Another religion thread.

[Tink1717 2]

Nope. Not even close. Freddie is a self loathing, deeply closeted, gay who uses the writings of bronze age middle eastern desert mythology to perpetuate and project his self hatred on the rest of the world.

I, as an atheist and materialist, have no supernatural ghost that tells me to become a national,and world level, buffoon.

No one from any of the secular or atheist organizations I belong to will ever knock on someone's door to tell them they are unworthy and must submit to the will, as interpreted by some committee, of the current flavor of chosen mythology. No one form any of those said organizations will ever try to use the government to dictate who you will marry and/or love and how to express that love. No one from my side of the aisle will use terrorism to close a clinic, kill a doctor, kill a gay, close a sporting event or censor a library. No one on my side will start a war of aggression based on, and furthered by, a lie. Nope, that is the exclusive province of believer and those who cover for them.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[steveorino 7]

Tink: I was speaking tongue in cheek, but what I meant was you both think you are "correct".

steveOrino

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Tink: I was speaking tongue in cheek, but what I meant was you both think you are "correct".

Don't you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

in some ways, yes, but I never say I am correct, simply because my beliefs have not remained static.

Again, it was said tongue in cheek. You guys are too serious at times. You need a hobby, why not take up skydiving?

steveOrino

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

in some ways, yes, but I never say I am correct, simply because my beliefs have not remained static.

Again, it was said tongue in cheek. You guys are too serious at times. You need a hobby, why not take up skydiving?

Thats a damn good idea!!

I'll let you know how it goes after my exams are over

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

So why can't repentance alone be the criteria for entering heaven and what, exactly, is the point of Jesus' suffering?

Again...
You are standing in court before a judge, guilty of a grievous crime, and are about to be sentenced to death because you can’t pay a fine of ten million dollars. Why not even add that the judge is your father and he loves you more than you can possibly imagine. You plead with him to let you go free because you are very sorry for what you have done. Before you stood trial you might have even done a lot of good deeds in an attempt to make up for what you had done because your conscience also convicted you. However, there has to be justice. It doesn’t matter how sorry or repentant you are or how long it’s been since. You should be sorry for the crime but that is not enough. The crime has been committed, guilt has been established, and penalty must follow. Even if the judge was your father, he would have to pass sentence unless he was a corrupt judge. Just before the judge passes sentence, someone you don’t even know walks into the courtroom and offers to pay the fine in full. The judge can now set you free because justice has been served. The point is that we are sinful and nothing sinful can enter heaven (e.g. God is infinitely holy and just). When one is born again, he/she dies to his/herself and Jesus lives within them (e.g. they are crucified with Christ; convicted of their lawbreaking). That does not mean that they are now without sin. It means that, from that point on, they should become more and more holy/righteous day by day, year by year. God whittles away at your selfishness during the course of a lifetime (however long or short that may be). God had to do what he did through Jesus because he’s the only one that could. We can’t do it for ourselves. In fact, the Bible says that “no one seeks God.” If you don’t believe me, see if you’ve kept God’s moral law.

Quote

A penalty is not a real penalty if it hasn't been applied to you.

It really is applied to you. The wages of sin is death. Once born again, you die to yourself (e.g. crucified with Christ). In fact, you continue to die to your self and begin to live in Christ. He defeated death (e.g. paid your fine). Before you are born again, the Bible describes you as a “child of wrath” (e.g. enemy of God) because of your sinful nature. If one sincerely repents and trusts in the Savior, he/she has then been given the ability to become a child of God. It’s a work in progress. At first, you’re merely acting the part. Then, as time goes on, you grow and mature in Christ. If one does not “die to his/herself” and be “born again”, he/she must suffer the penalty for their transgression (e.g. hell). Sin is transgression of the law. You will be held to account for everything you have done in life one day before a holy and just judge.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

You are standing in court before a judge, guilty of a grievous crime, and are about to be sentenced to death because you can’t pay a fine of ten million dollars. Why not even add that the judge is your father and he loves you more than you can possibly imagine. You plead with him to let you go free because you are very sorry for what you have done. Before you stood trial you might have even done a lot of good deeds in an attempt to make up for what you had done because your conscience also convicted you. However, there has to be justice. It doesn’t matter how sorry or repentant you are or how long it’s been since. You should be sorry for the crime but that is not enough. The crime has been committed, guilt has been established, and penalty must follow. Even if the judge was your father, he would have to pass sentence unless he was a corrupt judge. Just before the judge passes sentence, someone you don’t even know walks into the courtroom and offers to pay the fine in full. The judge can now set you free because justice has been served.

