other than God not revealing himself to them?
What of the Roman Gods, Greek Gods, Persian Gods? They had their share of true believers. Were they wrong? How come their Gods are claimed to be made up, yet the Christian/Judaic/Islamic God is claimed to be real.
5030
Post by: Grignard
AgeOfEgos wrote: You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who believes faith is a virtue.
Well, I think you can have a rational discussion about faith ( actually religion.... dogma, ethics, theodicy, eschatology, whatever) just not about empirical methods to prove the existence of God or the spiritual nature of man. Religion, by definition, requires some degree of faith on the part of the believer, as they are *believers* after all.
Orlath, though I'm sure you all will fall over each other to criticize him, call him stupid, whatever, has made a statement of faith. I have every reason from his posts that he is a well educated, rational person, but that isn't the point. This entire argument basically arises from the differences between two views of nature.
The bottom line is that Orlath, for instance, has faith, while others, including myself, do not. Most of you probably feel that your lack of blind faith is representative of strong character, you might even use the term "progressive" to describe it. My argument is that I feel, for myself, that it is a weakness. I often feel that I'm just not able to access a manner of thinking or sensing that most people around me seem to have. I think it is analagous to having light or colors described to you if you are blind.
What I want to know about people who are vocal about their atheism, and start these sort of arguments, is what do you stand to gain or what are you trying to prove? Do you really enjoy having constant doubt? My way of thinking about it is that at this point, I'm perfectly willing to believe something that may not strictly be "fact", in the sense that it is consistent and repeatedly observable, in order to have peace of mind, if I only could.
Concerning scientific and religious world views, well, I am a laboratory scientist so I am conditioned to look at things a certain way. For me, however, it is just my job five days a week. I don't hold any real passion for championing an empirical or rational world view anymore. Why would I? Again, I'd trade all I know for peace of mind. I understand your atheism, in fact, I probably think you're right, but the fact remains that I would rather not think about it.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:God created all mankind, and yet only revealed himself to one small group of people.
Not benevolent or caring in the least. According to Christian Beliefs, non-believers go to Hell, correct?
So what of those Humans who died, and allegedly wound up in hell, through no fault other than God not revealing himself to them?
What of the Roman Gods, Greek Gods, Persian Gods? They had their share of true believers. Were they wrong? How come their Gods are claimed to be made up, yet the Christian/Judaic/Islamic God is claimed to be real.
That is only one interpretation Grotsnik. You're completely overlooking Universalism there. Also, there is a less, well, universal, blelief that is similar. I believe it is called Natural Christianity...I need to look that up again. Basically it is the belief that other gods are visions of the real God to those who have not been exposed to scripture ( or possibly versions of the Christian Satan). Essentially it is a Christianized version of Universalism.
Also the belief that those without faith are invariably hellbound is not universal for all Christians, or even the majority of Christians. Your hard-liners on that one tend, in this country at least, to be Baptists and Pentecostals.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
And because they are non-scriptured, all reference to them was destroyed as much as possible, their believers called heretics, and forcibly converted?
I do not believe, and most likely never will.
But like I mentioned earlier....Faith is a good thing. It gives those who need it most strength, even if it's a simpe faith that things cannot get any worse. But Religion...thats organised...thats malicious.
Catholic Church recently produced 7 new Deadly Sins, one of which is Obscene Wealth....hypocrites much?
514
Post by: Orlanth
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:God created all mankind, and yet only revealed himself to one small group of people.
Again you maker this mistake of jumping ionto the deep theology to find fault without having any grasp of the basics. If you take the Judeo-Christian religions yes. Things have to start somewhere.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not benevolent or caring in the least.
A sweeping statement oblivious to the central most basic tenets of Chritianity. The sacrifice on the cross is hardly an uncaring act.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
According to Christian Beliefs, non-believers go to Hell, correct?
Here we get to the deep waters, remember it is plain from your prior comments that you cant swim and should not this far out yet, as an informed atheist apologist or as a theologican.
Anyway here goes.
Nominally yes.
However we do not know about those who died without a chance to hear the faith.
The Book of Romans says that "The Gentiles are judged by their own consciences, sometimes condemning them, sometimes even commending them." However this verse has multiple meanings and it is pushing it at best to indicate it permits salvation for the unreached.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So what of those Humans who died, and allegedly wound up in hell, through no fault other than God not revealing himself to them?
There are strong indicators that this may not be the case. The first is found in the book of Hebrews, there the salvation of the old Testmanet people was explained. Simple They beleived God and God accredited them with righteousness.' Meaning they beleived God had some plan for their salvation even though the plan was not yet in existance. They got into Heaven on credit.
Now the question is how far do you take this?
Abraham is mentioned, asd is David. What about Naaman the Syrian, clearly an unbeliver and a Gentile who turned in repentance. Once you start adding Gentiles into the mix you open the doors to anyone who would beleive that God has a plan for their salvation but do not know what it is.
The second more pointient example comes from the Book of Samuel. David's son is dying, as a result of David's sin with Bethsheba. David puts on sackcloth and weeps for his son, asking God to relent. God does not and the child dies. David, rather than mourn his son gets up and puts on his Royal clothes. Because he knows that while his son cannot join him, he will in time join his son. the child made no expression of faith or beleif, yet here is one verse that indicates infant salvation.
You might at this point ask whether God was cruel by killing the child. In a way, but look where the child was going. To go to heaven is like winning the lottery, its nice when it happens, whatever the age. Also God alone knows (meant literally, not as a point of phrase) the child might have grown up to be evil, and gone to Hell. Others of Davids sons may have had that fate; but scripture tells us not to assume on the spiritual status of others in this respect: Repentance is easy.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What of the Roman Gods, Greek Gods, Persian Gods? They had their share of true believers. Were they wrong? How come their Gods are claimed to be made up, yet the Christian/Judaic/Islamic God is claimed to be real.
Fair question. This is where I have to be carful and respectufkl of the follower of another religion. They may well feel as strongly as I do that they follow the one true faith. On thisd end I respect the Moslems evangelists I met who tried to tell me that the way to Allah was through submission to his will as taught by the prophet Mohammed. Likelwise when a Jehovahs Witness, or a Chritian scientist , or a Mormon comes to your door. Dont get angry. THEY ARE TRYING TO DO YOU A FAVOUR.
Deaspite all this I am convinced they are thoroughly wrong, and they might think likewise of me.
I wont try to get you on a straight right/wrong level here based on Bible study. Because this question at least is one that demands frank and careful answer, and using one scripture against another set of scriptures is not fair.
However There are some interesting additional pointers.
Jesus is the name above all names. Consequently 'evil' uses it as a swearword. Noone swears 'oh Krishna' or 'oh Allah' except as a form of prayer. But many people say 'oh Jesus', or worse, usually worse as a direct profanity. I remember an Aliens comic where Jesus was the central character, or at least one could assume he was because his name appeared more an any other.
Signs and Wonders. There are plenty of examples of Christian healing. Sadly because of TV preachers after money and other conmen, and twisted lieing testimonies, many of the real cases get missed. Many of the miracles are quite profound. I am yet to hear of anything comperable in the name of Krishna or Allah, Rama or Buddha. Though some of the Buddhist mediation techniques can be quite impressive, and levitation is real.
there are others, but I dont want to turn this into an essay.
6176
Post by: thesuperiorninja
Orlanth wrote:
Most theologicans see Adam and Eve as a parable, we can see they are collective identities because of where Cain got his wife - who would not exist if Adam and Eve and his sons were the only human inhabitants of planet earth.
Sorry, small nitpicky detail. There were other sons and daughters besides Cain and Able. They just didn't quite get the fame in the bible that their big brothers did.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Orlanth wrote:
There is plenty of ancilliary evidence, and the journey of light is a linking factor. Not all were on their backs with hospital lights in their eyes when it happened. Now some might be lying, others might have tunnel of light because it is well known and dreamed it, but all? Your faith in no-God is quite strong you know to go that far.
I had this in my original reply, I assume it was missed;
His pupils were dilated due to oxygen starvation and allowed 100 more times light to enter his eyes than normal.
This does not require high intensity light and has been clinically observed in a hypoxic (dying) body;
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/near-death-experience.html
Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps, but Amerindians used the dream pipe to good effect, and they claim the visions were often prophetic and useful.
Yes, this is called confirmation bias. This is not unlike reading your horoscope and then making the situations of your day fit the generally broad context of the horoscope. I have yet to see one controlled study of a person telling the future. Randi has a million dollars if you can (He hasn't had to pay out yet);
http://www.randi.org/
Orlanth wrote:
Friendly, and I met him twice now, but he is not a friend per se. I met him first in '94, and very briefly about two years ago.
But yes I do have a link:
http://aglimpseofeternity.org/content.php?folder_id=1
I got the duration wrong, sorry about that. He was dead for 15 minutes ( IIRC it takes three to completely irrevocably cabbage the brain). Eight hours must have been someone else, there are quite a lot of resurrection stories about. In any event he had several times the lethal dose from Box Jellyfish venom.
There are no doubt several resurrection stories available on the internet, yet when they are challenged they are found to be false. Case in point, originally it was claimed he was dead for 8 hours...now it's more around 15 minutes (Slight change?). Which really is not 'that' much of a stretch considering he was receiving medical care. He should be thanking 'goodness' of the medical staff rather than 'God'. Personal stories of near death experience are no more measurable, verfiable or less 'true' than someone who is taking a recreational drug.
What if he stated while he was near death he saw God punishing your family for its sins...would you believe him at his word then?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
On the subject of other faiths, I once had the privelege of working with a number of very intelligent men (all Doctors) who happened to Muslim.
I was struck by their humblness about their faith, and how willing they were to talk about it openly and plainly.
Certainly a million miles from the spankers you see on TV using it as an excuse to cause trouble.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Grignard wrote:
Orlanth, though I'm sure you all will fall over each other to criticize him, call him stupid, whatever, has made a statement of faith. I have every reason from his posts that he is a well educated, rational person, but that isn't the point. This entire argument basically arises from the differences between two views of nature.
How true. The answer for everyone, inclusding myself is a declaration of Paradigm. no matter what we say or how we dress up our beleifs we are all biased. scientists, priests and theologicians all have that same human quality, which is belief.
Though one comment, I have not felt my views at any way under 'attack', honest debate and critique is welcome.
The trouble is those in religion who think all those who think unlike to them are heretics to be stamped on.
The trouble is all those who think that scientific method is truly impartial. Just looking at how theories are defended, and how people have their favourites. It is not a pure logical process. Science has its own heretics and fanatics, and many will not listen.
Grignard wrote:
The bottom line is that Orlanth, for instance, has faith, while others, including myself, do not. Most of you probably feel that your lack of blind faith is representative of strong character, you might even use the term "progressive" to describe it. My argument is that I feel, for myself, that it is a weakness. I often feel that I'm just not able to access a manner of thinking or sensing that most people around me seem to have. I think it is analagous to having light or colors described to you if you are blind.
We should not arrogant enough to think any one of us has a monopoly on truth. In fact I am sure that somewhere I am wrong, quite often in fact. Theology is theory, even in my ownn field there are other honest men of God who draw different conclusions to me. The declaration of Paradigm helps here, I know either once of us could be right, or we cluld both be wrong. It is when we both say we are rigfht that scisms develop. Some of the great schisms causing terrible loss of life has stemmed from disagreements as trivial as those on this thread. Albeit twisted by politicans in the religions for their own power play - which has nothing to do with real faith in God.
Grignard wrote:
Concerning scientific and religious world views, well, I am a laboratory scientist so I am conditioned to look at things a certain way. For me, however, it is just my job five days a week. I don't hold any real passion for championing an empirical or rational world view anymore. Why would I? Again, I'd trade all I know for peace of mind. I understand your atheism, in fact, I probably think you're right, but the fact remains that I would rather not think about it.
Trade 'truth' for piece of mind. Perhaps this is honest, perhaps it is dangerous. It reminds me of the Pythagorean Brotherhood. An ancient Greek society of open minded philosophers who lived in a commune. The key to its demise was a student of Pythagoras who asked the great man what the square root of two was. his number is one of the unending numbers like pi. To Pythagoras who believed in an ordered structure to the universe beginning with maths, an iregular number at the heart of his theorems was too much to bear. So he ordered his student killed.