I think the courtroom analogy should be dropped - first, that is simply not a good system of justice. secong god would not just be the judge, but also the lawmakers who set the penalties knowing you would not be able to pay.

Quote

It really is applied to you. The wages of sin is death. Once born again, you die to yourself (e.g. crucified with Christ). In fact, you continue to die to your self and begin to live in Christ. He defeated death (e.g. paid your fine). Before you are born again, the Bible describes you as a “child of wrath” (e.g. enemy of God) because of your sinful nature. If one sincerely repents and trusts in the Savior, he/she has then been given the ability to become a child of God. It’s a work in progress. At first, you’re merely acting the part. Then, as time goes on, you grow and mature in Christ. If one does not “die to his/herself” and be “born again”, he/she must suffer the penalty for their transgression (e.g. hell). Sin is transgression of the law. You will be held to account for everything you have done in life one day before a holy and just judge.

I'm sorry. It may be because I've had a long day of revising/ staring at computer screens but I honestly did not understand a word of that.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

god would not just be the judge, but also the lawmakers who set the penalties knowing you would not be able to pay.

Only if you're making up a god of your own (e.g. Idolotry; 2nd Commandment). Your god may not but the God of the Bible does.

Quote

I'm sorry. It may be because I've had a long day of revising/ staring at computer screens but I honestly did not understand a word of that.

I'm sorry too. Rest up and think about it some other time. But think about it. It's more important than whatever you're working on.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Only if you're making up a god of your own (e.g. Idolotry; 2nd Commandment). Your god may not but the God of the Bible does.

What? I said God would be the lawmaker and the judge.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

What? I said God would be the lawmaker and the judge.

My bad. I re-read it. I agree. God is the judge and he also established the laws.

[billvon 3,114]

>You are standing in court before a judge, guilty of a grievous crime . . .

Which, in most christian churches, you committed by being born.

>Just before the judge passes sentence, someone you don’t
>even know walks into the courtroom and offers to pay the fine in full.
>The judge can now set you free because justice has been served.

But it doesn't change the guilt or innocence of the person. A criminal who is convicted and pays a fine is still guilty of the crime - and in most christian religions, you are presumed guilty by being born. It makes one think that the system was designed to create a need for that guy who 'pays the judge off' every time.

[lurch 0]

Actually, it does make sense, because as stated it does explain what backs your faith and leaves open the nature of "evidence." Thats where the gray area appears because everyone has their own standards of what they would consider to be evidence supporting their faith.
I consider objective reality to be sufficient evidence of the nonexistence of a god the same way you would consider it sufficient evidence for nonexistence of Santa. You look about you and nowhere in Reality is there room for exceptions to the rules of physics that would allow for the existence of a fat man in a flying snow vehicle powered by domesticated northern ruminants stuffing himself down every smokestack in the world in a single evening delivering gifts to children. You don't need faith to know theres no Santa because the idea flies in the face of every fact about Reality you've ever learned.
I see god in the same light, exactly. Most Faithful don't because they somehow were taught that you don't apply that logical filter to the God idea, anything else ok, but not our God. I do not respect that limitation. The idea of God is just as subject to scrutiny and rational peer review as any other, and, put to the same test as any accepted facts like physics, fails dismally. Take Paj's statements about god and punishment. Not to pick on Paj or anything, but nowhere in his statements do I find even one single connection to objective reality. All of it is based on assumptions of the properties and desires of things that do not exist and statements of the things this "god" will do to you when it judges you. First you have to HAVE a real diety, then you have to establish that it has authority over you and that it can and will take direct action upon you for disobeying its will. I see nothing backing the original assertion that there IS a diety with the stated properties desires and mentality, and I see nothing indicating from where or in what form of expression its will was made known.
Usually the claim is made that its desires are made clear in the Bible, the truth of which is not subject to debate because the writings were Inspired By God or because God personally spoke to the writer.
When people hear voices in their heads we call it schizophrenia and treat it, we don't write down what they thought they heard and claim it as commands from the Almighty and actually expect people to obey.
The ONLY thing I see supporting the idea of a god is Other People's Say-so. And the starting point of that say-so is an edited-beyond-recognition book of oral traditions passed on by a bunch of Neolithic fishermen over 2000 years ago. That isn't evidence, it is hearsay, and much-distorted hearsay at that.
And nobody answered my question:
You find yourself in 2286, wearing the same shoes as the ancient Greeks would today, practitioner of an extinct religion. Christianity has followed the path every other self-propagating viral memetic belief has taken in time, that is, it has failed to propagate due to education inoculating people against the belief, and it has died out.
From that perspective, one where the will of Zeus or God or whoever is no longer considered binding, what do you do? Keep the faith? Or move on? Consider that in the most educated parts of the world, exactly that phenomenon is occurring. Nobody expects America's legal system to enforce their religion's laws anymore, and right now rational society will no longer permit people to enforce their god's will on others.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[niolosoiale 0]