Pilate, a most misunderstood man asked 'What is truth?'. So often it is put as a sort of politicians wishy washy get out by many preachers. I do not beleive so. If you read between the lines Pilate was impacted greatly by Jesus. Jesus never answered him, but earlier at the last supper her said to his disciples "I am the Way and the Truth and the life." But took me a long time to undetrstabnd those words, it was not as glib saying but a confidence booster telling his followers before he was gone, where they couldp lace their trust.
I have found my way. Good fortune in your search for yours.
514
Post by: Orlanth
thesuperiorninja wrote:Orlanth wrote:
Most theologicans see Adam and Eve as a parable, we can see they are collective identities because of where Cain got his wife - who would not exist if Adam and Eve and his sons were the only human inhabitants of planet earth.
Sorry, small nitpicky detail. There were other sons and daughters besides Cain and Able. They just didn't quite get the fame in the bible that their big brothers did.
True, but they were afterwards.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Grignard wrote:AgeOfEgos wrote: You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who believes faith is a virtue.
Well, I think you can have a rational discussion about faith ( actually religion.... dogma, ethics, theodicy, eschatology, whatever) just not about empirical methods to prove the existence of God or the spiritual nature of man. Religion, by definition, requires some degree of faith on the part of the believer, as they are *believers* after all.
Orlath, though I'm sure you all will fall over each other to criticize him, call him stupid, whatever, has made a statement of faith. I have every reason from his posts that he is a well educated, rational person, but that isn't the point. This entire argument basically arises from the differences between two views of nature.
The bottom line is that Orlath, for instance, has faith, while others, including myself, do not. Most of you probably feel that your lack of blind faith is representative of strong character, you might even use the term "progressive" to describe it. My argument is that I feel, for myself, that it is a weakness. I often feel that I'm just not able to access a manner of thinking or sensing that most people around me seem to have. I think it is analagous to having light or colors described to you if you are blind.
What I want to know about people who are vocal about their atheism, and start these sort of arguments, is what do you stand to gain or what are you trying to prove? Do you really enjoy having constant doubt? My way of thinking about it is that at this point, I'm perfectly willing to believe something that may not strictly be "fact", in the sense that it is consistent and repeatedly observable, in order to have peace of mind, if I only could.
Concerning scientific and religious world views, well, I am a laboratory scientist so I am conditioned to look at things a certain way. For me, however, it is just my job five days a week. I don't hold any real passion for championing an empirical or rational world view anymore. Why would I? Again, I'd trade all I know for peace of mind. I understand your atheism, in fact, I probably think you're right, but the fact remains that I would rather not think about it.
This is a fair question and one that I've heard from friends. Why do I care? Well, because it affects me and my children. I've seen the religious attempt to stifle rights in the form of abortion, stem cell research, homosexual marriage and justification for war. These are real issues and are being determined by a persons faith. Those issues will affect my children and are driven by faith. Which would bring me to my point of faith.
Faith is not a virtue. Dogma is not a spiritual progression, it is simply close minded thinking. If you allow a person to use faith in their beliefs, there is no rationalizing on the best course of action. As an example, Muslim extremists. Now I'm sure we can all agree that any organization that uses children and the mentally handicapped as living bombs is morally bankrupt. However, how does one prove that organization should not use that tactic when they claim it is their faith...when you advocate faith? You simply can't, as they believe just as feverently as your in their dogma. This is why I view dogma as dangerous.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And because they are non-scriptured, all reference to them was destroyed as much as possible, their believers called heretics, and forcibly converted?
I do not believe, and most likely never will.
Here the churches owe you an apology, and to many many other sceptics. Denominations start with a handful of people who love God and want to do His will. A generation later they grow and their sons take over who love god-ish and try to do His will. A generation later the denomination is getting quite strong and their sons are now in charge. They sort of believe and do Gods will if it is convenient to themselves. a generation later and the denomination is powerful. It is controlled by a politicians who takes advantage of its huge size who may or may not beleive in God, but will use the religion for his own ends anyway.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But like I mentioned earlier....Faith is a good thing. It gives those who need it most strength, even if it's a simpe faith that things cannot get any worse. But Religion...thats organised...thats malicious.
This iterates my point and vindicates your criticsim of the church. by all means hate the scum that give religion a bad name. But dont hate God on account of them, he is a nice guy and a reliable friend.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Catholic Church recently produced 7 new Deadly Sins, one of which is Obscene Wealth....hypocrites much?
Wealthy is not a sin in itself. But it can be a curse. If you have more, more is asked of you. You can be rich and go to heaven, its just harder to get a decent seat.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:On the subject of other faiths, I once had the privelege of working with a number of very intelligent men (all Doctors) who happened to Muslim.
I was struck by their humblness about their faith, and how willing they were to talk about it openly and plainly.
Certainly a million miles from the spankers you see on TV using it as an excuse to cause trouble.
I remember a Tv program of a jornalist who went accross the middle east, visiting all the hot spots. West Bank, Iraq, Iran etc to see their view of life and to tell their story. This was in the late 90's when it was quieter than it was now.
He mentioned in his editorial how he was so impressed with a quiet Moslem scholar he met, and if anyone got close to convince him to turn to Islam, it was him.
Its the quiet ones who live by example who make the mark. Sundar Singh was an Indian Christian mystic, who lived as a traditional sadhu (yellow robed travelling holy man) in the early 20th century. He beleived that he could be Indian and Christian both, not as multi faith but disgarding western trappings of Christianity. He used to go looking for an obscure sect, of Christians, that lived in secret. Apparently they were descendents of the first Indian Christians who had remained since Thomas first evangelised India.
Their MO was not to preach, never to preach, just to live honest lives, and when asked by someone they had been with a while, "how do you gain your strength to do good". Then and only then would they tell them. This made sense in a way, but different from the Roman tradition. It took Jesus words to heart that you are what you do, not what you say. They are still out there in India, somewhere.
514
Post by: Orlanth
AgeOfEgos wrote:
There are no doubt several resurrection stories available on the internet, yet when they are challenged they are found to be false. Case in point, originally it was claimed he was dead for 8 hours...now it's more around 15 minutes (Slight change?).
That was an honest mistake from memory on my part. I heard this testimony in 1994. Blame me alone for that innacuracy, not the testimony itself.
AgeOfEgos wrote:What if he stated while he was near death he saw God punishing your family for its sins...would you believe him at his word then?
Taking your words at face value I would be worried. Not all words from God are nice abnd sunny, some have an 'or else' attached. However they are there to avert trajedy not to bully. God does not gloat.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Orlanth wrote:AgeOfEgos wrote:
There are no doubt several resurrection stories available on the internet, yet when they are challenged they are found to be false. Case in point, originally it was claimed he was dead for 8 hours...now it's more around 15 minutes (Slight change?).
That was an honest mistake from memory on my part. I heard this testimony in 1994. Blame me alone for that innacuracy, not the testimony itself.
AgeOfEgos wrote:What if he stated while he was near death he saw God punishing your family for its sins...would you believe him at his word then?
Taking your words at face value I would be worried. Not all words from God are nice abnd sunny, some have an 'or else' attached. However they are there to avert trajedy not to bully. God does not gloat.
I wasn't blaming you for error in claim, I was more pointing out how these stories are started/built upon (Each version just a bit more incredible). When you fact-check the source however, you find dull, realistic details.
I find most of "Gods" words of the 'or else' variety. I apostrophe God, as given the errors/changes in the Bible..who the hell knows right?  Would you also accept the words of a pastor who tells you; God wishes you to kill your child as a show of faith...?
514
Post by: Orlanth
AgeOfEgos wrote:
This is a fair question and one that I've heard from friends. Why do I care? Well, because it affects me and my children. I've seen the religious attempt to stifle rights in the form of abortion, stem cell research, homosexual marriage and justification for war. These are real issues and are being determined by a persons faith. Those issues will affect my children and are driven by faith. Which would bring me to my point of faith.
ABORTION
Ok. Abortion was a grey area, not it is a rights area. I prefered abortion to remain a grey area because sometimes abortion is more justifiable than for others.
the dogma you are fearing is countered by another possibly more dangerous dogma. Political correctness.
Abortion became a 'human rights' issue, a hotbed of twisted dogma as dangerous as militant fundamenatilsm. In fact is is fundamentalism, just without a God. The rights of the mother become all. The rights of the child became nothing.
I prefered when it was a grey area. Aborting a deformed kid, or if you were the victim of as rape, or if the mothers life was in danger. That was fine, though as you would correctly say, not in the eyes of some relgious persons.
Here in the Uk two dogmas reared their heads together. Abortion became a human right, fox hunting became illegal. Both grey areas. While less grey for cruel sports when you compare what minorities can do because it is their culture, it becomes unfair to abolish a way of life seen normal in the countyside because it offends the majority in towns.
So you get the position now where it is klegal to kill a form of a child (being neutral innmy wording) as a result of your pleasures, but a crime to kill a fox as a result of your pleasures. it was better when this was a grey area.
STEM CELL RESEARCH
This has been yoyoing in parliaments and courts worldwide. The controversy is in what you do with the embryos. It would be very hard to find a relgious reason to consider it murder, but there are very good reasons for conscience groups, of which the churches are key, to be concerned where this is leading. Frankenscience is not alwayas a good thing.
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
Homosexuals can get civil partnerships, marriage as practiced in the western world is not a secular agreement. It has its roots firmly in the church. You are asking churches to themselves budge where they would and should not. Other religions have thier own marriages accepted by the state, if you want gay marriages make a gay faith, but dont force the church to change its standpoints because they are inconvenient to some. It makes as much sense as demanding Obama be made next leader of the Republican party.
It is PG dogam again, gay right this and that, but noone asks if the rights of ther religious are being sacrificed.
No I am not homophobic, far far from it. But that story is for another time.
JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR.
This one makes me as upset as it does you. Hardcore preachers who call for what is essentially a crusade against Islam. A lot of that stems for a lot of hardcore Zionism in some Christian communities. They take the Israel is holy line fromm the Bible too far - it is true, but you should read the small print. However to them nearly all actions by Israel is justified, and critique of them is heresy and of course by extension most arabs are evil ad should be purged. Israel takes advantage of this, and from what I have heard considers the Zionist Bible belt preachers as nus but useful tools.
This is only a problem in the USA fortunately, though sadly there are individuals in churches in the UK who beleive this outlook. I have met some myself two were in my church, some are reasonable kind and educated people until you disagree with them on this issue. It was like a switch going on, like a cylon trigger, eventually I left that church.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
Faith is not a virtue. Dogma is not a spiritual progression, it is simply close minded thinking. If you allow a person to use faith in their beliefs, there is no rationalizing on the best course of action.
I hope I have been recognised as demonstating open minded disagreement with you here AgeOfEgos. My posts have been extended a bit to make sure I was clear in what I write to all these difficult questions and comments.
I must warn you (not in a fire and brimstone way) not to consider others as closed minded as a blanket statement. It proves closed mindedness, but not on their part. To show example repeatedly on this thread I have been careful to point out positive outlooks from interactions with people with whome I am in complete disagreement in terms of doctrine.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
As an example, Muslim extremists. Now I'm sure we can all agree that any organization that uses children and the mentally handicapped as living bombs is morally bankrupt. However, how does one prove that organization should not use that tactic when they claim it is their faith...when you advocate faith? You simply can't, as they believe just as feverently as your in their dogma. This is why I view dogma as dangerous.
Ok. I am no Moslem and I dont beleive in Islam. In fact I consider it dangerous even without Al Quaeda. However not all, in fact not even a majority of devout Moslems are 'evil'. If I can admit that, having no common ground, what of you?
Also in the UK the church forsaw the rise of militant Islam. But wheras in the past the church was listened to by the state in recent years it has not been. churches understand religion better than secular politicians. we can tell when a denomination is about to go bang. Why was this not listened to: Political correctness, a dogma of multiculturalism = good, established church culture = bad.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Orlanth wrote:AgeOfEgos wrote:
This is a fair question and one that I've heard from friends. Why do I care? Well, because it affects me and my children. I've seen the religious attempt to stifle rights in the form of abortion, stem cell research, homosexual marriage and justification for war. These are real issues and are being determined by a persons faith. Those issues will affect my children and are driven by faith. Which would bring me to my point of faith.
ABORTION
Ok. Abortion was a grey area, not it is a rights area. I prefered abortion to remain a grey area because sometimes abortion is more justifiable than for others.
the dogma you are fearing is countered by another possibly more dangerous dogma. Political correctness.
Abortion became a 'human rights' issue, a hotbed of twisted dogma as dangerous as militant fundamenatilsm. In fact is is fundamentalism, just without a God. The rights of the mother become all. The rights of the child became nothing.
I prefered when it was a grey area. Aborting a deformed kid, or if you were the victim of as rape, or if the mothers life was in danger. That was fine, though as you would correctly say, not in the eyes of some relgious persons.
Here in the Uk two dogmas reared their heads together. Abortion became a human right, fox hunting became illegal. Both grey areas. While less grey for cruel sports when you compare what minorities can do because it is their culture, it becomes unfair to abolish a way of life seen normal in the countyside because it offends the majority in towns.
So you get the position now where it is klegal to kill a form of a child (being neutral innmy wording) as a result of your pleasures, but a crime to kill a fox as a result of your pleasures. it was better when this was a grey area.
STEM CELL RESEARCH
This has been yoyoing in parliaments and courts worldwide. The controversy is in what you do with the embryos. It would be very hard to find a relgious reason to consider it murder, but there are very good reasons for conscience groups, of which the churches are key, to be concerned where this is leading. Frankenscience is not alwayas a good thing.
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
Homosexuals can get civil partnerships, marriage as practiced in the western world is not a secular agreement. It has its roots firmly in the church. You are asking churches to themselves budge where they would and should not. Other religions have thier own marriages accepted by the state, if you want gay marriages make a gay faith, but dont force the church to change its standpoints because they are inconvenient to some. It makes as much sense as demanding Obama be made next leader of the Republican party.
It is PG dogam again, gay right this and that, but noone asks if the rights of ther religious are being sacrificed.
No I am not homophobic, far far from it. But that story is for another time.
JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR.
This one makes me as upset as it does you. Hardcore preachers who call for what is essentially a crusade against Islam. A lot of that stems for a lot of hardcore Zionism in some Christian communities. They take the Israel is holy line fromm the Bible too far - it is true, but you should read the small print. However to them nearly all actions by Israel is justified, and critique of them is heresy and of course by extension most arabs are evil ad should be purged. Israel takes advantage of this, and from what I have heard considers the Zionist Bible belt preachers as nus but useful tools.
This is only a problem in the USA fortunately, though sadly there are individuals in churches in the UK who beleive this outlook. I have met some myself two were in my church, some are reasonable kind and educated people until you disagree with them on this issue. It was like a switch going on, like a cylon trigger, eventually I left that church.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
Faith is not a virtue. Dogma is not a spiritual progression, it is simply close minded thinking. If you allow a person to use faith in their beliefs, there is no rationalizing on the best course of action.
I hope I have been recognised as demonstating open minded disagreement with you here AgeOfEgos. My posts have been extended a bit to make sure I was clear in what I write to all these difficult questions and comments.
I must warn you (not in a fire and brimstone way) not to consider others as closed minded as a blanket statement. It proves closed mindedness, but not on their part. To show example repeatedly on this thread I have been careful to point out positive outlooks from interactions with people with whome I am in complete disagreement in terms of doctrine.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
As an example, Muslim extremists. Now I'm sure we can all agree that any organization that uses children and the mentally handicapped as living bombs is morally bankrupt. However, how does one prove that organization should not use that tactic when they claim it is their faith...when you advocate faith? You simply can't, as they believe just as feverently as your in their dogma. This is why I view dogma as dangerous.
Ok. I am no Moslem and I dont beleive in Islam. In fact I consider it dangerous even without Al Quaeda. However not all, in fact not even a majority of devout Moslems are 'evil'. If I can admit that, having no common ground, what of you?
Also in the UK the church forsaw the rise of militant Islam. But wheras in the past the church was listened to by the state in recent years it has not been. churches understand religion better than secular politicians. we can tell when a denomination is about to go bang. Why was this not listened to: Political correctness, a dogma of multiculturalism = good, established church culture = bad.
I get this alot...as it usually takes 15 minutes to figure out how a particular religious person views their religion (It varies from person to person, a faith is not reasonable). This would be my point. If you have views based on your faith then you cannot critique others on their faith based beliefs--as there is no measurement of accuracy.
Also, I did not say Muslims were evil. I said Muslim extremists were morally bankrupt..not unlike Christians that bomb abortion clinics and harass staff/patients. They have no basis for their views other than blind faith. You cannot simpy discount dogmatism when it fails to agree with your specific dogma....the 'faith' is the problem. You have no religous right to tell those whom ban all abortion, all homosexual unions or advocate the war to bring on the end of times...as you have no firm ground to stand on...it's their 'faith'. Curious though, how do you stand on the issues?
Homosexual marriage; There are churches willing to marry them, law should provide they have that opportunity. Agree or disagree?
Abortion; Mothers should have the right to terminate their pregnancy for any reason they choose. Agree or disagree?
514
Post by: Orlanth
AgeOfEgos wrote:
I get this alot...as it usually takes 15 minutes to figure out how a particular religious person views their religion (It varies from person to person, a faith is not reasonable). This would be my point. If you have views based on your faith then you cannot critique others on their faith based beliefs--as there is no measurement of accuracy.
So your position, is after 15 minutes grace (- at least you give them a chance!); a person is often deemed too religious to hold a rational opinion that both of you can qualify on the same grounds?
AgeOfEgos wrote:
Also, I did not say Muslims were evil. I said Muslim extremists were morally bankrupt..not unlike Christians that bomb abortion clinics and harass staff/patients. They have no basis for their views other than blind faith. You cannot simpy discount dogmatism when it fails to agree with your specific dogma....the 'faith' is the problem. You have no religous right to tell those whom ban all abortion, all homosexual unions or advocate the war to bring on the end of times...as you have no firm ground to stand on...it's their 'faith'. Curious though, how do you stand on the issues?
I gave my opinions on those issues, however if I read your post correctly you switched off from reading them part way through hence the "I get this alot" start to your reply.
Gorbachev had a wonderful quote. "a statesman is made not from the ability to speak but the ability to listen." Paraphrased from memory. Sometimes it is difficult to read through or listen through to someone when you already belive in your own mind that they are wrong. it is a challenge to overcome.
However I had not answered you on bombing abortion clinics and victimisation of staff. That is 100% not acceptable. I am yet to find any Christian who thinks otherwise, though I know many who are very firm on their beliefs on abortion.
As for psersuading peiople not to have abortions, that is just another form of preaching, which might or might not be welcome depending on how it is done. Of itself I have no problems with that, but harassment of people by picketing clinics is not helpful because it does not reflect the compassion of Jesus. Remember he didn't throw that stone at the 'sinful woman', so neither should we if we claim to be good.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
Homosexual marriage; There are churches willing to marry them, law should provide they have that opportunity. Agree or disagree?
Abortion; Mothers should have the right to terminate their pregnancy for any reason they choose. Agree or disagree?
Disagree on both counts, but with clarification required.
Gay marriage. This should be a civil marriage under law, the same as any other secular marriage, so tax breaks ansd legal rights etc all apply. However churches that marry homosexuals are in the wrong. Homosexuality should not have an active part in the church, yet the church gets sued by gays for not including them. Its is like me suing a mosque or synagogue for discrimination for not letting me become a rabbi or an imam.
Abortion. This was best left as a grey area. Women did have abortions for any reason they chose, but didn't have this as a human right. As a Christian I beleive in God given conscience. Even with no fundies with placards around I do beleive most people who have abortions get a guilt trip; just like most people who do wrong do. The PC angle is an angry backlash saying "we are not doing wrong, you are for not agreeing with us." It tries to shift the blame.
Also this is a dripping tap attack, the maximum age of abortion is slowly drifting up and upm, and abortion groups are asking for more and more time. when at the later stages of the legal abortion limits there is no doubt the dead thing that comes out is a child. have you seen what trhey look like.
Morning after pills I have little problem with.
You ask for agree/disagree, but these are not yes/no issues except to the unthinking, but grey areas with good reason on each side. Law society and morality if FULL of grey areas, honest dilemma is a part of life. The churches are part of the guides that steer society through them. You might not like it all the time, but a lot of what you consider good in society also comes from the church's cultural influence, though it may be invisible to you, you might even think it part of the secular state. In some cases it is now part of the secular state, and the church has been disenfranchised, often to a detriment in standards. Education is a good excample.
The trouble is you might think, to remove religion is to gain freedom from dogma. Please dont be naive. Dogma is regretably part of the human animal, and as Cicero said "man is a political animal." If narrow minded priests leave your scene equally narrow minded PC accusers, politicians, demagogues and popular scientists replace them. So long as people remain unenlightened (i.e. always) there will always be someone trying to rabble rouse or stir up a good scare. In the meantime decent people who love God and do no harm get lined up with all the rest and labelled by the latest brand of fanatic trying to build their own powerbase. it has happened before, and it will happen again.
688
Post by: lord_sutekh
It is PG dogam again, gay right this and that, but noone asks if the rights of ther religious are being sacrificed.
There is no right to enforce your view of a LEGAL institution (which is what it becomes, when it is regulated by a government, no matter its origin) on other people. A church, as a religious entity, may decline to perform same-sex marriages; the government, under a basis of equality, has no right to deny the legality of it.
If you prefer to retain the "sanctity" of marriage (although how it can be sacred when it can be done and undone in a drive-thru over a weekend is beyond me), remove its legal connotations. Push the government to only legally recognize civil unions (equality for all), and keep marriage as the faith-based state of being.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Orlanth wrote:
So your position, is after 15 minutes grace (- at least you give them a chance!); a person is often deemed too religious to hold a rational opinion that both of you can qualify on the same grounds?
Don't get upset, that is not what I said and no fair minded reader would think so. What I stated was that it usually takes 15 minutes to figure our a particular persons religion, as all are based on dogma. For example, while this Christian might believe any abortion is murder and therefore bombing clinics is justified...this christian may believe abortion in cases of rape is justified, etc. What they all have in common is no rationality for their belief other than their faith. You cannot critque their faith anymore than they can yours...as neither of you have anything but blind emotion and interpretations of error laden manuscripts to fall back on. In the new age of technology, this is proving even more cumbersome for people of faith...as the desert dwelling bible beaters of old had no clue that cells, microorganisms or kangaroos existed.
Orlanth wrote:
I gave my opinions on those issues, however if I read your post correctly you switched off from reading them part way through hence the "I get this alot" start to your reply.
Gorbachev had a wonderful quote. "a statesman is made not from the ability to speak but the ability to listen." Paraphrased from memory. Sometimes it is difficult to read through or listen through to someone when you already belive in your own mind that they are wrong. it is a challenge to overcome.
I almost didn't quote this, as it basically boils down to an ad hominem but I did want to make this point. I will believe something if someone shows me evidence or rationality for my acceptance of it. I will not believe something simply because you have an emotional investment in it. That is white noise to me.
Orlanth wrote:
Disagree on both counts, but with clarification required.
Gay marriage. This should be a civil marriage under law, the same as any other secular marriage, so tax breaks ansd legal rights etc all apply. However churches that marry homosexuals are in the wrong. Homosexuality should not have an active part in the church, yet the church gets sued by gays for not including them. Its is like me suing a mosque or synagogue for discrimination for not letting me become a rabbi or an imam.
Abortion. This was best left as a grey area. Women did have abortions for any reason they chose, but didn't have this as a human right. As a Christian I beleive in God given conscience. Even with no fundies with placards around I do beleive most people who have abortions get a guilt trip; just like most people who do wrong do. The PC angle is an angry backlash saying "we are not doing wrong, you are for not agreeing with us." It tries to shift the blame.