Quote

As far as the nature of believing and knowing goes, maybe this is where our disagreement begins. In the first place, "As defined..." In my experience, dictionaries are not at all consistent when it comes to defining words like belief, faith, truth, knowledge, etc. So if you hope to have a meaningful discussion about these things, the meanings of these words need to be agreed upon.

In the second place, therefore, I'd take issue with this choice of words: "...without anything objective to back it." If one has NOTHING objective to back his feelings, this would not be faith or a "belief", but a feeling-- a hunch, a gut feeling, or maybe even you could call it intuition--- but NOT faith. Faith (conFIDence) is based on evidence. (Note, I didn't say "proof." "Proof" and "evidence" are not synonymous.) Evidence is what feeds one's faith.

I hope this makes sense; I just rolled out of bed a few minutes ago and the sleep is still in my eyes.

Just for clarification, as I was taught, faith is the substance of things hoped for (non-material) and the evidence of things unseen.

Faith as you said was based on evidence. The popular christian definition is that it is the evidence. Faith as I have always believed provides a stand in for evidence and an explanation for the things you believe.

Frankly, the santa/god comparison is very strong.

You can't see god or santa.
You can't hear god or santa.
You can't taste god or santa.
You can't touch god or santa.
You can't smell god or santa.

The figures of god and santa are both spread across a vast spectrum of cultures each with distinct flavors to their story which set them apart in the context of details, but the objective is often similar.

The important part is this one: the evidence provided for each can always be traced back to the doings of a man.

Man wrote the bible, god inspired it.
Man wrote the night before christmas, santa inspired it.

A person took care of a problem of mine after having prayed for the problem to be taken care of. I believe god was responsible.

A person gave me a gift that I was hoping I would receive for christmas. The sticker/tag on the gift wrap said "From: Santa"
I believe santa was responsible.

You can have faith in santa based on a piece of paper that someone wrote "from santa" on, and the fact that a lot of people across a lot of cultures have wrote about a santa-like figure. This doesn't make santa real. The evidence you base your faith on is tainted with the hope that santa exists. And it IS hope because you can't prove the existence of santa if you allow for santa to do supernatural things. You don't know santa exists, you believe santa exists.

You can have faith in santa based on a piece of paper that someone wrote "from god" on, and the fact that a lot of people across a lot of cultures have wrote about a god-like figure. This doesn't make god real. The evidence you base your faith on is tainted with the hope that god exists. And it IS hope because you can't prove the existence of god if you allow for god to do supernatural things. You don't know god exists, you believe god exists.

Please, someone, show me why the idea of god existing holds any more water than santa existing when, at this point, they are essentially neck and neck when it comes to evidence/provability.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Please, someone, show me why the idea of god existing holds any more water than santa existing when, at this point, they are essentially neck and neck when it comes to evidence/provability

Interestingly if you look at the Myth of Hercules, then you see that it is the same as the Santa and as the Jesus stories, however unlike Jesus, it is accepted as a myth.

Examine the evidence for the Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus, so why believe one myth and not the other?

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

See, you understand the basic aspect of my post; that I had questions, and they were quite different from Broken's. Different from the outset, inasmuch as some do, in fact, suppose the existence of a diety. They are also more personally directed - more towards inside work, towards understanding things - than his are.

From a previous response of yours, [sic] I am not sure at all where you "learned" that it was not o.k to question matters of spirituality. I've been taught the opposite; ask, ask, ask...and then ask some more. Discuss, debate, define, repeat. And then ask more about what you learned from the first asking.

So in your own words you were “taught” to ask questions, and discuss, debate and define.. Which is what we are trying to do here. However to seems that you are only able to apply this methodology to questioning that is in support of your belief, the same as Paj and MB. Any line of debate that does not automatically assume there is a all powerful sky god, is dismissed and called, mocking, trite, silly etc etc

This was my original point that the problem with the mass religions is that they may teach that you should ask questions, but those questions do not fall outside of the belief system. This was perfectly illustrated by the questions that you raised.

Now it was my assumption that to arrive at these questions, you would have had to answer the ones that I was raising, how can you ask, “Why does god love me” if first you have ascertained that this god person exists? And to do this you would no doubt have raised the same issues that I did…

I have asked a few simple questions in this thread, and STILL neither you, Paj, MB nor any other believers on this forum seem to want to tackle them…

So anyway it will narrow it down to 1 question, perhaps you can answer me this.

1Why is there no physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artefacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. Why do all claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people?

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

in fact, those to whom I posed those questions - and continue to do so - are far more educated in that then is Broken...and likely anyone else here who tries to answer them. And that's not an insult to anyone; rather, it's like saying if I need canopy advice, I'll go get it from those who are expert in the field, and not rely on what I find on-line. Further, when I was first asking those questions, I was about 12-15, and the internet didn't exist at that time (yes, I'm old...LOL!)

Who are the “experts” ??

Quote

Before my post, I had been discussing tolerance, and intolerance. Apparently, the conversation went a different direction, and it's now in a place that I don't necessarily choose to discuss...

Time and time again it seems that once the conversation wanders outside the realms of you belief system, to an area the puts doubt on it, you pull away and chose to hide, instead of discussing a topic that might mean adjusting your belief.

Quote

The intolerace from some people towards those who have a spiritual life is amazing, and sad. It's very much something I'd like to discuss - and not simply christianity, but all faiths. The intolerance that people show towards any people of faith is abhorent, and that freedom is one of the basics of this country; the sociological aspects of intolerance, and of spirituality, rather than the 20 questions direction which appeared.

The main intolerance on this thread seems to be your lack of tolerance to discuss subjects that cast doubt over your beliefs

Quote

It's interesting...I've asked Broken on another thread what he had against christianity, and there was no answer. I asked a similar question about that on this thread, i.e. why just attack christianity rather than all religion, and again, there was no answer.

I answered this question quite clearly Here

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>You are standing in court before a judge, guilty of a grievous crime . . .

Quote

Which, in most christian churches, you committed by being born.

I think you misunderstand what is meant by original sin. You didn’t commit any sin by being born. However, a sinful nature has been passed down to you from generation to generation.

>Just before the judge passes sentence, someone you don’t
>even know walks into the courtroom and offers to pay the fine in full.
>The judge can now set you free because justice has been served.

Quote

But it doesn't change the guilt or innocence of the person. A criminal who is convicted and pays a fine is still guilty of the crime

Correct. It doesn’t change the guilt of the person. There is no one who is innocent. The born again Christian doesn’t go to heaven because he/she’s a good person. The born again Christian goes to heaven because he/she’s a bad person, being guilty like everyone else of breaking God’s moral law countless times, who’s been forgiven.

Quote

and in most Christian religions you are presumed guilty by being born.

Again…
Misunderstanding of what is meant by original sin.

Quote

It makes one think that the system was designed to create a need for that guy who 'pays the judge off' every time.

I’ve said this before and apologize to all who are tired of hearing it. Being born again is NOT a “get out of jail free” card despite what many practice in Catholicism through confession. One should not think that they can "continue" a pattern of sinful behavior, confess their sins, and truly be forgiven. If someone does that, they should consider if theirs was a true conversion or not. The born again Christian is not without sin. They, however, make every attempt to turn away from sinful behavior and grow in their faith. It’s the difference between floating down a river of sin and swimming against the current. Becoming a born again Christian does not make your life easy despite what modern evangelism is trying to push these days in order to gain a large following. When one is born again, they enter into and become aware of a spiritual war going on right now for their souls. It is impossible to live up to the standard of Jesus and very difficult to even try.