Also this is a dripping tap attack, the maximum age of abortion is slowly drifting up and upm, and abortion groups are asking for more and more time. when at the later stages of the legal abortion limits there is no doubt the dead thing that comes out is a child. have you seen what trhey look like.
Morning after pills I have little problem with.
You ask for agree/disagree, but these are not yes/no issues except to the unthinking, but grey areas with good reason on each side. Law society and morality if FULL of grey areas, honest dilemma is a part of life. The churches are part of the guides that steer society through them. You might not like it all the time, but a lot of what you consider good in society also comes from the church's cultural influence, though it may be invisible to you, you might even think it part of the secular state. In some cases it is now part of the secular state, and the church has been disenfranchised, often to a detriment in standards. Education is a good excample.
The trouble is you might think, to remove religion is to gain freedom from dogma. Please dont be naive. Dogma is regretably part of the human animal, and as Cicero said "man is a political animal." If narrow minded priests leave your scene equally narrow minded PC accusers, politicians, demagogues and popular scientists replace them. So long as people remain unenlightened (i.e. always) there will always be someone trying to rabble rouse or stir up a good scare. In the meantime decent people who love God and do no harm get lined up with all the rest and labelled by the latest brand of fanatic trying to build their own powerbase. it has happened before, and it will happen again.
You state churches that marry homosexuals are wrong. Why do you think that? What gives you that right? Do you posses a red telephone to God  ?
Once again, what is your stance on abortion. What does 'grey' area mean? Does this mean you agree with abortion until you feel it treads on your religiosity? When is abortion acceptable to you and when is it not? And why?
I have no disagreement that we are can be irrational creatures and that our genetic ancestors still pump adrenalin through our veins. I do disagree that we should embrace it. The Church helped form structure, albeit poor structure, for early humankind. We've evolved past that (Or at least we are the brink).
514
Post by: Orlanth
lord_sutekh wrote:It is PG dogam again, gay right this and that, but noone asks if the rights of ther religious are being sacrificed.
There is no right to enforce your view of a LEGAL institution (which is what it becomes, when it is regulated by a government, no matter its origin) on other people. A church, as a religious entity, may decline to perform same-sex marriages; the government, under a basis of equality, has no right to deny the legality of it.
If you prefer to retain the "sanctity" of marriage (although how it can be sacred when it can be done and undone in a drive-thru over a weekend is beyond me), remove its legal connotations. Push the government to only legally recognize civil unions (equality for all), and keep marriage as the faith-based state of being.
I can go with that. It is close to what actually happens in the UK. Marriage registry is a civic union, marriage ceremony is based on the religion or custom of the couple.
It has a lot of reason behind it and seems to make sense. If only it ended there.
The trouble is the bounds are then pushed further. Gay rights advocates demand equal adoption rights as part of law when most adoption agencies, even non-relgious ones believe this is not the best circumstances for child rearing. Also equal rights legislation also pushes to criminalise "sexual preference discrimination" in church units etc. Churches are worried that this ammounts to an attack, and to some extent they are right.
There were moves to prohibit preaching sections of the Bible regarding to homosexuality on 'human rights' grounds. Though this was rejected. It will come back though, just like Islamic law demands in the Uk have been ongoing since the 1980's. As the powerbase grows and the churces are stripped of their role in society the call becomes stronger. Last year they finally got to Downing Street to discuss this with the government. This year they got Islamic Law, here in England. Albeit with strong safeguards, and that in time may weaken.
Strange that this happens at the same time as the limits on the church grow and grow. I dont claim conspiracy, at least on this level. Islam and homosexualtiy doesnt mix less so than Christianity and homosexuality, though noone sues the mosques for not being into sexuality based equal opportunities.
Religions are getting increasingly pushed in the UK, and not just militant Islam. Gay rights is one of many sticks often used to beat the church. I remember a case not too many years back of preachers being arrested because their preaching 'offended Moslems'. They were preaching from the steps of the cathedral! They were placed on remand, thankfully the case was thrown out by the judge. Free speech you might say, not if it causes offense.
I remember how ten years back my church was monitored very stringently during a town outreach while some kids gave people baloons with Jesus Loves you an it, a group played songs all under the watchful eye of a town official.
Next week Al Mouhajiroun were there, they too had permission to preach there at weekends. They handed out leaflets peacfull I might add but were allowed to position themslkves centrally, we wrre told to only use the corner area to make sure we did not get in the way. I sauntered by and picked up some leaflets, they wanted me to have some but not others I just picked them up anyway.
I still have them:
Jihad angainst Israel.
Jihad againast America.
Women must wear the viel.
Yet the town council was getting picky on us and what we could do, and turning a blind eye to this..
Christians are starting to get it harder in some countries even in the west. It is way off the persecutions in China and elsewhere but the hatred will come, it is part of the spiritual climate.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Orlanth wrote:
A sweeping statement oblivious to the central most basic tenets of Christianity. The sacrifice on the cross is hardly an uncaring act.
I'd argue it was. The sacrifice was, IF God is omnipotent , entirely unnecessary. Simple "click of his fingers" and everything could have been "fixed". And we could have kept freewill.
.. unless God is incapable of of performing the logically impossible of course. But then....
I don't really expect you to answer that as such ( I'm sure better minds than ours have tried for much longer), but it highlights the fundamental problem for many with religious belief-- not just Xtian ones I hasten to add. It does require, ultimately, a person at some point just to swallow ( that.. sounds harsher than I mean, I hope you get me here) a certain level of acceptance or trust in a higher being or said being rightness "just because". To a person who lacks this, this does come across as irrational at best.
That said I think you've you've argued the rest of your points very eloquently.
I do have major disagreements with your ideas that some things are best left as "a grey area", I think you almost mean "it's easier to leave them and hope they go away" in some ways.
I also have doubts about the idea you seem to express that people always feel bad when they do a "bad thing". Certain churches are pretty strict on masturbation and premarital sex but I can honestly say I've never felt bad after either of them.
.... well maybe that one time when we... no no no.. wrong thread altogether for that sort of confession.
That all said, I'm not (honest) holding YOU personally responsible for the ills and misgivings of the entire xtian/other faiths.
Not yet anyway !
514
Post by: Orlanth
AgeOfEgos wrote:Orlanth wrote:
So your position, is after 15 minutes grace (- at least you give them a chance!); a person is often deemed too religious to hold a rational opinion that both of you can qualify on the same grounds?
Don't get upset, that is not what I said and no fair minded reader would think so. What I stated was that it usually takes 15 minutes to figure our a particular persons religion, as all are based on dogma.<snip>
I am not upset. In fact I am enjoying this thread, but being careful what I post. What I posted was not an attack, it just means that I thinkl you think, your idea of a rational opinion might differ sommuch from someone wuith a religuious mind there is no hope of effective dialogue?
I am pleased it has got this far. we have many people disagreeing on hardcore exterme issues, without trolling, on the internets!!!! Long my Dakka thrive.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
I almost didn't quote this, as it basically boils down to an ad hominem but I did want to make this point. I will believe something if someone shows me evidence or rationality for my acceptance of it. I will not believe something simply because you have an emotional investment in it. That is white noise to me.
I dont get understand there, but I am thinking that is going both ways on that subject. Best to move on.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
You state churches that marry homosexuals are wrong. Why do you think that? What gives you that right? Do you posses a red telephone to God  ?
I dont need a red telephone, but I speak to God, and am not alone in doing so. Nor is it strange. I standed this openly, it is up to you to beleive me or not.
Now back to the red telephone, I don't need one. I have the manual right here. The scriptures on 'homosexual offenders' are very clear. Note my specific use of term. Homosexuality it itself is not a sin, but a particular way you might be tempted. You might (or might not) be interested to know that EVERY passage condemning homosexual offender is adjacent to one condemning the fornicator. Most Christians havent worked this out yet. A homosexual who restrains is as 'holy' as any other Christian, meanwhile someone who performs homosexual acts is on the same level as someone performing extra-marital sex.
You dont see THAT preached often, but that is the actual Biblical stance.
I do my best to avoid hypocrasy on this. Now being a middle aged, overweight, player of toy soldiers it is easy, in my past it was considerably harder.
So your real question should be why marry non virgins? You would have us there, the church would have to close.. well not really.
You see first it isnt about dogma. It is made to be about dogma. in the churches we dont going around plotting new ways to make gays feel bad. Back in the day there was no gay marriage, everything was in the closet not problems. Why no problems?
Because the closet is not just for gays. It fits everyone, and is for noone.
Jesus sums it up. "If you as much as look at someone lustfully you have commited adultery with them, if you think ill you have murdered in your heart."
Guilty as charged right there. So in effect I am no better than a sodomiser in Jesus' eyes. You see the pass mark for holiness is very high, impossibly high. Bottom line we are wrong, get over it.
AgeOfEgos wrote:Once again, what is your stance on abortion. What does 'grey' area mean? Does this mean you agree with abortion until you feel it treads on your religiosity? When is abortion acceptable to you and when is it not? And why?
You are not going to let me sit this one out.
Very well.
I didnt have too much of a stance. I didnt like it and find it unbiblicval, but see worse, and do understand it. Furthermore if I was a women and carrying a child from a man I did not love I could wish an abortion myself. I dont agree on abortions for conveneicne, but for that matter many many women dont either.
Generally I stay off this issue as much as possible because I am a man, it is not fair for me to speak out. There are pklenty of women who can speak for me.
So I answered where I could. I dont like that Abortion has turned from a grey area to a definative right. partly because it adds a negative pressure, while it relieves some guilt from those who want abortions but feel they shouldnt, it helps cloud the minds of those who don't want an abortion but are not sure. It is apparently quite normal fopr a woman to fret and wonder if she was doing the right thing by being pregnant even in a stable rerlationship. It would freak me out I if were her, but again, I am a man.
Also the modern dogma deals in absolutes, just like the mediaval church, western society matured, it knew some issues were grey areas, that is to say. Officially forbid it, but allow it to continue, even under the state. Abortion being a good example. Until abortion became a human right a woman could only have an abortion ofr medical grounds. yet no clinics were prosecuted even though in the 20 years under this legislation only a fraction of the women who had legal abortions had them for medical grounds.
Grey areas are a sign of a mature society, that knows that some issues cannot be dealt with absolutes.
Again I really wish it could go back that way. it would not mean a blindest bit of difference to someone trying to get an abortion, they were avialable in the UK with good doctors in state hostpitals, but it cools the climate of abortion debate considerably. But the PC lobby would not leave alone.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
I have no disagreement that we are can be irrational creatures and that our genetic ancestors still pump adrenalin through our veins. I do disagree that we should embrace it. The Church helped form structure, albeit poor structure, for early humankind. We've evolved past that (Or at least we are the brink).
Yes, but the spirtual is half of reality. I am not saying an even 50% we dont know where the balance is, but a study of relgiosity in all its forms which includes atheism (so there is no escape) shows how poeple react.
Humans just are not rational, the irrationality is hased on the spiritual side of man. I.e. the side not covered by logic and reason, and to some extent spitual supernatural influences. While I am NOT saying Relgion is a manifestation of irrationality, I am saying that religion is motre easily inlfuenced by and influences the irrationaility of man. Most people were shicked by sepetemeber 11th and suicide bombings. Let me tell you, many parts of the church were not. This 'spirit' within some types of Moslem was identifiable. I for one could think through their mindset, so what they did was not unthinkable, but closer to inevitable.
The irrational hatreds that the churches have documented, and at times perpetrated when they became the enemy, these follow irrational psychological and spiritual patterns. likely even with Satanic or demonic influence.
Relgion envelopes the mindset of man, so those whom underastand religiosity can see how man works as a community. Reglon in all its forms is often a very visible expression
of humnaity for good or ill. I dont know all the festivals and such, that garbage is taught in schools. What matters is how people think, what their paradigms are, what their thought processes are led to and therefore what their conclusions are likely to be.
Parallels can be drawn everywhere, the good the bad and the dowright ugly. Everyone is religious, even professor Dawkins, and that is one of the things that makes us human. What makes a difference is which God, if any, is followed? God is the wildcard in religion and what turns it into faith.
I hope this was clear, it was difficult to write.
5030
Post by: Grignard
AgeOfEgos wrote:
I have no disagreement that we are can be irrational creatures and that our genetic ancestors still pump adrenalin through our veins. I do disagree that we should embrace it. The Church helped form structure, albeit poor structure, for early humankind. We've evolved past that (Or at least we are the brink).
I have to disagree on this one. You are making a ladder of evolution argument, and quite possibly a social Darwinist argument.
First off I believe that "our genetic ancestors still pump adrenaline through our veins" is not your most meaningful statement. I think that statement is filler, nothing more. I'm not sure which "genetic ancestors" you're referring to, as that could mean several things. We haven't been genetically that much different from our "ancestors" for, depending on who you read, 60k to 400k years. First off, we have to assume that the "Church" ( Catholic? Sunni? Baptist? Jewish Synagogue ?) is something that one "evolves" past. Are you talking about since the middle ages? 700 years is very fast for what you're talking about.
By what standards do you judge the structure supposedly provided by the church poor? What do you mean by structure anyhow?
You're making the claim that the "Church", and the culture of mind that produces such an organization, is inferior, and we have, or should, "evolve" past it. First, you're associating biology with culture, which I'm not sure is a good analogy. More importantly, you're using the model of evolution that assumes older lifeforms are inferior, and "evolve" toward a higher state, one that approaches us, or in our case, the next version of us. I believe this is the popular perception of evolution, and it is stated or strongly implied by scientists who should know better. From what I understand the only way you can talk about the fitness of an organism apropos the theory of evolution in the terms of adapting to it's environment and reproducing itself. There isn't any more meaning to it than that.
It is not certain that intelligence and self awareness are long term selective advantages, we simply don't have enough evidence. Our species has just not been around that long. It is true that technology has enabled us to pretty much adapt to any environment ( even those inhospitable to all forms of life, such as interplanetary space) but that is short term. In fact, I have read arguments that intelligence has nothing to do with natural selection, but rather is a matter of sexual selection, like mental peacock feathers.
I think the irony here is that you're taking, on faith, that we're going to leave all the muck of our past behind, and transcend to a heaven of peace and happiness unclouded by irrational thoughts or "magical thinking". Its an interesting idea, but it isn't evolution.
I'm not trying to get on your case but please, please don't make evolutionary ladder or social darwinist arguments vis-a-vis religion or the religious. I feel that it is insulting to religious people, and a rape of science. Or make the point that it is a belief, not fact.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Grignard wrote:AgeOfEgos wrote:
I have no disagreement that we are can be irrational creatures and that our genetic ancestors still pump adrenalin through our veins. I do disagree that we should embrace it. The Church helped form structure, albeit poor structure, for early humankind. We've evolved past that (Or at least we are the brink).
I have to disagree on this one. You are making a ladder of evolution argument, and quite possibly a social Darwinist argument.
First off I believe that "our genetic ancestors still pump adrenaline through our veins" is not your most meaningful statement. I think that statement is filler, nothing more. I'm not sure which "genetic ancestors" you're referring to, as that could mean several things. We haven't been genetically that much different from our "ancestors" for, depending on who you read, 60k to 400k years. First off, we have to assume that the "Church" ( Catholic? Sunni? Baptist? Jewish Synagogue ?) is something that one "evolves" past. Are you talking about since the middle ages? 700 years is very fast for what you're talking about.
By what standards do you judge the structure supposedly provided by the church poor? What do you mean by structure anyhow?
You're making the claim that the "Church", and the culture of mind that produces such an organization, is inferior, and we have, or should, "evolve" past it. First, you're associating biology with culture, which I'm not sure is a good analogy. More importantly, you're using the model of evolution that assumes older lifeforms are inferior, and "evolve" toward a higher state, one that approaches us, or in our case, the next version of us. I believe this is the popular perception of evolution, and it is stated or strongly implied by scientists who should know better. From what I understand the only way you can talk about the fitness of an organism apropos the theory of evolution in the terms of adapting to it's environment and reproducing itself. There isn't any more meaning to it than that.
It is not certain that intelligence and self awareness are long term selective advantages, we simply don't have enough evidence. Our species has just not been around that long. It is true that technology has enabled us to pretty much adapt to any environment ( even those inhospitable to all forms of life, such as interplanetary space) but that is short term. In fact, I have read arguments that intelligence has nothing to do with natural selection, but rather is a matter of sexual selection, like mental peacock feathers.
I think the irony here is that you're taking, on faith, that we're going to leave all the muck of our past behind, and transcend to a heaven of peace and happiness unclouded by irrational thoughts or "magical thinking". Its an interesting idea, but it isn't evolution.
I'm not trying to get on your case but please, please don't make evolutionary ladder or social darwinist arguments vis-a-vis religion or the religious. I feel that it is insulting to religious people, and a rape of science. Or make the point that it is a belief, not fact.
I really hate to reply in such a short manner after such a well thought out post but I'm forced to as this was a simple misunderstanding.
When I speak of evolving past the Church, I am referring to the gradual process in which civilization has changed into a better/more complex form. In many cultures, religion acted as the legislation in our past. On the other hand, our Constitution for example, is secular and perhaps the best model to date of government. I consider our constitution a success due to this secularism and it's rationality. To continue using our Constitution, we have evolved it with amendments over the years so it has became a more complete document. I do not consider Church doctrine inherently open to either of those things.
As to my statement regarding ancestors/adrenaline, I'll leave it to Hitchens; "Our pre-frontal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glands are too big". I cannot put it more clearly than that  . I have no illusions about the limits of our biology in terms of evolving society. I do think we can better what we have though.
On the topic of social/group Darwinism...I don't think the thought has any merit. I do think evidence suggests a strong probability of selfish altriusm towards others though...but not for the good of the group but the individual. That's a big subject though, not sure if you want to talk that through
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
Sai Baba says that science can only explain what is experienced by the senses. But he's also an avatar, thinks everyone is God and rubs oils on children's genitals.
The thing is, Baba fills his plot holes a whole lot better than Christianity. It's just because he's scary looking and tends to leave magic dust lying around that he's probably best left alone. He's the avatar of gullible people.
Heh... sorry to cut in. I only just saw that my rather casual thread has taken to a nice discussion.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Orlanth wrote:
I am not upset. In fact I am enjoying this thread, but being careful what I post. What I posted was not an attack, it just means that I thinkl you think, your idea of a rational opinion might differ sommuch from someone wuith a religuious mind there is no hope of effective dialogue?
I am pleased it has got this far. we have many people disagreeing on hardcore exterme issues, without trolling, on the internets!!!! Long my Dakka thrive.
Hah, well taken and sent back. The only frustration I've received from the conversation is the limiting communication of type. We would have furthered our discussion to this point...after 5 minutes of simple conversation  .
Orlanth wrote:
Now back to the red telephone, I don't need one. I have the manual right here. The scriptures on 'homosexual offenders' are very clear. Note my specific use of term. Homosexuality it itself is not a sin, but a particular way you might be tempted. You might (or might not) be interested to know that EVERY passage condemning homosexual offender is adjacent to one condemning the fornicator. Most Christians havent worked this out yet. A homosexual who restrains is as 'holy' as any other Christian, meanwhile someone who performs homosexual acts is on the same level as someone performing extra-marital sex.
You dont see THAT preached often, but that is the actual Biblical stance.
I do my best to avoid hypocrasy on this. Now being a middle aged, overweight, player of toy soldiers it is easy, in my past it was considerably harder.
So your real question should be why marry non virgins? You would have us there, the church would have to close.. well not really.
You see first it isnt about dogma. It is made to be about dogma. in the churches we dont going around plotting new ways to make gays feel bad. Back in the day there was no gay marriage, everything was in the closet not problems. Why no problems?
Because the closet is not just for gays. It fits everyone, and is for noone.
Jesus sums it up. "If you as much as look at someone lustfully you have commited adultery with them, if you think ill you have murdered in your heart."
Guilty as charged right there. So in effect I am no better than a sodomiser in Jesus' eyes. You see the pass mark for holiness is very high, impossibly high. Bottom line we are wrong, get over it.
Ahh, well we are going to hit an impasse here we cannot cross. I consider the Bible a completely untrustworthy, error laden collection of random documents. The Bible is perhaps one of the best examples of meme evolution in text we have in modern culture... There are many books on this subject...and I can certainly make a few suggestions if interested.
Orlanth wrote:
You are not going to let me sit this one out.
Very well.
I didnt have too much of a stance. I didnt like it and find it unbiblicval, but see worse, and do understand it. Furthermore if I was a women and carrying a child from a man I did not love I could wish an abortion myself. I dont agree on abortions for conveneicne, but for that matter many many women dont either.
Generally I stay off this issue as much as possible because I am a man, it is not fair for me to speak out. There are pklenty of women who can speak for me.
So I answered where I could. I dont like that Abortion has turned from a grey area to a definative right. partly because it adds a negative pressure, while it relieves some guilt from those who want abortions but feel they shouldnt, it helps cloud the minds of those who don't want an abortion but are not sure. It is apparently quite normal fopr a woman to fret and wonder if she was doing the right thing by being pregnant even in a stable rerlationship. It would freak me out I if were her, but again, I am a man.
Also the modern dogma deals in absolutes, just like the mediaval church, western society matured, it knew some issues were grey areas, that is to say. Officially forbid it, but allow it to continue, even under the state. Abortion being a good example. Until abortion became a human right a woman could only have an abortion ofr medical grounds. yet no clinics were prosecuted even though in the 20 years under this legislation only a fraction of the women who had legal abortions had them for medical grounds.
Grey areas are a sign of a mature society, that knows that some issues cannot be dealt with absolutes.
Again I really wish it could go back that way. it would not mean a blindest bit of difference to someone trying to get an abortion, they were avialable in the UK with good doctors in state hostpitals, but it cools the climate of abortion debate considerably. But the PC lobby would not leave alone.
I really do apologize but I'm still not sure where you stand on abortion...let me try to clarify my position another way;
If a bill came across my desk stating a woman may have an abortion within the first 3 month, regardless of motivation, I would absolutely vote for it. Would you?
Orlanth wrote:
Yes, but the spirtual is half of reality. I am not saying an even 50% we dont know where the balance is, but a study of relgiosity in all its forms which includes atheism (so there is no escape) shows how poeple react.
Humans just are not rational, the irrationality is hased on the spiritual side of man. I.e. the side not covered by logic and reason, and to some extent spitual supernatural influences. While I am NOT saying Relgion is a manifestation of irrationality, I am saying that religion is motre easily inlfuenced by and influences the irrationaility of man. Most people were shicked by sepetemeber 11th and suicide bombings. Let me tell you, many parts of the church were not. This 'spirit' within some types of Moslem was identifiable. I for one could think through their mindset, so what they did was not unthinkable, but closer to inevitable.
The irrational hatreds that the churches have documented, and at times perpetrated when they became the enemy, these follow irrational psychological and spiritual patterns. likely even with Satanic or demonic influence.
Relgion envelopes the mindset of man, so those whom underastand religiosity can see how man works as a community. Reglon in all its forms is often a very visible expression
of humnaity for good or ill. I dont know all the festivals and such, that garbage is taught in schools. What matters is how people think, what their paradigms are, what their thought processes are led to and therefore what their conclusions are likely to be.
Parallels can be drawn everywhere, the good the bad and the dowright ugly. Everyone is religious, even professor Dawkins, and that is one of the things that makes us human. What makes a difference is which God, if any, is followed? God is the wildcard in religion and what turns it into faith.
I hope this was clear, it was difficult to write.
I would absolutely encourage the study of religion in our schools; as it pertains to history only. However, I don't think I fit your definition of atheist. I state there is no evidence of God, I do not declare 'There is absolutely no God'. If I made such a statement, I would need to present proof. Since I cannot prove a negative, I cannot state there is absolutely no God. However, I can state that it is very, very, very improbable....to the point of unicorns existing. Bertrand Russells teapot would be a good Google on this.