• Quote

[br0k3n 0]

Can you explain the "original sin" idea?

Actually whilst your at it, could you tackle this???

1Why is there no physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artefacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. Why do all claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people?

everyone else seems to be avoiding it???

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Can you explain the "original sin" idea?

Quote

Original sin is known in two senses: the Fall of Adam as the "original" sin and the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendents. It is called "original" in that Adam, the first man, is the one who sinned and thus caused sin to enter the world. Even though Eve is the one who sinned first, because Adam is the Federal Head (representative of mankind), his fall included or represented all of humanity. Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature is passed to his descendents. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).
Original sin is not a physical corruption, but a moral and spiritual corruption. It could be compared to the Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity which states that sin has touched all parts of what a person is: heart, mind, soul, will, thoughts, desires, etc.
There has been much debate over the nature of the sin of Adam and how it affected mankind. Pelagius taught that Adam's sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall. Augustine taught that men inherit natural corruption from Adam.1
At the return of Christ and the resurrection of all Christians, the sin nature will be done away with.

Quote

Why is there no physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artefacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. Why do all claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people?

What do you require? One of his sandals? A toothbrush maybe? What we currently have is documentation from eye-witnesses who died martyrs deaths for what they knew was true. There’s little doubt as to the historical nature of the Bible and its detailed accuracy. It does not appear to be a fictitious story. Here is a list of ancient cities verified by the Bible. I doubt Jesus would have carved “Jesus was here” into the wall of a place that he lived or stayed but it appears that the Bible is accurate in what it states compared with what we have found so far.

A more important question to ask would be “Where will you be going when you die?”

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

here’s little doubt as to the historical nature of the Bible and its detailed accuracy. It does not appear to be a fictitious story. Here is a list of ancient cities verified by the Bible.

Well thats a very nice list and has proved to my satisfaction that the Bible wasn't set in Narnia. Doesn't have any bearing on its historical authenticity though.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,114]

>You didn’t commit any sin by being born. However, a sinful nature
>has been passed down to you from generation to generation.

Right; that's semantics. You have sin associated with you that cannot be forgiven without the intervention of Christ. (In the language of the church, you are 'born into sin'.) A good Muslim man, who has spent his whole life doing the best he can, and has committed only the most minor of sins, cannot 'get into heaven' without Christ's intervention. Indeed, those who do not believe are condemned anyway.

I disagree that a good Muslim is any less worthy or virtuous than a lifelong sinner who finds Christ in his last moments and accepts him. And most christian churches teach that the Muslim, no matter what his works are here on Earth, is not worthy; indeed he's going to hell. ("but he who does not believe [in Jesus] is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.")

>It is impossible to live up to the standard of Jesus and very difficult to even try.

The example he set is the best thing christianity has done for the world (IMO.) We differ in how to measure up to that standard. I think the measure of a good person is how close he can come to the sort of life that Christ led - no matter who he prays to, or how he prays, or what direction he faces when he does so.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Well thats a very nice list and has proved to my satisfaction that the Bible wasn't set in Narnia. Doesn't have any bearing on its historical authenticity though.

People, places, and events don't have any bearing on historical authenticity?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I think the measure of a good person is how close he can come to the sort of life that Christ led - no matter who he prays to, or how he prays, or what direction he faces when he does so.

Maybe so...

But that's not God's standard.

Which one do you think will matter on the Day of Judgement?

By the way, how "close" do you think you can come to the kind of life that Jesus led?

[jakee 1,594]

Places only show that the authors lived in the same region (very broadly speaking) and in a similar historical era (this does not mean at the same time). Come on, a person would have to be a complete retard to write a near contemporary book of miraculous events, set it in fictional places and expect it to be believed.

Dan Browns books are set in real cities too, are they historical?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,114]

>But that's not God's standard.

I understand that that's your belief; I just don't share it. Gandhi was a better person than Timothy McVeigh no matter how you slice it, and no matter what sort of inner beliefs they possessed. I don't buy that McVeigh scores higher on the celestial scorecard because he accepted Jesus as his personal savior in the last moments of his life. It's great that he can be forgiven - but to forgive him and not Gandhi is preposterous.

>By the way, how "close" do you think you can come to the kind of life
>that Jesus led?

Not very close. It's sort of an unattainable ideal - but striving for it makes one a better person overall.