Furthering my reply, I do absolutely agree with you that religion enhances irrational thought..and I would further that it demands it. Logical things fit into boxes, God does not. Belief in God is irrational, therefore of course religion is open to irrational deeds done in his name. I absolutely agree and I'll plagarize another quote to end my post;
"Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things. It takes religion to make good people do bad things."
514
Post by: Orlanth
AgeOfEgos wrote:
I would absolutely encourage the study of religion in our schools; as it pertains to history only. However, I don't think I fit your definition of atheist. I state there is no evidence of God, I do not declare 'There is absolutely no God'. If I made such a statement, I would need to present proof. Since I cannot prove a negative, I cannot state there is absolutely no God. However, I can state that it is very, very, very improbable....to the point of unicorns existing. Bertrand Russells teapot would be a good Google on this.
About the "very very improbable". I would take that the other way. look around you, look at the wildlife, and your own life. Look at nature look at life look at the universe.
Are you so sure that is just random. So very very sure?
Look at how from our perspective the sun and the moon are almost exactly the same 'size'. Extreme coincidence possibly, I doubt that phenomena would be commonplace on inhabitable planets. Random happenstance, or was it meant to be that way. Can you be so very very on your surity? Could you say why?
AgeOfEgos wrote:
Furthering my reply, I do absolutely agree with you that religion enhances irrational thought..and I would further that it demands it. Logical things fit into boxes, God does not. Belief in God is irrational, therefore of course religion is open to irrational deeds done in his name. I absolutely agree and I'll plagarize another quote to end my post;
I thought you would latch onto that.
Atheism is a religion.
A belief in no God is no less or more blind or irrational than anyones faith in one, or a pantheon of them.
Do not make the mistake that you are in a better position by scepticism. Untimately it is a heart choice to chose to beleive there is no God.
Like you and I agree, there is no proof either way. So there is just faith.
Where does your irrationality take you?
Where does your religion take you?
We can only steer away from absolute decrees of standing (as we both in farness to the other have done so here. And we can agree not to let our own dogmas, yours and mine both not to lead us to 'evil'. Beyond that faith is faith, while one of the other of us (or niether could be right or wrong, it would be arrogant to claim so definatively now. we can only declare what we beleive, adn if that beleif touches our lives in a positive way.
AgeOfEgos wrote:"Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things. It takes religion to make good people do bad things."
I hear this one thrown about a lot. Dawkins likes to head his chapters with quotes like that accusing relgion of so much bloodshed. The one I remember from his book is "Politics has killed its thousands, but religion its tens of thousands". If this means nothing to you, it is a paraphrase from a 'poem' in the book of Chronicles replacing the words Saul and David with Politics and Religion respectively.
The religion of atheism is by no means innocent or excluded from this truth. Many many atrocities stems from a blind faith in no-God. This included the atrocties under Hitler and Stalin, both the Soviets and the Nazis had a very strong atheist dogma, and were far more bloody with it than any religious group we could name before or since.
Revalations 12:11 says "And they overcame (him) by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony...". This refers to the ongoing struggle against evil, 'him' being the devil. The first part refers to an 'internal matter' regarding acceptance of salvation. While crucially importanht to me I will leave this out here as you might not beleive in it. I instead wish to point you to the second part of the verse which refers to the testimony of a be.leiver which is only valid if the person is worthwhile listening too. i.e. is of positive character. The Bible puts good store on the importance of how faith changes lives for the better as a pointer to God.
This of course goes both ways, and transparently unholy people professing to mbe members of faith effect the credibility of that faith. Christians have noone else to blame if the rest of the world does not believe that same way we do, and in that respect your comment against the character of relgion is valid.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
Sin flies around, crushes things. Summoner collects fanbase, goes looking for powers, etc.
Summoner defeats Sin with Fayth. Summoner dies, Fayth is reborn as the Sin that flies around destroying things.
688
Post by: lord_sutekh
Thank you, Mr. Inappropriate Post.
(On a side note in the same vein, I'd love to play a Final Fantasy that doesn't have a blatantly-in-denial homosexual as the main hero. I don't have a problem with gay people; I just prefer not to have them as my avatar.)
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
I started this thread, whippersnapper! I'll go meta-off-off-topic if I want.
You've also insulted Japanese culture with your insensitive comment, not to mention Zanarkandian.
Inappropriate?
514
Post by: Orlanth
Inappropriate? Yes, it has gone beyond that. Please don't destroy a decent discussion, after all we have done well to have got so far on such an issue without trolling. It would be a shame if it deteriorated now over something so trivial.
Starting a topic does not indicate ownership of it, this thread belongs to the Dakka community, not to me or you.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Incidentally did people see this news story ?
Be intrigued to see what the fundamentalists say about this.
What's their position on the Apocrypha anyway ?
I've read some of the "misssing" books, the ones where Jesus as a baby is like a mini "Look who's talking" is pretty wacky. The bit in Thomas where he kills the boy he gets in a fight with is... interesting.
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
Nothing new, every even month somebody is "discovering" the lost and forbiden gospel of Rintintin. Most are forgeries made in the early times of Christianity to gather support towards the agendas of the various power groups, the rest are a bunch of stories, gospels and proto-evangeliums so confusing (and quite a few badly written to boot) that the official line of the Vatican is that they are not the word of God because there is no way to find the slightest connection with the real Jesus Christ and his times in them.
So please forget the Dan Brown´s of the world and the hidden conspirations of the Vatican to snuff the "true" evangeliums. All this stuff has been studied by the main Christian Churches and dissmised years ago, of course any dead end fundamentalist in the middle of the New Mexico desert might praise them as the true word of God but these guys tend to decry the Pope as the Harlot from Babylon that will bring the Apocalypse (working on it since AD 1000) any day now.
M.
PS: Orlanth, I can´t but praise you for your measured responses, as a Catholic I´m tired of hearing how my religion is the punching bag for the "progresives" source of all kind of evils meanwhile more militant or misunderstood faiths get a free pass on everything. Sometimes I can´t be as generous as you with these type of people.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Orlanth wrote:
Are you so sure that is just random. So very very sure?
Look at how from our perspective the sun and the moon are almost exactly the same 'size'. Extreme coincidence possibly, I doubt that phenomena would be commonplace on inhabitable planets. Random happenstance, or was it meant to be that way. Can you be so very very on your surity? Could you say why?
First, I do not think our world is completly random. While genetic mutation might be random (Or perhaps even not, as cosmic rays do alter genetic structure..), once you have replicators natural selection takes over. Evolution and natural selection is most decidely not random. If you doubt this, flip on Discovery and watch gazelle run from a pride of lions.....or read about resistant bacteria and how they achieve their resistance.
If you are talking on a cosmological level, I too would agree the chances of a 'green' zone planet being very rare. Perhaps 1 in 40 million! This seems like an impassable number, as our human brains have problems rationalizing such a large digit, but when you look at the billions of imploding stars, the countless planets we can see (and billions we cannot)...it is not very difficult to see that the universe could very well be teeming with life. To give a glimpse into those numbers with something we can more easily understand...let us say the chances of developing a cell wall from amino acid chains was 1 in 120 million. Big number right? That's the same odds of winning the poor people tax (state lottery). People seem to win quite often regardless of those odds though...
Orlanth wrote:
I thought you would latch onto that.
Atheism is a religion.
A belief in no God is no less or more blind or irrational than anyones faith in one, or a pantheon of them.
Do not make the mistake that you are in a better position by scepticism. Untimately it is a heart choice to chose to beleive there is no God.
Like you and I agree, there is no proof either way. So there is just faith.
Where does your irrationality take you?
Where does your religion take you?
We can only steer away from absolute decrees of standing (as we both in farness to the other have done so here. And we can agree not to let our own dogmas, yours and mine both not to lead us to 'evil'. Beyond that faith is faith, while one of the other of us (or niether could be right or wrong, it would be arrogant to claim so definatively now. we can only declare what we beleive, adn if that beleif touches our lives in a positive way.
Surely I would respond to that, as it's absolutely false. Definition of religion;
A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.
Explain to me how that applies to atheism. Regardless, in my original post I made quite clear I was not definitely stating "There is no God". I cannot prove this statement. However, I can say that given evidence the probability of God is on par with Santa Claus. If evidence presents itself, I would change my mind. I don't mind being called an atheist however, as for all intents and purposes I am.
Orlanth wrote:
I hear this one thrown about a lot. Dawkins likes to head his chapters with quotes like that accusing relgion of so much bloodshed. The one I remember from his book is "Politics has killed its thousands, but religion its tens of thousands". If this means nothing to you, it is a paraphrase from a 'poem' in the book of Chronicles replacing the words Saul and David with Politics and Religion respectively.
The religion of atheism is by no means innocent or excluded from this truth. Many many atrocities stems from a blind faith in no-God. This included the atrocties under Hitler and Stalin, both the Soviets and the Nazis had a very strong atheist dogma, and were far more bloody with it than any religious group we could name before or since.
Revalations 12:11 says "And they overcame (him) by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony...". This refers to the ongoing struggle against evil, 'him' being the devil. The first part refers to an 'internal matter' regarding acceptance of salvation. While crucially importanht to me I will leave this out here as you might not beleive in it. I instead wish to point you to the second part of the verse which refers to the testimony of a be.leiver which is only valid if the person is worthwhile listening too. i.e. is of positive character. The Bible puts good store on the importance of how faith changes lives for the better as a pointer to God.
This of course goes both ways, and transparently unholy people professing to mbe members of faith effect the credibility of that faith. Christians have noone else to blame if the rest of the world does not believe that same way we do, and in that respect your comment against the character of relgion is valid.
Sure, show me one mass genocide that was done in the name of atheism.
This is where we are having the disconnect. You seem to think atheism is a moral code in which we live by. It is not. Atheists may be good guys, athiests may be bad guys. Atheists may be Rand followers or they may be secular humanists.
As to your examples, I hear Hannity and other talking heads spout this quite often. It is not black/white if Hitler was religious...but regardless of what he internally believed he certainly used the church to further his cause. Here is a page with various references on Hitlers christianity;
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
This is also partly why I used the term dogma in my previous posts. Blind belief in anything without evidence is bad...this is why I stated earlier faith is not a virtue. It doesn't matter if it's belief in a sky wizard, belief in 'Dear Leader' or belief in the tooth fairy; we should all demand evidence for such extraordinary claims.
Cheers
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
reds8n wrote: Incidentally did people see this news story ?
Be intrigued to see what the fundamentalists say about this.
What's their position on the Apocrypha anyway ?
I've read some of the "misssing" books, the ones where Jesus as a baby is like a mini "Look who's talking" is pretty wacky. The bit in Thomas where he kills the boy he gets in a fight with is... interesting.
If you enjoy reading on the subject, I would humbly suggest;
Fascinating read
5394
Post by: reds8n
Miguelsan wrote:Nothing new,
... err. yes it is new. Oldest version found yet. If anything has been altered or changed it's after these drafts were written.
every even month somebody is "discovering" the lost and forbidden gospel of Rintintin. Most are forgeries made in the early times of Christianity to gather support towards the agendas of the various power groups, the rest are a bunch of stories, gospels and proto-evangeliums so confusing (and quite a few badly written to boot)
And your proof that they are forgeries and what we've got is the truth is.... what ? The Vatican says so ?
Assembled to garner support for a power group ? Confusing and badly written ? You mean a bit like the Bible itself then ? Altered and changed throughout the centuries at the behest of various groups.
that the official line of the Vatican is that they are not the word of God because there is no way to find the slightest connection with the real Jesus Christ and his times in them.
So please forget the Dan Brown´s of the world and the hidden conspirations of the Vatican to snuff the "true" evangeliums. All this stuff has been studied by the main Christian Churches and dissmised years ago, of course any dead end fundamentalist in the middle of the New Mexico desert might praise them as the true word of God but these guys tend to decry the Pope as the Harlot from Babylon that will bring the Apocalypse (working on it since AD 1000) any day now.
Nothing to do with Dan Brown, not a fan of his at all.
The fact that inconvenient texts have been dismissed as unhelpful in supporting the entrenched powers that be is no defense either. There's loads of very learned historians and theologians who don't dismiss all of the texts out of hand at all. The Dead Sea scrolls and similar have and are providing some real insights into the formation of Judaeo-Christian literature and thought.
Mr. AgeofEgos : ta, will do. I think I saw him on the Daily Show wierdly enough and meant to check his book out at the time. Thanks again.
5534
Post by: dogma
AgeOfEgos wrote:
Surely I would respond to that, as it's absolutely false. Definition of religion;
A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.
Explain to me how that applies to atheism. Regardless, in my original post I made quite clear I was not definitely stating "There is no God". I cannot prove this statement. However, I can say that given evidence the probability of God is on par with Santa Claus. If evidence presents itself, I would change my mind. I don't mind being called an atheist however, as for all intents and purposes I am.
Claiming to the absence of a God is still a claim about the supernatural. And believing in the absence of a God certainly leads to moral claims about reality. Indeed, Dawkins frequently reminds us of that in his speed to judge the actions of religious icons (and certainly others as well) as reprehensible. As far being built around a codified process; scientific method pretty well covers that, even if it isn't purely the domain of Atheists (though many claim it to be).
Now for a bit of a personal tangent. The vast majority of work carried out in recent years pertaining to the veracity of religion has centered around biological argumentation. I understand that this is motivated primarily by a desire to oppose the myriad Intelligent Design theorists around the globe, but to my mind the entire debate is foolish. Biology, like any other science, is essentially about the development of a model so that one might predict the result of his actions. A model which does not have empirically logical grounding in reality. The assumption that most Atheists make, as the foundation of their faith, is that science discovers the 'real'. This is something which is completely metaphysical; articulately separate from any part of scientific method. What this means, apart from putting a whole in the sanctity of 'unbelief', is that ANY conceivable metaphysical system could be attached to science and prove justifiable. At least so long as that metaphysical system allowed for the predictive power of the scientific model (a belief in miracles is not problematic here).
This last bit is something which most ID people do not do. They attempt to make alterations to the model in order to prove that their metaphysical project is correct. Of course this is foolish. Metaphysics are what they are by virtue of their unfalsifiability (at least given our current level of understanding). But then again, maybe it isn't so foolish. Science progresses by testing hypotheses developed through almost purely unscientific means. By this definition what the ID movement does is science, maybe bad science, but certainly science. However, it would be a mistake to presume that the most aggressive ID people are somehow representative of the entire religious community. Indeed, simply disproving the narrow conception of ID that is popular today does not disprove the idea as a whole.
So God isn't apparent in our relatively macroscopic view of the world. That's not problematic. Do you really think the actions of a pluralistic Omni-Being would be so easy to detect? Moreover, even if we could detect them, there is no reason to believe that we could perceive them for what they were. Though that is, admittedly, what ID Christian Fundamentalists claim.
So the Interventionist Christians are likely wrong. That isn't news. However, it is a mistake to generalize their mistaken cosmology onto the whole of religion. You claimed that Natural Selection isn't random, and of that you are correct. But there certainly are events in Earth's history which cannot be categorized in any other way. The chemical origination of life is one such event. The location of the Earth in the Green Zone is another. Of course we can play this game at even deeper levels. Why is the weak force as strong as it is? Why is the gravitational constant what it is? Why does it appear that the Universe is ultimately governed by probability? Indeed, if the Universe is ultimately governed by probability one can make a convincing case for its inherent randomness. And if the Universe can be random, then it can be intelligent. After all, a sufficiently complex mind is fully indistinguishable from a sufficiently random enterprise.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
dogma wrote:AgeOfEgos wrote:
Surely I would respond to that, as it's absolutely false. Definition of religion;
A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.
Explain to me how that applies to atheism. Regardless, in my original post I made quite clear I was not definitely stating "There is no God". I cannot prove this statement. However, I can say that given evidence the probability of God is on par with Santa Claus. If evidence presents itself, I would change my mind. I don't mind being called an atheist however, as for all intents and purposes I am.
Claiming to the absence of a God is still a claim about the supernatural. And believing in the absence of a God certainly leads to moral claims about reality. Indeed, Dawkins frequently reminds us of that in his speed to judge the actions of religious icons (and certainly others as well) as reprehensible. As far being built around a codified process; scientific method pretty well covers that, even if it isn't purely the domain of Atheists (though many claim it to be).
Now for a bit of a personal tangent. The vast majority of work carried out in recent years pertaining to the veracity of religion has centered around biological argumentation. I understand that this is motivated primarily by a desire to oppose the myriad Intelligent Design theorists around the globe, but to my mind the entire debate is foolish. Biology, like any other science, is essentially about the development of a model so that one might predict the result of his actions. A model which does not have empirically logical grounding in reality. The assumption that most Atheists make, as the foundation of their faith, is that science discovers the 'real'. This is something which is completely metaphysical; articulately separate from any part of scientific method. What this means, apart from putting a whole in the sanctity of 'unbelief', is that ANY conceivable metaphysical system could be attached to science and prove justifiable. At least so long as that metaphysical system allowed for the predictive power of the scientific model (a belief in miracles is not problematic here).
This last bit is something which most ID people do not do. They attempt to make alterations to the model in order to prove that their metaphysical project is correct. Of course this is foolish. Metaphysics are what they are by virtue of their unfalsifiability (at least given our current level of understanding). But then again, maybe it isn't so foolish. Science progresses by testing hypotheses developed through almost purely unscientific means. By this definition what the ID movement does is science, maybe bad science, but certainly science. However, it would be a mistake to presume that the most aggressive ID people are somehow representative of the entire religious community. Indeed, simply disproving the narrow conception of ID that is popular today does not disprove the idea as a whole.
So God isn't apparent in our relatively macroscopic view of the world. That's not problematic. Do you really think the actions of a pluralistic Omni-Being would be so easy to detect? Moreover, even if we could detect them, there is no reason to believe that we could perceive them for what they were. Though that is, admittedly, what ID Christian Fundamentalists claim.
So the Interventionist Christians are likely wrong. That isn't news. However, it is a mistake to generalize their mistaken cosmology onto the whole of religion. You claimed that Natural Selection isn't random, and of that you are correct. But there certainly are events in Earth's history which cannot be categorized in any other way. The chemical origination of life is one such event. The location of the Earth in the Green Zone is another. Of course we can play this game at even deeper levels. Why is the weak force as strong as it is? Why is the gravitational constant what it is? Why does it appear that the Universe is ultimately governed by probability? Indeed, if the Universe is ultimately governed by probability one can make a convincing case for its inherent randomness. And if the Universe can be random, then it can be intelligent. After all, a sufficiently complex mind is fully indistinguishable from a sufficiently random enterprise.
Hey Dogma,
I would fundamentally disagree that my lack of belief in a Supernatural power is a belief. I suppose this is due to how we each personally view Atheism. To me, atheism is not a belief that there is no God—it is the absence of belief in God. I make no claim nor try to prove a negative in my atheism, I simply state current evidence shows no reason for the belief. Atheism is not a 100% claim of certainty concerning God.
As to your self-described tangent  , I will make no argument against the metaphysical stance...as it allows no room for rational discussion. As an example, I could state that there really is 4 Chaos Gods whom created the Universe, but unlike the books they do not intervene in human affairs. They set necessary physic dials and let the show run. You cannot detect them or examine them as they exist only in the metaphysical. That's nice, can't be argued against...but who is going to listen  ?
I get the very strong sense you are making an argument for deism, as it seems we both agree theism is a dead end. However, even deist make real world claims that can (or may in the future) be tested. Occams razor applies here, as well as the anthropic principle. It is possible there is a supernatural being that set the dials and created this singular universe just for us. However, the question is probability. Given our knowledge of the 'billions of billions' of stars (to quote one of my childhood heroes), the chemical attraction we witness, the material we examine emerging from stars...what is more probable?
5534
Post by: dogma
AgeOfEgos wrote:
Hey Dogma,
I would fundamentally disagree that my lack of belief in a Supernatural power is a belief. I suppose this is due to how we each personally view Atheism. To me, atheism is not a belief that there is no God—it is the absence of belief in God. I make no claim nor try to prove a negative in my atheism, I simply state current evidence shows no reason for the belief. Atheism is not a 100% claim of certainty concerning God.
As to your self-described tangent  , I will make no argument against the metaphysical stance...as it allows no room for rational discussion. As an example, I could state that there really is 4 Chaos Gods whom created the Universe, but unlike the books they do not intervene in human affairs. They set necessary physic dials and let the show run. You cannot detect them or examine them as they exist only in the metaphysical. That's nice, can't be argued against...but who is going to listen  ?
I get the very strong sense you are making an argument for deism, as it seems we both agree theism is a dead end. However, even deist make real world claims that can (or may in the future) be tested. Occams razor applies here, as well as the anthropic principle. It is possible there is a supernatural being that set the dials and created this singular universe just for us. However, the question is probability. Given our knowledge of the 'billions of billions' of stars (to quote one of my childhood heroes), the chemical attraction we witness, the material we examine emerging from stars...what is more probable?
See, that type of Atheism is disingenuous. It co-opts the uncertainty of agnosticism into the weighted probabilities of the Dawkins-Dennett Bright movement. Probabilities which are only determined through the dubious application of indirect evidence levied against the whole of religion based upon the tenets of a single faith. It's like admitting you could be wrong, then saying that the probability of that incorrectness is so small as to be inconsequential. Nothing but a nice bit of double-speak.
As for Chaos God argument. You miss the point. 4 non-interventionist Chaos Gods (or even interventionist ones) are fundamentally indistinguishable from the forces of chance. The only distinction is one of narrative weight, and it is narrative weight which people listen to.
See, I don't agree that theism is a dead end. The argument against an interventionist God is that his intervention should be detectable via scientific process. That supposition violates the very definition of the miraculous. Moreover, it presumes that intentionality and meaning are somehow the domain of the modern physical sciences; something which is patently untrue.
In any case, you have latched on to the probability argument. The problem with that argument is that the 'probability of God' is something which you could only ever determine through secondary sources; even Dawkins acknowledges that there is no direct evidence for or against any deity. As such, any weight you ascribe to your evidence is essentially derived from its connection to a larger project of assumptions. This is identical to the formulation of a hypothesis. The only difference being that your hypothesis about the non-existence of God can never be tested. It is therefore unfalsifiable and equivalent to any positive supposition concerning God's existence.
The point of all this is that there is no evidence towards the confirmation or denial of a God, and there won't be in at least the foreseeable future. As such, any statement about the likelihood of his existence is aesthetically, not scientifically, motivated.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
dogma wrote:
See, that type of Atheism is disingenuous. It co-opts the uncertainty of agnosticism into the weighted probabilities of the Dawkins-Dennett Bright movement. Probabilities which are only determined through the dubious application of indirect evidence levied against the whole of religion based upon the tenets of a single faith. It's like admitting you could be wrong, then saying that the probability of that incorrectness is so small as to be inconsequential. Nothing but a nice bit of double-speak.
As for Chaos God argument. You miss the point. 4 non-interventionist Chaos Gods (or even interventionist ones) are fundamentally indistinguishable from the forces of chance. The only distinction is one of narrative weight, and it is narrative weight which people listen to.
See, I don't agree that theism is a dead end. The argument against an interventionist God is that his intervention should be detectable via scientific process. That supposition violates the very definition of the miraculous. Moreover, it presumes that intentionality and meaning are somehow the domain of the modern physical sciences; something which is patently untrue.
In any case, you have latched on to the probability argument. The problem with that argument is that the 'probability of God' is something which you could only ever determine through secondary sources; even Dawkins acknowledges that there is no direct evidence for or against any deity. As such, any weight you ascribe to your evidence is essentially derived from its connection to a larger project of assumptions. This is identical to the formulation of a hypothesis. The only difference being that your hypothesis about the non-existence of God can never be tested. It is therefore unfalsifiable and equivalent to any positive supposition concerning God's existence.
The point of all this is that there is no evidence towards the confirmation or denial of a God, and there won't be in at least the foreseeable future. As such, any statement about the likelihood of his existence is aesthetically, not scientifically, motivated.
I see nothing disingenuous about the probability argument other than the dismissive nature of your metaphysical stance. In which case, I'll be honest...I don't concern myself with such metaphysical nonsense. However, I get the very strong sense you are slowly introducing the ontological argument. Concerning that, I could easily state that since it is possible God does not exist and God is not a contingent being (Either possible/necessary)....it's not possible that God exists. So, God does not exist. Or; God is the greatest conceptual thing, however existence of two Gods would be better than one. This loops.
Regardless, I will not travel down the abyss of the ontological on a gaming site  . Kant has done a better job of dismissing that argument than I could ever hope to. I do not consider it an argument and I feel as we learn more in the neuro-science field, it will gradually fade.
Cheers
5534
Post by: dogma
AgeOfEgos wrote:
I see nothing disingenuous about the probability argument other than the dismissive nature of your metaphysical stance. In which case, I'll be honest...I don't concern myself with such metaphysical nonsense. However, I get the very strong sense you are slowly introducing the ontological argument. Concerning that, I could easily state that since it is possible God does not exist and God is not a contingent being (Either possible/necessary)....it's not possible that God exists. So, God does not exist. Or; God is the greatest conceptual thing, however existence of two Gods would be better than one. This loops.
Regardless, I will not travel down the abyss of the ontological on a gaming site  . Kant has done a better job of dismissing that argument than I could ever hope to. I do not consider it an argument and I feel as we learn more in the neuro-science field, it will gradually fade.
Cheers
You're missing my point. I am not arguing for the existence of God. Indeed, I agree that the Ontological argument is utter nonsense (though I feel similarly about Kant). I am arguing against the notion that we have any evidence regarding God's existence. To me metaphysical questions are simple matters of aesthetics, and dealing in the existence of God (even by attempting to prove his absence) is necessarily metaphysical. You claim not to deal in such matters, but the second you make the conceptual leap from schizophrenic evidence scattered though biological, physical, and cosmological disciplines you are constructing a metaphysical argument.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
dogma wrote:
You're missing my point. I am not arguing for the existence of God. Indeed, I agree that the Ontological argument is utter nonsense (though I feel similarly about Kant). I am arguing against the notion that we have any evidence regarding God's existence. To me metaphysical questions are simple matters of aesthetics, and dealing in the existence of God (even by attempting to prove his absence) is necessarily metaphysical. You claim not to deal in such matters, but the second you make the conceptual leap from schizophrenic evidence scattered though biological, physical, and cosmological disciplines you are constructing a metaphysical argument.
I agree with you that we don't have any evidence that proves/disproves God. I think we keep muddying the waters on my stance and this could be due to my inability to communicate my thoughts into text.
I do not have a belief in Gods absence, I have an absence of belief in God. When I speak in terms of biological and cosmological terms, it is a direct refute of this being proof of Gods existence. If someone states 'Look at how complex the human body is, surely this is not simple chance', I am justified in applying Occams Razor and giving theory on a more plausible explanation. I do not offer this explanation as proof of Gods inexistence....but simply point out that it does not prove God.
Cheers
*Edit* Thanks for this discussion. I say that with total sincerity.
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
reds8n wrote:Miguelsan wrote:Nothing new,
... err. yes it is new. Oldest version found yet. If anything has been altered or changed it's after these drafts were written.
I find difficult to understand how something discovered in the XIX century, preserved in the Russian National Library for years, sold to the British Museum for £100,000 in 1933 by the Soviet Union is new and definitive as presented in the article, it´s an old and known document that it´s being digitised and even that work started 4 years ago!.
From the article: But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.
Perhaps you skimmed through the article too fast to read that they are talking about the possibility of this text being the oldest, not the certanty. Anyway for further information check the codex sinaiticus at the wiki.
every even month somebody is "discovering" the lost and forbidden gospel of Rintintin. Most are forgeries made in the early times of Christianity to gather support towards the agendas of the various power groups, the rest are a bunch of stories, gospels and proto-evangeliums so confusing (and quite a few badly written to boot)
And your proof that they are forgeries and what we've got is the truth is.... what ? The Vatican says so ?
Assembled to garner support for a power group ? Confusing and badly written ? You mean a bit like the Bible itself then ? Altered and changed throughout the centuries at the behest of various groups.
Yes, because the Vatican says so but not on a theological level but on an historical level. The 4th and 5th centuries (when this text was suposely written) was rife with schisms and splinter groups from the early Christianity. St Agustine, records in one of his late works more than one hundred schisms from the teachings of Rome. So perhaps the Donatist, Nestorians or Novatianist (e.g. of three of the biggest power groups in their times) had some interest in writting their on Gospels to regulate their teachings. And the current Bible (Catholic) received the imprimatur from the Pope in 1943 meaning that the scholars from the Vatican had gone over 5,300 greek, 10,000 latin manuscripts plus thousand others in different languages to check the faithfulness of the Bible with its origins. So that one greek manuscript in the article doesn´t seem to be so important then
So please forget the Dan Brown´s of the world and the hidden conspirations of the Vatican to snuff the "true" evangeliums. All this stuff has been studied by the main Christian Churches and dissmised years ago, of course any dead end fundamentalist in the middle of the New Mexico desert might praise them as the true word of God but these guys tend to decry the Pope as the Harlot from Babylon that will bring the Apocalypse (working on it since AD 1000) any day now.
Nothing to do with Dan Brown, not a fan of his at all.
Good for you.
The fact that inconvenient texts have been dismissed as unhelpful in supporting the entrenched powers that be is no defense either. There's loads of very learned historians and theologians who don't dismiss all of the texts out of hand at all. The Dead Sea scrolls and similar have and are providing some real insights into the formation of Judaeo-Christian literature and thought.
(italics mine)
I don´t get the first part of your answer, why they are inconvenient?, the Vatican belives in God and articulates its faith on a set of foundations (the Bible and tradition), to support this foundations succesive Vatican scholars chose the most significant text from antiquity. That doesn´t mean that others can not disagree and as you pointed most of the other texts are insights in the formation, useful to undertand Christianity but quite different than being the genesis of the Bible.
M.
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
Orlanth wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, the Pope has now officially abolished Purgatory...so how long until they decide the game is up and admit all this God stuff is just made up?
Admit? A bit loaded that isn't it. Perhaps they beleive God is real, I do.
For that matter I met a man who came back from the morgue after being 8 hours dead, he knows what he saw is real. So faith is not so hard for me anymore.
Besides Popes do not have an authority to 'abolish Purgatory' they cane decide not to preach it anymore, but if it is real it hasnt suddenly disappeared, which is what you are implying. Purgatory is unscriptural though and is a medieval add on. There is just a heaven and a hell, or to be really picky three 'heavens' and two 'hells'.
I dream of the day when the pope screams out 'APRIL FOOLS' on national TV.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Miguelsan wrote:
I don´t get the first part of your answer, why they are inconvenient?, the Vatican belives in God and articulates its faith on a set of foundations (the Bible and tradition), to support this foundations succesive Vatican scholars chose the most significant text from antiquity. That doesn´t mean that others can not disagree and as you pointed most of the other texts are insights in the formation, useful to undertand Christianity but quite different than being the genesis of the Bible.
M.
You don't see why the earliest documents making no reference to elements like the resurrection is inconvenient ( to say the least) for religious authorities ? Really ? Power to you then.
And yes lots of texts. many of which they already disregard and the rest possibly erroneous in nature with regards to their content. Been quite a few dsicoveries since 1943 I think you'll find, but why let them matter right ? After all this isn't really important.
It's impossible to separate the development of the early Christian movement from the Genesis of the Bible, the two are completely intertwined.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Migualsan
I completely agree with you over the 'lost scriptures'. They are nothing new, they are just touted as such.
As far as rewritten scripture are concerned it is a mistaken phenomena. If to take the example you find copies of the 'book of Mark' without twelve verses relating to the resurrection, it doesnt mean these are originals with the ressurrection invented and added on later, it is very hard to date absolute origins of older documents, however there is a commonality through the Gospel accounts.
There is a however far simpler and easy to see reason that can be observed today.
The crucifixion of Jesus and his historicity while challenged by some are not in themselves spiritually contraversial acts, it is the resurrection that is key. Just as none can proclaim Jesus is Lord except by the spirit of God (1 Corinthians 13:3 also crossreference Romans 10:8-12 my favourite verses in the Bible0; so there is a resistance amongst some to accept the resurrection, or to let it pass their lips.
Jesus is a commonly used swear word, the crucifixion is a joke, but the resurrection is not. It has a different dynamic, those who would profane the name above all names normally have a spiritual dynamic added to their actions, wittingly or not. You will notice even the shock comics, including those who would normally have no problems with causing offense on religious topics, they too are silent on this. Look around and you will notice the difference here. It is an uncomfortable tropic left alone, unless to just flatly deny or proclaim.
The denial of the resurrection is the lynchpin of unbelief. So if you were a cleric who joined up because of the free food and clothing and to escape your overlords (a good enough reason to join back then) but you did not believe, what verses would you 'carelessly' omit?
Miguelsan wrote:
Orlanth, I can´t but praise you for your measured responses, as a Catholic I´m tired of hearing .....
Cool move, nice trick to rid the forum of me
Howe does it go....:
Orlanth accepts your praise.
God gets jealous
God gets wrathful
Orlanth is consumed by worms
Orlanth dies and is not happy.
514
Post by: Orlanth
double post, sorry
5394
Post by: reds8n
Orlanth wrote:The crucifixion of Jesus and his historicity while challenged by some are not in themselves spiritually contraversial acts, it is the resurrection that is key. Just as none can proclaim Jesus is Lord except by the spirit of God (1 Corinthians 13:3 also crossreference Romans 10:8-12 my favourite verses in the Bible0; so there is a resistance amongst some to accept the resurrection, or to let it pass their lips.
Jesus is a commonly used swear word, the crucifixion is a joke, but the resurrection is not. It has a different dynamic, those who would profane the name above all names normally have a spiritual dynamic added to their actions, wittingly or not. You will notice even the shock comics, including those who would normally have no problems with causing offense on religious topics, they too are silent on this. Look around and you will notice the difference here. It is an uncomfortable tropic left alone, unless to just flatly deny or proclaim.
Actually... there being a sound enough bloke who we refer to as Jesus who had some interesting things to say about life, death etc and he was crucified I don't have any problem accepting as a historical fact. From memory thee are even Roman scholars who mention the movement around the time. But they don't mention the resurrection and this is the bit I and many others don't believe in.
And as to the joke thing... srsly ?11... I've seen at least a dozen or so sigs to do with "3 days and experiencing lag" or some such. Basic politeness when in certain company/situations aside me and my social circle wouldn't think twice about joking about it.
... that said we are all godless heathens on our well to hell so we've nothing to lose really...
And no, they're not new, that's kind of the point. It's similar to when they claimed that Moses and the Israelites travelled through the parted Red sea when it seems much more likely that this was a translation error and was in fact the Sea of Reeds.
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
Well, I've read this entire overblown and long-winded thread, and now I will add my brief responses.
First, most people don't have a deep religious education because they just don't have the time and energy to sit and pore through so much dry literature.
Second, what seems perfectly rational for one person might seem like complete madness for another. This is the sort of argument that cannot be won.
Third, If the people who claim that their version of their chosen religion is so superior to that of the fanatics and fundamentalists want to seperate themselves from the nutcases, they should do something about them.
Fourth, Is is not possible that what we now refer to as supernatural or miraculous will eventually be explained by science, but we simply don't know how to do it yet?
Finally, I don't know the exact percentage, but certainly a significant number of people are going to do whatever they are going to do, for good or for evil, and the presence or absence of religious devotion should not be the meter by which they are judged, rather the effect on the people around them. It doesn't matter whether someone murders in the name of god or to spite him. It's still murder. Charity performed by someone who gives because he perceives it as a way to contribute to society as a whole which will eventually, in an indirect manner. benefit him does not need any further justification such as a church.
|
|